The Federal Court’s recent dismissal of the application in MacKinnon v. Canada (Attorney General), challenging the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue Parliament, has ignited a firestorm of debate. While the court’s judgment meticulously navigated legal technicalities, the underlying issue remains: Did the Prime Minister abuse his power by proroguing Parliament for seemingly self-serving political reasons, and if so, does our system adequately protect the public interest? The ruling, while legally sound within its narrow confines, reveals a broader dysfunction in the balance of power, pointing to a broken system in dire need of reform. The central question isn’t merely about the legality of this specific prorogation, but about the structural weaknesses that permit such actions and leave citizens feeling powerless.
The court’s decision rightly highlights the delicate balance between the judiciary’s role in upholding the rule of law and its responsibility to avoid undue interference in the legislative and executive spheres. Judicial review of executive actions must be carefully calibrated to respect the separation of powers, recognizing that some decisions are inherently political and not susceptible to judicial oversight. The court correctly applied established legal standards to determine if the Prime Minister exceeded the scope of his authority. The applicants failed to prove a clear violation of any specific legal provisions, including those enshrined in the Charter, or in unwritten constitutional principles.
However, this legalistic approach obscures a deeper, more fundamental concern. The timing of the prorogation, coinciding with an imminent vote of no confidence and the Prime Minister’s impending resignation, strongly suggests that partisan political considerations were paramount. The court, focused on legal technicalities, sidestepped this uncomfortable reality, leaving a pervasive sense of unease about the potential for abuse of power. The Court was left with no choice – it had to deal with the legal issues – that is what the judiciary does. However, the decision essentially grants a wide latitude to future Prime Ministers to use prorogation strategically to avoid parliamentary accountability, potentially at the expense of the public interest.
The core problem is not simply about one Prime Minister’s actions. It’s about a system that allows for such actions in the first place. The prerogative power to prorogue, while historically rooted in the Crown’s authority, now rests with the Prime Minister, a position susceptible to partisan manipulation. This power, without adequate checks and balances, creates an inherent vulnerability within the system. This is a vulnerability that has been increasingly exploited, leaving Canadians questioning whether the current system adequately protects their interests. It is time for reform – is there a political appetite to make things right?
