Evidence of meeting #26 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 convention.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just wanted to raise the issue of Mr. Heard's suggestion, in the last paragraph, where the notes say that he stated that “a variety of procedural and legal tools could be put to work, either alone or in conjunction”.
Weren't there other presenters who made the same argument that there isn't one fell swoop that's going to do it, and that we ought to be looking at perhaps a number of measures like changing the Standing Orders, having a piece of legislation, and doing combinations of things?
Committee Researcher
He wanted to bring forward the idea of obtaining the majority consensus prior to a prorogation occurring. That was just for that particular measure. Yes, there were witnesses, including Mr. Mendes, who thought there should be a standing order amendment and a piece of legislation. Mr. Franks actually weighed a number of different legislative avenues out loud as he went along. He thought some of them were okay and some were less okay.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
I just think it's important to underscore the fact that we don't necessarily have to find the one perfect tool that will work. There were a number of people who suggested you may need a number of these working in concert to achieve the goal, especially if you're going to avoid the process of a constitutional amendment.
Thank you.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
This is an edification question. Historically, has the Speaker ever been consulted to give the Governor General advice on prorogation or not?
Committee Researcher
Mr. Mendes had noted that, in his view, there was an unwritten practice whereby--when prompted, I believe he noted this--the Speaker does, at the beginning of a session, bring something to the Governor General...?
Michel Bédard Committee Researcher
At the beginning of every session, there is a claim from the Speaker to the Governor General so that parliamentary privileges are granted to the members of the elected chamber of the House of Commons, but this is a practice. The privileges of the members in the House of Commons are already in the Constitution.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
But for him to approach the Governor General and advise the Governor General that the majority of the House does not want prorogation has never historically occurred, has it?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I don't think we have a way of knowing that--there were certainly experts here--because, of course, it's not open advice to the Governor General.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
We do know it hasn't happened here or anywhere else.
The term “advice”, if this becomes the basis of a report, should be adjusted here. The term “advice” in the normal sense is not what we're talking about here; “advice” in the constitutional sense.
We maintain the fiction that the Governor General, or in Britain the Queen, is the absolute monarch and dictator of the country, but receives advice from a variety of ministers. The reality is that when we say “advice”, we mean “instructions”: you will do the following, or I'm telling you to prorogue the House, or I'm telling you to appoint this person to the Senate, etc.
That kind of advice is only given by the Prime Minister. It's the most fundamental of our conventions, dating back to the early 1700s. Before then the King used to have multiple advisers and would call upon one to deal with this issue and one to deal with that issue. But the convention is that one person--who is known as the Prime Minister, and that's in itself a conventional term--offers all the advice and is the only one who actually advises the monarch.
And refusal to accept advice, any advice, effectively means that the Prime Minister has been fired. So if the Prime Minister says, “I advise you to prorogue” and the Governor General says “No”, what the Governor General has also said is, “And you're fired. You're not my Prime Minister anymore”.
So when we say “advice”, I think we should say “advice in the conventional sense”, or find some way of wording it so that it's clear that's what's meant.
The other kind of advice, what we mean when we think of advice in the normal sense, is what's referred to here as “informal advice” and that is so the Governor General has at his or her disposal, at the time, a variety of people. And we don't know who they all are, but we do know that at different times Professor Hogg and Professor Monahan have been used, and others. They actually provide advice in the sense of, “Here's what I think about whether or not you should accept the recommendation of the Prime Minister, understanding that if you do accept it, this happens, and if you don't accept it, you're effectively dismissing the Prime Minister”, and so on.
So there are two clear concepts for which one word has been used, unfortunately.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
And I think the word would have been nicer if it had been “recommendation”.
But my second question is, when Mr. Cyr proposed an option he dubbed as a “suspensive condition censorship measure”, what sort of questions did the committee ask him?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
What was the French term? That's what he actually used. I don't think it's a good translation.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
We have French versions of this.
Does anybody have it?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Right. So it's not “censorship”, it's “censuring”, with a “u”.
Liberal
Yasmin Ratansi Liberal Don Valley East, ON
Okay, thank you. It makes a lot of sense. He made it in his opening statement.
You know, people can come here--politicians make statements--but I think professors make lots of statements, and they come and throw in quite a lot of “oddballs” at us. What are we supposed to do with them? Take them and juggle? So there is some very oddball stuff that they have offered us.
At any rate, that's my two cents' worth.
Conservative