Connect with us

National

Canadians challenge Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament: “no reasonable justification”

Published

5 minute read

Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms From the JCCF 

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms is providing lawyers on an urgent basis to two Canadians, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, seeking a Federal Court declaration that Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent prorogation of Parliament is unreasonable and must be set aside.

When Parliament is prorogued, the parliamentary session is terminated, and all parliamentary activity, including work on bills and in committees, immediately stops.

Among its many grounds arguing that Trudeau’s decision to advise the Governor General to exercise her prerogative power to prorogue Parliament to March 24, 2025, this application argues that the decision to prorogue Parliament was “incorrect, unreasonable or both.” The court application, filed today, contends that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue “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].”

At his news conference yesterday, on January 6, 2025, the Prime Minister’s stated justification for the prorogation was (1) to “reset” Parliament and (2) to permit the Liberal Party of Canada time to select a new party leader. No explanation was provided as to why Parliament could not recess instead. No explanation was provided as to why Members of Parliaments could not immediately exercise their right to vote on a motion of non-confidence in the government. A majority of MPs have now repeatedly promised to do just that, which would trigger an election and provide the needed “reset” in a democratic and legitimate way.

No explanation was provided as to why a prorogation of almost three months is needed. 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.

This Federal Court application includes language taken from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which ruled in 2019 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.

The application contends, among other things, that “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.”

“This prorogation stymies the publicly stated intent of a majority of MPs to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government and trigger an election. Prorogation serves the interests of the Liberal Party, but it does not further Parliamentary business or the business of government. It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability,” stated lawyer James Manson. “We will invite the Court to conclude that the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament was without reasonable justification.”

Applicant David MacKinnon feels strongly about this case. He stated, “This case concerns a living tree – our Constitution – and how that living tree withers without proper care. If we are to fight tyranny – for it is tyranny that confronts us – we must find the answer within the memory of our historical past. We call this memory ‘the common law.’ It is enshrined in the preamble of our constitution. The common law is the repository and guarantor of our justice and our wealth and happiness. Had we nurtured our living tree, and looked to our past, we would have read Lord Denning’s admonishment to the Attorney General of an earlier time: ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’”

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author

Business

Exposing Global Affairs Canada’s crazy spending spree

Published on

From the Canadian Taxpayers Association

By Franco Terrazzano

$1,700 on Lesbian Pirates! musical $3,900 for a “frank discussion” of “how to do a proper land acknowledgment” Millions on vacant land in Africa and properties in Afghanistan we abandoned to the Taliban $7,500 to promote DEI at music festival in Estonia $12,000 so seniors in other countries could talk about their sex lives $7.2 million for “gender-responsive systems approach to universal healthcare in the Philippines” $13,000 for an Oscars party in LA $8,800 for a show called “whose jizz is this” And so much more…

Continue Reading

Freedom of Expression

PEI councilor punished for denying unproven ‘mass graves’ narrative seeks court review

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Clare Marie Merkowsky

The Canadian Constitution Foundation has announced they are seeking a court review for PEI councillor John Robertson who was sanctioned by the town of Murray Harbour for placing a sign opposing the residential school ‘mass graves’ narrative on his lawn.

A Prince Edward Island (PEI) councillor who was punished for denying the unproven claim of mass graves at residential schools is seeking a court review.  

In a February 4 press release, the Canadian Constitution Foundation (CCF) announced they would defend PEI councillor John Robertson who was sanctioned by the town of Murray Harbour for placing a sign opposing the mass graves narrative on his lawn.   

“The Supreme Court of Canada has said time and again that the purpose of freedom of expression is to ensure that everyone can manifest their thoughts, opinions, beliefs – however unpopular, distasteful or contrary to the mainstream,” CCF Counsel Josh Dehaas said.  

“You don’t need freedom of expression to protect expression everyone agrees with,” he added. “The reason we have free speech is because today’s minority viewpoint sometimes turns out to be correct tomorrow, and people can’t have those difficult conversations if those in power can prevent them from speaking.”  

The controversy began in September 2023 when Robertson placed a sign reading, “Truth: Mass Grave Hoax. Reconciliation: Redeem Sir John A’s Integrity” on his lawn. Robertson later said he intended the sign to spark conversations surrounding the still-unproven claim that former residential school sites are the home to mass graves of students.

Many residents of the small town of Murray Harbour issued complaints over the sign and called for Robertson’s resignation. However, Robertson refused to step down, leading some of his fellow councillors to launch a Code of Conduct investigation into his actions.  

Robertson was later issued a fine of $500, a six-month suspension, and ordered to apologize for the sign. Robertson refused to comply with the sanctions, and the provincial minister in charge has since threatened to remove him.  

Currently, CCF is seeking a full judicial review into the sanctions in the Supreme Court of PEI. However, they have been informed that since they did not file the application within 30 days of the review, it is up to the judge if he wishes to hear the appeal.  

Robertson’s Counsel, Brandon Forbes of Campbell & Lea, remained hopeful that the judge would hear the appeal, pointing out that the “questions raised in this application are of great public interest – not just to Mr. Robertson but arguably to all Canadians.” 

Residential schools, while run by both the Catholic Church and other Christian churches, were mandated and set-up by the federal government and ran from the late 19th century until the last school closed in 1996.           

While some children did tragically die at the once-mandatory boarding schools, evidence has  revealed that many of the children passed away as a result of unsanitary conditions due to underfunding by the federal government, not the Catholic Church.   

Public attitude shifted drastically in 2021 when the mainstream media ran with the unproven claim that hundreds of children were buried and disregarded by Catholic priests and nuns who ran some of the schools. Since then, over 100 churches have been burned or vandalized across Canada in seeming retribution. 

Despite the lack of physical evidence of any such graves, mainstream media outlets and government officials have continued to perpetuate the narrative. The issue has gone as far as seeing MPs insist so-called “residential school denialism” be criminalized.

Continue Reading

Trending

X