Evidence of meeting #13 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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Christopher White  As an Individual
Daniel Weinstock  Professor of Philosophy, Université de Montréal

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I call the meeting to order, please.

We have two witnesses today, and we have two hours for our meeting. We're starting a little late and there is another committee right in here at one o'clock, so there is no chance for us to go over today either. I know that because I have to be here for that committee meeting too.

I welcome you all. I welcome our witness.

We're here pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a) and the motion adopted by the committee on Thursday, March 11, 2010, on the study of issues related to prorogation. This is the 13th meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee.

I thank you for all your hard work.

Mr. White, if you'll give me just another minute before I get you to start, I have some news.

Michel, our regular researcher, is not here today. Michel's wife had a baby girl, named Rose, last night--

11:05 a.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

--a sister to her brother Charles. The baby was eight pounds. The baby is already keeping him up late, of course. The real work starts for him now.

We'll wish him well when he comes back, and if I have the permission of the committee, maybe we'll send him a letter, wishing him well and congratulating his wife on all the hard work too.

With that, Mr. White, we're happy to have you here today. I'll give you a chance for an opening statement and then we'll circulate around to the different parties to ask you questions. We'll go as close to noon as we can with you. And we thank you for travelling here and sharing information with us today.

Please, go ahead.

11:05 a.m.

Christopher White As an Individual

It's always a pleasure.

I'll just start with a bit of a brief I've prepared.

On January 23 a curious thing happened. Across the country, thousands of Canadians from all walks of life came together in the name of a routine parliamentary procedure that, up until a year ago, many had never even heard of.

We represented various political circles, unified by our interest to preserve democracy and keep the government responsible. Even if we were encouraged by politicians, we owe our success to our ability to organize ourselves, to debate and discuss on the Internet and in our committees.

Much has been made about the legitimacy of political engagement through social networking. Some have disparaged the 226,000 proud Canadians who signed into the “Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament” Facebook group. They said it was incredibly easy to simply click a “join” button, which is true, although I would add it is no more difficult than marking an X on a ballot, but none here would doubt the importance of the latter.

The low barrier of entry to online political participation is actually one of its strengths. Contacting members of Parliament, demonstrating, and circulating petitions can be intimidating at first. For many, CAPP was their first experience in political involvement and many are now self-professed political junkies. To any politician who pays more than lip service to citizen engagement, they should be encouraged by this and work towards finding ways to bring these tools to their constituents.

We showed that Canadians are very interested in our democracy and the way our Parliament works. We are not against prorogation as such, but we are against the flagrant abuse of power that was displayed in December 2009. It is now the responsibility of the House to find a solution to ensure that this does not happen again.

I recognize that any truly binding regulations would require opening up the Constitution, for which there does not seem to be an appetite. I favour proposals to introduce new conventions through the Standing Orders or legislation. Proposals to date have considered a maximum length for prorogation, when it can be called, and if it should require a vote.

At the foundation of any new convention should be that the House, the body that represents the will of Canadians, be given the power to decide when it does and does not sit. You cannot simply introduce a convention and expect it to stick. A convention, by its nature, is a voluntary practice reinforced through tradition and repeated use. Indeed, much of what guides our government is convention alone, an agreement by its actors to behave civilly and treat one another with respect in the interest of serving Canadians. Perhaps that's why we're in trouble.

The most common objection I've heard to CAPP is “So what? Who needs Parliament anyway?” This must give you cause for reflection, that some see your role as destructive at worse, and irrelevant at best.

Prorogation hit a nerve because it touched upon the greater issue of Parliament, and of democracy, and how the two play out in Canada. Even if you supported the Prime Minister's decision--which I can respect--you owe it to the nearly quarter of a million Canadians to at least acknowledge their concerns. If Parliament does not take its role seriously, then people have every right to become cynical.

We need an opposition focused on the issues, not chasing scandal for the sake of political goal-scoring. We need a government that answers questions directly instead of deflecting or shifting the blame.

All of that being said, I do have reason for hope. The very fact that I sit here before you today is proof that the government is taking this issue seriously. A recent motion brought forward by the member for Wellington—Halton Hills addresses the issue of decorum in the House and hopefully will lead to new conventions on respect in and for the chamber.

Last week's decision from the Speaker called upon all parties to work together, presenting an opportunity to renew your commitment to serving the best interests of Canadians. Prorogation has kicked off what will hopefully translate into greater citizen engagement with the democratic process. You can help to foster this by working together on a solution to protect and strengthen the role of Parliament in the decisions that guide and shape our nation.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Great, thank you. Thank you so much.

Madam Jennings, you're up first today.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Thank you, Chair.

11:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Sorry, I don't mean to interrupt. I think we'll go seven minutes on the first one, and then we can see what we can put in at the end.

Thank you.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Certainly.

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you, Mr. White, for your presentation. And thank you for the work that you did in having the idea to set up the Facebook group, which allowed politicians to understand there were a significant number of Canadians who were concerned about the issue of prorogation.

I appreciated your comment when you stated that even those who support the Prime Minister's decision to request prorogation by the Governor General last December should still take seriously the concerns that have been expressed by not just Canadians who signed up to the CAPP Facebook. And you've talked about how it should be the House of Commons or Parliament that decides when and how it sits. I'm assuming that you're talking about to the exclusion of dissolution of Parliament for an election.

Have you followed the testimonies that we've heard previous to yourself?

11:10 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

I followed a few of them. I remember I caught Professor Mendes last weekend. I believe I also heard the House law clerk, a portion of his as well, yes.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

What we've been presented with--and I'll try to accurately summarize--is we've had some witnesses who have talked about the fact that, yes, Parliament can in fact create parameters for the Prime Minister to exercise his authority to request prorogation of the Governor General. Everyone appears to agree that we cannot affect the Governor General's authority and reserve powers to award prorogation, if I can call it that, or to prorogue the House. Some witnesses have talked about legislation, other witnesses have talked about the Standing Orders and legislation, and other witnesses have put forth the possibility of Standing Orders solely.

In all cases, though, they've talked about how it would be very important, if Parliament does agree to go forth and create parameters, that we be very careful to ensure that it is not so restrictive as to exclude exceptional circumstances where any reasonable person, any reasonable politician, regardless of their political stripe, would agree that there should be prorogation if there is just cause to request it. And secondly, Parliament or the House may wish to look at describing incentives for the Prime Minister to follow or not, but should he not follow them, there would be possible consequences once a new session began.

I'd like to know if you have any thoughts on that.

11:15 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

Again, I've heard the discussion, it's the Standing Orders, legislation, or both. I think the whole point of it is to try to establish a convention. And as I said in my presentation, you can't simply create a convention and expect it to be a convention. Conventions are created through routine use, that sort of thing. I see introducing Standing Orders like that more as a symbolic demonstration of what Canadians expect from the government. And certainly, yes, I understand there may be points where prorogation may need to be called, and so to not keep the rules too rigid or anything like that.

I haven't put too much thought into the idea of incentives. I remember hearing them talked about. There were disincentives as well, and I know that there was some critique as to that, and I agree. What needs to happen is just this establishment of new conventions, and part of that is this process that's going on in this room right now, the discussion of it, is taking the issue seriously. So even if nothing ends up changing, if there's no legislation introduced or the Standing Orders aren't changed, or anything like that, the last few months have shown that any prime minister who might give the appearance of misusing the power of prorogation will do so at their own risk.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

The other point that I'd like to raise with you is the issue of CAPP itself, because the Facebook group was actually created for Canadians who wished to express their views on the decision of the Prime Minister to request prorogation, and the circumstances that surrounded that, the context. What is CAPP doing now that the House has resumed and normal business of the House is continuing? What, if anything, is CAPP doing?

11:15 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

The thing with the Facebook groups is that once they hit 5,000 members, you actually can't change things around a bit. I was very interested in actually changing the name of the group to reflect the broader mandate.

What was really interesting about the group is that it really did kick off a lot of other discussion and questions about the role of Parliament and government, questions such as the role of the monarchy in Canada, proportional representation, other forms of voting, and that sort of thing. So I was really hoping to change the name of the group to reflect that. Unfortunately, it remains Canadians Against Proroguing Parliament.

I think there are about 217,000 members still. Of those, though, I would say there are probably only a few dozen who remain active, and the issues that are discussed today tend to be things that have come up during that week. For instance, there was a discussion as to the Afghan detainee documents for quite a while, and recent issues such as Mr. Ignatieff's call for the Governor General's term to be extended. Any issue of the day gets brought up and discussed and then eventually fades away. So it remains active. People remain interested in prorogation to see what happens with it.

I've told people on the boards that I'm going to be here and many of them are excited. It's really encouraging to see that, to see that their efforts and their concerns are being addressed. So I thank all the members here today for taking that quite seriously.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Marlene Jennings Liberal Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC

Do you know if any significant number of the people who signed up to CAPP, beyond CAPP itself, have become active in their own communities on issues that one might deem to be political?

11:15 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

Absolutely, and I'm sure I'll get some questions as to the legitimacy of CAPP, but what's really interesting is that because of the rallies, these chapters basically sprung up in different communities, and I'm happy to say that many of them do remain quite active.

I know in Toronto they have regular democracy cafés. A couple of weeks ago they had Professor Russell address them. I know in Vancouver they've actually helped to sponsor the tour that Andrew Coyne is currently embarking on, so that's quite exciting.

Again, the fact that they are hearing from a variety of voices on many different topics and issues I think is what's really going to be the lasting effect in this, the fact that it has been the gateway for a lot of people to get involved politically. So it's been quite encouraging.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

There are eight seconds left. You timed it just perfect today.

Mr. Reid, you're up next.

11:15 a.m.

Conservative

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

First of all, welcome. We're very glad to have you here.

This is not really relevant to our proceedings, but you look exactly like a friend of mine called Brad Conlin.

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

I get that a lot, actually. I look like Brad, yes.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

I'll pass that on to him.

I wanted to ask some questions about the development of CAPP. The first thing that strikes me when I read about the very large number of people who joined CAPP is I look at that and I think this happened starting in January this year. I think it was January 3 or something like that.

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

It was actually December 30, the day—

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

The very same day, okay.

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

Yes, it was the same day it happened. I believe by January 3 our numbers were at 11,000, on January 7 we were at 100,000, and on January 14 it was 200,000. That puts it into perspective there.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

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

The obvious thought that occurs to me is this didn't happen the year before, so there are three possible explanations I can imagine. I'm just wondering which sounds the most plausible to you.

One is that what was needed was a dynamic individual like yourself, and that person wasn't there for the prorogation that took place in 2008. The second one is that there's a difference in quality between the two prorogations. The third one is the social medium itself just changed or there were more people involved and therefore there was a greater ability to go viral in 2009 versus 2008, the end of 2007 and 2008.

I'm just wondering if one of those explains why the difference between the two years.

11:20 a.m.

As an Individual

Christopher White

I can talk personally and that will give you some perspective on it. Again, I'm politically aware. I follow politics and read the news and everything like that. So back in 2008 I was aware when Mr. Harper had asked to prorogue in face of the coalition attempt. Honestly, at that point, in regard to all the actors in that situation, I wasn't very impressed with what was going on, so I didn't choose to get involved. That was when I was not apathetic, but very much more cynical than I am today.

That's why I personally didn't get involved then, but I do think it was actually what happened in 2008, because it was one year right after the other again. I think a lot of people grumbled about it in 2008, but they also grumbled about the idea of the coalition, so they balanced each other off, if you want to look at it that way.

In 2009, to see it happen again without that other opposite end of things, personally that's why I decided to get involved. Again, I read it, I was frustrated. It was actually Andrew Coyne who came up with the idea. I read it on his blog in Maclean's. I thought that would be a great idea. And for whatever reason, it grew from there.

Personally, my involvement with it and the way I've been able to articulate and not be a quack about it is because I'm not particularly partisan.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

I'm in that group.