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.
1:20 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, I'm aware of prorogation.
I would point out, though, I think an interesting facet. A number of people have raised the number of days in Canadian prorogations. We should also look to the United Kingdom, where they are oftentimes about a week long. We should do a comparative Westminster perspective as well.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thanks.
On that point, were you aware, Mr. Lagassé, that prorogation delayed the restart of Parliament by only two days?
1:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes, I was, but I would point out as well, though, that the number of sitting days that Parliament lost overall was cause for concern. Just the general propensity in the pandemic of the inability of Parliament to sit as often as it might want to was an issue.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Were you aware of this committee, PROC, doing the hard work of trying to figure out how to operate virtually and have the House of Commons actually sit throughout the pandemic? Did you know that we had to fight hard with opposition parties for changes to the Standing Orders to actually co-operate to allow us to operate virtually?
1:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Yes. I was following quite closely. My concern, though, is that—
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you for that.
What about voting virtually? Were you aware that voting is such a key aspect of our parliamentary proceedings? Were you aware that we had to fight tooth and nail and debate at length to get opposition parties to agree to allow us to vote by video?
[Technical difficulty—Editor]
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We weren't able to get your answer, but it will have to be a short one.
1:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
Because they were seeking in-person sessions, I believe.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That is all the time we have.
We will carry on with Mr. Lukiwski, please, for five minutes.
December 10th, 2020 / 1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you very much, and thank you all to our witnesses for being here.
I want to go back to a question that Professor Turp answered earlier. The same question will be posed to all of our witnesses.
When Ms. Vecchio asked Mr. Turp, given this particular circumstance of prorogation—not in the normal sense but in this particular situation where the government prorogued, and whether in Professor Turp's opinion, they did so for political or tactical reasons—he considered it to be an abuse of power.
I would ask Professor Lagassé, Ms. Brock and Ms. Messamore the same question. Given the particular circumstances of this government proroguing, which effectively shut down committee work for over a month, and the necessity of prorogation being questioned by all of our witnesses, would you consider this to be an abuse of power?
Professor Lagassé, I'll go with you first.
1:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I would say that it was regrettable, but not necessarily abusive.
1:25 p.m.
Prof. Kathy Brock
Problematic, but not abusive.
1:25 p.m.
Professor, History Department, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual
I would again say, no, that it's not an abuse of power. I think the Crown is there to protect, in a true case of abuse of power, as a kind of constitutional fire extinguisher, and I don't think, given the circumstances, that it fit that criteria, despite what we've all agreed are regrettable circumstances.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
Thank you.
I'd like to go back, then, to the discussion we had about the necessity of this prorogation. Despite the fact that the government has submitted a report, which I find lacking in detail and rationale, I would like to ask the four of you again whether you think this particular prorogation, given all that has happened since, was absolutely necessary, in your opinion.
I will start with Professor Turp.
1:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Université de Montréal, As an Individual
Anyone who claims that it is abusive logically also thinks that it was not necessary. I respect my colleagues' points of view, but I believe that it was both abusive and unnecessary.
I would be curious to find out the public opinion in Canada and whether people found prorogation to be abusive, both this time and under previous governments. I think Conservative governments abused this prerogative in 2008 and 2009.
1:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, International Affairs, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
No, I don't believe it was absolutely necessary—not in terms of the procedure itself, nor in terms of the length.
1:30 p.m.
Prof. Kathy Brock
No, it was not absolutely necessary, but ultimately that is the call of the Prime Minister.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
It most certainly is, and let me make a comment on that. That's why I asked the question previously about whether, in your opinion, you consider this to be an abuse of power. Certainly it is within the Prime Minister's prerogative to prorogue whenever he feels he should for either political reasons or other reasons of an emergency nature. However, given that the Prime Minister exercised his prerogative to prorogue on the eve of several committees receiving information that could have further implicated the government in the WE scandal, I find the timing of the prorogation was curious, to say the least.
Dr. Messamore, do you think the prorogation in this specific instance was necessary?
1:30 p.m.
Professor, History Department, University of the Fraser Valley, As an Individual
Again, if it is to be understood, as I think it should be, as a routine procedure to set out a government agenda, then I would say it was necessary in that sense, in the light of changed events.
I have one minor point. I don't think the term “Prime Minister's prerogative” is accurate here. It is the prerogative of the Crown, exercised on the advice of the Prime Minister. That is a minor but important point.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
You're quite right. I apologize for that.
I know we're running over time right now and we have question period coming up, so I'll conclude my questions.
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you. I wanted you to get your round in. We did have a bit of a technical difficulty there.
That brings us to the conclusion of today's testimony. I would like to thank all of the witnesses. All four of you have brought great insight to the beginning of our study, so thank you for taking the time to be here. We know you are all very busy.
With that, I will adjourn for today, and we will see you all back after the winter break when the session resumes. Happy holidays.