archive.is
archive.is

As much as I agree with these two contrarians, I believe Trudeau was within his rights to prorogue. The proroguation is clearly just to run the Liberal leadership race, but sadly the PM is allowed to do that.

[David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos] argued Trudeau’s decision effectively denies Parliament, without reasonable justification, the ability to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature.

In particular, the application said, prorogation prevents Parliament from dealing “quickly and decisively” with especially pressing issues, including the effects of Trump’s threatened tariffs.

They suggest the true intention of prorogation was to stymie efforts of opposition parties to bring a motion of non-confidence in the Liberal government.

Original: https://www.theglobeandmail.com/canada/article-judge-agrees-to-expedite-legal-challenge-of-trudeaus-move-to-prorogue/

  • HellsBelle@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    2·
    2 days ago

    (In 2009) the Governor General (Michaëlle Jean) however, did not grant her prime minister’s (Harper’s) request until after two hours of consultation with various constitutional experts. Upon the end of her tenure as vicereine, Jean revealed to the Canadian Press that the delay was partly to “send a message—and for people to understand that this warranted reflection”. It was also at the same time said by Peter H. Russell, one of those from whom Jean sought advice, that Canadians ought not regard as an automatic rubber stamp the Governor General’s decision to accept Harper’s advice concerning prorogation; Russell disclosed that Jean granted the prorogation on two conditions: parliament would reconvene soon and, when it did, the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a vote on which is a confidence matter. This, Russell said, set a precedent that would prevent future prime ministers from advising the prorogation of parliament “for any length of time for any reason”. source