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

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Could the PCO undertake to provide this committee with all of the emails, memos or documents that may have been circulated between the Privy Council Office and the PMO, or passed between the PCO and Rideau Hall about the options or the plans for the prorogation?

[Allen Sutherland]

If that's the committee's will, yes.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

I suspect it will be the committee's will. Thank you, sir.

Was the PMO fully aware, or did you have to inform it, that in fact prorogation could have occurred even on the day that Parliament was scheduled to resume, September 22?

[Allen Sutherland]

I don't know that for certain, but it is well known that some governments have had quite a short gap and others have had a much longer gap. The gap that was being proposed in this instance was well within the norms of what we've experienced.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Finally, you referred to a number of highly qualified witnesses that the committee has heard from. Would you agree with the consensus that prorogation, while a perfectly legitimate tool of government, is often taken by governments in some political distress for political reasons?

[Allen Sutherland]

It's fundamentally a political decision, and it's not unusual for it to occur in a highly charged political context.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

The Prime Minister put an awful lot of stock in holding a confidence vote, in justifying prorogation and the return of Parliament and a new Speech from the Throne on confidence, but in fact, his report on prorogation claims that the “government was duty-bound and honour-bound to ensure” there was continued confidence in the House.

Wouldn't you agree that in fact that vote was not necessary and that there was an element of political theatre to it?

[Allen Sutherland]

It has been standard since Confederation that when you have prorogation and you have a Speech from the Throne, the next step is to have a confidence motion. Given that well-established precedent, I would say that a confidence motion was inevitable and necessary.

[Peter Kent, Conservative, Thornhill, ON]

Thank you.

Thank you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you very much.

We have Dr. Duncan for six minutes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Booth for coming today. Please extend our best wishes to Ian Shugart.

Protecting the health and safety of Canadians and protecting our economy are paramount during a pandemic. While this is an important study, I think there are much more pressing issues right now: addressing the variants; protecting Canadians' health and safety and democracy during an election should one happen; and learning from the response, so that the parliamentary precinct, Parliament and parliamentarians are better prepared for a future pandemic. Pandemics are a matter of when, not if.

Because I have a limited amount of time, I will be asking for largely yes-or-no answers.

As you know, this committee is concerned with the proceedings of the House and with the parliamentary precinct. While we are clearly in the throes of responding to the pandemic and our focus must be on the response, it will be important for this committee to later review the parliamentary precinct's response.

Was there a plan for the parliamentary precinct when the pandemic began? I'm looking for a yes or a no, please.

[Allen Sutherland]

I'm going to turn to Don.

Do you know that, Don?

[Donald Booth, Director of Strategic Policy and Canadian Secretary to the Queen, Machinery of Government, Privy Council Office]

Not that I'm aware of, but that doesn't really fall into our bailiwick, so there may well have been.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Could we find out if there was a plan? If there was a plan, everyone within the precinct should know that.

Could the groups...? My questions are going to be difficult now. You're not aware if there was a plan for the parliamentary precinct. Is that correct?

[Allen Sutherland]

No, we're not. It's not our area of expertise.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Okay. Seeing as most of my questions were related to that, I will turn this over to my colleague, Stéphane Lauzon.

Thank you.

[Allen Sutherland]

You have my apologies.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

No, not at all—thank you for sharing your expertise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Mr. Lauzon. You have three and a half minutes.

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

Mr. Sutherland and Mr. Booth, thank you for being here.

You talked about prorogation dates. Is there a mechanism that determines a specific date to begin prorogation? You also talked about a return date. Is there a mechanism that forces us to have a specific date? Explain the principle to me please.

[Allen Sutherland]

There is precious little; it is governed by convention. There are some limits as to how long the House can—as I'm sure members know—not sit. The limit is 365 days. In terms of setting the date, it is entirely within the PM's prerogative to determine the dates.

I would turn to my colleague, Don Booth, who has additional information on recent dates and prorogation.

[Donald Booth]

When the proclamation is drafted to prorogue, a pro forma date must also be set at that time as established by the Prime Minister. Generally, traditionally it has been 40 days or thereabouts, but in the past few decades that has varied. The pro forma date can be changed. Doing so just requires the issuing of a subsequent proclamation.

Over the last three or four decades, it has varied from 14 days in 2002 to 32 days in 2007 to 63 days in 2009. It really depends on the circumstances of the day and the decision. It's the PM's decision.

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

That brings me to another question. I don't want to interrupt you, as this is very interesting, but I don't have much time left.

There were prorogations under the Conservatives. We all heard it today.

Is there a difference between how those prorogations occurred and how this last prorogation occurred?

[Allen Sutherland]

No, the same basic procedures would have been followed and have been followed since Confederation and indeed since before Confederation.

[Donald Booth]

There used to be an alternative process that was a more formal process in the Senate, but that was discontinued back in the 1980s. Now it is just the issuing of an instrument of advice followed by a proclamation.