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.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
That's all the time we have. We're going to go until 1:05, upon Mr. Doherty's request.
Mrs. Vecchio, go ahead for five minutes.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much.
I was just looking at some of the information that was provided to us earlier.
Ms. Turnbull, I really appreciate your being here. I just want to get your opinion on this. This is a quote you made back in 2012. I just want to know if, nine years later, you still believe this is relevant. This has to do with the premier of Ontario. In this statement you said:
This is an unnecessary abuse [of power] of the Premier's prerogative to advise the Lieutenant-Governor to prorogue; the surprise adjournment serves no democratic purpose whatsoever and it prevents the legislature from fulfilling its fundamental purpose—to hold the government to account.
Do you believe that same statement you made in 2013 would be relevant to the 2020 prorogation?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I think the circumstances were different in the sense that the premier, Premier McGuinty at the time.... What really made me angry about that one was that he prorogued until the party chose a new leader, which I thought was completely unnecessary. There wasn't a particular time frame. Going back to some comments my colleague and I both made around the timing, it seemed to be an open-ended kind of prorogation, the timing of which was determined by the Liberal Party as opposed to any concern of the legislature.
Also, the investigations around contempt at the time were quite serious, so I was more angry that time than I was this time.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Yes. It does seem very similar, though, because you're talking about contempt. We are talking about abuse of power and the fact that we can look at this.... We have had other academics indicate that this was an abuse of power. Do you believe this was an abuse of power in 2020?
12:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I know you want me to say yes or no.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
No, it's okay. Obviously there's a difference here.
12:55 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I don't know if this is a yes-or-no thing. I don't think the prorogation in 2020 was necessary.
Where I get willing to use the word “abuse” is when there are clear questions, and it seems to me that a first minister has a confidence crisis.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I really appreciate that, and I do believe that, as we saw during these committees, there was a confidence crisis specifically in this.
Because of that, Ms. Turnbull, you mentioned that the only way we're going to find out is by having the Prime Minister here.
Ms. Chair, I would like to move the following motion, please. I would ask that our staff send this to the clerk so it can be distributed.
I move:
That the committee invite the following witnesses for its study on the Government’s Reasons for Proroguing Parliament in August 2020 and that these witnesses appear individually for a minimum of one hour each: Prime Minister Justin Trudeau; MP Pablo Rodriguez, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons; Katie Telford, Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister; Bill Morneau, former Minister of Finance.
That these witnesses appear before the committee within 14 days of the approval of this motion, and that the committee reserve the right to invite more witnesses as the study continues.
I just wanted to put that out there. Absolutely, after we've heard from all of our witnesses, we know the only answer is going to come, truly, from the Prime Minister. I therefore think it's extraordinarily important that he actually comes to committee to answer this. Regardless, he is put through this.... Yes, he has been very consistent in his media and all of his conversations, but being consistent doesn't always mean the truth has come out. I would like to move this motion and have discussion from there.
Thank you.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Ms. Vecchio, you still have one minute if you want to wrap up your questions. The motion is on notice.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I'd like to go to the discussion of the motion.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair, I'm trying to raise my hand but the “raise hand” function is not working.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Justin has just received the motion. He will send it around to everybody right now.
Mr. Doherty, you're on the speakers list.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you.
I just offer this. With full respect to all of the colleagues who are here, repeatedly we've had both Liberal colleagues...and I think Mr. Turnbull even said that it was his reason, the Prime Minister's reason to prorogue. We can all sit here and speculate as to what others have said. It's only speculation until you hear it directly from the Prime Minister and those who were around him. I think that Canadians as well as this committee deserve to know why the prorogation happened.
We can have a number of different academics, like the great witnesses we've had today: Ms. Turnbull, Mr. Brodie and Mr. Cyr. Truly, until we hear from the Prime Minister and those who are around him, speculation will run rampant.
I think the best course for this committee is to call for those four witnesses to come forward. We reserve the right to call future witnesses after we hear from them. I think again, we can point fingers and do everything to look at all the reasons that it was done in the past, but we're studying the prorogation in 2020 and a number of academics and witnesses have already said that it is the Prime Minister's prerogative to prorogue. Truly, if we were to move forward with this without actually hearing from those four individuals, it would all just be speculation. We'd be doing a disservice not only to Parliament but to Canadians writ large.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I just wanted to make a few comments. I appreciate that other members of the committee want to call other witnesses. I think in terms of process, it would be great if we had an opportunity for all parties to submit witnesses and perhaps the subcommittee could discuss that. I don't think we have any time today. I know I have other things in my calendar that are pressing, although this is obviously important. I think perhaps this discussion can wait until the next meeting or perhaps there is a subcommittee meeting in between that could deal with this. That would be my suggestion.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Madam Chair, there's nothing in this motion that precludes any other witnesses coming before or that handcuffs the committee. What I'm asking you to do is to call the vote.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
There is a subcommittee meeting on Monday on it, just to answer Mr. Turnbull's question. It is on Monday evening at 6:30 on witnesses and the prorogation study.
1 p.m.
Conservative
1 p.m.
Liberal
Peter Fragiskatos Liberal London North Centre, ON
Maybe I bring an outsider's perspective to this and perhaps that's needed from time to time, particularly today. We've had witnesses give testimony this afternoon and late morning. We have had witnesses, I think it was in mid-December—I was sitting in that day as I am today for Mr. Gerretsen—give testimony. This is an important issue. It's an important question. The matter is being looked at. I'm not sure why the Conservatives have tried to politicize this further. It makes no sense—
1 p.m.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Excuse me, I have a point of order.
I just need to do a point of order because I've been trying to raise my hand for three minutes. I'm just letting you know that the “raise hand” function has not been working. I tried back when Todd was speaking, and that's why I want to let you know that I have not been able to use the “raise hand” function.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Can I speak to that point of order, Madam Chair? I believe that we are all experiencing the same problem. It's just that the “raise hand” function is not showing on our screen. It is working, because I've raised my hand several times and the chair has kept the order quite well. For some reason, for members who are participating, it doesn't show on our screens, so I think that might be the issue.
