Going prorogue

Here we are again. A year after Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper prorogued parliament in order to save his political skin from a potential minority coalition, he has chosen to suspend it again. Shortly after the announcement, Maclean's columnist Andrew Coyne asked on his blog: "In what other democracy is it permissible for the government of the day to hide from the legislature for months at a time?" Not many, evidently. It will take a special kind of apathetic populace to collectively shrug off back-to-back cut-and-run attempts like this.

Parliament had been scheduled to return from its holiday break on 25 January, but now that will be delayed until early March – enough time for the Tories to rally from a tough end to 2009 and to gain a majority in the Senate by filling five seats in the upper chamber. The prorogation will also scuttle pending legislation and halt parliamentary committees – and it's the latter that will have opposition parties and many Canadians questioning the motives behind Harper's move. Since diplomat Richard Colvin made his accusation in late November that all detainees handed over by Canadian troops to Afghan officials were tortured, Harper's Conservative government has been on the defensive – a position it clearly hates.

By effectively silencing the Commons committee on Afghanistan, the Tories might be hoping that the story will fade, lost behind the buzz of the Winter Olympics in Vancouver from 12 February. Even yesterday's prorogation announcement appeared to be strategically released around the same time as that of the Canadian men's Olympic ice hockey squad, because compared with a possible gold medal in Vancouver, who cares about politics in Ottawa?

It's that attitude that will see Harper through the next few months. Certainly, proroguing of parliament has taken place in the past – the Chretien administration's Liberals did it four times, albeit over a span of 10 years. This is Harper's third prorogation since 2006, all of which have come while heading a minority government. And although last year's prorogation was met with a flurry of opposition and questions about our democracy, the political waters quickly calmed, buoyed by a successful post-recession-panic economic action plan marketing campaign. Our collective political discourse was reduced to questions about how long Michael Ignatieff had been living in Canada, or Stephen Harper's piano-playing ability, rather than debate over long-term national goals.

The PM's office highlighted this again when it issued a message about the prorogation on Wednesday, suggesting what might come after parliament resumes. It summarised:

The three economic themes of the new session will be: (1) completing implementation of the economic action plan, (2) returning the federal budget to balance once the economy has recovered and (3) building the economy of the future.

The statement also scolded the Liberals, without irony, for obstructing legislation that will have to be reintroduced in the new, post-prorogation parliamentary session.

Unfortunately, it might pay political dividends for the Conservatives. Though the commons committee on Afghanistan will officially fall silent until the spring, information about the case continues to trickle out. But whether there will be a public inquiry into the matter may remain under debate for long after parliament has returned to session, and the longer it continues as partisan bickering, the more Canadians will lose interest. As for the "economy of the future," if Canada's post-Copenhagen stance tells us anything, it's that with emissions targets dependent on the US, Canada's economy of the future will probably be as close to the economy of today as possible.

Which may suit Canadians, because while we like talking about change, we're not a nation of risk-takers. There ought to be nationwide anger that no sooner do things start happening in Canadian politics than the Conservative government pulls the plug. But if 2009 taught us anything, it's that we'll be fine with it.