мÓÆÂÁùºÏ²Ê¿ª½±Ö±²¥

From Wednesday's Globe and Mail:

Earlier this week, Prime Minister Stephen Harper announced his intention to prorogue Parliament before its anticipated return in mid-September. The plan is for Parliament to resume at some point in October, with a new Speech from the Throne and, perhaps, a fresh start for his Conservative government.

This, of course, would not be the first prorogation since Mr. Harper has been running the country. In 2008, for example, the Prime Minister succeeded in bringing Parliament’s work to a halt on the eve of a confidence vote that his Conservatives were all but sure to lose. This controversial move attracted much attention and criticism, but it is likely that many Canadians won’t even notice the prorogation this time around.

The 2008 prorogation was an act of clever desperation on the part of a minority government caught offguard by opposition parties’ united stance against its plans to eliminate public subsidies for political parties (among other things). For a prime minister to shut down Parliament when he is about to lose a confidence vote is unacceptable from a democratic perspective but understandable from a political one. To prorogue Parliament as the leader of a majority government is a different thing. Why silence Parliament when you can control it?

Here’s one explanation: Mr. Harper has reason to fear his own caucus (not to mention the Conservative Party at large) in light of the expense scandal that continues to plague the Conservative-heavy Senate and the Prime Minister’s Office itself. Before Parliament broke for the summer, there was serious talk of a Tory caucus revolt. One MP, Brent Rathgeber of Alberta, even quit the Conservative caucus to sit as an independent, free of the strict party discipline imposed by Mr. Harper.

Read the rest of this article at .