(we all know it is crown prerogative and that there is literally zero precedent of a three month prorogation, but I wasn’t aware of the 2029 UK precedent saying 5 weeks prorogation was illegal, that’s why I asked)
Certainly! Here are the key differences and similarities between Boris Johnson’s 2019 prorogation of Parliament and Justin Trudeau’s current prorogation request:
-
Boris Johnson’s 2019 Prorogation:
-
Context: The prorogation was requested in the midst of a political crisis over Brexit, with the UK scheduled to leave the European Union on October 31, 2019.
-
Duration: The prorogation was for five weeks, from September 9 to October 14, 2019.
-
Legal Challenge: The prorogation was challenged in the UK Supreme Court, which ruled it unlawful on the grounds that it was intended to frustrate Parliament’s role in holding the government accountable. The court’s unanimous 11-0 decision nullified Johnson’s request, and Parliament was reconvened immediately.
-
Outcome: The prorogation was annulled, and Parliament resumed its sessions, continuing the debate on Brexit.
-
-
Justin Trudeau’s 2025 Prorogation:
-
Context: Trudeau requested the prorogation on January 7, 2025, citing a “total lack of productivity” in Parliament due to procedural paralysis and the need for a “reset.” The prorogation was set to last until March 24, 2025.
-
Duration: The prorogation is for about two and a half months, from January 7 to March 24, 2025.
-
Legal Challenge: Two Canadian citizens, David Joseph MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, filed a legal challenge in the Federal Court, arguing that the prorogation is “incorrect and unreasonable” and serves the interests of the Liberal Party of Canada (LPC) by avoiding a confidence vote. The lawsuit is funded by the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms (JCCF).
-
Outcome: As of January 8, 2025, the Government of Canada has not yet filed a reply to the lawsuit. The case faces a high legal bar, but if successful, it could annul the prorogation and reconvene Parliament earlier than planned.
-
Both prorogations have faced legal challenges, but the contexts and outcomes differ. Johnson’s prorogation was deemed unlawful and annulled by the UK Supreme Court, while Trudeau’s prorogation is currently under legal scrutiny in the Federal Court of Canada.
Follow-up: Does it appear that the prorogation is a self-serving move by the liberal party to block the opposition from winning an early election?
This move comes amid political turmoil, with the opposition parties—the Conservatives, the NDP, and the Bloc Québécois—pledging to bring down the Liberal government through a non-confidence vote.
The prorogation allows the government to reset its agenda and introduce a new set of bills and priorities when Parliament reconvenes.However, it also serves to delay any immediate non-confidence votes that could trigger an election.The Liberals are facing a challenging political landscape, with public opinion polls suggesting the Conservatives have held a significant lead for over a year.
Trudeau has announced his intention to step down as Liberal Party leader once a new leader is chosen.The Liberal Party is set to begin a leadership election, and the new leader will likely face a non-confidence vote when Parliament returns on March 24, potentially leading to a federal election.
The prorogation has been criticized as a tactic to avoid an early election, and there are discussions about the possibility of a court challenge to this decision.Dr. Duff Conacher of Democracy Watch has indicated that he may bring a legal challenge to the prorogation.
In summary, the prorogation of Parliament is a strategic move by the Liberal government to delay a potential non-confidence vote and allow the party time to select a new leader, while also facing significant opposition and public scrutiny.
Follow-up (2nd): I see, to my surprise, many people in Canada who seem to think that we don’t need a parliament right now. Is it ok in a democracy for a minority government to cancel a majority opposition from keeping it accountable through a prorogation of parliament.
Prorogation of Parliament in a minority government context in Canada has significant implications and has set several precedents. Here are the key points:
-
Implications of Prorogation:
-
Suspension of Parliamentary Business: Prorogation effectively suspends all parliamentary activities, including the progress of bills, committee work, and investigations. This can lead to a halt in legislative processes and government accountability mechanisms.
-
Government Continues to Function: Despite the suspension, the government remains in power, and the Prime Minister, Cabinet ministers, and other executive staff continue to perform their duties. However, they may be perceived as politically weak, especially when dealing with international counterparts.
-
Unfinished Business: Most government bills that have not received Royal Assent before prorogation die and must be reintroduced in the next session. Private Members’ Business is automatically reinstated, but government bills require a decision by the House to be reinstated.
-
-
Precedents:
-
2008 Prorogation: Prime Minister Stephen Harper advised Governor General Michaëlle Jean to prorogue Parliament to avoid a non-confidence vote. This move was controversial and led to a two-hour consultation with constitutional experts. Jean granted the prorogation on the condition that Parliament would reconvene soon and the Cabinet would present a proposed budget, a confidence matter.
-
2009 Prorogation: Harper again advised the Governor General to prorogue Parliament, ostensibly to keep Parliament in recess during the Vancouver Winter Olympics. However, it was suspected that this was to avoid ongoing investigations into the Afghan detainees affair.
-
2020 Prorogation: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau requested prorogation amidst the WE Charity scandal and a cabinet shuffle. The prorogation was granted, and Parliament was suspended until September 23.
-
2025 Prorogation: On January 6, 2025, Trudeau requested prorogation due to mounting pressure from his own caucus and the threat of a non-confidence vote. Parliament was prorogued until March 24, 2025, allowing the Liberal Party to regroup and find a new leader.
-
-
Impact on Political Dynamics:
-
Government Decision-Making: Prorogation can hamper government decision-making and action, as the political and bureaucratic dynamics in Ottawa shift. This can affect the relationship between the federal government and provincial and territorial Premiers, potentially undermining the “Team Canada” approach.
-
Legislative Agenda: Important legislative efforts can be affected, and some bills may lose their pathway to becoming law due to the compressed parliamentary calendar and lack of opposition support.
-
-
Legal and Constitutional Considerations:
-
Parliamentary Sovereignty: The UK Supreme Court decision in R (Miller) v Prime Minister [2019] UKSC 41 highlighted the principle of parliamentary sovereignty. While this case is from the UK, it underscores the potential for prorogation to be challenged in court if it is seen as interfering with parliamentary sovereignty.
-
Justificatory Burden: In extraordinary circumstances, prorogation can impose a justificatory burden on the Prime Minister, requiring a clear and compelling reason for the suspension of Parliament.
-
These precedents and implications highlight the complex interplay between political strategy and constitutional principles in the prorogation of Parliament in a minority government context in Canada.
End comment: Amazing answer. We already had a similar conversation from the perspective of monarchic powers and also in the context of you interpreting a recurring bad dream of mine. I am glad to declare that since you psych-analyzed me, I stopped having nightmares, simply because with your help, I realized that none of this is within my control, so I stopped believing in democracy entirely and moved on. The nightmares have also stopped, so you are absolutely right. Regardless of what the federal court will say on prorogation, I won’t ever put my trust in a democracy. I will absolutely cancel my vote next time. This is hell after all, isn’t it. Believing in democracy is a form of torture.