By Jeremy Nuttall

Is Canada looking like a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?

This isn’t normal. Not even close. Even the most eccentric of Prime Ministers in any other commonwealth country would likely be licking their wounds in Ibiza by now, watching the chaos unfold from a safe distance.

Not this Prime Minister. True to form as the head of a micromanaging Prime Minister’s Office, he couldn’t bring himself to step aside. In fact, he still hasn’t.

Trudeau’s stubbornness edges dangerously close to the behavior of a low-key autocrat. He was nowhere to be seen for days as he shrugged off demands to “get lost in the snow.”

Imagine a country with a leader so deeply unpopular within his own party that members, mostly speaking anonymously out of fear, pressured him for months to step down—only for him to deflect with vague promises of “reflection” whenever the pressure mounted.

Imagine that happening against the background of the leader refusing to release documents as ordered by Parliament, at the same time the political landscape is embroiled in a foreign interference scandal. Meanwhile, food bank usage has surged, and concerns over soaring housing costs continue to grow.

Then, after a top minister leaves and drives a stake through his government, that leader circles his most loyal comrades in a bid to fend off the resignation even more before finally admitting defeat.

But even then, after the admission, said leader is still in charge and only promising to resign fully once his successor is chosen, then stopping the work of government at one of the most crucial times in recent history to give himself and his party time to get their affairs in order.

If you had that explained to you without knowing it was Canada, would you think it was a western parliamentary democracy being described, or a developing nation with a corruption problem and a soft authoritarian regime?

Democracies aren’t meant to prioritize the personal interests of government members over the country’s welfare. Yet that’s exactly what Trudeau did by requesting the prorogation of Parliament, giving his Liberals time to strategize for their own political survival.

Meanwhile, for the first few months of a new U.S. administration threatening major tariffs, Canada will be limited in its ability to address whatever happens in the House. With so much at stake, this move seems almost vindictive to a Canadian public who are now rejecting Liberal leadership.

Governor General Mary Simon’s decision to allow this—and the time she took to consider it—deserves scrutiny. The public is owed an explanation.

The Liberal Party’s troubles are not the Canadian public’s troubles, but in proroguing Parliament to deal with them, the Liberals have made them such.

Trudeau’s plan for the country is incoherent, his ministers suddenly have a lot of family obligations, and even columnists who curiously supported him for years too long are now calling for his exit.

Additionally, with him waiting until the Liberals are at their most unpopular ever, the Conservatives—set to win in a landslide no matter what—can control the narrative of the election and claim to have won on any mandate they see fit. The public could be left out of the conversation.

When tallied up, it’s all so awful.

In reality, however abnormal this is, it’s the natural course of where Canadians have allowed their country to end up.

Years of not really getting that upset about anything or realizing that the government and what it does matters are starting to show the real harms a country can be haunted by when it shrugs off the chipping away of its democratic norms by shallow and venal political operatives.

As pressure mounted on Trudeau to resign, his own MPs sheepishly asked for him to step down, an illustration that the PMO holds far too much power over caucus. One was left wondering if a breaking point would happen and MPs would make a grand gesture on behalf of Canadians.

Such a climax never arrived. My incredibly small kingdom for a handful of Liberal MPs with cojones.

The really sad part is, so far, it seems Liberal MPs missed a chance to turn the tide and more forcefully oust Trudeau from the leadership role by any means necessary, even if it meant voting against their own party.

They could have sent a message that democracy is a cumulative effort, not the whims of one person, then followed it up with reasonable changes to party policy to allow for the removal of a leader should such circumstances occur again.

What this has done is set a new low bar. The next power-crazed PMO will have this one as a blueprint to disregard the public and its welfare before pushing the limit even further.

The only bar lower at this point would be if Trudeau goes back on his promise to resign. Yes, it’s a long shot, but considering this guy’s track record of keeping promises—right up there with an absentee father in a daytime drama—I’ll really believe he’s gone when he’s gone.

This is a moment Canadians really need to examine and question if the way their government has been operating is working for them. If it isn’t, a movement for change must spring up.

Dignity, tradition, integrity, the common good—all of these principles risk becoming meaningless unless Canadians begin to take them seriously.

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

Canadians file legal challenge against Trudeau’s suspension of Parliament

Canadians have filed a legal challenge after Prime Minister Justin Trudeau suspended Parliament to give the Liberal Party time to select a new leader. 

On January 7, the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF) announced it would provide lawyers to David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, two Canadian men challenging the legality of Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament until March 24.  

“The decision was not made in furtherance of Parliamentary business or the business of government, but in service of the interests of the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada],” the court application stated. 

On Monday, Trudeau made the historic announcement that he was stepping down as Prime Minister and Liberal leader. He also revealed his plan to prorogue until March 24, blocking a non-confidence vote that would bring about an election.   

During his speech, Trudeau lists the reasons for the suspension as first to “reset” Parliament and second to allow the Liberal Party time to select a new leader. 

The legal challenge questioned why a prorogation is necessary and not a short recess, especially when all major political parties have promised to vote for a non-confidence motion that would trigger an election and the “reset” that Trudeau promised.  

“No explanation was provided as to why a prorogation of almost three months is needed,” the press release pointed out. “No explanation was provided as to why the Liberal Party of Canada ought to be entitled to such a lengthy prorogation simply so it can hold an internal leadership race.” 

The court application further pointed to a 2019 ruling by the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which found that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson had prorogued Parliament unlawfully “as a means of avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny over the government’s ‘Brexit’ negotiations concerning the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.” 

“In all of the circumstances surrounding it, the [prorogation] has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, particularly insofar as it relates to Parliament’s ability to deal quickly and decisively with especially pressing issues, such as the situation caused by President-Elect Trump’s stated intention to impose a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada,” the court document argues. 

Indeed, as it stands, democracy in Canada is paused until March 24, despite the growing need to address President-elect Donald Trump’s political and economic moves on Canada. 

If the legal challenge succeeds, Parliament could resume as early as January 27, at which time there would likely be a non-confidence vote to trigger an early election.