Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Jan. 28th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Seeing that it's 11 o'clock, I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 20 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Today's meeting is taking place in a hybrid format, pursuant to the House order of January 25, 2021. Therefore, members are attending in person in the room and remotely using the Zoom application. The proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. Please be aware the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.

Today's meeting is also taking place in the new webinar format. Webinars are for public committee meetings and are available only to members, their staff and witnesses. Members may have remarked that the entry to the meeting was much quicker and that they immediately entered as an active participant. All functionalities for active participants remain the same. Staff will be non-active participants only and can therefore only view the meeting in gallery view. I'd like to take this opportunity to remind all the participants of this meeting that screenshots or taking photos of your screen is not permitted.

Given the ongoing pandemic situation and in light of the recommendations from health authorities to remain healthy and safe, all those attending the meeting in person are to maintain a two-metre physical distance and must wear a non-medical mask while circulating in the room. It is highly recommended that the mask be worn at all times, including when seated. You must maintain proper hand hygiene by using the hand sanitizer provided at the entrance of the room. I will be enforcing these measures for the duration of the meeting. I thank the members in advance for their co-operation.

For those participating virtually, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow.

Members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of “floor”, “English” or “French”. With the latest Zoom version, you may now speak in the language of your choice without the need to select the corresponding language channel.

You will also notice that the platform's “raise hand” feature is now more easily accessed at the bottom of your screen in the toolbar.

For members participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in the committee room. Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. If you are on the video conference please click on your microphone icon to unmute yourself.

I think you guys know the rest of it. There's not really anyone in the room today, so we'll move on and I'll introduce the witnesses that we have for today.

We have three witnesses. We have Professor Ian Brodie, associate professor of political science at the University of Calgary. We have Lori Turnbull, associate professor and director of the school of public administration at Dalhousie University. We also have Professor Hugo Cyr, department of legal science, Université du Québec à Montréal.

We will start with Professor Brodie.

Professor Brodie does have a hard cut-off at 11:20. Seeing as it is 11:03, I was wondering if the committee would like to hear his opening remarks. If there are any specific questions to Professor Brodie, we can have those questions first and then we'll get into our regular rounds of questions with the other two witnesses.

What do you think about that? Would you like to hear from all three witnesses and then start formal rounds?

[Karen Vecchio, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Chair, speaking on behalf of the CPC, we would love to hear from Dr. Brodie and be able to focus on that, and then we'll go on to part two, if that's okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is that okay with the other witnesses as well? You'll be here for the full time.

Perfect.

Professor Brodie, please go ahead with your introductory remarks for five minutes.

[Dr. Ian Brodie, Associate Professor, Political Science, University of Calgary, As an Individual]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you for inviting me to testify today and for accommodating my schedule.

Let me get directly to the issues that I think will be of most help to this committee.

On the issue of prorogation, I think the authority to request a prorogation is clear. For centuries, Parliament has met at the call of the sovereign, and since the development of the principles of responsible government in the 1800s, the decision to prorogue has been made solely by the Prime Minister. The Governor General prorogues but does so solely on the advice of the Prime Minister. Therefore, questions regarding prorogation are rightly answered by the prime minister as the decision-maker.

The purpose of prorogation, until 2008, was considered a routine matter. Prime ministers typically prorogued Parliament every year or two. Prorogation obviously clears Parliament's legislative agenda and gives the government an opportunity to present a throne speech.

However, there is no constitutional need for prorogation—of course, during the 42nd Parliament, Mr. Trudeau's government refreshed its agenda several times without proroguing over the four years—nor is prorogation required for the House to be able to demonstrate its confidence in the government of the day. The House holds regular votes on matters of confidence. As members of this committee certainly know, the business of supply and the business of ways and means ensure confidence votes are scheduled every few weeks when the House of Commons is sitting.

Prorogation, instead, is a strictly political act that's done strictly for political reasons.

On the essential elements of prorogation, while the Prime Minister may prorogue Parliament and then recall it days or even months later, leaving a gap between prorogation and the recall of Parliament is not advisable. Once Parliament is prorogued, if there's a sudden need for urgent legislation, then the formalities around a new session of Parliament delay the consideration of that urgent legislation.

It's better, if possible, to prorogue the day before the recall of Parliament, and prime ministers often do this by giving advance notice of their intention to prorogue.

I believe the committee has heard about the prorogation of December 4, 2008. As mentioned, prorogation was a routine matter until that prorogation. The prorogation of December 2008 was turned into a matter of partisan division, and that division gave rise to the reform of Standing Order 32(7) in the 42nd Parliament.

I think the report that has been laid before this committee perpetuates an effort to politicize that prorogation when it falsely claims that the government of the day prorogued to avoid a confidence vote that could potentially have caused its fall. Twelve years have passed since the events of 2008, enough time to allow for a more sober, non-partisan evaluation of those events. I've offered such an account in my book, At the Centre of Government, and I'm going to draw on my remarks in that book for my remarks today.

Committee members will recall that the federal election of 2008 delivered a disappointing result for all three opposition parties: The Liberals under Mr. Dion lost 18 of their seats in the House, the NDP failed to reach the 20% of the popular vote that they had long sought and the Bloc in that election was unable to eliminate the beachhead that the Conservatives had established in Quebec in the previous general election. Mr. Dion announced he would resign as Liberal leader, and the other two opposition leaders faced tough internal questions about their futures.

The November 30, 2008, pact announced by Mr. Dion and the other two leaders was depicted as a reaction to the government's economic update and its proposal to phase out the per-vote subsidy for political parties, but it was later reported in the media that the pact had been under discussion weeks before that economic update was delivered.

In retrospect, I think it's now clear that the November 30 pact was a way for weakened party leaders, particularly Mr. Dion, to protect and extend their own leadership positions against internal party challenges. This view was validated by subsequent events. After the prorogation, the Liberal caucus forced Mr. Dion's immediate resignation. When the House returned a few weeks later, the Liberals, then led by Mr. Ignatieff, voted to keep Mr. Harper's government in office when it presented its budget.

The crisis of 2008, then, was the breakdown of good governance inside the Liberal caucus. The controversy about the 2008 prorogation was an effort to distract attention from that crisis.

Let me compare this to the prorogation that's under study by your committee, the prorogation of August 2020. Your study of last August's prorogation is extremely helpful. You are setting a precedent for how reports on future prorogations will be handled, and you're doing so with help from experts. I hope the Prime Minister will set a useful precedent and appear before you to answer questions about his decision, as it was his decision.

Let me suggest some questions that committee members could helpfully pose to the Prime Minister.

First of all, the August 2020 prorogation came after five months of special orders that had already greatly curtailed all parliamentary proceedings. Parliament had really not had a suitable amount of time for scrutiny, debate or legislation between March of 2020 and the prorogation. Was the Prime Minister worried that in proroguing he would further curtail the legitimate work of the House of Commons and the representatives elected here?

Second, he prorogued Parliament immediately and then recalled it weeks later. If the government had required urgent legislation to respond to the ongoing public health crisis—which it has done several times since March—that urgent legislation would have been delayed. In proroguing, what plans did the Prime Minister have for mitigating the risk of the need for urgent legislation?

Third, the government was already behind schedule in responding to the Truchon decision. Prorogation inevitably put pressure on the House of Commons and the Senate to cut short their debates on the weighty issues in Bill C-7. In short, I would say prorogation showed, in effect if not in intent, a disregard for the legitimate parliamentary debate of a medical assistance in dying bill, and that verges on contempt for Parliament. What would the Prime Minister say about the idea that he showed disregard for a legitimate debate on Bill C-7 by proroguing Parliament?

Fourth, of course thePrime Minister's decision to prorogue ended ongoing committee investigations of what appears to have been a major conflict of interest on the part of the Prime Minister himself and possibly the then finance minister. What steps is the Prime Minister prepared to take to dispel the cloud over this aspect of his decision?

In conclusion, members, the so-called “prorogation crisis” of December 2008 was in fact triggered by a crisis within the Liberal Party caucus. Proroguing the House back then gave the Liberal Party time to resolve its internal governance problems, this is evidenced by the fact that the Liberal Party, after resolving its internal problems, sustained the Harper government in office at the beginning of 2009. I would say the August 2020 prorogation took place in a similar situation, a breakdown of governance within the Liberal Party that was triggered by Mr. Trudeau and the then finance minister when they put themselves in what appears to have been a direct conflict of interest.

Madam Chair, I am happy to take questions if members have them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Professor Brodie.

Seeing as how we have about 10 minutes, I'll give each party two and a half minutes to ask questions of Professor Brodie.

We'll start with the Conservative Party. Could you just put your hands up? I don't know if you want to go in the regular order. Mr. Lukiwski was up in the regular order.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Yes, Madam Chair, are you saying we only have two and a half minutes?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You have two and a half minutes for this witness. Your questions are only going to be to Mr. Brodie. Afterwards we'll hear from the other two witnesses and go into our regular round.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK]

Thank you very much.

I welcome Mr. Brodie back to this committee. It's good to see you again.

In order to give full transparency, I should also say that I know Mr. Brodie well. I've known him for many years since he was formerly chief of staff to then prime minister Stephen Harper.

Now, colleagues, listen. We are charged with the responsibility of conducting a study on the reasons why this government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament. Quite frankly, the reasons are crystal clear, and we all know it.

The Prime Minister prorogued Parliament in August of last year for one simple reason: to shut down the committees that were investigating the WE Charity scandal. It was successful; it was quite successful.

As one of our former witnesses, Professor Kathy Brock, said, it was a good strategy. The reality is that this was the singular reason for the Prime Minister to prorogue Parliament. It wasn't to hit the reset button. The Liberals will argue that prorogation was necessary because of the pandemic and the rapidly changing world order due to the pandemic and that, therefore, the government had to come up with a new throne speech, a new plan and a new agenda.

I suggest that this is absolutely wrong. That argument is weak because there was another option to prorogation. It's called the budget.

The government could have tabled a budget or, at the very least, a very detailed, in-depth and thorough financial and fiscal update, followed very closely by a budget. It did not need to prorogue. That was done for political reasons only: to curtail the political damage that was being done to the Prime Minister and his government. We know this. Every Canadian who has a passing interest in this issue knows it, and my friends on this committee from the Liberal ranks know it as well.

Professor Brodie, since we have limited time, I'll go directly to a question for you.

You reference in your opening remarks that you concur with my observation that this prorogation was done for what you consider to be political reasons, but that it did not have to be so. The Prime Minister could have prorogued literally a day before he recalled Parliament.

Can you expand on those thoughts a little and offer your opinions as to why the Prime Minister might have prorogued a good month prior to the recall of Parliament? Was it necessary to prorogue at that time?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Be brief, please, because there is not a lot of time left. You have 10 or 20 seconds.

[Dr. Ian Brodie]

I understand.

Mr. Lukiwski, it's a pleasure to see you again.

All I can say is that prorogation is always a political decision since it's always the decision of the Prime Minister. The argument that there was a need to relaunch, clean out and restart the government's agenda, I think, is disproved by the events of the 42nd Parliament when there was no prorogation. That leaves procedural issues related to committee investigations as the real reason for that prorogation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Next we have, from the Liberals, Mr. Turnbull.

Would you like to take the two and a half minutes? Okay, go ahead.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brodie, thanks for being here today. I appreciate your opening remarks.

What do you think is a real, legitimate reason for a prime minister to prorogue Parliament?

[Dr. Ian Brodie]

As I said, prorogation is always a political decision. As a result of my background as a political scientist, I think political reasons for political decisions are perfectly legitimate.

A prime minister might want to have prorogation for any one of many reasons. Nonetheless, the ending of a committee investigation, if that was the purpose of the prorogation—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

What about a major shift, an economic crisis or a downturn in the economy, like a recession? You were the chief of staff for Prime Minister Harper, I understand. In 2009 when Stephen Harper prorogued Parliament, what was the reason given for that?

[Dr. Ian Brodie]

I'm afraid, Mr. Turnbull, that I stepped down as chief of staff at the end of June 2008, so I can't speak about the internal reasons for that. All I can do is speak about the report that's before the committee here.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for that. That's fine. I understand.

Dimitri Soudas was quoted in the Toronto Star as saying that now “is the time to engage with constituents, stakeholders and businesses in order to listen to Canadians, identify priorities and to set the next stage of our agenda.”

Isn't there a plausible explanation here that in a global pandemic the Prime Minister simply prorogued Parliament for the very good reason that it's had deep economic and social impacts across our society and, in fact, across the globe, and that it was time to recalibrate and reset the agenda? Wouldn't that make sense?

[Dr. Ian Brodie]

During the 42nd Parliament, this government did not prorogue. It relaunched its agenda and self-managed all of those consultations without prorogation. We need to look a bit more carefully at the political context, and what was going on in the House of Commons at the time of prorogation to understand the thinking.

These are questions best answered by the Prime Minister.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

I'm sorry to interrupt.

Madam Chair, it appears that the sound quality for Dr. Brodie isn't sufficient for the interpreters to continue.

Dr. Brodie, please lift your microphone a bit closer to your mouth. That might help.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My concern is pretty simple.

I think it's intuitive for Canadians that when Prime Minister Harper chose to prorogue Parliament four times in a matter of about six years, which included 181 days when Parliament couldn't sit.... Certainly, the opposition parties at the time, namely the Liberals, put in place a mandatory requirement, a change to the Standing Orders, which asked for an explanation to be tabled, a report, which our government has done.

When I look at that report, it seems like it builds a very strong case and rationale for why Parliament would have been prorogued. The speculation you've made as to why the Prime Minister made that decision doesn't seem to be justified as far as I can tell based on the documentation we have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien, for two and a half minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Brodie, thank you for being here.

My question is straightforward. If I understand correctly, you are saying that Parliament was prorogued simply to stifle the WE Charity scandal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We don't have interpretation coming through, so I'll restart the time for that.

Professor Brodie, I hope you're able to stay for just a couple of minutes, because there are a few technical difficulties.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Would you like me to repeat the question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.