Law360 Canada (January 8, 2025, 5:18 p.m. EST) — Democracy Watch, an Ottawa-based non-profit organization, and two lawyers are launching separate legal challenges against Prime Minister Justin Trudeau's decision to prorogue Parliament, which they consider unconstitutional and “clearly in the self-interest of the Liberal Party.”
Earlier this week, alongside announcing his resignation, the Prime Minister said he had asked the Governor General to prorogue Parliament. Democracy Watch said this comes at a time when opposition parties “clearly intend to vote for censure.”
“Although a motion of no confidence was not debated when the prorogation was requested and it is right to allow a political party to change its leader before an election takes place, the Prime Minister ordered that Parliament closing its doors for almost three months to avoid a vote of no confidence against his government that would trigger an election, without consulting opposition leaders or even liberal MPs, is fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable,” said the co-founder of Democracy on surveillance, Duff Conacher, in a press release.
He noted that Trudeau could have reached an agreement with one or more opposition parties for the Liberals to hold a party leadership race while Parliament continues to sit. The organization's legal arguments will be based on previous court cases challenging snap elections, and the UK Supreme Court's 2019 ruling that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson's prorogation of Parliament , during the Brexit negotiations, for no justifiable reason, was illegal when most MPs wanted Parliament to remain open. .
“Hopefully the courts will take this opportunity to limit this type of abuse of power in the future by issuing a decision that clearly clarifies what is a legal and justifiable extension and what amounts to an illegal extension,” Conacher said .
“All federal parties should also work together to establish clear rules that restrict prorogations, snap elections and other powers of the prime minister, like the rules adopted years ago by all parties in Britain, Australia and New Zealand. »
Two Nova Scotia lawyers, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, also called Trudeau's extension illegal. They filed an application for judicial review in the Federal Court against the prime minister over the governor general's decision, also citing that the prorogation was done in the political interest of the Liberal party. They claimed the decision violated the constitutional principle of parliamentary sovereignty and accountability.
The request further contends that the decision thwarts or prevents Parliament from addressing pressing issues quickly and decisively, such as United States President-elect Donald Trump's intention to impose a 25 percent tariff. on all goods exported from Canada to the United States. The request also referred to the 2019 British decision.
Democracy Watch said it called on all parties, “or at least the Liberals, the NDP or the Bloc,” to put aside their partisan interests during the prorogation period and before the federal election is held, and to “act in the public interest” to pass the “long-delayed bill that strengthens federal whistleblower protections in several ways,” enacting bills after the Hogue investigation recommended closing loopholes that allow ” secret expenses, “undemocratic and unethical fundraising, donations, loans, lobbying and disinformation campaigns” by foreign proxies and strengthen law enforcement and sanctions.
“The federal parties all worked together to pass Bill C-70 in five weeks last spring, and there is no good reason why, before the next election, they cannot work together to pass bills to strengthen whistleblower protections and close all doors. loopholes that allow covert, unethical and undemocratic foreign interference in Canadian politics,” Conacher said.
“Any party that prevents the passage of these bills before the next election would show that it is clearly more interested than committed to protecting the public interest by ending foreign interference and ensuring fair elections and fairness processes. development of fair and democratic policies and an effective whistleblowing system. protection and accountability for government wrongdoing.
Similarly, Green Party Leader Elizabeth May urged party leaders to work together to “save critical legislation that is at risk of being lost”, noting that bills dealing with “affordability, housing , clean water and climate action” remain blocked.
In a statement, she called for a cooperative approach during prorogation to identify priority legislation with cross-party support. By achieving consensus, these bills can be included in the Speech from the Throne and passed quickly when Parliament resumes.
“The decision to prorogue Parliament has left Canadians in a precarious position,” May said. “Rather than allowing essential bills to die on the Order Paper, I have asked my colleagues from all parties to collaborate and prioritize the reintroduction of these bills. Even as partisan politics shift into high gear in preparation for an election, we can demonstrate to Canadians that our democracy can produce results.
Some of the bills she introduced included Bill C-33 to end the export of thermal coal and address ecological damage caused by maritime shipping, Bill C-71 to to right injustices for lost Canadians, Bill C-63 to remove online images shared without consent, legislation to address issues such as clean water on First Nations reserves and advance a project law on domestic violence, among others.
“It would be a waste of public resources to abandon legislation that has already been examined and amended in committee,” the party said.
The party noted that the prorogation comes at a time when Canadians “are grappling with growing economic and social challenges,” such as tariff threats from the United States and the ongoing housing and affordability crisis.
If you have information, article ideas or current affairs tips for Law360 Canada on business law and disputes, including class actions, please contact Anosha Khan at [email protected] or 905-415-5838.
