Prime Minister Justine Trudeau this week announced that he intends to resign as Liberal Party leader, amid mounting internal dissent.
The resignation brings a long political chapter to an end. Trudeau has been in office since 2015, when he brought the Liberals back to power. Trudeau said he will remain at the helm until a new Liberal leader is selected.
His announcement on January 6th has raised many concerns and created uncertainties. Peter John Loewen, the Harold Tanner at Cornell University, says there are three major uncertainties right now. “First, how a new Liberal leader will be selected. The party’s internal rules require several months for a campaign, culminating in a vote open to all ‘supporters’ of the party. Second, it is uncertain that the Liberal caucus will agree to Trudeau’s wish to stay on until a new leader is chosen. They may wish to choose an interim leader. Third, whether the three largest opposition parties will give a new leader a chance to govern as PM. They may instead defeat a new leader at their earliest chance, forcing elections.”
The other most concerning uncertainty is Trudeau has prorogued the parliament until March 24. When Parliament is prorogued, the parliamentary session is terminated. Cabinet ministers stay in their roles and the government’s day-to-day operations carry on, but members of Parliament can’t vote on any new laws or new spending — or hold confidence votes. This means Parliament cannot pass no-confidence motion and Canadians do not know when will the next election take place. Some feel this action of Trudeau was for self benefit.
One legal advocacy group has already taken the issue to court. The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms, an organization that to defend the constitutional freedoms of Canadians through litigation and education, announced that it is providing lawyers on an urgent basis to two Canadians, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, seeking a Federal Court declaration that Prime Minister Trudeau’s recent prorogation of Parliament is unreasonable and must be set aside.
Among its many grounds arguing that Trudeau’s decision to advise the Governor General to exercise her prerogative power to prorogue Parliament to March 24, 2025, this application argues that the decision to prorogue Parliament was “incorrect, unreasonable or both.”
The court application, filed on January 7, contends that the Prime Minister’s decision to prorogue “was not made in furtherance of Parliamentary business or the business of government, but in service of the interests of the LPC [Liberal Party of Canada].”
At his news conference, on January 6, 2025, the Prime Minister’s stated justification for the prorogation was to “reset” Parliament and to permit the Liberal Party of Canada time to select a new party leader. No explanation was provided as to why Parliament could not recess instead.
“No explanation was provided as to why Members of Parliaments could not immediately exercise their right to vote on a motion of non-confidence in the government. A majority of MPs have now repeatedly promised to do just that, which would trigger an election and provide the needed “reset” in a democratic and legitimate way,” said a release from the Justice Centre.
“No explanation was provided as to why a prorogation of almost three months is needed. No explanation was provided as to why the Liberal Party of Canada ought to be entitled to such a lengthy prorogation simply so it can hold an internal leadership race,” the release further said.
This Federal Court application includes language taken from a decision of the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, which ruled in 2019 that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson had prorogued Parliament unlawfully, as a means of avoiding Parliamentary scrutiny over the government’s “Brexit” negotiations concerning the departure of the United Kingdom from the European Union.
The application contends, among other things, that “in all of the circumstances surrounding it, the [prorogation] has the effect of frustrating or preventing, without reasonable justification, the ability of Parliament to carry out its constitutional functions as a legislature and as the body responsible for the supervision of the executive, particularly insofar as it relates to Parliament’s ability to deal quickly and decisively with especially pressing issues, such as the situation caused by President-Elect Trump’s stated intention to impose a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States from Canada.”
“This prorogation stymies the publicly stated intent of a majority of MPs to bring a motion for non-confidence in the government and trigger an election. Prorogation serves the interests of the Liberal Party, but it does not further Parliamentary business or the business of government. It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability,” stated lawyer James Manson. “We will invite the Court to conclude that the Prime Minister’s decision to advise the Governor General to prorogue Parliament was without reasonable justification.”
Applicant David MacKinnon feels strongly about this case. He stated, “This case concerns a living tree – our Constitution – and how that living tree withers without proper care. If we are to fight tyranny – for it is tyranny that confronts us – we must find the answer within the memory of our historical past. We call this memory ‘the common law.’ It is enshrined in the preamble of our constitution. The common law is the repository and guarantor of our justice and our wealth and happiness. Had we nurtured our living tree, and looked to our past, we would have read Lord Denning’s admonishment to the Attorney General of an earlier time: ‘Be ye never so high, the law is above you.’”
Although some experts and Canadian professors argue that the decision to prorogue parliament is concerning but certainly not unconstitutional.
Adam Dodek, professor from University of Ottawa, ““It is constitutionally possible for Parliament to be prorogued to allow for first a war table led by an interim Liberal Party leader. This will allow Canada to prepare for the imminent attack by Donald Trump and the U.S. against Canada’s economy and allow a short Liberal leadership race to choose a new leader by March 24, when Parliament will be called back to session. Some will argue the proroguing is unconstitutional, but I disagree and it is significantly different from the unconstitutional proroguing by former Canadian PM Stephen Harper to avoid a confidence vote in 2008.”
