Legal challenges mounted by groups against Trudeau’s suspension of Parliament

January 8, 2025 TruthUSA

Advocacy groups are initiating a legal challenge against the prorogation of Parliament requested by Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, arguing that the move lacks justification.

Trudeau announced on Jan. 6 his intention to resign as prime minister and Liberal Party leader once a new leader is chosen. Meanwhile, he has requested Governor General Mary Simon to prorogue Parliament until March 24.

The suspension of parliamentary activities is preventing opposition parties from overthrowing the minority Liberal government, as they have all committed to doing, and it gives the Liberal Party an opportunity to hold a leadership contest.

The Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms stated on Jan. 7 that it is providing legal representation to two private citizens, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, who are seeking a declaration from the Federal Court that the decision to prorogue was “incorrect, unreasonable, or both.”

Constitutional lawyer James Manson, in a media release, expressed that proroguing Parliament has thwarted the majority of MPs’ intention to express 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,” Manson said. “It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability.”

Trudeau, in explaining his decision for prorogation, stated that Parliament needed a “reset” after an unproductive fall session. The Conservatives led an opposition filibuster due to the government’s failure to comply with a House of Commons order to provide all documents related to the federal green fund, Sustainable Development Technology Canada, to the RCMP.

“It’s time for the temperature to come down, for the people to have a fresh start in Parliament,” Trudeau mentioned during his resignation announcement. He also mentioned that confidence votes will occur when the new session commences in late March, emphasizing that this is “entirely in keeping with all the principles of democracy.”

A day after the Justice Centre announced their legal challenge, Democracy Watch also announced their intention to challenge the prorogation in court.

Co-founder of the group, Duff Conacher, mentioned in a statement that there was no non-confidence motion being debated, and while it is fair for a party to change leaders before an election, shutting down Parliament for three months without consulting the opposition or his own MPs is “fundamentally undemocratic and unjustifiable.”

The group asserts that prorogation is “clearly in the Liberal Party’s self-interest.”

“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,” Conacher said.

Both the Justice Centre and Democracy Watch indicated they will rely on a 2019 unanimous ruling by the UK Supreme Court that deemed it illegal for then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson to prorogue Parliament.

Johnson had sought to prorogue Parliament for five weeks to outline his government’s policies in a new Queen’s Speech, as the country was approaching the ratification of the Brexit withdrawal agreement in October 2019.

“It is impossible for us to conclude, on the evidence that has been put before us, that there was any reason – let alone a good reason – to advise Her Majesty to prorogue Parliament for five weeks,” wrote the UK Supreme Court in its decision.

Source link