Trudeau’s right to prorogue Parliament heard by court
“What’s stopping the next Prime Minister from proroguing indefinitely?”
Canada’s historic prorogation court hearings wrapped up on February 14th. Chief Justice Paul S. Crampton listened to arguments from the Justice Centre for Constitional Freedoms on February 13th, and then from the government of Canada on February 14th.
When Parliament is prorogued, the parliamentary session is terminated, and all parliamentary activity, including work on bills and in committees, immediately stops. This occurs when the Prime Minister advises the Governor General to enact prorogation; in Canadian history, no Governor General has ever refused this request.
“This case isn’t just about whether Trudeau technically had the ability to prorogue Parliament,” Canadian investigative journalist Dan Knight wrote in his Substack February 15th.
“It’s about why he did it—and more importantly, whether Canada is now a country where the Prime Minister can shut down democracy whenever it gets inconvenient for him. Because if the courts let this stand, what’s stopping the next Prime Minister from proroguing indefinitely? What’s stopping the government from suspending Parliament every time there’s a corruption scandal, every time they fear a non-confidence vote, every time they need to cover up a mess of their own making?”
Although the unprecedented, historically significant court proceedings were made available to Canadian viewers on Zoom, it has not been widely covered by mainstream media.
Knight points out that prior to his invocation of prorogation on January 7th, Trudeau was facing multiple crises all at once—a massive financial scandal, a looming non-confidence vote, and an economic firestorm caused by Trump’s tariff threats.
“So rather than actually dealing with it, he shut Parliament down. The question is: Did he have the right to do that?” asks Knight.
At his news conference on January 6, 2025, the Prime Minister’s stated justifications for the prorogation were 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.
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 January 7th, 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 Liberal Party of Canada.”
Justice Crampton is expected to make a decision on or before March 24th, when the prorogation is scheduled to end.
