Evidence of meeting #11 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 general.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
The chair doesn't get do this very often.
It will be just a short one. Somebody turn on the clock.
Professor Mendes suggested here that by changing standing orders and maybe even moving relevant legislation that went with it, we could create convention.
Prof. Peter Russell
Oh, I think you can, but I don't think you need to do all that to create a convention.
If the leaders of the four parliamentary parties sat in a room, after getting advice and drafts from their various helpers, and came out of the room and said, “After meeting, we now agree,” just as the prime ministers of the countries of the Commonwealth, that's all you need. It's not fancy and fussy and difficult.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I suggest that one is total agreement and cooperation in that level of agreement, but the other can be done through simple majority. The creating of new standing orders or the creating of legislation that goes with it can actually be done with one, or two, or three parties kicking and screaming.
Are you suggesting that, if that were done, that would not be creating a legitimate--
Prof. Peter Russell
I don't think it creates as solid a foundation for going forward as an agreement of all the parties, and it leaves before us the possibility of a crisis. Most Canadians do not want another crisis of this kind.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I agree, sir. That's why I'm trying to get at what a convention truly is, and how we might arrive at one. Thank you.
A one-off question from Mr. Holder?
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Yes, please.
Actually, if you'd humour me, it ties into what Mr. Christopherson said: three brief yes-no answers, that's all.
These are based on what Mr. Mendes said.
I think your question, David, was the right one.
First, sir, yes or no: the Speaker has the power to advise the Governor General.
Conservative
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Question two: the Speaker has equal power--this is what he said, “equal power”--to advise the Governor General as the Prime Minister. Yes or no?
Prof. Peter Russell
Oh, no, I don't agree with that. The Prime Minister is the chief constitutional adviser of governments in all the Westminster countries.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
On a point of order, I believe that Mr. Holder may be unwittingly, unintentionally, mischaracterizing the statements and affirmations that Professor Mendes made here.
He did not state that the Speaker--
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Thank you.
I do many things unwittingly, so that's always possible, but I thought that's what I heard. We'll clarify with the blues.
Question three: it's the Governor General's role to respond to the will of the people.
Prof. Peter Russell
The Governor General most certainly makes all her decisions for the well-being and welfare of Canadians, and, on these constitutional matters, as close as she can get to it, to figure out what most Canadians desire in the circumstances.
She is not there to exercise her personal judgment or any kind of ideological view. She's got to look at the country and the situation it's in and try to come up with a decision that's in the best interests of Canadians. She seeks that kind of advice from her advisers.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Lukiwski, you've been kind of pawing at the table there. I'll let you go with a quick one.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you, Professor Russell. I agree with my colleague Marlene that it's been....
It happens the odd time, Marlene. Don't have a heart attack.
One time I actually agreed with Yvon Godin twice in one meeting. I thought he was going to faint.
It's been very instructive, and more than that; what David said about your being a good teacher, I concur. It's always been my contention that a good teacher is about more than just imparting dry, factual information; it's the presentation skills that come along with it. You are far better, sir, than many we have seen at this committee.
My question to you is along the line of constitutionality versus democratic will. You've just referred to the fact that the Governor General is really responsive to the wishes of Canadians. It really comes down to a situation we had two years ago, when a prorogation took place. That's when there was an opportunity for the three opposition parties to present their case to the Governor General requesting that they be given the opportunity to form a coalition government. The prorogation took place shortly thereafter.
I have no argument with the fact that from a constitutional standpoint, that could occur, quite correct. But how would you, sir--this is more of a political debate argument, and I understand that--interpret it if the following hypothetical scenario took place? Let's say there was a coalition agreement among three opposition parties shortly after a federal election--I'm talking within weeks or months--but it was demonstrated empirically that the majority of Canadians, over 50%, did not want that coalition government to govern.
From a constitutional standpoint, it was certainly within the constitutional purview for a coalition government to govern. But the Governor General also was aware that the majority of Canadians wanted no part of that.
Conservative
Liberal
Martha Hall Findlay Liberal Willowdale, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I just want to say that I don't know that there is any way that anyone could say there was an empirical--
Conservative
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Let me rephrase: rather than empirical, what if--