Justin Trudeau’s latest stunt—proroguing

Let’s call this what it is: Trudeau is shutting down democracy to protect himself and his party, not Canadians. This isn’t about a “reset” or running the government more effectively—it’s about avoiding a no-confidence vote that his minority government would likely lose. Trudeau has effectively silenced Parliament, blocked MPs from doing their jobs, and left the country leaderless until March 24th, all to buy his party time for an internal leadership race. As lawyer James Manson, who is leading the case, put it: “Prorogation serves the interests of the Liberal Party, but it does not further Parliamentary business or the business of government. It violates the constitutional principles of Parliamentary sovereignty and Parliamentary accountability.”

The timing couldn’t be worse. Trudeau’s prorogation shuts down Parliament at a time when Canada is staring down the barrel of a 25% tariff on all goods entering the United States, thanks to President-Elect Donald Trump. Parliament should be debating, strategizing, and acting to protect Canadian jobs and industries. Instead, Trudeau has pulled the plug on democracy for nearly three months, leaving critical issues to fester while his party scrambles to save itself. This isn’t leadership—it’s sabotage.

At his press conference on January 6, Trudeau tried to justify prorogation by claiming it was necessary to “reset” Parliament and give the Liberal Party time to pick his successor. But what he didn’t explain is why Parliament couldn’t recess instead. He didn’t explain why MPs couldn’t immediately vote on a no-confidence motion, which a majority of MPs have publicly stated they’re ready to bring forward. And he certainly didn’t explain why Canadians should accept a nearly three-month pause in democratic governance.

The JCCF’s case draws on a landmark precedent from the United Kingdom, where the Supreme Court ruled in 2019 that then-Prime Minister Boris Johnson’s prorogation of Parliament was unlawful. Johnson tried to shut down Parliament to avoid scrutiny during the Brexit crisis, but the UK’s highest court stopped him in his tracks, ruling that prorogation without a reasonable justification was unconstitutional. Sound familiar? Trudeau is following the same playbook, but with even less finesse.

David MacKinnon, one of the applicants in the case, summed it up perfectly: “This case concerns a living tree – our Constitution – and how that living tree withers without proper care. If we are to fight tyranny – for it is tyranny that confronts us – we must find the answer within the memory of our historical past.” He’s absolutely right. The Constitution is not a tool for political expediency. It’s the foundation of our democracy, and when leaders like Trudeau exploit loopholes to silence Parliament, they weaken the very system they’re sworn to protect.

We reached out to James Manson, the lawyer representing the Justice Centre for Constitutional Freedoms in the case against Justin Trudeau’s prorogation of Parliament. Here’s what he had to say about the significance of this legal challenge:

“This case is important because it invites the Court—for the first time—to define the limits of executive power in Canada with respect to the prorogation power. What are the limits of a Prime Minister’s power to call for a prorogation of Parliament? When does a Prime Minister exceed his or her authority? This issue has never come before the Court before in Canada, but Canadians deserve to know how far a Prime Minister can go to unilaterally suspend the business of Parliament and impede the ability of elected representatives to do their work.

My hope is that the Court will agree that the Prime Minister—no matter what party he or she belongs to—should never be able to unilaterally suspend the business of the legislative branch without reasonable justification. That, in my view, is necessary to ensure that the rule of law is upheld in our country.”

James Manson’s statement about the stakes in this legal battle cuts to the heart of the issue: how far can a Prime Minister go in shutting down democracy to serve his own interests? For the first time in Canadian history, the courts are being asked to draw a line in the sand—to decide whether a Prime Minister, regardless of party, can unilaterally suspend Parliament without a shred of reasonable justification.

The fact that this question—whether a Prime Minister can shut down Parliament without cause—has never been addressed by the courts before is stunning. It shows just how far we’ve let our democratic safeguards erode under leaders who assume they’re above accountability. As Manson rightly points out, Canadians deserve to know the limits of a Prime Minister’s authority. Do we have a system of checks and balances, or are we at the mercy of whichever politician happens to hold office?

And the stakes here couldn’t be higher. If Trudeau gets away with this, it sets a dangerous precedent for future prime ministers to use prorogation as a political weapon. It allows leaders to bypass scrutiny, dodge accountability, and shut down democracy whenever it suits their agenda. Canadians deserve better than this. Trudeau’s prorogation isn’t just undemocratic—it’s un-Canadian. Parliament exists to represent the people, debate the issues, and hold the government accountable. By shutting it down, Trudeau has sidelined democracy at a time when Canada desperately needs leadership.

This legal challenge is about more than one man’s abuse of power. It’s about drawing a line in the sand and saying enough is enough. Trudeau’s arrogance has gone unchecked for far too long, and now it’s time to hold him to account. Whether the courts side with the JCCF or not, one thing is clear: Canadians are waking up to the fact that their democracy is being trampled, and they’re not going to stand for it. This isn’t just a fight for Parliament—it’s a fight for Canada’s future.