Procedure and House Affairs committee  The committee began its study on issues related to prorogation on April 27 of this year. There were nine meetings. We heard from 16 witnesses prior to the adjournment for summer. The suggestions made by these witnesses were many, to say the least, somewhere in the range of perha

Procedure and House Affairs committee  He had mentioned—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Other witnesses had suggested that it would be helpful to include an amendment in the Standing Orders in respect of giving notice of a prorogation prior to prorogation occurring, and that the want of a prorogation should be debated and voted upon. There were other suggestions as

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Walsh was the first to bring forward the idea of disincentives. He said not that he would suggest to do so, but his disincentives that he had mentioned—

Procedure and House Affairs committee  No, I didn't list his actual disincentives. For example, he said: ...there shall be five additional opposition days in the first supply period in the new session, or no government bill shall be considered for a second reading within 60 days of the opening of the session. He p

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Some witnesses suggested that legislation ought to be enacted. Among them, Mr. Franks and Mr. Adams suggested that, in their opinion, the federal Parliament could legislate in respect to prorogation. On the other hand, Mr. Pelletier stated that legislation could only be brought

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It was a very elaborate discussion. He went through the separation of powers that he saw in the Constitution, and among them was the prorogation power. He felt that this was part of the Constitution, the prorogation power, in that it enjoyed tacit constitutional protection as par

Procedure and House Affairs committee  And the witness was not certain, by the way.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Other witnesses suggested an amendment to the Constitution. Indeed, Mr. Walsh suggested that, in his view, the only surefire way to make the power of prorogation subject to law was through a formal constitutional amendment. The formula to be used would depend on the purpose of th

Procedure and House Affairs committee  These are in no particular order. Mr. Mendes had suggested that in a sort of cumulative effect, amendments to the Standing Orders and enacting legislation would in fact be tantamount to a binding constitutional convention, in his view. Mr. Russell suggested in his opinion that

Procedure and House Affairs committee  A constitutional convention is a practice that is established over time. A referendum is a poll of the people at one particular instant.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Mr. Russell and Mr. Wiseman brought that forward. They were not prompted on that. In terms of Mr. Mendes's suggestion, that was his view. Whether or not what that amounts to is...you know, it's his view that he put forward, so I won't comment on it.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  In both instances the witnesses had suggested modifying or altering to do with the relationship between the Governor General...that presupposed that the system itself with respect to prorogation was fine in the status quo. In fact one of the witnesses, Mr. Monahan, stated that ha

Procedure and House Affairs committee  This is where I put, to use the chair's expression, one-off options. Some of them were in fact means and not ends, so I ended up putting them there. They simply said this is what should happen, but they did not suggest the avenue to get there, whereas the paper was sort of organi

Procedure and House Affairs committee  He wanted to bring forward the idea of obtaining the majority consensus prior to a prorogation occurring. That was just for that particular measure. Yes, there were witnesses, including Mr. Mendes, who thought there should be a standing order amendment and a piece of legislation.