Evidence of meeting #14 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
There are three minutes left, so a little bit from each of the other witnesses.
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
You know that you just raised all these very heavy terms: democracy, accountability, deference. Where to begin?
I don't share the same view of what democracy is. Democracy isn't something you define in terms of elections or not. It's something you experience, you feel, you sense when something's democratic or not. I'm hesitant about electing the Governor General. The position ought not to be politicized in that kind of way. In fact, I'm very concerned about the debate we're having right now in the country about who should be the next Governor General.
We've had a shift in the political and popular culture, as you point out, from deference to a sense of greater participation. You had Christopher White here. What I found most interesting about all of his comments is that there were 200,000 people on his Facebook, but now there are only a few dozen activists. If I'm not mistaken, I think there were probably five times as many people on Facebook suggesting that Stockwell Day should have his name changed to Doris Day. That isn't sufficient to run public policy. I don't think public policy should be run on public opinion, although you have to be sensitive to it in terms of getting elected.
On accountability and the appointment of the Governor General, one way you can construct it from a democratic principle point of view is that the Prime Minister does have the confidence of the House and he makes these appointments. The Governor General is one of them. He makes other appointments. If people are so outraged about all the appointments the Prime Minister makes, they have a nuclear bomb, as he does. He can dissolve the House and you can vote non-confidence. That's the kind of system we're trapped in.
I'm hoping—and I think this is what most Canadians want—that we'll move to maybe a more consensual type of arrangement. And we've had this. We've had this in Canada. In the 1970s and the 1980s, Canadians said they were happy with minority governments both federally and in the province of Ontario. MLAs in that province, based on a survey done by Vaughan Lyon and published in the Canadian Journal of Political Science, found that experience was positive.
In recent years, we're finding minority governments are more dysfunctional, and they're reminding me of what occurred in the early sixties—1962, 1963, 1965—when the main issue in the elections wasn't policy; it was majority government, the Liberals arguing it has to be a Liberal majority and the Conservatives arguing it has to be a Conservative majority. From the NDP, incidentally, Tommy Douglas said, “What do you want stable majority government for? You know what stables smell like.” That was the only position he could argue.
I don't have an answer. I just have some—
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm sorry, but we have run out of time there too.
I'd like to go to about a five-minute round, if we can. I will counsel both the party members and the witnesses that the more succinct and short the answers, the more people will get a chance. I hate leaving the table without everybody getting a chance.
We'll go to Mr. Cuzner, and if you finish quickly, we'll share that time.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
Okay. That's great. I will be quick.
Just more for curiosity than adding anything to the debate, but on the comment from the director of the constitution unit of University College London about the Canadian Parliament being more dysfunctional than any of the other Westminster models, was that a general statement or did that follow the last prorogation? Could you just put that in context as to where that came from?
12:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I looked him up. His name is Robert Hazell. Canada is not his specialty. This quote appeared in a Canadian Press report, and it appeared last year... No, it appeared this year, after this second prorogation.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
So it was a comment that probably would have been prompted by the prorogation.
12:35 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Yes.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Rodger Cuzner Liberal Cape Breton—Canso, NS
With regard to the constitutional or institutional transfer that you had commented on—and the others may want to comment on this as well—and the difference that in some jurisdictions committees can sit and in others they don't sit, I'd like to get some insight.
Through your reading and studies, is there any evidence that any other jurisdiction would have used prorogation to offset a loss in confidence and a loss of power? Have you witnessed that? Or could you at least share comments about what is articulated around prorogation in those other jurisdictions? I guess I'll just throw it out like that.
12:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
I simply haven't seen the issue come up. I teach a very large first-year course now. It's at the second-year level. It's called Canadian democracy. The textbook is over 600 pages. The word “prorogation” appears once in it, and it's not defined. It simply says that the Governor General has these powers to summon, prorogue, and dissolve Parliament, but in practice they're in effect exercised by the Prime Minister. That's the beginning and the end of it.
If you go through, for example, a publication like Canadian Parliamentary Review, which is written by parliamentary scientists like Ned Franks and Thomas Hall, the issue hasn't been there because it's never been used, and in my opinion now abused, the way it has been in the last 16 months, or perceived to have been used. And that's why this committee is meeting. It's inconceivable to me--five years ago--that you would be dealing with this issue.
So I haven't seen anything in the provinces.
What has happened... I recall that a hundred years ago the Liberal government in Saskatchewan was being criticized because the premier was making announcements about what would be in the budget before it was made in the House. But we've seen over the years, with the introduction of television, and--I don't know how to put it--partly the Americanization of politics, more and more of the vital things that you had responsibility for are now being done outside of the House. The Liberals demanded that we get updates from the government as a condition of passing the budget a year ago January. Well, then we started getting the updates in Kitchener and in Saint John, New Brunswick. And hey, what happened to the Parliament of Canada?
I fear that the next step is going to be that perhaps the Speech from the Throne will be on Canadian Idol or something; it's not going to be in the Canadian House of Commons.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Or So You Think You Can Dance.
Thank you. You have one minute left, Mr. Cuzner.
12:40 p.m.
Assistant Professor of Law, Faculty of Law, University of Alberta, As an Individual
May I simply say I'm not an expert on Australian constitutional law, but I do know that the issues that have come up, and that this committee might want to acquaint itself with, are some of the controversies in Australia. There is a simmering controversy about whether committees can continue to sit after prorogation, after the Australian Parliament has prorogued, and some differences about whether the power of the Governor General to prorogue the Australian Parliament also includes the Senate. Can the Senate continue to sit? There are differences of opinion there. Some of that might be helpful, but I'm not the person to give that information.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you for the additional work.
You have half a minute. No? Okay, great.
Mr. Albrecht, and again, share if you can.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I'll do my best to be quick.
First of all, Professor Wiseman, thank you for highlighting Kitchener. It's a great place to be.
I'm not a graduate of a political science program, nor am I a lawyer, so I'm finding this discussion very educational. And I think the variety of responses from the experts indicates how complex this issue is.
Professor Wiseman, in your opening remarks you used terminology such as “My critique was hard-hitting”, and so on. Then you went on to say something about your position having somewhat moderated. We heard the same from Professor Weinstock a week or so ago when he said much the same thing. In terms of the moderation of your position, could you be specific on what issues your position has moderated?
I'll put my second question in and give you the entire time to answer.
On page 4 of the English version of your comments, you say, “A possible way to limit prime ministerial power...”, and then you go on to say that such “a document that sets out specific rules... Such rules would not limit the reserve powers of the Crown but they would check the prime minister’s freedom...”. I find those two concepts totally contradictory, and maybe you could help me to understand how they're not.
Could you cover those two questions? Then I'd like to share the rest of my time, three seconds, with Mr. Lauzon.
12:40 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
Okay. If you read my paper, it was essentially written before you started to meet. I'm not as familiar as you are with parliamentary procedure and the Standing Orders, and I'm not a lawyer.
I thought the only way these things would count would be in an election when they're made to be an issue. The government then feels the party that gets elected has its feet to the fire and this is what it's promised to do.
I've learned since then. I've found the comments to be confusing and confounding, but it's illuminating for all of us to hear all of the different perspectives.
I think you can do things with the Standing Orders. You can't keep the Prime Minister from going to the Governor General, but you could impose what I think have been called disincentives by Madam Jennings or Mr. Walsh.
You can pass a law. Any law you pass is part of the Constitution of Canada, in the sense that there's parliamentary supremacy. It comes under section 44, for example, when you revise the distribution of boundaries.
I like the proposal, which I have in the paper and which Russell also proposes, that the most effective way is for all the political actors, the leaders of all of the political parties, to agree that this is the way you act. It's not a matter of limiting the crown's reserved power. That is still there. The actors are limiting their own discretion in going to the Governor General. If all of the parties were to sign a document...I think New Zealand has something like that, where it's understood what happens.
You've put the Governor General in a dreadful position right now. I'm sorry.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Could I clarify this? You're suggesting a time limited self-restriction of the current players.
May 11th, 2010 / 12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
No, it's not time limited. Russell made a very good point that it's not going to count if one person, especially the Prime Minister, has the confidence and exempts himself from it. But if you can get all of the party leaders to agree this is how things will work after an election or before a prorogation, it's then understood. It will be carried on to the next party leader. It will be carried on. That's what I'm getting at.
I think it's our best hope. I'm not optimistic that it will happen, because there are great advantages right now for the Prime Minister.
I'm worried that just as this government learned from the last government about how to start playing around with opposition days, which had never happened, the next government will also ask why they should make an agreement about prorogation. It's going to tie their hands.
They can also use it as a manipulative tool. The Governor General is going to have to take their advice because she took the advice of the last Prime Minister after 13 days. That's the danger we're getting into.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
That's 10 times more than I thought it would be.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Professor Wiseman, you mentioned that the two prorogations lasted a total of 114 days. Technically, of course, that's correct. But how many days of the House sitting did we lose during those two prorogations?
12:45 p.m.
Associate Professor, Department of Political Science, University of Toronto, As an Individual
You only lost 22 days on this most recent one. I saw that point made by Mr. Lukiwski in the May 3 issue of The Hill Times.
The point is this. What happened to your committees? Why was the House prorogued?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Guy Lauzon Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
I think it was Professor Franks who said prorogation is basically an issue in minority governments. It's happened three times since Confederation that we've had minority governments use prorogation.
Quite frankly, I think he gave us four options. He said his preferred option was that we basically leave it as it is. What do you think of that?