Transparent heart icon with white outline and + sign.

Life's busy, read it when you're ready!

Create a free account to save articles for later, keep track of past articles you’ve read, and receive exclusive access to all RP resources.

White magnifying glass.

Search thousands of RP articles

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth.

Open envelope icon with @ symbol

Get Articles Delivered!

Articles, news, and reviews that celebrate God's truth. delivered direct to your Inbox!

A A
By:

Trudeau resigned and Parliament prorogued – now what?

“I intend to resign as party leader, as prime minister… This country deserves a real choice in the next election and it has become clear to me that if I’m having to fight internal battles, I cannot be the best option in that election.” – Justin Trudeau, Jan. 6, 2025

With those words, Trudeau announced that his time as prime minister will soon come to a close. But his resignation, his announcement that Parliament is prorogued, and uncertainty around upcoming confidence votes in Parliament have sparked all sorts of changes. Some are good. Some are bad.

And some are simply opportunities for Reformed Christians to take action.

Historical moment

Justin Trudeau’s resignation is the eleventh time in 158 years of Canadian history that a prime minister has resigned in office. John Abbott (1892), Robert Borden (1920), and William Lyon Mackenzie King (1948) all resigned because of poor personal health.

John A. Macdonald (1873), Mackenzie Bowell (1896), William Lyon Mackenzie King (1926), Lester Pearson (1968), Pierre Trudeau (1984), Brian Mulroney (1993), and Jean Chrétien (2003) all resigned mid-term in the face of political turmoil or scandal. So, a prime minister resigning instead of losing an election is hardly unprecedented.

Because of the Prime Minister’s resignation, the Liberal party will select a new leader who will then become Canada’s 24th prime minister. When Parliament reconvenes on March 24, the new prime minister will outline his or her priorities, subject to a confidence motion.

What is unprecedented is how short Trudeau’s successor’s time in office could be. To date, Sir Charles Tupper was Canada’s shortest-tenured prime minister, serving only 68 days. Justin Trudeau’s replacement will be selected on March 9 and Parliament returns on March 24. If the Liberal government loses a confidence vote soon after Parliament reconvenes, the new prime minister might also be the prime minister with the shortest term in office. Trudeau’s resignation so close to a potential election is not too dissimilar from Joe Biden’s recent decision to drop out of the presidential race so close to the American presidential election.

Effects of prorogation

If the Prime Minister had chosen to dissolve Parliament, parliamentary business would have been terminated and a general election would ensue. Prorogation, on the other hand, gives no indication regarding the timeline of the next election. However, the minority Liberal government will need the support of at least one other party following prorogation to be able to govern.

The main effect of prorogation is to end the current session of Parliament – there can, at least in theory, be multiple sessions for each elected Parliament, but to this point there had just been one session going on since the 2021 election. But the effect of this prorogation is that bills that have not yet become law are now terminated, committees cannot proceed, and members of parliament are released from their parliamentary duties until the new session. The final effect is that, instead of reconvening on January 27 as planned (and likely facing a non-confidence vote that could force an election), Parliament won’t meet again until March 24.

Prorogation of Parliament is a little more common than prime ministerial resignations. I was somewhat surprised that Parliament has been prorogued nine times in my lifetime (versus only one other prime ministerial resignation). But what makes this occasion more unique is its connection to the Prime Minister’s upcoming resignation.

Government bills

All government bills that have not received Royal Assent are terminated by prorogation, and in some cases, this is excellent news.

For example, Bill C-63, the Online Harms Act, was filled with bad policy ideas, particularly around hate speech and hate crime. Such hate speech provisions would be potentially problematic for Christians who seek to speak truth about various controversial issues in our society. Free speech has already been under attack through conversion therapy laws that ban talking about biblical truths on gender and sexuality in some settings, or bubble zone laws that prevent pro-life expression in designated areas. The Online Harms Act would have made Canada’s free speech climate worse. But because Parliament is prorogued, Bill C-63 is now dead. If the government, in a new session, wishes to move forward with this legislation, they will need to start the law-making process all over again and re-introduce it for another first, second, and third reading, all of which take time.

Late in 2024, the government also said it would introduce legislation to require pregnancy care centres to publicly disclose that they do not provide or assist with abortions. These organizations could also risk losing charitable status. The House of Commons Finance Committee also recommended that the government strip religious organizations of their charitable status broadly. The government had not yet introduced any bills regarding charitable status, and prorogation means it will be delayed in doing so.

In a Parliamentary session that passed laws including conversion therapy bans, increased regulation of what people say online, and universal child care, we can be thankful that laws around hate speech and charitable status have been (at least temporarily) stopped before advancing further.

Private members’ bills

Unlike government bills, private members’ bills introduced in the House of Commons are not automatically terminated by prorogation. Instead, when Parliament resumes, they are automatically deemed to have passed all stages previously completed.

Four bills in particular stand out as ones we would love to see proceed when Parliament resumes. These bills deal with issues of protecting minors from pornography, sexual exploitation, and human trafficking, and protecting political expression. Each of these bills could be reinstated immediately following prorogation.

For example, Bill C-270, the Stopping Internet Sexual Exploitation Act, is focused on combatting illegal pornography and would require pornography companies to verify the age and consent of those depicted. The bill has already completed consideration in committee and might be reinstated past that stage.

On the flip side, other private members’ bills, focused on allowing advance requests for euthanasia and on banning corporal discipline in Canada, might also be reinstated.

Private members’ bills introduced by Senators, however, cannot be automatically carried over into the new session. Only through a special process can these bills be reinstated at their previous stage. Bill S-210, for example, would have required pornography companies to verify the age of potential viewers on their sites. However, the bill had one stage left before receiving Royal Assent and will be terminated in a new session. The bill was introduced over three years ago, and it is difficult to see such an important bill terminated so close to the end of the legislative process.

Political uncertainty

Of course, if Canada does go to an election shortly after Parliament resumes, none of these bills will advance anyways. It seems unlikely that the government will be able to pass any bills, given the stated intentions of other parties to defeat the government in a non-confidence vote.

The Conservatives, Bloc Québécois, and NDP have all said they will vote for a motion of non-confidence against the government at the next possible opportunity and force an election. So, unless the new prime minister can convince one of these political parties to prop up the Liberal minority government, we will likely have a federal election sometime this spring.

Looking ahead

While political change includes uncertainty about the future, it also allows for new opportunities – opportunities to influence a new prime minister, to communicate with candidates prior to the next election, and to elect MPs who are committed to good policies. A new government also means new priorities and new agendas.

Political change creates new avenues to witness to God’s truth and show how that truth also applies in the political arena. Groen van Prinsterer, the 19th-century Dutch historian and statesman, wrote prior to a period of political revival that:

“Even in unfavorable circumstances, however, one can witness to the truth; and this continuous witness itself is already a real application and a powerful practice.”

And we know that, in whatever political circumstances we find ourselves, Christ is on His throne, sovereign over all that is happening in our nation right now. And as Canadian Christians advocate for biblical principles in public policy, we pray with the Psalmist Moses:

“Let the favor of the Lord our God be upon us, and establish the work of our hands upon us; yes, establish the work of our hands!” (Ps. 90:17)

Enjoyed this article?

Get the best of RP delivered to your inbox every Saturday for free.



Red heart icon with + sign.
Politics

What is “political success”?

Stephen Harper’s mistaken understanding changed him from a principled conservative to a power-focused politician  **** People get involved in politics because they’re concerned about the future. They know certain principles need to be defended, for the good of all, even the good of those that oppose those very principles. However, in a pluralistic, increasingly relativistic, country like Canada, it’s hard to get elected while standing uncompromisingly on principle (just ask the Christian Heritage Party!). So compromise on principle and you might win, don’t and you’ll almost certainly lose. How then can we succeed? It’s a key question, but there’s a more important one that we need to answer first: how are we going to define political “success”? The dictionary tells us success is “reaching our goal” but it doesn’t offer any insight into what those goals should be in the political arena. The Bible does. We were created for the glory of God (Is. 43:7) and therefore, whatever we do, we should do it “all to the glory of God” (1 Cor. 10:31). Now the world defines political success as being elected to office. And because they do, principles are then seen as impediments that get in the way of achieving that goal. But if we define “success” as glorifying God, then we will publicly advocate for His principles, and we will speak out to honor God, and to educate people about what really is right. Then success will be had by having the loudest election campaign possible. Then we will speak out at every opportunity, and without fear, because whatever the election result, we will know we have already achieved God’s idea of success. Can both types of success be had? But what if someone could be principled and get elected? On occasion a man or woman associated with clear principles will seem to make strides towards electoral success. We do have some godly Members of Parliament. However, history seems to show that for a person to reach the highest positions of influence they will need to backtrack from their previous principles. Former Prime Minister Stephen Harper is an example of this phenomenon. Early in his political career, Stephen Harper was considered to be a principled conservative. After serving one term as a Reform Party MP, he became president of the National Citizens Coalition (NCC) in 1997. The NCC is a conservative organization that promotes limited government and individual freedom. Harper pursued this objective passionately and effectively. However, after leaving the NCC in 2001 to become leader of the Canadian Alliance, Harper began to compromise his principles. Gerry Nicholls of the National Citizens Coalition One of the people most surprised by Stephen Harper’s compromise was Gerry Nicholls, a longtime staff member of the NCC. In his 2009 book, Loyal to the Core: Stephen Harper, Me and the NCC, Nicholls provided an account of Harper’s time as NCC president. Initially Nicholls was convinced that Harper was committed to conservative principles. That’s why, after Harper re-entered electoral politics, Nicholls helped Harper’s campaign and was willing to overlook Harper’s initial compromises. Eventually, however, Nicholls saw the writing on the wall. For Nicholls, the straw that broke the camel’s back was the Conservative government’s March 2007 budget. That budget involved what Nicholls describes as “an orgy of massive government spending.” “After that,” Nicholls explains, “I knew Stephen had no intention of providing Canadians with conservative government, or of even paying lip service to conservative ideals. He had turned his back on conservatism.” Professor Tom Flanagan That assessment might sound harsh, but it is shared by Tom Flanagan, a political science professor at the University of Calgary. Flanagan was, for many years, a close companion of Stephen Harper. Flanagan managed Harper’s successful leadership campaigns for the Canadian Alliance and for the new Conservative Party of Canada, and also played key roles in the Conservative Party’s 2004 and 2006 federal election campaigns. After a while, however, Flanagan became concerned about the change in Harper’s political direction. Eventually the two men had a falling out. In 2011 Flanagan wrote a letter to the editor of the Literary Review of Canada where he described Harper’s compromised political perspective as prime minister: Harper has adopted the Liberal shibboleths of bilingualism and multiculturalism. He has no plans to reintroduce capital punishment, criminalize abortion, repeal gay marriage or repeal the Charter. He swears allegiance to the Canada Health Act. He has enriched equalization payments for the provinces and pogey for individuals. He has enthusiastically accepted government subsidies to business, while enlarging regional economic expansion. He now advocates Keynesian deficit spending and government bailouts of failing corporations, at least part of the time. Flanagan, in fact, wrote this letter to reassure certain prominent Liberals that their policies still governed Canada. The “Liberal consensus lives on,” Flanagan wrote, “It’s just under new management.” Stephen Harper’s management. Conclusion In the 2015 federal election, Stephen Harper was clearly preferable to Justin Trudeau of the Liberal Party and Thomas Mulcair of the New Democratic Party. He was the “lesser of evils” among the major party leaders. But that’s not a very high recommendation. In current Canadian politics, conservative principles and even more so, Christian principles, are most often a hindrance to electoral success. The career of Stephen Harper is a clear example of how conservatives and Christians can be tempted by the worldly sort of political success into jettisoning their principles. But the cost of this kind of “success” is very high. What’s the point of attaining power if principles cannot be the guidelines for governing? However, if our “success” is defined as glorifying God by publicly proclaiming truth, then doing so and facing the electoral consequences is a meaningful activity. By this standard, a loud and public Christian Heritage Party campaign that loses would be more successful than all the electoral wins of Stephen Harper’s Conservatives. “I'd rather be right than be president,” said US Senator Henry Clay in 1838. That’s an admirable sentiment that Stephen Harper rejected. We must not make the same mistake. Photo credit: Mike Ridewood/iStockPhoto.com, Oct. 2008, Calgary....