What Does Trudeau’s Resignation Mean? We’re Here to Help!
We’ve already highlighted the big news of Justin Trudeau’s resignation, but let’s get into the details: what does it mean, how will it unfold and what is prorogation anyway?
Part Two: Is prorogation the right move for Canada?
Well, isn’t that a good question – and it’s not an easy one to answer.
Firstly, there is the matter of legislation lost.
When Parliament is prorogued, unlike a holiday or summer recess within a sitting of Parliament, everything stops – the session ends for good. Of course, the government doesn’t end – this isn’t the dissolution of Parliament (what happens after an election is called). The Liberals can continue the business of running the nation during prorogation, but they can’t introduce or pass any new policies. And all of the committee research and investigations that have been ongoing over the last year? All of the bills so many have worked to advance, but have yet to receive royal assent? They stop. They’re dead.
What died with this prorogation of Parliament? Bills that focused on tackling online harms, AI and digital privacy, updated cybersecurity regulations, new election rules, new citizenship rules, military justice, and clean drinking water for First Nations. So, you know, not inconsequential stuff.
And, sure, bills and committee work can be reintroduced when a new session of Parliament starts (in this case after March 24th), but let’s be honest: the only business that will succeed in the next session of Parliament will be a vote of non-confidence and a subsequent election.
Does it matter that multiple bills have died on the order paper? Well, as you know from Social Studies Chapter Five, advocates work hard to advance their policy goals and, without question, there will be many who are disappointed their work has been for not.
But that pales compared to this: Prorogation, while perfectly legal and constitutional (it’s literally written into our, you know, constitution), is incredibly controversial. Its use, some argue, is anti-democratic and a blatant power grab, stall tactic.
Is it? Well, for prorogation to be granted, the governor general has to assent to the prime minister’s request. Mary Simon, our current governor general, did. And even though the governor general almost always acts on the advice of the prime minister, she doesn’t have to. Her role exists, in theory, to act as a check on the most extreme cases of abuse of power. At least in Simon’s eyes (and those of her non-partisan constitutional advisers), this act of prorogation isn’t that.
It should also be said that the precedent for this prorogation was set long ago by Sir John A. Macdonald and even more recently by former Conservative prime minister Stephen Harper, in very similar circumstances. In other words, Trudeau’s latest prorogation isn’t new or precedent-setting.
And, to be clear, Liberals and Conservatives have flip-flopped on this issue over time, depending on who is doing the proroguing, with both parties (and their supporters) having taken turns slamming the measure as anti-democratic. So, their partisan position on this matter, today and always, lacks credibility.
Democracy Watch – a non-profit, non-partisan organization – is a different matter. They certainly take exception to Trudeau’s move and, in an interview with the National Post, plan to take the issue to court. To our eyes, their challenge won’t succeed. This move is legal and constitutional, having gone through the proper channels, with the proper approvals. And, most importantly, again, it has precedent.
But that’s different than saying it’s the right thing to do.
You see, if you haven’t already heard, US President Trump is being inaugurated on January 20th. If our Parliament isn’t sitting – if our government is in the midst of a leadership race that is more focused on party survival than national affairs – it’s going to be mighty hard to combat things like, say, 25% tariffs imposed on all Canadian goods imported by America.
In fact, with ill-will between Trudeau and Trump evident to just about everyone, and Trudeau officially entering his lame-duck (no moral governing authority on account of his impending resignation) phase of his prime ministership, it’s hard to see how anything can get done between the two leaders.
That’s a huge problem, especially with so many consequential issues that need to be resolved urgently: global conflict (specifically the invasion of the Ukraine), global climate change and biodiversity loss, a drug epidemic, and, of course, those 25% tariffs (which, if imposed, would ruin Canada’s economy).
Against this backdrop, it’s very hard to argue prorogation is the right move to advance the affairs of the nation.
And then there’s this:
Anytime relatively obscure procedural tools are used to advance political gain at the cost of the people’s business (committee work and bills before Parliament) and representative accountability (Question Period, say), it hurts our democratic health. It erodes trust. It normalizes prorogation and other controversial tools, like the notwithstanding clause (we’ll explain another day). It paves the way for future, possibly worse anti-democratic measures to be enacted.
So, yeah, prorogation isn’t great for Canada. It isn’t great for democracy. It wasn’t great when Harper did it. It’s not great now that Trudeau is doing it (again).
And though prorogation hasn’t killed our democracy up until now, and won’t kill our democracy with its use now, democracy never dies quickly, it always dies one procedural paper cut at a time.