Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2021

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next we have Mr. Blaikie for six minutes.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Thank you very much.

When it comes to the budget process, for instance, that's a process that involves a lot of interdepartmental communication and stakeholder consultation. Do you think that's a comparable process to what was undertaken for the Speech from the Throne last September?

[Allen Sutherland]

It's hard to compare the two, Mr. Blaikie.

I would say that typically the SFT process—and this is drawing more on past speeches from the throne—is more restrictive than recent budget processes, which have had long consultation processes as well as input from ministers at various times. Actually, cabinet feeds the budget system, as do some meetings between the Prime Minister and the ministers, so I think the budget process is typically a longer one.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Okay.

What we've heard very clearly today is that when the government is preparing an important document like a Speech from the Throne, which appears to be a less demanding process than the budget process, the government can't have Parliament sitting and do that at the same time.

If we're about six to eight weeks out from a budget, somewhere in there, would you be advising the Prime Minister at this time to prorogue Parliament so that government can effectively prepare a budget?

[Allen Sutherland]

No, I certainly would not be....

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

However, in the case of a less demanding document, the Prime Minister thought it was appropriate to prorogue Parliament in order to be able to prepare the Speech from the Throne. I find that passing strange, because it seems to me that Parliament is in the habit of effectively sitting even while government prepares budgets year over year. Last year, of course, was an exception, but I don't think it was because Parliament was sitting that the government failed to deliver a budget in the normal time frame.

I think that's worth noting. It seems to me that we saw the government House leader make a lot of the fact that they needed to consult, but in fact the template is there, both for stakeholder consultation and for interdepartmental communication, in order to be able to effectively deliver a massive policy document even while Parliament sits.

I'm not asking you to confirm or deny your own personal feelings. However, it seems to me that it's not really a sufficient reason for prorogation.

This also speaks to a question of timing. It seems to me that if the counter-argument were that it was an attenuated time frame and that we needed to deliver a Speech from the Throne in three to four weeks, then I would ask why it was that the intention to have a Speech from the Throne only came about in August.

Was there any doubt at the highest levels of government that Canada would experience a second wave in the fall?

[Allen Sutherland]

I think that was broadly understood.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Was there any doubt about the expiration of the Canada emergency response benefit legislation and when that would cease to continue supporting Canadians as it had through the early months of the pandemic?

[Allen Sutherland]

I understand where you're headed, Mr. Blaikie.

I would simply note that in developing a Speech from the Throne, what the government is choosing to do is to set out its vision of its forward plan. The Prime Minister clearly determined that he wanted to set his forward plan at the start of the fall. There are good reasons for doing that. The fall is a natural time of change. The Speech from the Throne—and I think Minister Rodriguez talked about this—sets a new page and sets the agenda going forward. I think that, in fact, the Speech from the Throne did do that, and it has profoundly affected the government's agenda on a go-forward basis. I would just make that observation.

[Daniel Blaikie, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

It seems to me there's a difference between deciding that you want to launch a new policy direction in the fall and deciding in the fall that you want to launch a new policy direction. All of the factors that we've heard about, in terms of there being a pandemic and—well, that's really it. The fact that there was a pandemic was known in June. The fact that we might well be facing a second wave in the fall was known in June. The government could have decided much earlier than August 17 that it was interested in having some kind of prorogation in the fall and in coming back with a speech from the throne, and without proroguing Parliament, it could have undertaken to do the consultative work over a longer period of time than what the Prime Minister left the government to do it.

I'm wondering what changed between any time previous to August 17 and August 17, such that the Prime Minister decided on a much shorter timetable than was necessary that he wanted to relaunch the entire policy direction of government. It seems to me that he had the same information in June that he had in August about whether the pandemic would call for a shift in policy response. He could have provided direction earlier to government to begin those consultations to work towards a new Speech from the Throne in September and obviated any need—and I stress that, because I don't think there was any need in the first place.

Certainly had the government started earlier, as it does with the budget, it could have undertaken broad-based consultations with civil society, had plentiful interdepartmental communication and produced perhaps an even better document than it did, in fact, produce in September, which, I submit, would not have caused a great strain.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Next is Mr. Nater for five minutes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I thank our witnesses.

I want to follow up a little bit, Mr. Sutherland, on the necessity of a confidence vote following a Speech from the Throne. I don't think anyone is arguing that a confidence vote is required after a Speech from the Throne, albeit there is some discussion that it's not necessarily happening but has generally happened. I want you to confirm that you can still have a confidence vote through other means without actually proroguing Parliament.

[Allen Sutherland]

That's correct.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I want to follow up a little bit on the discussion with the Governor General. You mentioned that the Governor General made herself available. I notice you left out the word “immediately”, but we won't read too much into that.

Could you talk about the dynamics of that conversation? Was it a phone call? Was it an in-person meeting, or was it a Zoom meeting during which the prorogation was formally requested?

[Allen Sutherland]

I know that they did speak. I'm not precisely sure of the forum, whether it was a conversation over the phone or a meeting. As you know, at the time they lived quite close to one another.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It could have been a conversation during a walk around Rideau Hall, but I appreciate that. I noticed you nodding your head about not reading too much into the leaving out of the word “immediately”, so I do appreciate that clarification.

[Allen Sutherland]

That's not a problem.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I wouldn't want to erroneously mislead the committee. I appreciate that.

From the PCO perspective, often we ask the minister about public opinion polling. What type of public opinion polling was being done by the Privy Council Office at the time prorogation was being requested? I'm talking about the late-August time period.

[Allen Sutherland]

I'm not the person who works with public opinion polling for PCO. I know that probably by that time they would have been doing some COVID-related public opinion polling. You would expect that, but I don't know, with precision, the answer to your question.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Would it be possible for you to follow up with the committee with that information?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes. Just so I understand your question, do you mean over the summer of 2020?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Just to narrow it down, let's say it's during the month of August 2020 for the types of public opinion polling that PCO was undertaking at that time.

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes, I will do that.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Again, following up on some of the earlier questions, you were asked to prepare the information on prorogation on the 17th of August and, of course, this was announced publicly. Are you aware of any conversations being held prior to the 17th of August, whether on seeking advice or having information sought from PCO officials prior to the 17th? Was the 17th of August the first time that PCO officials became aware of that?

[Allen Sutherland]

Mr. Nater, if you could give me a day either way, because it took us some time to develop the advice, so we may have known it on the 16th.... Your question I think really speaks to if there were earlier conversations that spoke more to the “whether” issue, and I do not believe so.

I would turn briefly to my colleague Don Booth to see if he has any knowledge of that.