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 perhaps two dozen. Of these I was able to group them into seven categories. Overall, there does not appear to be a best approach or a consensus on the best approach to restrict prorogation, or whether or not to even do so. There is, of course, as I noted, some similarity, some agreement, and some overlap between the suggestions, and these were grouped together into seven categories in the paper.
I guess the best way to proceed is to begin. Again, these categories are in no particular order, nor are the suggestions within the categories in any particular order.
To begin with, a suggestion was made to amend the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Mr. Walsh reminded the committee that the Standing Orders regulate the proceedings of the House, and that prorogation is not a proceeding of the House. As such, a standing order could not be put in place that would prevent a prorogation from occurring.
He, along with other witnesses, did note, though, that a disincentive could be built in post-prorogation, if it were the will of the committee to suggest that.
A number of witnesses--