Evidence of meeting #20 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 prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:05 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
To our two witnesses, I say welcome and thank you for being here. We certainly appreciate it.
I want to piggyback on what Mr. Lukiwski said. When the announcement to prorogue Parliament was made, Parliament wasn't sitting. Only four committees were sitting, and they were all focused exclusively on the WE Charity issue. The experts we heard from told us that, in their opinions, the only reason to prorogue Parliament was to disrupt the committees, which were discussing the circumstances surrounding WE Charity. The finance minister had just resigned, which was no small thing.
Experts told the committee that was the main reason behind the prorogation. Do you agree, yes or no?
Mr. Cyr will say that he isn't here to answer partisan or political questions, but the fact remains that Parliament was prorogued and we are trying to figure out why. Expert after expert, or just about, pointed to the scandal as the most likely reason for the prorogation, since only the proceedings of the committees, which were meeting to examine the WE Charity issue, were interrupted. There is no other reason.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on that.
12:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
You partly guessed what I was going to say, but I actually think this committee is demonstrating the ineffectiveness of the rules. It is attempting to figure out the reason for the game after the game was played.
As elected representatives, you hold the government to account, and now you are trying to ascertain whether the reason for proroguing Parliament was appropriate, but I think the time to ask questions was before Parliament was prorogued. That's what I would suggest. The time to ask these questions was before prorogation, not after. Otherwise, it's simply a matter of interpretation and speculation.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
The concept of providing the justifications in advance as opposed to retroactively is interesting. I think when a prime minister makes an announcement around prorogation, in fact he—in this case it's a he, that's why I'm saying “he”—does provide some sort of justification and rationale for that. It's not written up as a report to Parliament, but he does usually offer some sort of justification for why he's doing it. I think the comments Prime Minister Trudeau made at the time were in fact consistent with what we see in the report.
It speaks to another issue of where accountability comes in here. Again, a prime minister does not have to give reasons for prorogation. He does now because standing order changed, but constitutionally he does not. There is a public accountability as well. It's largely a public response and whether the public accepts the version that's in the report or whether they think there's something else going on. I think that's an important part of the conversation we're having.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
That wasn't my question.
I asked whether the main reason for the government's decision to prorogue Parliament was to stifle the WE Charity scandal, so as not to lose the confidence of Canadians.
12:10 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
I'm sorry, Mr. Therrien. There's no translation.
12:10 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I think avoiding or silencing committee investigations into the WE Charity situation was a major reason for the prorogation, yes.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I had translation throughout that.
Go ahead, Monsieur Therrien. You still have almost two minutes. I've paused when there have been interruptions.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Thank you for your answer.
Mr. Cyr, what you said was quite compelling. We could put in place what you suggest.
Had we adopted your suggestion on August 18 of last year, how would it have worked? Parliament would not be sitting, but committees would be meeting.
In light of your suggestion, how should we have proceeded?
12:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
The Prime Minister would have had to propose a motion to agree to prorogation. A debate would have ensued, and members would have discussed the issue. Had the motion been adopted, it would have confirmed that the Prime Minister had the confidence of the House and there would have been no questions asked. All the partisan debate could have taken place.
Had the motion been defeated, it would have meant that the Prime Minister could not go to the governor general with the request. Were he to have done it anyway, it would have been assumed that he did not have the confidence of the House.
12:10 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
That means he would have had to recall the House precisely so that members could vote on the motion.
I listened to Mr. Turnbull, my friend in the Liberal Party. According to him, when the government came back, there was a major change in the agenda put forward, thereby justifying the proroguing of Parliament. Supposedly, there was a clean break in terms of what we saw before and after prorogation. However, absolutely every political analyst I've heard has said that there was no difference in the government's approach—it was like two sides of the same coin. I don't think, then, that his claims match the reality.
Nevertheless, let's assume that was the case. If I were Mr. Trudeau and I had wanted to make a clean break without hindering Parliament, given that we were in the midst of a pandemic, my reflex would have been to prorogue Parliament the Friday before the House was recalled. That way, Parliament would have lost as little time as possible in tending to its work, so as not to impede efforts to respond to the pandemic.
Would that be a responsible position to take?
The question is for both of you.
12:10 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
Indeed. Usually, prorogation does not last very long.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
A reasonable prorogation doesn't last very long so that Parliament can carry on its role and functions.
12:15 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes, I would agree with Professor Cyr. It can't be too long.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'm very honoured to be here at the committee.
Let's put this in perspective. We were in the midst of the biggest medical and economic crisis in the century. The role of Parliament in that crisis was to reassure Canadians that we were there for them, that we were putting their interests first. That got all blown out of the water when the Prime Minister signed off on the $912-million WE scandal.
The decision to prorogue was not about the best interests of Canadians. It was done in the summer, when two key committees were starting to raise very serious questions about getting access to documents. The Liberals tell us it was so important to tell Canadians we were shutting down Parliament so we could.... I think Mr. Turnbull said he had three meetings with stakeholders in that time. What an important reason to shut down Parliament. Mr. Turnbull would have been home in his riding anyway.
What was happening was that Parliament was trying to get answers on what happened, where the WE group, the Kielburger brothers, were able to call right in to Bill Morneau's office. In the email we got on the eve of prorogation, we were given the 5,000 pages of documents, but we were unable to use them in our report. That is obstruction of the work of Parliament.
Contrary to my learned witnesses, I think the problem with prorogation is that it toxifies trust. I remember in 2008, when Stephen Harper prorogued. His relationship with the Canadian people was never the same after that. As someone who's been permanently in opposition, I watch governments come and go. They come in and they're idealistic and then they decide power works for them. I see it in the Liberals. I see the arrogance of the Liberals because they got away with it. What did they get away with? They learned they couldn't shut down Parliament entirely. It's an old political trick. If you can punt a problem down the road, and you punt it far enough, you feel you've won. That's what the Liberals think they've done.
As it was the same with Stephen Harper's government, the Prime Minister, Mr. Trudeau, has toxified his relationships with Canadians. He might get by this time, but it creates—
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I'm sorry to interrupt.
Could members please put themselves on mute? Thank you.
12:15 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I want to put this in context because they didn't just prorogue Parliament and shut down the work of the committee. They came back and the Prime Minister threatened an election over the effort to get the committee restructured. He made it a confidence vote.
Mr. Cyr, have you ever heard of Parliament being forced into a potential election over the structuring of a committee? Is that within precedent?
12:15 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
When a prime minister claims that a vote on a particular matter will be a confidence vote, it's often just posturing. The executive branch cannot decide whether a matter will be a question of confidence; only the House can.
Here's the example I sometimes give my students. When a person cheats on their spouse, who do you ask whether the person who was cheated on still trusts their partner? Do you ask the cheater or the person who was cheated on?
The point is that it is up to the House to determine whether a matter is a question of confidence. In a majority government, the prime minister commands a majority of members, and that's why a prime minister often calls an issue a question of confidence. If a prime minister wants to call an election, all he or she has to do is request that Parliament be dissolved.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Mr. Angus, can you please hold your mike a little bit closer?
Thank you.
12:20 p.m.
NDP
Charlie Angus NDP Timmins—James Bay, ON
I guess the issue here is that we had the Prime Minister once again not putting Canadians first but threatening an election as the COVID numbers were rising. That shows how much he didn't care about the Canadian people. It was about shutting down the WE scandal. Then what did he do? He obstructed the work of the finance committee in the midst of the biggest economic crisis in a century, and he shut down the ethics committee through the ridiculous and disgraceful behaviour of Liberals for the equivalent of 40 straight meetings. I've been in Parliament for 17 years, and I've never seen a government obstruct committees.
Mr. Cyr, in terms of ethics in particular, which is an opposition-chaired committee about accountability, to have a government obstruct it, shut it down and make it impossible for it to do its work, does that not speak to something that raises a level of toxic disdain for democracy that makes the Canadian people distrust why these decisions were being made?
12:20 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
I think Parliament has the mechanisms to determine whether an obstruction constitutes contempt of Parliament. I will just say this. The House of Commons is the master of its own decisions on the subject. Clearly, Parliament's role is to hold the government accountable for its actions.