TORONTO – There is no more apt descriptor to encapsulate Federal Court’s hearing on the matter of prorogation than the question: why are we here (in Court) and not there (in Parliament)?. The soon to be former Prime Minister – former because he resigned effective a specific date in the future, not immediately – has provoked a constitutional matter involving 1. the rule of law, 2. executive overreach and 3. the erosion of the role and powers of Parliament. This according to the Applicants in Court File N.:T-60-25.
In a nutshell, the PM asked the Governor General (GG) to suspend the functioning of the House of Commons and, by extension, Parliament so that [he], the PM, could reset a Parliament that had been malfunctioning for several months. The GG acquiesced. Then the PM announced his resignation as leader of his Party (Liberal), effective fifteen days after the new leader were elected to the post.
So far, these are facts. The Applicants read into them other issues that in the exchanges with the Chief Justice suggested the need for clarification on the limits to what the Executive may do and what the Constitution envisages as [“limits”] the scope of the executive power (Cabinet).
There is still a day and a half of hearings before the arguments are closed, but tin the exchanges between the Chief Justice and the Counsel for the Applicants several points were raised that some of our readers may find novel or interesting. One, in some circles a citizen’s right to access parliament may simply mean the right to vote. Two, there may be no limits [in Canada] to the nature of advice the PM gives the GG.; because there are few, if any, precedents on which the Courts have pronounced themselves.
As an significant aside, the issue of Stephen Harper’s request to prorogue on the eve of the return to parliament after a defeat at the 2008 election has not yet been raised. The distinction between dissolution (which gives the people a right to decide/ approve/disapprove) and prorogation, which merely suspends the right of the people’s representatives to vote in parliament until a later date.
It would seem that the point the Applicants were making is that, while the PM and his Party are busy addressing their partisan interests, as legitimate as they may be, the country is bereft of any leadership to address international and domestic threats and challenges. Perhaps in such cases, the GG ought to consider the advice of any PM as inimical to the Crown’s and country’s interests, goes the argument and the GG should respond with dissolution, rather than prorogation.
Someone will soon point out that the collection of provincial Premiers waiting to be ushered into the White House to be “heard” by staffers of the President does not make the “team’ the constitutional/binding negotiator for Canada.
It promises to be an informative and compelling hearing.
