Well, I started the thread so I'll attempt to explain:
This was not because of any number of times that parliament was prorogued because that is just a red herring that Harper is throwing out. The more specific question that must be examined deeper for an answer was why was this parliament session prorogued?
In a democracy the people elect representatives to speak for them, not to be a rubber stamp for a political party. The Prime Minister only holds office in Canada by virtue of the number of these representatives that support him in Parliament. The Prime Minister is elected to Parliament by only one constituency and holds only one vote, so his personal power is the power of one. In theory the power to run the country is vested in Parliament, not the Prime Minister. In a majority government situation with enough members adhering to his leadership he has great power but only because he controls Parliament. In a minority situation Parliament is in a much stronger position but the elected representatives are caught in a catch 22. If they oppose the Prime Minister too strongly causing the government to fall they may all be sent packing back to the people looking for votes
to get re-elected and they do not want this to happen because they might lose not only their seat but all of the perks and money that goes with the job.
Harper is far from being the first Prime Minister to use questionable tactics. The power of Parliament has been eroded throughout it's history.
I posed the thread as a question because I do not personally believe that Canada is a dictatorship. I do believe however that the difference between democracy and dictatorship is only by degree and the line between the two is subjective. I do believe that Canada today is less democratic than it was 50 years ago, so I have some fear of the edge of a slippery slope!
Tommy Douglas's name was mentioned earlier in this thread. I am old enough to remember when Lester Pearson faced a minority situation in Parliament, went back to the people and was returned with another minority government. Instead of sulking and trying to dismiss Parliament he tried to gain consensus from the opposition. Tommy Douglas was the leader of the re-jigged CCF / NDP. Tommy would support Pearson but he had an agenda of his own. He wanted National Health Care ( a program that he had started as Premier of Saskatchewan ) and he wanted a national pension plan. There was great hue and cry from the right wing but these programs were implemented. This government of the 1960's in hindsight is regarded by most Canadians as the best one that we ever had. It was a minority that worked for the people and that is why Tommy Douglas is held in such high esteem!
In no way do I wish to compare Harper to Hitler or insinuate that he has any of the same desires but there is insight into studying how Hitler came to absolute power and how democracy was eroded in Germany.
Germany in the 1920's was a democracy with a parliamentary system in some ways similar to ours but with a president who had power similar to our governor-general. Governing power was vested in the parliament. Hitler was elected twice (on a platform of improving Germany's economy) but his party held fewer than a majority of seats. He was named leader of a minority government by the president. Most people know the rest of the story!
I am sorry to be so damned long winded in answering your question 3refs.