Legal Challenge to Trudeau’s Proroguing Parliament Expedited

A federal court judge has agreed to speed up the hearing of a legal challenge against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s decision to prorogue Parliament. Federal Court Chief Justice Paul Crampton announced that standard timelines won’t apply, allowing a hearing to proceed on February 13 and 14 in Ottawa.

Two residents from Nova Scotia filed the challenge on January 8, seeking to overturn Trudeau’s advice to Governor General Mary Simon to prorogue Parliament until March 24 and for a declaration that Parliament has not been legally prorogued.

In a tearful speech on January 6, Trudeau announced his intention to step down as prime minister once a new Liberal leader is chosen. He also confirmed that Simon had agreed to his prorogation request, effectively pausing all parliamentary activities and clearing the legislative agenda.

Proroguing Parliament ends a session, which happens at least once between elections. It allows the government to reset its goals and introduce new legislation during the next session, which begins with a Throne Speech.

Governments often use prorogation to address shifting priorities. In contrast, some ideas from election campaigns lose relevance, and new challenges arise, requiring a fresh approach.

Proroguing Parliament in Canada

Under Canada’s constitution, the Governor General holds the power to prorogue Parliament but does so only on the advice of the Prime Minister. This ensures that the decision rests with an elected official. The Governor General can seek clarity or further details but rarely rejects such advice.

Prorogation cannot be used to advance political interests or avoid government accountability. Critics argue that Trudeau’s January 6 decision to prorogue Parliament aimed to give the Liberal Party time to pick a new leader rather than addressing valid parliamentary concerns. No explanation was given for why a recess or a confidence vote couldn’t serve the same purpose.

The Federal Court filing references the UK Supreme Court’s 2019 decision in R (Miller) v. The Prime Minister. In that case, the court deemed Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament unlawful, accusing him of trying to sidestep scrutiny during Brexit negotiations. The court found that prorogation should not be used to dodge accountability or debate.

In July 2019, Boris Johnson became the UK’s prime minister, leading a minority government amid slow progress on Brexit talks. Johnson believed a “no deal” Brexit was necessary to pressure the EU into reaching an agreement. However, most MPs opposed leaving without a deal.

Lawyers Argument to Trudeau’s Prorogation

Johnson prorogued Parliament for five weeks, far longer than the usual one-to-three-week break. This move prevented MPs from intervening before the UK’s October 31 exit from the EU. The UK Supreme Court ruled his actions were intended to block parliamentary oversight and debate, making the prorogation unlawful.

The court emphasized the importance of parliamentary accountability, stating that ministers must answer questions, defend their actions, and allow scrutiny. Prolonged prorogation, it warned, risks undermining democratic governance by sidelining elected representatives.

The court concluded that Johnson’s prorogation was illegal because it hindered Parliament from fulfilling its responsibilities without valid justification.

The UK ruling holds lessons for Canada. Like Johnson, Trudeau failed to give a reasonable explanation for suspending Parliament instead of opting for a recess. This prorogation hinders Parliament’s ability to oversee the executive branch and address critical issues, such as President-Elect Trump’s plan to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian goods.

Trudeau’s decision also blocks MPs from introducing a non-confidence motion, which could trigger an election. Lawyers argue that this move benefits the Liberal Party but doesn’t serve parliamentary or public interests. It undermines key democratic principles, including parliamentary accountability and oversight.