TORONTO – That, in a nutshell, is how two citizens interpreted Justin Trudeau’s request for prorogation of Parliament on January 6, 2025, when he asked the Governor General to “suspend all Parliamentary functions” until March 24. To summarize: no new legislative proposals; no legislative approvals: no Committee deliberations; no new budgetary expenditures; no authoritative voice for Canada on international etc.
Readers may be wondering how elected members of a legislative body can call for a “time out” to pursue personal goals when their duty compels them to follow a different course of action – showing up for work, as duty may require. Is it even legitimate to pursue personal or partisan goals when the country faces serious threats?
Two citizens from Nova Scotia, David MacKinnon and Aris Lavranos, (the Applicants) thought not.
To them, it must have seemed obvious: on January 7, President-elect Trump declared he would impose a 25% tariff on Canadian goods and services, with possible impending disaster for the Canadian economy. That would not have been his concern.
It might have been the Prime Minister’s. Yet, Justin Trudeau had “shuffled his Cabinet and sent everyone home for Christmas holidays on December 17. His call for prorogation extended that vacation to March 24, as per Trudeau’s demand.
The Liberal Party needed the time “to choose” a new leader, or so goes the argument.
On January 9, the applicants’ lawyers submitted a motion for an expedited hearing to the Federal Court [… expressing their alarm that] “the decision of the Prime Minister presented an intolerable harm to democracy, our Parliamentary system, and the rule of law during a time when Canada faces a grave threat”. (emphases are mine)
The Government – J. Trudeau and his Cabinet, through the Crown – on January 13, stated that it did not consider the matter urgent and did not consent to an expedited hearing
The inevitable legal arguments and filings in Court followed (read the timeline https://www.jccf.ca/federal-court-grants-urgent-hearing-in-case-against-decision-to-prorogue-parliament/). The din of internecine Party warfare nearly shut out the important Constitutional crisis emerging.
Until late Saturday, January 18, when in a remarkable show of courage by the Chief Justice, the Federal Court allowed for the expedited hearings of the issues (for February 13-14).
Chief Justice Crampton offered this justification: “If the underlying Application is not scheduled to be heard on an expedited basis, there will be no opportunity for Canada’s elected representatives to debate this serious threat [of 25 percent tariffs] and take any action that they may consider appropriate for over two months following President-elect Trump’s assumption of office.” (emphasis are mine).
The few Constitutional lawyers who responded to our calls for comment were reluctant to interevene on the merits of the discussion, except to say that at least it will be argued in a serious forum.
