Earlier this week, along with the announcement of his resignation, the prime minister said he had requested that the Governor General prorogue Parliament. Democracy Watch said this is happening at a time when opposition parties are “clearly intending to vote non-confidence.”
“While a non-confidence motion was not being debated when the prorogation was requested, and while it is fair to allow a political party to change leaders before an election occurs, the Prime Minister dictating that Parliament must shut down for almost three months to avoid a non-confidence vote in his government that would trigger an election, without consulting any opposition leaders or even Liberal MPs, is fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable,” Democracy Watch co-founder Duff Conacher said in a statement.
He noted that Trudeau could have reached an agreement with one or more opposition parties for the Liberals to hold a party leadership contest while Parliament continued to be in session. The organization’s legal arguments will be based on past court cases challenging snap election calls, and the U.K. Supreme Court’s 2019 ruling that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s proroguing of Parliament during Brexit negotiations for no justifiable reason was illegal when most MPs wanted Parliament to stay open.
“Hopefully the courts will take this opportunity to restrict this kind of abuse of power from happening in the future by issuing a ruling that makes it clear what is a legal, justifiable prorogation and what amounts to an illegal prorogation,” said Conacher.
“All federal parties should also work together to set out clear rules that restrict prorogations, snap elections and other powers of the Prime Minister, like the rules enacted years ago by all parties in Britain, Australia and New Zealand.”
Two Nova Scotia lawyers, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, have also come forward calling Trudeau’s prorogation illegal. They filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court against the prime minister regarding the Governor General’s decision, also citing that prorogation was done for the political benefit of the Liberal party. They asserted that the decision violated the constitutional principle of Parliamentary sovereignty and accountability.
The application further argues that the decision frustrates or prevents Parliament’s ability to deal with pressing issues quickly and decisively, such as U.S. president-elect Donald Trump’s intention to impose a 25 per cent tariff on all goods Canada exports to the United States. The application also referred to the 2019 U.K. decision.
Democracy Watch said it has called on all parties, “or at least the Liberals and NDP or Bloc,” to set aside partisan self-interest in the period of prorogation and before a federal election happens, and “act in the public interest” to pass the “long-delayed bill that strengthens federal whistleblower protection in key ways,” enacting bills after the Hogue Inquiry recommended closing loopholes that allow for “secret, undemocratic and unethical spending, fundraising, donations, loans, lobbying and disinformation campaigns” by foreign proxies and to strengthen enforcement and penalties.
“The federal parties all worked together to enact Bill C-70 in five weeks last spring, and there is no good reason why, before the next election happens, they can’t work together to pass bills to strengthen whistleblower protection and close all the loopholes that allow for secret, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference in Canadian politics,” said Conacher.
“Any party that prevents these bills from passing into law before the next election will show that they are clearly more self-interested than dedicated to protecting the public interest by stopping foreign interference and ensuring fair, democratic elections and policy-making processes and effective whistleblower protection and accountability for government wrongdoing.”
Similarly, Green Party leader Elizabeth May urged party leaders to work together to “salvage critical legislation that risks being lost,” noting that bills addressing “affordability, housing, clean drinking water and climate action” continue to be stalled.
In a statement, she called for a co-operative approach during prorogation to identify priority legislation that has support across parties. Through securing consensus, such bills can be included in the Speech from the Throne, receiving expedited passage once Parliament resumes.
“The decision to prorogue Parliament has left Canadians in a precarious position,” said May. “Rather than letting vital legislation die on the Order Paper, I have asked my colleagues across party lines to collaborate and prioritize the reintroduction of these bills. Even as partisan politics shifts to high gear for an election, we can demonstrate to Canadians that our democracy can deliver results.”
Some of the bills she outlined included Bill C-33 to end the export of thermal coal and tackle ecological damage from marine shipments, Bill C-71 to fix injustices for lost Canadians, advancing Bill C-63 to remove online images shared without consent, legislation to address issues like clean drinking water on First Nations reserves and moving forward on an intimate partner violence bill, among others.
“It would be a waste of public resources to abandon legislation that has already undergone committee review and amendments,” the party said.
The party emphasized that prorogation comes at a time when Canadians “are grappling with mounting economic and social challenges,” such as tariff threats from the United States and the ongoing housing and affordability crisis.
If you have information, story ideas or news tips for Law360 Canada on business-related law and litigation, including class actions, please contact Anosha Khan at anosha.khan@lexisnexis.ca or 905-415-5838.