Keith: I don't know what you mean. You seem to be suggesting that last time, it was the LPC/NDP/BQ that asked for prorogation. Both times it was Harper. Last time was far worse, as it was abundantly clear that the government would not survive a test of confidence in the House of Commons. Proroguing for two months under those circumstances, without even so much as acting only as a caretaker government in the meantime meant that the Conservatives hijacked Canadian democracy for two months, and continued to pull all the levers of power.
This time, prorogation was merely a ploy to shut down debate and delay further Parliamentary sanctions for being in contempt of Parliament for defying a motion of the full House to provide certain documents. Prorogation is meant as a tool to reboot the House once a legislative session has largely completed its work. Prorogations are typically very short. None of that describes the current situation.
I stand by my position that I took in December 2008, that prorogation should only be granted should a majority of MPs agree. As it is, we have the executive branch of government able to dismiss the legislative branch on a whim, whenever they desire. This is not an appropriate balance of power. Parliament should pass a law making it illegal for anyone to advise the GG to prorogue Parliament without a motion being passed to that effect by a majority of the House.