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.
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Todd Doherty Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you to our guests for being here.
I want to echo the comments of both Mr. Angus as well as Mr. Lukiwski. While we appreciate your expertise being here, the real witnesses who we should have here, the people who we should have before the committee, are the Prime Minister and the senior officials who were around him during the course of prorogation to get their views as to why they prorogued Parliament right in the middle of when things were starting to heat up for them.
It has been widely said already and reported as to what started to take place in March. Canadians found out that their Prime Minister entered into an agreement with an organization that he not only had professional ties to but also had familial ties to, where his wife was a speaker, his mother was a speaker and his brother was engaged with them as well.
Then we found out that the finance minister had ties to WE as well, subsequently paid for a trip that he somehow forgot and then abruptly resigned. Things were starting to crumble around the Prime Minister and this government—just another ethical scandal. My Liberal colleagues—and I have the deepest respect for them—can point fingers, bring up other issues and bring up all the other times that Parliament had been prorogued. They say that Mr. Harper did it, so if it was okay for him to do it, then it was okay this time.
I want to bring us back to why we are here: the study of proroguing Parliament during the deepest global pandemic. Right in the middle of the darkest times of our nation, right when programs for Canadians were about to expire, when Canadians needed us the most, our Prime Minister decided, on the eve of when all these documents were coming out about just how close his family ties to the WE organization really were—and there were two committees that were reporting on this and were trying to study this—he chose to hit the reset, so to speak.
Ms. Turnbull, I really appreciated your comments, because you have given us balance where you said it was not a great reset, but a reset. If only that were true. Those of us around this, in all honesty, if the intentions truly were altruistic and true, could probably say that it was for the best, but it wasn't. When we got back, we got a Speech from the Throne that was more of the same as what we'd seen before. There was nothing really new in it. It was the same old, same old. Then what we saw was more Liberal filibusters in committees that absolutely stonewalled Parliament from doing its job.
I have a question to ask you, Ms. Turnbull, and I'll get off my soapbox for a little bit, because I sit here and say this all the time with respect to committees: We do our best when we're not as partisan as possible. But this is really what we need to do.
I understand our Liberal colleagues have a job to do, but if Parliament is really truly to hold the government to account, and if this committee is charged with reviewing the reasons for prorogation, doesn't it make sense that we should have the Prime Minister and those senior officials around him at the time of prorogation report to committee and provide testimony?
12:25 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes, that makes sense.
12:25 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Political Science and Law, Department of Legal Sciences, Université du Québec à Montréal (UQAM), As an Individual
That's the type of evidence put forward in the Supreme Court case in the United Kingdom. Yes, that's very useful.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you. I was worried you weren't going to make it but you did, with seconds left.
We'll hear from Mr. Long, for five minutes please.
January 28th, 2021 / 12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon to my colleagues and thank you to our witnesses this afternoon for their very interesting testimony.
Greetings, Professor Turnbull, from across the Bay of Fundy in Saint John, New Brunswick. I enjoy watching your political commentary on TV and in other media.
12:25 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
The interpreter is signalling that she can't interpret because of poor sound quality.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan, SK
The quality is very low on Mr. Long's testimony. The volume is incredibly low.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We've paused. Let's fix this for the interpreters and start again, or at least start back 10 or 20 seconds.
Please resume.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
My questions will be for you, Professor Turnbull. As an advocate for democratic reform, I was pleased when our government amended the Standing Orders to create section 32(7) to try to address the abuse of the prorogation power that took place under the Harper government. I've also been quite interested in your arguments in favour of democratizing the use of royal prerogative to prorogue, as you have mentioned today and outlined in your and your colleagues' excellent book, Democratizing the Constitution.
Do you believe that Standing Order 32(7) represents a significant step in the direction of democratizing the royal prerogative to prorogue?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
This is why we could never make Democratizing the Constitution a movie, because the title just sucks.
I think the most that we can do in terms of trying to put some parameters around something like prorogation.... I think there are democratic justifications for doing that. It's hard for people to accept that a prime minister makes the decision—on the basis of advice but really it's his decision—unilaterally to summon, dissolve and prorogue Parliament. Given the politicization of these things, understandably people get annoyed with that. There's a gap between the royal prerogative in an unchecked sense and what we expect of democracy today.
I think that Standing Order 32(7) and the requirement for a report has the potential to be a step in the right direction in terms of democratic reform. However, I am not quite sure that it wouldn't be better to have something like this earlier in the process rather than later. I'm not so sure that the retroactive justification is going to be as helpful. I hear everyone else's comments today and I wonder: If this is going to be a successful reform does it not make more sense to have the Prime Minister come and tell you this? The reasons are his.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
That's fair. Can you elaborate on the accountability mechanisms? Can you compare them to other Westminster systems?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Do you mean specifically around prorogation?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
I don't know of any system that has a fantastic accountability mechanism around prorogation, to be honest. Some Westminster systems use what we call a cabinet manual. A cabinet manual is a non-binding document but it is something that a government can issue, usually in close collaboration with a Privy Council officer-equivalent. It is something that can lay out how the royal prerogative works. For instance, it's not going to bind the hand of the Prime Minister in terms of giving advice to the Governor General, but it can be something that lays out expectations. A prorogation occurs for a maximum of 30 days, for instance, or the Prime Minister should seek consensus in the House before advising prorogation. You can put that kind of language in a document like that to give a sense of how we use these things.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Did the opportunity for a confidence vote on the throne speech, which was created by our government's brief prorogation, not provide an opportunity for democratic accountability for the decision to prorogue?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
It did. Definitely.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Can you elaborate on the limitations on the enforceability of an amendment to the Standing Orders to require a vote in the House in order to prorogue?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
Yes. It's limited in the sense that it is political rather than constitutional.
Nothing in the Standing Orders can override the Prime Minister's right to advise the Governor General. It's the same as with fixed election dates. Even though it's legislative, it says right there in the act—I am obviously paraphrasing—that nothing overrides a Governor General's decision to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister, so these things are not going to supersede the Constitution.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
Wayne Long Liberal Saint John—Rothesay, NB
Okay.
How does our government's approach to prorogation compare to that of the previous government?
12:30 p.m.
Associate Professor, Director, School of Public Administration, Dalhousie University, As an Individual
The previous government did not have any such requirement to justify the reasons—nothing that I know of—whereas this government has put that requirement in the Standing Orders.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's all the time we have.
Next, for two and a half minutes, we have Mr. Therrien.
12:30 p.m.
Bloc
Alain Therrien Bloc La Prairie, QC
Former Parti Québécois minister Jean Garon used to say that changing a comma in the Canadian Constitution was about as easy as scratching your forehead with your front teeth.
Mr. Cyr, as I understand it, your proposal is to make obtaining the consent of all parliamentarians a requirement for proroguing Parliament. That's something Ms. Turnbull supports, in fact.
What would we need to do to put that in the Constitution? Would it be extremely complicated?