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

[Donald Booth]

Not that I'm aware of. We were engaged I think on, as Allen said, the 17th, to start preparing the proclamation, the appropriate documentation, but not privy to what conversations may have taken place before that.

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

I appreciate that, and the one day either way, give or take, that's neither here nor there, so I do appreciate that.

Is there anything preventing the government from announcing their intention to prorogue on a certain date, but not formally proroguing until closer to that date? Is there anything that would prevent a government from doing that and just taking consultations and having discussions about what ought to be in the Speech from the Throne leading up to that point?

[Allen Sutherland]

You're asking whether the PM could say today, let's say, on February 16, “I'm going to ask for the Governor General's agreement to prorogue on the 25th of February.” Is that your question? I want to make sure I understand it.

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

That's correct.

[Allen Sutherland]

There isn't.... It's certainly not the practice. These things are very closely held. I don't know of an instance.

Don, do you?

[Donald Booth]

No, I'm not aware of an instance where that has taken place. As Allen has said, you don't want to presume that the Governor General...so you wouldn't announce that “we will be proroguing next week”. It would basically be couched in terms of “it would be my intention to ask for a prorogation”, but in terms of practice, I'm not aware that this has actually transpired.

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

Certainly, with the—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time you have, John.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next we have Mr. Fragiskatos, please.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's great to see colleagues.

As you know, Madam Chair, I am an associate member of this committee, not a full member. I've been sitting in for my colleague Mark Gerretsen over the past few weeks. I am very interested in the proceedings of this committee on this and other issues.

Since we have a number of other associate members from the opposition parties sitting in today—I'm surprised they decided to sit in today for this meeting; it's a shock—for their benefit and for the committee's benefit as a whole, I think putting things in context is helpful. I would refer, Madam Chair, to the meeting of December 10 when we had a number of academics testify at our committee.

One was a noted constitutional scholar, Barbara Messamore, who said the following in her opening remarks when she talked about prorogation and her view as to whether or not it was justifiable:

...there is also a strong case that can be made that the unforeseen eruption of the COVID-19 crisis since the start of the 43rd Parliament provides a rationale for a new session, with a new Speech from the Throne setting out a fresh legislative program. For this reason, I think prorogation was entirely justifiable.

This is, as I said, a noted constitutional scholar. Professor Messamore regularly provides media commentary on constitutional issues, specifically issues relating to the Crown and all things to do with the Crown, including prorogation. I think it's important for us to reflect on that perspective.

Mr. Sutherland mentioned a number of other academics who testified before this committee recently. They certainly did, but Professor Messamore's perspective counts for a lot. This is a scholar who has agreed with the government on some occasions and disagreed with the government on some occasions, someone who is independent and, as I said, highly respected for her work.

The other thing that came up in that meeting of December 10—again, I'm trying to put things into context and I do have questions for our witnesses here today—was the fact that the average prorogation period in Canada since 1867 is 151 days. The most recent prorogation lasted from August 18 to September 23. I would ask opposition colleagues to reflect on that. I think that's important.

Mr. Sutherland, you mentioned something before about one day being lost. Can you just go over that one more time?

[Allen Sutherland]

That was just the return of the House. There was one day between September 22 and 23. In pure House time, one day was lost.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

One day was lost, and we are spending a great deal of time examining this issue when I think the government has been pretty clear that the reasons for prorogation were straightforward. That rationale has also been echoed, again, by independent observers. I mentioned Professor Messamore. Others have testified to that fact.

Could I ask Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Booth, whoever wishes to take the question, if you can walk me through again? You went into this in your opening remarks, but could you go over it again? What's the process of constructing a throne speech?

It's not necessarily this throne speech that we just saw a few months back in the context of the pandemic—I will ask you that later on—but tell us more about the general process of coming up with a throne speech, the back-and-forth for PCO, working with departments, working with the Prime Minister's Office. How does that all come together? It seems a bit complicated, and I think it would be good to better understand that.

[Allen Sutherland]

The truth is that there is no single way to do a Speech from the Throne. Sometimes they're entirely written by the Prime Minister's Office. Other times they're entirely written by the public service.

You start with framing the main thematics. Then you also try to define some of the signature items that will be the takeaways for Canadians, because really what you're doing with a good Speech from the Throne is that you're trying to set out the future agenda for Canadians. You're basically saying to Canadians, “Here are the things that I want you to judge us by as a government.” That's really the intent of it.

One of the interesting things about a Speech from the Throne is that the first two paragraphs are written by the Governor General, and then the government takes over. She or he has two or maybe three paragraphs. It depends on the Governor General. However, there is this difference between different parts of the Speech from the Throne that is kind of interesting.

[Peter Fragiskatos, Liberal, London North Centre, ON]

I will assume, of course, that COVID-19 made that process much more complicated.

Would that be correct?

[Allen Sutherland]

It—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Unfortunately, that's all the time we have.

We have two and a half minutes for Monsieur Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The research on prorogation focused on two pillars, including the motive. Was there a reason to prorogue Parliament or, in other words, to hit the reset button? I know you cannot help us in this respect because we're not really talking about motivation in the case that concerns us and that could concern you. My question is more about the need for the prorogation to be as effective as possible, so as short as possible.

My colleague from the Liberal Party talked about the average prorogation period. It does not make sense to talk about averages when we are experiencing the worst pandemic of the century. I am not the one saying this; Mr. Rodriguez is. This is the worst economic crisis....

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, on a point of order, there is no translation. It hasn't been there at all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We can hear it now.

I'll stop the time, and perhaps we can have that portion repeated.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Okay.

We are talking about the average prorogation period, but in this case, we cannot talk about averages. Mr. Rodriguez said that we are experiencing the worst pandemic of the century, and he was right. He also said we were going through the worst economic crisis since 1929, and he was right. This context led the experts who came to see us to call for the shortest prorogation possible.

My esteemed colleague from the Liberal Party told us we lost only one day in the House of Commons, but we actually lost three days. We could have been called back to the House at any time, as had previously been done, had there been urgent bills to vote on. There were also committees sitting fully, but, unfortunately for the Liberals, those committees were considering the somewhat chaotic management of WE Charity.

I have one last question for you. Am I right in thinking that it is possible to prepare consultations for prorogation in parallel to parliamentary work?

[Allen Sutherland]

Is that the consultations on prorogation, or consultations...? I'm not sure I understand what the consultation—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I am talking about consultations to prepare for the prorogation.

[Allen Sutherland]

Typically the government doesn't consult on whether it's going to prorogue, because the—

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

I misspoke. It is possible to prepare a prorogation while keeping Parliament open. That is at least what I understood earlier.