Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 18th, 2021

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

No. Sometimes you are going to have to reverse course and do things in the general interest that may go against your ideology. I think we've seen that with a host of governments throughout the pandemic. I actually would argue that we've worked better together than we normally do in this country.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks.

Wouldn't one then expect that a new Speech from the Throne would have some continuity or be largely similar in some respects to a previous Speech from the Throne?

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

It would, but this was not a normal Speech from the Throne. This was a Speech from the Throne—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Certainly not.

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

—that came on the heels of a prorogation, so mentioning things like child care, which is linked to the pandemic, and pharmacare, which can be linked to the pandemic, should have been linked in a much more explicit fashion.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate that.

You've actually gone further to say, in your opening remarks, that the new Speech from the Throne didn't have “much substance”. I'm quoting you. I have your written remarks here, so I circled that. I found that kind of strange from my perspective because I know how much extensive consultation went into formulating a new Speech from the Throne.

Have you done an analysis of the Speech from the Throne in comparison to the previous one?

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

I have not done that. I have listened to lots of Speeches from the Throne in the past.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you.

I have and I just wanted to ask you if you were aware that the new Speech from the Throne had a focus on building back better. That wasn't even a part of the political lexicon, as far as I know, in terms of the key message prior to the pandemic.

Would you say that's true?

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

Putting in a phrase is not the same as developing a set of policy and policy ideas. Coming up with a catchphrase is not the same thing.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I see that as much more than a catchphrase, but you're free to disagree, of course.

What about the mention and the very significant section on system racism and addressing that? There's a very large section on addressing systemic racism, which is something that's definitely been highlighted in this throughout the pandemic. That was a new feature in the throne speech that wasn't in the previous one.

Would you say that's true? Would you acknowledge at least that was new?

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

That had been further developed than what we had seen in the previous throne speech.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Okay, so there were some new developments. Your claim about “not much substance”.... What about the national standards for long-term care? To me this is something that's emerged as a major priority coming out of the pandemic and the failures that we've seen across the country in long-term care.

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

The problem with that, of course, is jurisdiction. Yes, talking about long-term care that is in the avenue of the provinces is also problematic, which is why there is a section in my statement—which I didn't read, but it was distributed—about why many of the premiers were also upset with the throne speech for other reasons.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I certainly recognize that there are jurisdictional challenges, but the point I'm trying to ask you about and make is just that it wasn't in the previous Speech from the Throne because the pandemic actually raised that issue.

In fact, there were—at least in my view—three or four major things in the Speech from the Throne that were not in the previous one that emerged as priorities as a result of the pandemic. The other one I would reference for you is the support for the hardest hit sectors, which is certainly something that was featured in that speech, among many other things.

From my perspective, the speech had a lot of substance to it. Perhaps maybe not from yours, but I think there's evidence to the contrary.

I want to ask you another question about timing. I think the other pointed remark that you made was really creating a causal link between two things that happened in time. I know from studying science and understanding that...timing doesn't necessarily create a causal link. Would you agree with that?

My daughter didn't do her homework last night doesn't mean that's the reason I woke up grumpy this morning.

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

Absolutely. It's all about the context of that timing and determining whether there's a causal link. I would think the resignation of the finance minister leading to prorogation the next day is a pretty good causal link.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Professor Bratt.

Mr. Therrien, you have two and a half minutes.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

It's quite clear that the prorogation sought by the government was politically motivated and tied to the WE Charity situation.

Mr. Turnbull, the honourable Liberal member, tried to tell us that the two throne speeches were different. Other than the part that involves interfering in an area of provincial jurisdiction—which all the provinces and Quebec came out against—I don't really see anything new.

I'd like to hear the views of the two witnesses, since they are both experts on the issue before us, but I don't want to put words in anyone's mouth.

Were there any significant differences in the new throne speech that would lead us to believe the government had a valid reason to prorogue Parliament? Is it clear from the throne speech that the government reset its agenda?

[Patrick Taillon]

It's necessary to differentiate between the content of the throne speech and the effect of the reset.

The government is claiming that it has taken a new direction. Has it? I don't have an opinion one way or the other. I will say that, ultimately, I don't think that's what matters. If the government wants to deliver a new throne speech, it can use prorogation to do that.

The effect of the prorogation is what really matters. Prorogation has the effect of ending all of the parliamentary proceedings that were under way and resetting the agenda.

It is possible to have a government that wants to deliver a new throne speech and chart a new course without proroguing Parliament. The government is under no obligation to prorogue Parliament in order to pursue a change in policies. That goes to the very essence of our system. Ours is not an imperative mandate system. Members of Parliament and the government are there to serve the public interest, and they are free to change direction when the circumstances warrant such a change.

As I see it, the effect of the government reset is really what matters most, what makes the biggest difference. Why is the government hitting the reset button? What measures does it choose to bring back? What measures does it oppose? What is it shutting the door on once Parliament resumes?

I think all of that matters a whole lot. Obviously, context plays a part. It's not always possible to point to a causal link, in this case, between an ongoing investigation and the decision to reset the agenda. One thing is certain: once the House has returned, if the government does not co-operate with efforts to see the investigation through, it may be a sign that the reset had the intended effect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Professor.

Mr. Blaikie, you have two and a half minutes.

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

I want to come back to my initial question but maybe in a new way.

In 2015, we had a prime minister and a party that formed a new government that recognized the problem with abuses of prorogation. Their answer was to require a report to be filed after prorogation. I think we're seeing that this answer comes up short in some ways. It's better than what we had before, but it's not the gold standard.

In your view, in regard to a government that was really keenly determined to prevent future abuses of prorogation, what are some additional steps that such a government could have taken, and could take now, if they were really focused on the question of preventing abuse rather than talking about it after the fact?

Monsieur Taillon, and then Mr. Bratt if we have time left.

[Patrick Taillon]

The smallest—but most effective—change would be to put a time limit on prorogation in an effort to eventually establish a new use, a new convention. I don't have enough time to tell you about all the small, but sophisticated, reforms that could be made to the conventions. Nevertheless, putting a time limit on how long Parliament can be prorogued is probably the best way to ensure the government still has access to prorogation, while reducing potential harmful effects.

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

Mr. Bratt, do you have a quick reflection for us?

[Dr. Duane Bratt]

I would also say, this is not the first example, nor will it be the last, of an opposition party saying one thing and promising to do one thing, and then when in government, doing something different. We see this, and particularly the differences between being in a majority and a minority government. Had they been in a majority situation in July 2020, there would not have been as good committee work done as there was with a minority situation. I doubt that this committee itself would have been formed if there had been a majority government.

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

Thank you very much.

Madam Chair, I think that's pretty much it for my time, and I know we have some important business to discuss.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. Thank you so much.

I especially thank the witnesses today for being here and being so thoughtful and direct in your responses.

We will carry on now. You're free to sign off from today's meeting.

I'll have the rest of the members stay signed in to the public portion of the meeting because we have the election of the first vice-chair to take care of.

We'll have the clerk conduct that election.