I will openly admit that I have limited knowledgeable of the role of the Governor General in Canadian constitution and legal history.
I still think that characterizing the memorandum of understanding as treason is a misunderstanding of both what a MoU is and the contents of this specific MoU.
First, a MoU is a declaration of intent and a commitment to take an action - Not a legislative bill.
This MoU was addressed to both the Senate and the Governor General.
It doesn't specify how the parties will achieve their their commitment. It is up to the parties to determine if there is a lawful way to meet their commitments before making them.
Senators in Canada have the ability to introduce bills, which can be approved via the traditional pathway.
It also doesn't say anything about removal of the PM.
I fail to see the distinctions drawn. What makes it UN democratic to ask your government to make change through lawful process? It's not like the policies were put in place by public referendum.
How can something be a terrorist plot to overthrow the government, but not treason?
I still think that characterizing the memorandum of understanding as treason is a misunderstanding of both what a MoU is and the contents of this specific MoU.
First, a MoU is a declaration of intent and a commitment to take an action - Not a legislative bill.
This MoU was addressed to both the Senate and the Governor General.
It doesn't specify how the parties will achieve their their commitment. It is up to the parties to determine if there is a lawful way to meet their commitments before making them.
Senators in Canada have the ability to introduce bills, which can be approved via the traditional pathway.
It also doesn't say anything about removal of the PM.
https://canada-unity.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/Combined...