An open letter by University of Montreal Professor Daniel Weinstock, signed by 175 academics, that objects to suspending sittings of Parliament. The page presents the original English text, the full list of cosigners, and the French version.
The letter makes a focused case about the timing and effect of suspending Parliament, written for readers who follow the constitutional role of elected assemblies.
The letter argues that prorogation, the formal ending of a parliamentary session, should not be used to avoid scrutiny of the government. It asks readers to consider whether suspending sittings weakens the basic principle that the executive answers to elected representatives.
The authors focus on when prorogation takes place and what it interrupts. Pausing committee work, question periods, and pending legislation can limit the ability of members to hold ministers to account, and the letter explains why that timing matters.
Signatories include political scientists and legal scholars who study how parliamentary systems function. Their combined perspective connects the procedural question of prorogation with broader debates about constitutional convention and democratic responsibility.
University philosophers signed the letter as well, drawing on long-standing ideas about democratic legitimacy and public reason. Their contribution frames the dispute in terms of what citizens are owed when elected bodies are set aside.
The site lists 175 academics who endorsed the original text. The list includes scholars from several universities, making it possible for readers to see the range of disciplines and institutions that stood behind the statement.
A French translation of the letter is available on the same site. It is provided so that readers in Quebec and other French-speaking communities can read the arguments in the language of their own public debate.
The letter was written by Daniel Weinstock, a professor at the University of Montreal who works on law, ethics, and political theory. It was drafted as a public statement to draw attention to the prorogation of Parliament and to invite other academics to add their names.
Academics were invited to sign the statement after reading the original text. The signatures were collected over a short period, and the final list reached 175 names, covering political science, law, and philosophy across several Canadian universities.
Parliamentary procedure is often discussed in abstract terms, yet decisions about suspending sittings affect how citizens can follow government work. Keeping the original letter, the cosigner list, and the French version together gives readers a complete record of the statement.
Photographs and illustrations connected to the parliamentary setting, the academic community, and the printed statement that anchors this site.
Prorogation is the formal end of a session of Parliament, which stops parliamentary business until a new session begins. The letter argues that using it to pause scrutiny of the government can weaken the accountability that elected members are expected to provide.
The original letter was written by Daniel Weinstock, a professor at the University of Montreal. He drafted the text as a public statement and invited other academics to read it and add their names if they agreed with its conclusions.
The statement was endorsed by 175 academics, including political scientists, legal scholars, and university philosophers. The site keeps the complete list so that readers can check the names and the institutions they represent.
Yes, the site includes a French version of the letter alongside the English original. The translation follows the same structure and arguments, so readers can compare the two texts and choose the one that suits their reading.
This part of the site is a reading guide rather than a point of contact. It explains how the letter, the cosigner list, and the French version fit together so that readers can find the material they need. Questions about the text are best answered by consulting the letter and the list of signatories directly.