Evidence of meeting #17 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was ontario.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Daniel Blaikie NDP Elmwood—Transcona, MB
We have two minutes, so perhaps we could start with Professor Messamore on that point, and others can jump in as they see fit.
12:50 p.m.
Professor, History Department, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual
I agree that there are other Westminster system jurisdictions that have looked at ways to put in place some sort of rules. I think it's also important to understand that, when we start looking at reasons, this is always going to be politicized. The report that some found unsatisfactory because it failed to address some of the things...this is one of the things that when we attempt to make things more transparent often it really doesn't have that effect. This is the question of the prerogative of the Crown. There's some debate about whether or not prorogation, while we know it's a prerogative power, is a reserve power. I think most people agree that it is, in other words, that the representative of the Crown does have some leeway in refusing in extreme circumstances a request or perhaps not refusing the prorogation but insisting on a shorter period of time. That's one consideration, too, that prerogative of the Crown.
I think since time is so short I shouldn't take all the time.
12:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Mr. Blaikie, I would add that it is essential to come up with a solution, which may be unconstitutional, because amending the Constitution of Canada is complex.
However, I believe that every responsible member of this Parliament should undertake an initiative to restrict this power, the prerogative that has been abused. In addition, your committee should conduct a comparative research study of solutions adopted elsewhere to see what is needed. The Prime Minister, who already has so much power in this country, really needs to be restricted in how he exercises that power.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Professor Turp.
Next we have Mrs. Vecchio, for five minutes.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thanks very much, Chair.
We've commented a lot about WE, and the fact that these committees were sitting, but I also want to indicate there was a lot of other great work done in other committees. I happened to be the chair of the status of women committee at the time, and we were studying the impact of COVID-19 on women. We talked a lot about racism. In the committee on public safety, members were talking about policing and racism. There are so many committees. We talked about the four, but we should recognize that all committees were doing great work. It seemed the public did catch on to the WE scandal, because this was something that was impacting Parliament.
We talk about all the work that was stopped. We have come back to Parliament having to rush pieces of legislation through. This time frame was changed by the government, so it could adjust whatever policies it may have had, although I've seen similar bills tabled each and every day.
I want to start off with a question for Dr. Brock. You said:
As a political scientist, I’m fascinated by the strategy. I have to concede I would probably advise them to do what they’re doing.
Your choice of the word “strategy” is very interesting. Could you elaborate on the choice of that word?
12:55 p.m.
Prof. Kathy Brock
Sure, and just to preface my remarks, I've advised four of the parties that are currently in the House of Commons now at different levels of government, so I am non-partisan on this.
Quite frankly, in 2008-09 or 2020, if I had been a strategist or an adviser to those governments, I would have suggested prorogation.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Is that because of the need to set a reset, or is that basically the strategy, seeing the temperature of where we were in Parliament in August?
12:55 p.m.
Prof. Kathy Brock
Two reasons.
First, yes, to reset, but also to emphasize what the government priorities are in a changed circumstance, or if it's getting lost in a political debate that is starting to go ahead....
Second, if you look at 2020, this was a government that was tired. This was a government that was under a lot of pressure. This is when a government makes very serious mistakes, and they are exposed to the public as failures of government, malfeasance or misdemeanours of some type, when in fact they're due to errors of exhaustion.
This gave the government and the public sector time to regain their energy.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Their strength. Thank you.
Those are some concerns I had, because we had only been sitting for 37 days in the first session of the 43rd Parliament.
Innovation around the new session of Parliament was addressed by the Prime Minister on national television on the evening of the throne speech. Dr. Lagassé, you're a connoisseur of Westminster traditions. What was your take on the Prime Minister's televised address?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
To be quite frank, I wasn't much of a fan, but not so much for the content, I should stress. To my mind, it was something that was very similar to the Speech from the Throne, and I would have preferred a different type of procedure and path, namely, emulating what we see in the National Assembly of Québec, whereby you would have the Governor General open the session, but have the Prime Minister read the government's agenda, which would avoid the need to repeat both.
More fundamentally, it's the question of this being a presidentialization of the office, which I believe is to be avoided. That is the purpose of the Speech from the Throne, as it exists. Having the Prime Minister speak directly to the nation, as opposed to in the proceedings of Parliament, is not something I would encourage.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Professor Turp, the House was scheduled to begin its regular autumn sitting on September 21. Is there anything that would have prevented Parliament from being prorogued on September 20, or even on the morning of September 21, to redo this? Was there any reason that we needed to prorogue for six weeks, and not have committees sitting or doing work in Parliament?
1 p.m.
Associate Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
My answer is no, and I've made my reasons clear in my opening statement.
The reality is that there is no framework for the discretionary powers, and our governors general have never really wanted to exercise them. It is therefore possible to prorogue at any time because it is the Prime Minister's absolute power, a power that has been reviewed by the U.K. Supreme Court.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I only have five seconds left, Mr. Turp.
Do you believe it was an abuse of prerogative or an abuse of power?
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's an effective use of your time, Ms. Vecchio, for sure. Thank you so much.
Next, we welcome Peter Fragiskatos.
Thank you for being here. You have five minutes.
December 10th, 2020 / 1 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
It's great to join colleagues and hear interesting discussion on prorogation. I'm sitting in today for our colleague, Mark Gerretsen.
I want to begin with Professor Messamore. Professor, you said—and I wrote down the quote from the testimony—that a strong case could be made that the pandemic made the decision to prorogue entirely justifiable.
I wonder if you could expand on that.
1 p.m.
Professor, History Department, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual
I wanted to make a clear statement on it. I think that my point really is that prorogation is not in and of itself a problematic procedure. It's a regular procedure. I think the Speech from the Throne is meant to set out an agenda for the government. When that agenda is overtaken by other events, I think it's necessary to begin a new session with a new Speech from the Throne.
That was essentially my point.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
The onset of a pandemic would be a shock to the system, so to speak—to the economic system and the political system that hadn't dealt with something like this in over 100 years.
Just so I'm crystal clear, you're saying that because of that monumental event, the decision to press the reset button was not completely unwarranted. Is that a fair interpretation?
1 p.m.
Professor, History Department, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual
Yes, it is.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Thank you very much.
There was a question, Madam Chair, I believe it was our colleague from the Bloc, about the period of the most recent prorogation and they had concerns about that. A CBC report makes clear that the average prorogation period since 1867 in Canada is 151 days. I would note for the committee that the most recent prorogation lasted from August 18 to September 23. I just bring that to colleagues' attention. I'm only an associate member of the committee, but I think that point is an important one to consider because without context, without historical reflection, we're missing an important aspect of the debate and discussion here. Again, the average prorogation period since 1867 is 151 days. I leave that to the committee to consider.
Another point was raised by Mr. Lagassé. Professor, you said that it depends on the eye of the beholder. In other words, one's position on prorogation is a matter of perspective. On the most recent prorogation, whether it was warranted or unwarranted, is really a matter, not of objectivity per se, but one of pure perspective.
Mr. Turp, it would be very easy for me to put to the committee that you served as a Bloc MP from 1997 to 2000, but I'll leave that aside. I respect you and see you as a constitutional legal scholar, so I won't ask you about your previous work as a Bloc MP and as a member of the Parti Québécois shortly thereafter.
Are you aware of the work that was taken up by the committee on finance and the committee on ethics post-prorogation, or in other words, when Parliament reconvened in the latter part of September?
1:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
No, I must admit I'm not aware. I am aware that some work has been done and the committees could have, to some extent, looked into the WE Charity issue.
Let me just read something to all of you. I'll read it in English because it's in English. It's the decision of the House, of the Supreme Court of the—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
1:05 p.m.
Associate Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
I think it's so important that all of you listen to this. It's paragraph 55. This is the judges who are speaking. They say, “Let us remind ourselves of the foundations of our constitution. We live in a representative democracy. The House of Commons exists because the people have elected its members. The Government is not directly elected by the people”—
1:05 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Professor, I'm sorry to interrupt, but I need to also make clear—