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.
11:45 a.m.
Prof. Errol Mendes
You were perfectly accurate in everything you said.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
Going back to the Speaker, we were....
Pardon me?
11:45 a.m.
An hon. member
Even though the throne speech...[Inaudible--Editor].
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That was good: you asked me that question, David. That's a lot better.
11:45 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you very much, Chair. I appreciate that.
I just want to go back to something. You were asking about the proactive and reactive, and you were asking for a scenario.
I haven't thought this all the way through, but it is a most recent example. The Prime Minister didn't even have the courtesy to go to see the GG. He placed a phone call. I'm surprised that he didn't just send her a quick e-mail and then suspend Parliament.
In that case, I don't think there was any real notice. I stand to be corrected if House leaders knew or if party leaders were given the courtesy, but as a member of Parliament, I learned about it through the media. It was already a done deal.
I'm just asking how we would then trigger the right of Parliament to have our Speaker go and give the majority point of view to the GG, in addition to the point of view of the Prime Minister, if we're already in regular recess, over, say, the Christmas period. How do we do that?
11:50 a.m.
Prof. Errol Mendes
First, once you've done your standing orders and the supporting legislation, they can be transmitted in advance, before anything happens. In addition, in the situation you mentioned, I think there was almost a week's discussion--by the chattering classes, I admit--that prorogation was imminent. But certainly you can actually combine that by sending the standing orders you've already done plus the legislation so that there is advance notice.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Fair enough. I made note that you can build those in--i.e., fire off the information for the GG to be aware of, keep it on file if it turns up there. I get that. What I don't quite understand, though, is let's say there are particular aspects to this particular situation. We can make up any kind of scenario. Let's assume there are pieces of information that are above and beyond what was given in the prior notice that are specific to this prorogation.
How then would the members of Parliament, through the Speaker, activate the Speaker going to give the GG...? Does he or she have the right to do it on their own accord, or do they need that motion? In which case, I'm back to my original question: how do we get the motion if the House isn't sitting when the prorogation takes place?
11:50 a.m.
Prof. Errol Mendes
That's where the possibility of not having the system be effective could work out. I think the most you can hope for, if this system is put in place, is that the Governor General will have enough knowledge about the rights and privileges of the elected members that he or she will be able to exercise the reserve powers in a way that preserves the rights and privileges of the House of Commons.
It's not going to be totally guaranteed, but given the fact that the Governor General will have sufficient information about what the will of the House is, I hope that will be sufficient. Keep in mind also that the other sanction is the political cost. If you look at some of the most important conventional rules, it's the political cost that has kept the conventional rule binding, in terms of the disallowance power, for over a century. It was only the political cost.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Do I have more time? Okay.
The rule of thumb that I was advised that people use is that if it is within the first three to six months, the GG almost has a responsibility to seek if there's another majority, rather than plunge the country into an election. Between six and nine months, it's kind of questionable. After nine months, it's probably enough time that the GG would likely say she can't go from the results of the last election, there is too much water under the bridge, and she's going to call for a new election.
Do you agree with those kinds of thumbnails?
11:50 a.m.
Prof. Errol Mendes
I completely agree. I think the nine-month period is probably the cut-off point.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Had there been a throne speech adopted in the first month, and then three months later there was a reason for a motion of non-confidence to be put, whatever that might be, and it was carried, does that then go to the GG? Are we then in a situation when she either has to find a new Prime Minister to continue the government or call an election?
11:50 a.m.
Prof. Errol Mendes
Let me answer your question in a roundabout way. I think it's important to lay a bigger framework than just to have potential questions that divide parties.
Canada is probably facing many minority governments. Given the structure of the parties in power right now, we could be facing minority governments for the next 10 to 20 years. If we don't have consensus on whether or not you can form coalitions based on simple majorities, then this country is in trouble.
Therefore, all parties need to have a consensus on what could happen when there's just a one-member majority. In that case, the failure to do that could be catastrophic for this country, I think. Therefore, it's in the interest of all parties to come up with those types of limitations. Ultimately all parties could benefit from those types of rules.
11:50 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
The Conservatives will see it a lot clearer when they're on the opposition benches.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's amazing that our longest round of questioning went well after we said we're going to go really short now.
One-off questions, if we can, please. We have a little bit of time left.
Madam Jennings, if you'd like, and then I have Mr. Reid. Then we'll see if there's time for anyone else after that.
Go ahead.
11:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC
I want to come back to this issue: under responsible government, under our constitutional parliamentary democracy, the government governs as long as it enjoys the confidence of the House. I believe yesterday that Prime Minister Harper himself stated exactly that.
So when a throne speech, for instance, is adopted, it means that government enjoys the confidence of the House. It could be that on the next day, 10 days, or 10 months later, there are other confidence votes, some of which are deemed by the Prime Minister to be confidence, and he could do that virtually every time there's a vote; others are deemed to be confidence by conventional rule. It means then that the House again expresses its confidence or lack thereof in the government. If the House expresses a lack of confidence in the government, then we are in a situation where ultimately the Governor General with her unfettered authority could dissolve government on the advice of the Prime Minister or not.
I just want to make sure that my understanding of our constitution and our constitutional parliamentary democracy does in fact work in the way I've just described it. I don't want to invite the scorn of my colleague Dave. I want him to know that I do understand it.
11:55 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
11:55 a.m.
Prof. Errol Mendes
Absolutely.
I don't think there is any disagreement from what I've heard from both Madam Jennings and Mr. Christopherson, but it is very important to understand that even where you have a throne speech where, following the throne speech, because of a poison pill put in by the government it is unacceptable for the opposition to take that poison pill—I think everyone knows what I'm talking about—it is absolutely within the constitutional authority of the parties that want to form a coalition and become the government to go to the Governor General and say that they have the ability to form a government. And anybody who says that is a form of coup, a form of irresponsible government, is not understanding the foundations of our democracy.