Mr. Harper has recently claimed that proroguing Parliament was a good thing because the market is worried about the constant threat of an election. This isn't the most bizarre excuse that the government has given (that honour goes to the "we all have to watch the Olympics" excuse), but it is certainly close.
I agree with Tom Flanagan that investors pay more attention to the state of the economy than political manoeuvres in Parliament. There is a certain amount of arrogance on the part of Mr. Harper to claim that the economy lives and breathes with his Premiership. That is to say, even if there is an election and Michael Ignatieff wins, investors are unlikely to be scared away. There is no reason to think that the prospect of an election would drive away the movement of capital.
Even if there was reason to think that, proroguing Parliament would have little impact. I don't see why an investor who would be concerned amount an election taking place would be more concerned by the possibility of an election in a couple of weeks versus a couple of months. When Parliament sits again the prospect of an election will be there, which means that the possibility of an election taking place soon doesn’t really go away with proroguing Parliament. This is more of an argument for a majority government (though it is a dumb one) rather than for proroguing Parliament.
In the Tom Flanagan clip that I linked above, Dr. Flanagan presents his personal view on why Parliament had to be prorogued. He claims that it was needed to prevent Parliament from overreaching into foreign affairs. I'm not sure if I agree with his perspective of the authority of Parliament, but it is a far more honest discussion. If this was the real reasoning of the Harper government I wish they would say so, rather than trying to feed us bullshit.
http://westernstandard.blogs.com/shotgun/2010/01/minority-government-instability-is-not-a-good-excuse-for-proroguing-parliament.html