That is the legal question. What are the acceptable parameters and limits to proroguing parliament? When is it okay to do so. When is it not.
Blacklock’s- PM Challenged In Fed Court
“The decision is incorrect, unreasonable or both on the following grounds: In all of the particular circumstances surrounding it, the decision has the effect of frustrating or preventing without reasonable justification the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions,” lawyers wrote the Court.
Nice try but it will not make a dent, all of Justice in Canada is pro-Blackie and in Librano$’ pockets.
Maybe if it drags until PP comes in and courts are changed? but this is a long shot.
Yet another thing that needs attention with a new common sense government: purge all the goofs in recommendation committes that give lists of names to the Government for Justices, Senators, Governors General, Merit Awards,and so on.
It’s a little known fact that “Prorogue” is French for “to our benefit”.
I’m learning a lot about parliamentary government. I wish there were more Canadian government education done when I was in school, I feel especially ignorant as an American about our neighbor. I don’t have any excuses for learning on my own, however.
I try to focus on better forms of government, not the political machinations of outdated duchies.
“What are the acceptable parameters and limits to proroguing parliament?”
Whatever is to the benefit of the Liberal party at any particular time, obviously. Does anyone think for a second it’ll be decided otherwise?
And so is revealed the nub of the problem: we just don’t believe anything they say anymore. It’s cute that these guys think they’re going to get a fair hearing in court, but that simply is not going to happen.
The SCC does not make decisions purely in the interest of one political party. I am surprised that you do not undertand this.
What matters to the court is what legal precedents exist for this. In the case of a Westminster Parliament, legal precedents in the United Kingdom are entirely relevant where Canadian law is silent. As the lawyer very correctly stated, this is in no way predicting what the SCC will decide. But it will take this seriously. It may well be one of the most important constitutional controversies since the King-Byng Affair of 1926.
To pretend that the court will simply dismiss this out of hand is just silly.
CGH you are correct, if we had an impartial SCC, but we do not.
“The SCC does not make decisions purely in the interest of one political party.”
No? Then why don’t you have the right to self defense in this country? You’re meant to have it, the law says you have it, but you don’t. Because Supreme Court decisions for many, many years.
I think what you mean to say is that they are not -supposed- to decide based on politics, but it is remarkable how many important decisions fall to the #Liberal interest side of the ledger. Pretty much all of them, really, the ones of any real importance.
“As the lawyer very correctly stated, this is in no way predicting what the SCC will decide.”
Yes, because there’s no way of knowing who is calling who and promising what. If they decided based on law, precedent and tradition as they -say- they do, then the outcome would be predictable.
It is the very height of folly to assume any of these people will operate in an honorable manner except possibly by accident. Did you forget Covid already? How did those decisions go? Is anyone in jail for all that yet?
do you forget that Canada is a country ruled by law?
Not whim, Phantom, much as you might want to pretend it to be. Did you even try to listen to the whole of James Mason’s interview? This matters; irrelevant opinions by laypeople like us do not.
Try not to get your knickers in a twist or to drag in extraneous issues. Listen to Mason again and his reasoning.
Did you forget that the Emergencies Act, AKA the War Measures act, AKA martial law in all but name, was -illegally- used by #ShinyPony because some guys were honking their horns in downtown Ottawa? Oh and seizing a lot of people’s assets illegally, because they donated to a legal charity. That happened too. Also locking me in my house for weeks, I still remember that whole thing.
Notice the medical profession in this country seems awfully quiet these days? That’s because they’re afraid of what happened to Jordan Peterson happening to them.
I notice you’ve not answered my question about your rights. It’s a sticky little burr, isn’t it? You kind of have them, but you don’t really have them. If they don’t like you they’ll just keep trying you until they get a jury to rule the “right” way. That is also a thing that has happened of late.
I’ll return to my former opinion that this is a nation of laws when somebody goes to jail for all that Emergency Act shenanigans, and my home is my castle like it used to be. When Canada really was a nation of laws. Longer ago than you think.
Mason seems a capable lawyer, and I’m sure in an honest court he would do fine. I guess we shall see, but I am not optimistic.
As usual the cghCOLON is in STUPID mode, which is her default mode.
Courts all round the world are biassed as hell, and I’v been watching that for at least 49 years now.
Canada is a country ruled by the Laurentian Elite, through their proxy the Liberal Party of Canada, and the SCC is just an extension of that. They will rule as they are told. I can’t believe a Canadian can live through the Covid lockdowns, mobility restrictions, vaccine mandates, truckers protest and emergencies act and then can say with a straight face “Canada is a country ruled by law”. That requires a level of cognitive dissonance which is simply stunning.
You used Canada and law in the same sentence, hahahahahahaha…..
“To pretend that the court will simply dismiss this out of hand is just silly.”
– So if that’s the case, why then when the Provinces mounted their challenge against the carbon tax, did the SCC’s decision read approximately “Yeah, this is a valid question, but global warming is an existential threat to us all so we’re letting it stand.” I mean, when you think of it, how many Westminster-style Parliaments have ever put either carbon tax or global warming in front of their Supreme Courts?
– And why, when New Brunswick resident Gerard Comeau drove up into Quebec and filled his trunk with beer and liquor at lower Quebec prices, and drove back into New Brunswick, and was stopped at the border by the RCMP who confiscated it all, and he fought it all the way to the SCC, did their decision read approximately “Yeah, we know the Canadian Constitution says there shall be no barriers to interprovincial trade, but the Provinces make a lot of money off liquor sales so we’re letting it stand.”
– The world wants to know.
Should have a decision by 2028. That is if it isn’t declared moot.
No, not silly at all. The opinion of the UK Supreme Court is not binding, indeed there are good grounds to consider it not law at all, and even better grounds to consider it irrelevant to Canada even if valid in England. More to the point, the courts in this country simply do not rule in favour of private claimants like this. If you want a court to change the law or overrule a government, you need to work that out with the Liberal Party in advance. The SCC certainly does make its decisions in the interests of the Liberal Party, and they’re doing well by their standards if they manage even to accommodate any other legitimate interest.
We live under 4 year dictatorships in Canada.
Government can literally do what it wants, and the federal courts endorse this dictatorship. Witness any legal action regarding the stripping of any rights that people had protesting and resisting the DeathJabs.
Lose your job? Frozen accounts? Tossed in jail without charges?
F You, F You and FYou, was the court’s response. Charter, what Charter?
I know why I despise this country, and love Trump’s endless mocking.
Yes, 4 year dictatorships. Doofus can prorogue, his appointed GG will do whatever he wants, her privilege is due to his appt of her. Incestuous.
Donald Trump has done more for Canada with a couple of mean tweets than the Conservatives have done in ten years.
Dear Conservatives, the bar is now set at #DJT level. Better bring your A game.
This. In spades.
Dan, you summed up things quite nicely. Thanks!
Gee, very nice for some lawyers to question the legality of the current proroguing of Parliament. Forced masking, injections and lockdowns? Not so much. Colour me not impressed.
Legal challenge: hahahahahahahahaha!
See Brian Peckford, former premier.
See Jordan Peterson.
Reckless, irresponsible, malicious, damaging to what’s left of canada – perfectly Liberal racist.
Liberal racist judges will approve and cheer on their Party while they scold the people who believe in constitutional law and government when they drop their decision a few years from now.
Do Liberal Party internal leadership race rules take precedence over Canadian’s rights to an election and to having parliament open and working?
If so, what if they change the rules so that a leadership race has to take three years instead of three months?
Do Canadians have any say in that?
Should Parliament be shut down and elections postponed until the Liberals are ready?
Seems like that could be wide open for abuse.
If the timing of this current mess doesn’t favor the Liberals then that’s their own damn fault.
Why did they delay the ‘fall’ economic update?
Why did Trudeau half punt Freeland and why did she resign?
Trudeau has been a dead man walking for over a year.
He should have resigned in June.
This is the Liberal’s problem now, not ours.
Their lack of planning and lack of foresight does not constitute an emergency for me.
“Their lack of planning and lack of foresight does not constitute an emergency for me.”
Sure it does, Stan. And the SCC is going to tell you so real soon. Thus do I prophesy.
Unless they kick the can so far down the road that it doesn’t matter anyway, I can see that happening too. Hold it on their order paper for five years, easy!
The words of Oliver Cromwell spring to mind:
” Ye sordid prostitutes have you not defiled this sacred place, and turned the Lord’s temple into a den of thieves, by your immoral principles and wicked practices?
Ye are grown intolerably odious to the whole nation. You were deputed here by the people to get grievances redressed, are yourselves become the greatest grievance.
Your country therefore calls upon me to cleanse this Augean stable, by putting a final period to your iniquitous proceedings in this House; and which by God’s help, and the strength he has given me, I am now come to do.
I command ye therefore, upon the peril of your lives, to depart immediately out of this place.
Go, get you out! Make haste! Ye venal slaves be gone! So! Take away that shining bauble there, and lock up the doors.
In the name of God, go!.”
I expect this will be dismissed out of hand as the lawyers don’t have standing to second guess the Governor General, despite all three opposition parties, making up a majority of the house saying they no long have confidence in the government, despite what the lawyers are citing as precedent from the court in the UK.
Even with the example of Harper’s prorogue in 2008, it appears that most “constitutional scholars” agreed that it was the Governor General exercising her “Reserve powers” that prorogued parliament.
In the case of the UK decision, they didn’t bother to examine whether the Queen would have been able to refuse to follow the PM’s advice to prorogue Parliament, as that might have run up against the Queen’s reserve powers.
It is not second guessing the GG. The GG followed the PM’s advice. In the UK precedent, the UK supreme court ruled 11-0 that Boris’ advice to QE II was illegal and thus the progation of Parliament was nullified. The 2019 precedent did not exist in 2008.
I suppose that every Cuck that was there to support the honk honk protest will be in court to fight for our rights
Blackface has not resigned.
The GG is a bad joke.
Of the same quality of “Canada’s Charter of Rights and Freedoms”.
Trump is right.
Whether we eventually join with the USA or not,we need to adopt the USA’s Constitution.
Real rights and freedoms are not “removed at the whim of bureaucrats”.
The Founding of an independent Western State remains the only sane route.
For we Prisoners of His Majesty have no protection from the State of Thuggery.
Currently Canada is a Kleptocracy and most Eastern Canadians are just fine with that.
When Truth is NOT a legal defence in a Human Rights Kangaroo Court,then all decisions of Canada’s Supreme Court are “Moot”.
We are without justice and denied “protection of law” when the Fools and Bandits make law to enable their theft and destruction.
Confederated Canada is done,we can “apply to The Supreme Court of Canada” all we want.Nothing is going to restore or Reform this Canadian Kleptocracy.
I predict that The Supremes will either refuse to consider or will rule “Dear Leader is Great”.
They are the peak of our Just Us System.
Another foundational institution of civilization broken beyond repair.
So is Canada simply a pure dictatorship in the interim?
Pretty much. The rest of the time it is an impure dictatorship.
https://nationalpost.com/news/politics/liberals-set-to-announce-trudeaus-successor-on-march-9
Really believe that they will run a leadership race by then?
The Supreme Court will again be on trial. Defender of Parliament or the Liberal government? Will it do better than in the Peckford case? Unlikely, but hey, surprise me.
I suspect that there are so few people willing to apply for the position, it may turn out to be a coronation.
Freeland is dull enough to go for it.