Court should issue ruling that not only rejects Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation, but also restricts PM’s power to prorogue Parliament in future

Prorogation clearly in Liberal’s self-interest, opposition parties intended to vote non-confidence in the government, and other options were available

All parties should work together to write down rules restricting PM’s powers, as parties in Britain, Australia and New Zealand did long ago

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE:
Thursday, February 13, 2025

OTTAWA – Today, Democracy Watch is an intervener at the Federal Court hearing of the case challenging the January 6th request by Prime Minister Trudeau that the Governor General prorogue (shut down) Parliament until March 24th.  The prorogation is clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest as it gives the party time to hold its leadership contest to replace Trudeau, and is happening at a time when the opposition parties were clearly intending to vote non-confidence in the government soon after Parliament’s usual winter break was scheduled to end on January 27th.  (Click here to see DWatch’s legal arguments).

The hearing of the case is today and Friday, February 14th from 9:30 am to about 4:30 pm at 90 Sparks St., 10th floor or click here to register to watch it online.  Democracy Watch will be presenting its arguments this afternoon or Friday morning, and is represented by Wade Poziomka and Nick Papageorge of Ross & McBride LLP.

While the Federal Court ordered the case to move forward on an expedited schedule, given the case likely won’t be ruled on until late February-early March, and the Liberal Party’s leadership contest is over on March 9th, with Parliament re-opening a couple of weeks later, the court’s ruling won’t have much impact on the current prorogation.

Still Democracy Watch is calling on the court to reject Trudeau’s unjustifiable prorogation and issue a ruling like the UK Supreme Court’s unanimous 2019 ruling that it was illegal for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament for no justifiable reason when a majority of MPs wanted Parliament to stay open and operating.

Democracy Watch is also calling on the court to look forward and issue a ruling that will prevent the current bad situation from happening again.  The court should establish restrictions on the Prime Minister’s power to prorogue Parliament in the future, restrictions that comply with binding Supreme Court of Canada rulings that mandate courts to balance the power of the PM with Canada’s key constitutional principles that require the government (the PM and Cabinet) to have the support of a majority of MPs (known as the principles of responsible government, the sovereignty of Parliament, and democracy).

The three practical restrictions that Democracy Watch is calling on the court to establish on the PM’s power to prorogue, restrictions that will work in every future situation, especially during minority governments, are as follows:

1. Has notice of a motion of non-confidence in the government been given in Parliament, or has a vote on a matter of confidence (e.g. a supply measure) been scheduled in Parliament? If yes, then the Prime Minister is prohibited from proroguing until the motion or vote is decided.

2. If the answer to question #1 is no, have the leaders of opposition parties who represent a majority of MPs in the House of Commons clearly and publicly indicated that their parties’ MPs intend to vote non-confidence in the government? If yes, then the Prime Minister is prohibited from proroguing outside of, and longer than, a scheduled adjournment period of Parliament.

3.  If the answer to question #2 is no, have a majority of MPs voted in favour of a prorogation at a time that is outside of and/or longer than a scheduled adjournment period of Parliament? If yes, then the Prime Minister is permitted prorogue Parliament for that time period.

“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,” said Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch.  “The Prime Minister had other options and, from all evidence, could have reached an agreement some time ago with one or more opposition parties to have the Liberals hold a party leadership contest while Parliament continued operating.”

“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 parties.”

– 30 –

FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT:
Duff Conacher, Co-founder of Democracy Watch
Tel: (613) 241-5179
Cell: 416-546-3443
Email: [email protected]

Democracy Watch’s Stop Prorogations and other Power Abuses Fund