Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 4th, 2010

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Very quickly, I believe you gave us basically four options that we might want to consider or that you thought might be viable. One of them was to do nothing. Three contentious prorogations in a number of years...and to rephrase what you said, there are a heck of a lot more important issues that we should be dealing with. Thank you for that.

The other point you made is that the only time prorogation is an issue is in minority Parliaments.

It was interesting when you said that if you were to list the top 20 issues, prorogation might not be in the top 40, but certainly not in the top 20. A lot was made of the fact that 140,000 people, I believe, went on Facebook and declared that they were against prorogation. Many of them, we've come to find out, don't know how to spell prorogation and don't understand what prorogation means, as per what you said. Yet still, during all of this, we have 33 million Canadians undergoing a recession. You mentioned the good sense of the electorate. If we were doing something so terribly wrong in the country, I would think the electorate would look after that.

What are the positives about just leaving it the way it is? Here we are, spending all this time and effort, for what? Maybe you could just give us some information on that.

[Dr. Ned Franks]

I am a retired professor, but I spent a lot of my career getting students to think that simple questions were difficult and difficult questions were simple.

On the prorogation one, I think that Parliament has served as a very good professor for the country because you've shown the country that this relatively simple thing of ending a session can be very complicated and has to be thought about.

I think what you're doing here and what's happened in the past is extremely useful. Whatever else comes out of it, we'll have a better educated press and electorate.

[Guy Lauzon, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

Certainly we don't need a sledgehammer to kill this mosquito.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lauzon.

I'll go to Mr. Christopherson and then back to you, Mr. Reid. Let's go quickly so that we can get it in.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I'm trying to clarify a matter and I don't even know where to go to get it straightened out. I'm referring to the letter signed by the opposition parties that was meant to convey to the Governor General that should she decline the advice of the Prime Minister, she would find there was an alternative majority in waiting. The question is, did that letter get in front of the Governor General?

Based on the fact that only the Prime Minister can offer formal advice, some of us have been informed that the letter never really got there, even though it's in the media and it's out there; technically, and for legal purposes, it was never in front of the Governor General.

Can you clarify that one and the circumstances around that sort of thing, and how Parliament, if it's a minority, can convey a majority opinion to the Governor General, should it be different from the advice being received from the Prime Minister?

[Dr. Ned Franks]

At the time, the Governor General was in Africa on a state visit, I believe. I doubt that the letter, as a physical entity, was conveyed to her; I have no doubt that the contents were. I have absolutely no doubt, none whatsoever, that at the time the Governor General made her decision in 2008, she was fully aware of the contents of that letter.

I've written about this. Rightly or wrongly, I believe that a main consideration that she took into account--and I say “I believe” because I don't know--was the viability of the coalition expressed there. It was quite different in Ontario in 1985, because there was very little doubt that the two opposition parties would support one of them in government for a time. You can remember that there was a very effective argument, though constitutionally not a terribly enlightening one, from the Prime Minister's side that he was elected Prime Minister and that this would be an illegitimate government.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Nonsense.

[Dr. Ned Franks]

Well, we'll just leave it aside there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Mr. Reid, quickly.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

I take your point about Jean Chrétien's prorogation in 2003 in order to avoid an Auditor General's report, but it does raise the question of whether the prorogation was illegitimate. The House was adjourned in order to avoid receipt of the Auditor General's report, so wasn't the adjournment illegitimate to the same extent?

[Dr. Ned Franks]

I had a talk once with that wonderful Swedish sociologist--or whatever you want to call him--Gunnar Myrdal. I used the expression “illegitimate”, and he said, “You should never call a child illegitimate, because no child is illegitimate. Illegitimacy is in the eye of the beholder.”

I have not checked on the records, but I'm pretty certain that there was a motion of the House to adjourn and that it passed.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

It was a majority government. The Prime Minister could get whatever he wanted. This is a fundamental problem, I think. I'm not critiquing you; it's just an observation that all this talk about the abuse of prime ministerial powers is always in the context of minority governments. Once you get a majority government, we're back to the Prime Minister's word being fiat.

[Dr. Ned Franks]

In terms of parliamentary government, I would say that a decision by a majority of the House on an issue--and that majority has been as many as seven members on some occasions--is constitutionally both a legitimate and a legal answer. I might not like it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you all. We've had another great committee meeting.

Professor Franks, thank you for your help today. Please watch what we do here and see if you can add in any way in the future too. We'd be happy to hear from you if you see our work going astray even. Thank you for what you've been able to do.

[Dr. Ned Franks]

I'd be more than happy to help you. Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.