HANNAFORD: Nobody but Trudeau has tried to escape scrutiny for this long

If you got the feeling that there was something fishy about the way Prime Minister Trudeau took his leave — going, but not going, and meanwhile remaining in office to govern by fiat and unrestrained by the possibility of parliamentary scrutiny for the next three months — well, you're not alone.

Canadians all over the country felt the same way. And tonight's episode of Hannaford examines not merely whether it was undesirable but whether it was even legal.

In my view — and polls suggest that for once I am aligned the majority — not only was it not legal but it was also unnecessary.

The Trudeau government needs to face the voters in an election, not hide in their ridings for 11 weeks.

Yes, they would probably have got hammered flat in an immediate election. They probably will be anyway when they finally face a vote of non-confidence. But in those circumstances, prorogation offered the fraction of a sliver of a smattering of hope that Micawber-like, 'something will turn up,' and put off the evil reckoning until March.

Making the case in Canada's Federal Court that this was all highly illegal, is the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms.

JCCF President John Carpay explains: "Prorogation in itself is perfectly acceptable in the British parliamentary tradition. The government has come to the end of its business, it closes Parliament and then if it has a few years left in its term, it prorogues and reconvenes with a new agenda outlined in a new Throne Speech. A government can also recess, in which case committe work continues, but Question Period doesn't. However, this government doesn't have a few years, and the honourable thing to do would have been to go to an election now. Prorogation in this case is nothing more than a gift of time to the Liberal Party, to pick a leader and continue governing, but without normal scrutiny."

One thing that will not help the government's argument is that 11 weeks is much longer than the typical prorogation.

"Three weeks is normal," says Carpay. "In Great Britain a few years ago, then-PM Boris Johnson lost a similar case because it was held that at five weeks, he had prorogued for too long. This is eleven weeks. It's a bit much."

But judicial proceedings can be made to move at a snail's pace. Can a final judgment be secured for such an important case in time for it to do any good? Carpay offers his opinion tonight. Tune in to Hannaford, at 7.00pm.

Important note: Effective next week, Hannaford moves permanently to 7:00pm on Thursday nights. Don't miss an episode!