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

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I would like to ask one last question if I have enough time left, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You might just get the question out.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

I'm sorry...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You have 20 seconds.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Do you agree that preparing the Speech from the Throne with a view to prorogue is a lot of work?

You mentioned the Privy Council Office and all the groups that worked on this file. It's a long preparation.

Do you agree with me?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes.

[Stéphane Lauzon, Liberal, Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Allen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That was perfect. Thank you.

Next we have Monsieur Therrien for six minutes.

Go ahead, please.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the two witnesses for joining us today.

Experts told us that, ideally, a prorogation should be short, to avoid preventing Parliament from doing its work. In this case, we were in the middle of a pandemic. So there was work to be done and urgent files to deal with.

Do you agree with those experts saying that a prorogation must be as short as possible?

[Allen Sutherland]

The practice of prorogation is entirely at the PM's prerogative, so the length of time that was actually undertaken was well within the average.

I would note, too, that in fact only one day of House time was lost as proposed.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I think that Mr. Rodriguez explained this idea well. We were in an exceptional situation. So, in this case, a medium-length prorogation is not very effective. It should have been as short as possible.

Some have even told us that the Liberals could have closed Parliament during the week leading up to the return to the House. Others, who were more audacious, even said that prorogation could have taken place on September 18.

Would it have been possible to prorogue Parliament on September 18 and to return the following Wednesday?

[Allen Sutherland]

Yes, it would have been.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I am very satisfied with this answer. I think it is more than adequate. I am somewhat taken aback, as I was not expecting this.

So it was possible, but the Liberals did not do it. They prorogued Parliament on August 18, while they could have done it on September 18, according to what you are saying. All governments prepare. Usually, there is a vision. That's not always the case with the current government, but we assume it is usually the case. The Liberals could have laid the groundwork by saying they would prorogue Parliament on September 18, that they would let committees and Parliament continue to operate and that we would be back on the Wednesday following the prorogation.

You are telling me that this is possible.

[Allen Sutherland]

It is technically possible. I would tell you, though, that what you would lose is your ability to frame the throne speech in the same way, because it would have been impossible to have the consultations in that way, in my view.

Once I was the project manager for what I think was a pretty good Speech from the Throne for the Conservative government, so I have some experience in this. It would have been challenging to have such a short one. You would probably have had to keep it within the PMO, which wasn't what was done in this case. There was widespread consultation and framing of future directions with the public service.

Just to make sure I'm understood accurately, it is possible that it could have been in one day—and I answered your question honestly and accurately—but there are some advantages to having a month's time or so.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay, I'm fine with this answer. Thank you. You elaborated on what you previously said.

Can you tell us when you were told of the government's wish to prorogue Parliament, or did you have no idea it was going to happen?

[Allen Sutherland]

I can't tell you to the hour, but I know that we prepared the formal advice on how to do prorogation I believe on August 17.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

On August 17, the day the Minister of Finance resigned. Is that right?

[Allen Sutherland]

I'm sure that's easily checked.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay.

Your work consists in determining how to proceed and in saying what the steps to follow are to prorogue Parliament. I see that you agree. You do not try to understand the government's motivations; you just help it prorogue properly.

[Allen Sutherland]

Following the steps to make sure it fits with our constitutional traditions is our focus. It's not on whether to prorogue; it's on how you do it.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay. I have obtained the answer to my question and will talk about something else.

At a previous meeting, Hugo Cyr talked to us about prorogation in a context of a minority government. He suggested that the Constitution be amended to ensure that, before proroguing Parliament, the government would obtain the House's approval.

Would it be relevant for a minority government to need to have the House's support to prorogue Parliament in the future? You don't have to answer, but I thought this was an interesting idea. I would like to know what you think about it.

[Allen Sutherland]

It won't surprise people who know about the machinery of government that we are big believers in conventions and the traditions of our system, so we are very reluctant to propose changes of that sort.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay, thank you very much. I....

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Therrien. That's about all the time you have. There are only five seconds left.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.