Just two weeks after Prime Minister Stephen Harper’s announcement that Parliament would be prorogued until March 3, over 175 political scientists, legal scholars, and philosophers have signed a letter protesting the decision.
The letter is the latest in a growing crescendo of criticism since Harper announced on December 30 that Parliament would be suspended to enable the government to focus on the economy.
Daniel Weinstock, who holds a Canada research chair in ethics and political philosophy at the University of Montreal, said he wrote the letter to build on the wave of interest in the issue.
“Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the prime minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people,” Weinstock wrote in the letter which ran as an op-ed in various Canwest newspapers on Tuesday.
Weinstock told Canwest that he initially planned to submit the letter under his own name. But two friends who reviewed it asked if they could add their names, and soon it began to circulate among academics involved in politics, philosophy, and the law. The letter now has 175 signatories.
Weinstock wrote that prorogation “is being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary committee looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament’s request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that question.”
According to an Angus Reid poll released last week, 53 percent of Canadians don’t agree with the decision to close Parliament. An Ekos Research poll showed that support for the Conservatives has slipped since last month, indicating that the controversy has taken a toll.
Meanwhile, more than 183,000 individuals have joined Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, a Facebook group condemning Harper’s “undemocratic” move and demanding MPs get back to work on Jan. 25.
Even the Economist, an international magazine that doesn’t often comment on Canadian political affairs, has voiced an opinion, saying in an editorial that “Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister’s pleasure.”
When asked Monday on BNN Television whether prorogation would harm Canada’s reputation as a stable democracy, Harper said that there was “zero risk.” He said that it is actually when Parliament is sitting that Canada’s stability comes into question.
“As soon as parliament comes back, we’re in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year,” he said.
“That’s the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that’s what we’re going to be doing.”
Proroguing Parliament has meant that 36 government bills that were at various stages of the legislative process have been wiped off the agenda.
These include legislation that establishes mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug offences, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and a bill that gives judges the power to slap consecutive periods of parole ineligibility on multiple murderers.
Weinstock said that although his and others’ protests may do little to change Harper’s current course of action, he hopes public outrage over the decision will prompt future prime ministers to at least reconsider before suspending Parliament in similar circumstances.
“The prime minister’s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an important condition of democratic government —the ability of the people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the government accountable for its actions.”
The letter is the latest in a growing crescendo of criticism since Harper announced on December 30 that Parliament would be suspended to enable the government to focus on the economy.
Daniel Weinstock, who holds a Canada research chair in ethics and political philosophy at the University of Montreal, said he wrote the letter to build on the wave of interest in the issue.
“Given the short-term, tactical, and partisan purposes served by prorogation, and given the absence of any plausible public purpose served by it, we conclude that the prime minister has violated the trust of Parliament and of the Canadian people,” Weinstock wrote in the letter which ran as an op-ed in various Canwest newspapers on Tuesday.
Weinstock told Canwest that he initially planned to submit the letter under his own name. But two friends who reviewed it asked if they could add their names, and soon it began to circulate among academics involved in politics, philosophy, and the law. The letter now has 175 signatories.
Weinstock wrote that prorogation “is being used to short-circuit the work of the Parliamentary committee looking into the Afghan detainees question and evade Parliament’s request that the government turn over documents pertaining to that question.”
According to an Angus Reid poll released last week, 53 percent of Canadians don’t agree with the decision to close Parliament. An Ekos Research poll showed that support for the Conservatives has slipped since last month, indicating that the controversy has taken a toll.
Meanwhile, more than 183,000 individuals have joined Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament, a Facebook group condemning Harper’s “undemocratic” move and demanding MPs get back to work on Jan. 25.
Even the Economist, an international magazine that doesn’t often comment on Canadian political affairs, has voiced an opinion, saying in an editorial that “Canada cannot afford a part-time Parliament that sits only at the prime minister’s pleasure.”
When asked Monday on BNN Television whether prorogation would harm Canada’s reputation as a stable democracy, Harper said that there was “zero risk.” He said that it is actually when Parliament is sitting that Canada’s stability comes into question.
“As soon as parliament comes back, we’re in a minority Parliament situation and the first thing that happens is a vote of confidence and there will be votes of confidence and election speculation for every single week after that for the rest of the year,” he said.
“That’s the kind of instability I think that markets are actually worried about. But you know the government will be well-prepared and I think Canadians want to see us focus on the economy. So that’s what we’re going to be doing.”
Proroguing Parliament has meant that 36 government bills that were at various stages of the legislative process have been wiped off the agenda.
These include legislation that establishes mandatory minimum sentences for serious drug offences, the Consumer Product Safety Act, and a bill that gives judges the power to slap consecutive periods of parole ineligibility on multiple murderers.
Weinstock said that although his and others’ protests may do little to change Harper’s current course of action, he hopes public outrage over the decision will prompt future prime ministers to at least reconsider before suspending Parliament in similar circumstances.
“The prime minister’s actions risk setting a precedent that weakens an important condition of democratic government —the ability of the people, acting through their elected representatives, to hold the government accountable for its actions.”
