Evidence of meeting #25 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was prorogation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Perhaps it was not even good enough to know what your next move was.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor, you have the floor. You may resume.
Liberal
Ginette Petitpas Taylor Liberal Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I'll be happy to continue with my thoughts on this subject.
In accordance with our constitutional conventions, the power to prorogue Parliament rests with the Governor General, who, let us be clear on this, exercises this power on the advice of the Prime Minister. Similarly, the calling of elections and the selection of ministers are political actions left entirely to the discretion of the Prime Minister. There is nothing wrong or inappropriate about it, and I'm convinced that the Conservatives agree on this point, at least when they are in power.
Furthermore, opposition members may continue to draw conclusions about the amount of time that has gone by between prorogation and the Speech from the Throne, or twist things around in the hope of making things match their version of the facts. They have maintained that in the past, there was only a day or two between prorogation and the subsequent throne speech. And yet, they know very well that it isn't true. Let's not forget that the previous Conservative government prorogued Parliament and stopped working not only for a few days, but for weeks.
At the time, the Conservatives gave as a rationale for their actions the extraordinary circumstances surrounding the 2008 economic crisis. In many respects, the situation in which we found ourselves at the end of the 2020 year was much worse than the one faced by the Conservatives in 2008. The government had to deal concurrently with an incredibly widespread international pandemic and huge economic problems. No one here could have anticipated what happened over the past year. It was not the time to produce a roadmap to set a course for our government. Instead, we took the time to conduct consultations to ensure that we would be able to take the right approach on behalf of all Canadians.
The welfare of Canadians was this government's top priority throughout its term, particularly during this unprecedented pandemic. Unlike our opposition colleagues, we have not been wasting our time attempting to score easy political points. Over the weekend, I had the opportunity to speak to my fellow citizens, and they are well aware that as members of Parliament and as a government, we have worked tirelessly to help them and will continue to be there for them.
It's perfectly clear that the appearance of witnesses being requested by some members of Parliament is not necessary. The Prime Minister, Ms. Telford and Minister Chagger have already testified in connection with this file. The clerk could easily request their testimony from the Standing Committee on Finance. As for Minister Freeland, frankly, I wonder why she's on this list at all, because she has nothing to do with the prorogation debate. Although she performs a key and important function in government management, she's not the Prime Minister and therefore has no role to play in the decision to prorogue Parliament.
What Canadians need in the future is for parliamentarians to focus on the task in hand. The economic recovery to come will be the greatest since the Second World War. Canadians don't have time for political gamesmanship. I'd like to reiterate what my fellow citizens told me repeatedly over the weekend: they want us to work together and they want us to be there to help them.
My colleagues said that they were prepared to join us in putting together a team Canada that could rebuild our economy after the pandemic. We are therefore prepared to lend a hand and to ask them to join us so that the we can work together on it. Canadians expect us to do that for them.
This isn't the moment for a political offensive on the WE Charity. This whole matter was investigated in depth and put on the back burner. It's now time to focus on the welfare of Canadians.
Once again, as I said before, I had the opportunity to speak to a hundred or so of my fellow citizens last weekend and no one mentioned the WE Charity. What they really wanted from us was for us to put all of our energy into the economic recovery and for us to continue to give them the assistance they need to manage this pandemic. Of course, vaccination is central to these efforts.
I'm asking my colleagues on the other side of the table to withdraw this motion and join us to work on behalf of all Canadians.
Madam Chair, I'll stop there, because I can see that several hands have been raised. I still have a lot to say, but I can wait until the next round.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Your comments were very apt, Ms. Petitpas Taylor. You were emphatic about not requiring an appearance by the Prime Minister, and the need to simply get on with it.
I'd also like to remind everyone of the importance of the subject under discussion here, which is prorogation. That's the main reason for our meeting today. We need to produce a report that might possibly suggest changes that would improve the prorogation process.
Having said that, the Prime Minister has spoken clearly to the people. He explained his position on the prorogation of Parliament and the resumption of parliamentary work.
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
I have a point of order, Madam Chair.
I'm just recognizing how much we're going to be going over time. With all the fear, I know there's been a lot of confusion and concern about interpretation. I want to make sure that reinforcements are available. We don't want any problems involving the health and safety of all of our interpreters.
Could we make sure that everybody's available or see how we're going to go around the logistics of this issue?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, we're working on that on the back end. We just had a vote. It seems like the will of the committee is to move on, so we'll be doing that work on the back end to make sure that the will of the members can be carried on.
I think, however, that we may not have backup after two o'clock. I'm trying to figure that out, but I will give the floor back to Mr. Lauzon.
Thank you for bringing that point up, Ms. Vecchio.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Ms. Vecchio, It is indeed important for our support staff, and in particular the interpreters, to be able to meet our needs and remain healthy. That, moreover, is one of the reasons why we introduced a motion for us to continue the discussion at the next meeting. Unfortunately, a partisan motion was introduced which prevents us from ending our meeting today and forces us to continue to explain why this motion should be withdrawn.
It's very unusual in Canadian history for a prime minister to come and give evidence. We know the intent underlying such a request. Indeed, the opposition's game plan was established even before we had these committee discussions. That's what I've understood in light of what I've heard in the House and during the evidence given by those invited at the suggestion of all parties. The claim was that a solution had been found even before discussions began on this committee. So the reasons why this request to have the Prime Minister appear remain nebulous.
We received many documents and I have read all the testimony as of the month of December, including that given by Dr. David Williams, the Chief Medical Officer of Health for the Ontario Ministry of Health. On December 10, he told us that intensive care units had reached their capacity. This was in December, when you began to receive witnesses. The hospitals were already seriously tested at the time. There was already a shortage of beds in intensive care. Today, the situation is different.
It's important to understand that prorogation allowed us to take stock. There is more than just the health system. We haven't yet spoken about how the crisis has affected tourism or rural companies like the ones in my riding. A riding like mine, which has 41 municipalities, depends on micro-enterprises. Most employers there have one or two employees. Sometimes, the owner is the only employee. It was therefore extremely important to request a prorogation, to size things up and to find an approach that could provide assistance to ridings like mine.
In Ontario, Quebec and other provinces, the system has become very vulnerable. People are exhausted, fed up with COVID-19, and want to move on to something else.
Our understanding of this request is that they want to pour fuel on the fire and generate more debate so that the Prime Minister or anyone else invited further to this motion would provide testimony that would be included in the proceedings. We already know what this evidence would say, because the government has already addressed the people through a Speech from the Throne, an economic statement and public meetings. The Prime Minister has spoken almost every day to keep Canadians informed.
How do you go about keeping everyone informed about a federal system that has been seriously affected by a crisis that a country like ours has never experienced before? It's the worst event to have ever happened, with the exception of the world wars. Try to understand why a prorogation is important in such instances. It's not the right time to talk about the ideal moment to request prorogation, the best way to proceed, or the ideal length of the interval between a prorogation and the resumption of work.
These six weeks were extremely important to take stock of the whole situation and make a forceful return. During that period, there were discussions within the government and public servants worked tirelessly.
A government's organizational systems and programs are not designed to manage a pandemic. They are used to implement government decisions, which always have an impact on the public service. May I remind you of the Phoenix pay system, whose failures completely short-circuited the workings of the government apparatus.
Decisions made during the pandemic, including the decision to prorogue Parliament, placed an increased burden of work on the public service, particularly with respect to managing the required portfolios. When a $300 billion deficit is reported, that's how much money was spent on administering them. The money, from government coffers, is being used to help people, and our fellow citizens in the various ridings. Our public servants manage these funds directly.
Ms. Vecchio raised an important point earlier. She emphasized that it was important to take care of our employees and interpreters. The same goes for all public service employees, who are having to deal with an added workload within the federal government machinery. This pandemic is a life lesson both administratively and politically, one that we must, together, put to good use in moving forward.
Nothing good would come from this motion. It doesn't help us advance, and it could frighten Canadians. We need to write a report, for one thing, but we also need to work on courses of action to improve the system. Being able to sit on the Standing Committee on Procedures and House Affairs is a godsend. It gives me the opportunity to help improve House and electoral procedures so that we can move forward within a modern system.
We have developed modern tools, including an electronic voting application. It's going to change the world of politics. We're in step with the latest methods that will enable us to change, and to adapt to today's technology. Proroguing a government like ours is a decision that will pay off.
The Prime Minister requested the prorogation of Parliament with a view to making it better than it was before. In life, it's important not to be afraid of taking one step back to move two steps forward. In the course of my career, I've acquired positive values. Ambiguous situations frequently came up, and decisions were difficult to make. I've learned that taking a step back can allow you to see more clearly. I'm particularly fond of an English expression that expresses that idea well.
We have to look at the big picture.
Stepping back provides an overview that makes you better prepared to move forward.
Our Prime Minister reassured Canadians when he mentioned the need to change the data tied to certain programs, and that had to be adjusted over time. I am thinking in particular of the Canada Emergency Response Benefit and the controversial Canada Emergency Student Benefit.
Allow me to give you another example. Before prorogation, there was a problem in my riding for companies that operate ferryboats. Four ferries were going back and forth between Ontario and Quebec. There were no provisions in the existing programs that could help companies like these, which operated seasonally. It was impossible for them to come up with numbers for the previous year, because on the specified dates for that year, they had been unable to operate because of floods.
What happened in my riding was unprecedented. Who could have predicted that another flood would occur on the same date of the following year, during the pandemic?
To receive assistance, a company had to demonstrate what their net revenue had been during this period. The companies in my riding provided essential services because it was the only way to cross the river between Ontario and Quebec. As there is no bridge in my rural riding, people depended on the ferryboats. People have no idea of the challenges faced by the ferries in my riding during the pandemic.
We were able to deal with the situation, and not because I'm a member of the same party as Justin Trudeau. During the pandemic, I was in the same grey area as all members of Parliament.
In the House, I heard some of my colleagues talking about specific cases. We all vehemently defended a number of these. In the House, when members reported a situation in their ridings, the minister would tell them to send the matter to his department and they would look into what could be done. He did not want to proceed on a case-by-case basis in the House. There was often no real solution, and there was no perfect recipe for dealing with these matters.
To move forward, a government must sometimes take a step back.
I've heard that there was only one reason for the prorogation, and that it wasn't the pandemic. I'm sorry, but if that's what people are thinking, then this motion is inappropriate here. My way of thinking agrees with what Canadians think. We're not here to frighten people, but to help them and give them grants, as we did for seniors. We made decisions.
During the pandemic, we helped elderly couples because they had financial needs. They had to pay more to have their groceries delivered, for their prescription drugs, and all kinds of other things. The government provided $1,500 for elderly couples. That's very important. We were there for seniors and everyone else.
I find it very disappointing to hear what my colleagues are saying, when what was needed was perspective.
I even asked a witness what he thought would have been the ideal time to prorogue Parliament, and how come he thought that the prorogation should have lasted two days in August and that that would have been enough. I agree that we need to consult specialists. However specialists are not members of Parliament who work in the field and who meet their fellow citizens; they're not public servants who have to work on the recovery or on rebooting the government; they're not ministers who meet every evening in order to be able to make the best possible decisions. The Prime Minister and his ministers redoubled their efforts and worked long hours to take care of citizens. They worked relentlessly to make the best possible decisions.
And yet, here we are being told that the solution was simple. We're being told that prorogation could have occurred earlier. My colleagues and I don't have a crystal ball. We therefore can't know what's going on in every riding. We can't put ourselves in the shoes of the seniors in long-term care centres. In Ontario and Quebec, we had to send the military and the Red Cross to these centres. Doctors, nurses and armed forces client care attendants came to support the system, because it was failing during the pandemic.
The Canadian health system couldn't cope with the suffering caused by COVID-19.
Now I'm being told that these aren't good reasons to prorogue Parliament. My fellow citizens are more important than the underlying reasons for such claims, and in a situation like this, they need to be the priority. We need to move ahead and finalize the report.
As a new member of the committee, I want to make a contribution. I'm not yet familiar with all of the procedures, but there are a few points that make me sorry for not having been here before. I would have liked to do more to defend certain subjects as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs by proposing solutions, studies or adjustments that could be made to the studies in progress. I promise to be here for what comes next.
Right now, it's important not to send a negative message to the people. We don't need it. What people in need is reassurance. We need to show solidarity among all government parties and to encourage collaborative decisions.
This week, I feel obliged to defend seniors, in Canada and Quebec, because of the false allegations made by the leader of the Bloc Québécois. How can you get things moving in the right places when the leader of the Bloc Québécois is giving seniors false information to frighten them?
Today, this prorogation—
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I can understand that things can get heated sometimes in our debates, but isn't it unparliamentary to accuse the leader of the Bloc Québécois of lying ?
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
Madam Chair, I said that the leader of the Bloc Québécois had not told the truth, which is true. The information he sent to seniors was false, and we need to call it out. I take full responsibility, Madam Chair.
Liberal
Stéphane Lauzon Liberal Argenteuil—La Petite-Nation, QC
In any event, it's important to reframe the prorogation debate. It's important to make decisions and to work together. That's the message I want to send today.
Why make the Prime Minister come here, and pour fuel on the fire.
Continuing to call for the presence of the Prime Minister, which is something that happens only in exceptional circumstances, when we already have everything we need to make decisions and produce a report, strikes me as pointless.
According to Dr. David Williams, Ontario is in agreement with our committee. He is a witness, and I will therefore quote his sentence:
...the administration of an election should be executed without creating further barriers to voting, especially in consideration of providing every individual who is legally able to vote with the opportunity to vote, regardless of accessibility needs.
There is an important point in what he said afterwards:
That means using assistive voting technology and other types of assistance at the voting location...
It's important for us to keep up with what's happening, and we need to discuss it in this committee. We could bring a motion simply on the basis of Dr David Williams' December 10 evidence. He believes that technology could play an extremely important role.
Think about the challenges to be met and the problems to be dealt with in a riding like mine, where barely 40% of the population has access to high-speed Internet, and where people have to drive for an hour to get to the nearest polling station. We need only think of elderly people or those with decreasing independence who need transportation assistance when there is none in rural areas. They need a friend or family member to help out. There are also those who live alone. We need to debate the procedure and some factors that are extremely important for the future of this committee, not to mention the fact that we have a long list of other subjects to discuss.
For all these reasons, I sincerely believe that we should reject this motion and concentrate on writing the report.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair. I appreciate this.
I really appreciate the comments and sentiments of my colleagues. I substantially share them. I feel that the message from Mr. Lauzon about working together is really key for us to keep in mind here.
From my perspective, this feels like there's partisanship, a desire to win political points and assume what the conclusion will be of this study. I've done a bit of reading on this. Just looking back at some of the questions and testimony by members on this committee and other members of other parties in the House, it's obvious to me that quite a lot of comments have been made that assume this study's conclusion.
I would say this. What is the point of doing a study if we don't bring real, clear, honest, good-faith intentions in undertaking the study to get to a conclusion? If it's a foregone conclusion, then it seems like it's done for other purposes, and I call that into question. I just don't know.
I would like to say, for the record, that this committee has heard from senior officials from the Privy Council's Office about the norms and conventions regarding prorogation. Their testimony has reconfirmed for us what we've heard from multiple witnesses, namely, that prorogation is within the prerogative of the Governor General at the advice of the prime minister. This has been consistent. We've heard this over and over again.
Our government obviously believes, and has maintained all along, that we are being upfront with Canadians and explaining our decisions. This has not been the standard practice in the past. Conservative governments have made no attempt, as far as I can tell based on my research, to explain why they prorogued in the past. Stephen Harper prorogued, I think, four times. I calculated that Parliament was prorogued for something like 181 days in his time as prime minister. Some of those moments were quite controversial. Certainly, I'm sure the opposition benches were rightly skeptical about some of those, and I think that's fine.
In particular, in 2017, as members know, our government instituted a change that requires all governments going forward to table a report in the House of Commons explaining the reasons for prorogation. We have that report. This is a major improvement from the past, and I don't really hear anyone acknowledging that. Here we are in a pandemic and the government prorogued. I think there was a real rational basis for that based on the massive, full-court press approach that we all took collaboratively, and I think quite successfully, in the early stages of the pandemic and through the first wave.
Here we are, and the government has provided a detailed rationale. Instead of looking at the merits of that report, we're calling it into question. If there was a good-faith attempt at doing that, then I could see myself being very supportive. I think we have been very collaborative, in the sense that when the opposition parties wanted to dig further into this and do a study, we were very willing to undertake that. At this point, I feel like we've exhausted that study. We had witnesses who came forward—12 of them, in fact. We heard some substantial evidence. Perhaps that doesn't fit with what the opposition members want to try to prove, which they have no evidence for, which is something that is, really, from what I see, just being assumed.
Of course, committees have the ability to study certain matters. I know that PROC previously studied the prorogations of former governments.
Madam Chair, my concern is this. We've already heard loud and clear from opposition members and members of all parties on what they view to be the reasons behind prorogation. They've been clear on what they perceive the reasons to be, so I'm not sure what the purpose is of moving forward. We can belabour this, and keep studying and studying and studying, but there is so much other important business that we could be doing.
I believe in the role of opposition parties and the constructive relationship we can have in a minority Parliament. I really believe that this working together is extremely important. I'm just finding it hard to believe that there are good intentions here. There seems to be a presupposition of the conclusion. I have many examples of this.
I don't mean to pick on Mr. Blaikie at all, but the honourable member from the NDP said on January 28, at the very beginning of this study, that he believes it is “pretty clear...that the prerogative for prorogation was abused and was used to get the government out of a political crisis”. I mean, that showcases right there that you're putting your opinion and belief before actually undertaking the study. You're leading with that opinion. You're looking for evidence to support that. The fact that you haven't gotten that at this point....
You've gotten a whole bunch of opinions from academics. You've heard from the House leader. I will note that we had the Honourable Pablo Rodriguez, the leader of the government in the House of Commons. From the Privy Council Office we had Allen Sutherland, assistant secretary to the cabinet in the office of the deputy secretary to the cabinet; and Donald Booth, director of strategic policy and Canadian security to the Queen, machinery of government. These are two officials who....
Let me also say that people had turns to ask their questions. I went through the testimony, and Mr. Deltell and Mr. Therrien had two rounds. Mr. Blaikie had two rounds; Mr. Nater, Mr. Lukiwski. All asked very good questions of the government House leader. We had our round. It was a fair process. Everybody had their turn. We got the answers that the government provided in addition to the substantive report.
With regard to the officials, Ms. Vecchio had two rounds. Mr. Kent had a round; Mr. Therrien, Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Nater again. I hope I didn't miss anybody. There has been quite an opportunity here to question those officials and the government House leader. When I look at some of the other comments that individuals made prior to getting into the study, and even how they framed their questions, most of the questions assumed the conclusion they were looking for.
I guess what I'm asking is this: What's the point? Is this just a political play here to win points? I mean, it just seems pretty clear. Furthermore, the House leader for the Bloc Québécois said at the last meeting, before we even heard from witnesses, that it was clear to him that Parliament was prorogued to put an end to the work of the committees that were looking at the WE Charity scandal.
Madam Chair, would you call it a good-faith question when you're assuming the answer that you want to hear in the question itself? Like, what's a study for? A study is to explore an issue that we all think is important. This is one, we've agreed with you, where, okay, let's dig in further and study this. We've done that, at this point. It just seems like we've exhausted the list of witnesses.
Ms. Vecchio, I don't understand why you included certain witnesses in your motion. I wish you could tell us. Why is the Minister of Finance, for example, in the motion? It makes no sense to me. I don't understand why the Honourable Chrystia Freeland, the deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, would be in there.
Obviously, all of the other witnesses imply an agenda, which is to somehow link prorogation to WE Charity and the things that happened. I will note that I followed the work of the finance and the ethics committees and some of the other committees and I know most of that work picked up basically where it left off after prorogation. When I think about this from a rational perspective, I think the honourable members of this committee sometimes claim this was an attempt to shut down that committee work.
I'm on another standing committee, HUMA, and we resumed our work and put all the motions forward again in one, very large motion that put all of those things back on the agenda. My understanding is that other committees largely did the same. There may be some exceptions, but that work continued.
Also, I'd reference the Conservative member for Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, who rose in the House of Commons on September 24, 2020, to say “that the Prime Minister, we all know, decided to prorogue Parliament because of his involvement in the WE charity scandal”, and that prorogation was all about distraction. Furthermore on October 5, the member for Selkirk—Interlake—Eastman stated that, “The only reason we had prorogation by the Prime Minister...is the WE scandal”, and he went on to say that it was about trying to do a cover-up.
There seems to be a deliberate attempt here to put out these statements and conclusions without any evidence other than what we've heard from people, which I've hotly contested, that just because of the timing there are really good reasons the government prorogued at that time. It made sense to re-evaluate at a moment when we were in-between the first and second waves of COVID-19. It was a natural point at which you could reflect on how we were going to prepare for the second wave and how we were going to deal with the deep economic scarring and the incredible vulnerability that Canadians have been suffering through coming out of this.
Certainly I see how much work we did during that time. Mr. Blaikie has claimed that we took a break. We didn't take a break. So much consultation and so much work went into essentially trying to evaluate where we were as a country after this exhausting full-court press of a major global crisis. To me that seems very rational, and it coincides with what others have said. There's testimony on this from, I think, our first meeting. I can't remember the name of the person. I do have it here, but I won't go there yet. I'll save that one for a little later.
Essentially one of the many reasons that governments have prorogued throughout history was a major shift in context, which certainly causes people to ask if our priorities as a government are the same. Should we be re-evaluating them and ensuring that we have the confidence of the House and that we're addressing the needs of Canadians? To me that's responsive, responsible government.
Not only have we been more transparent than any government in history in Canada by tabling a report and undertaking a study willingly, but now we're also at a juncture where, okay, the opposition parties aren't getting what they want, so they're trying to bully or force us into delays that eventually, I'm sure, you want to continue and to—
Conservative
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull.
Of course, we don't want a delay, so we could have an option of either going to a vote or.... Unfortunately, I want to ensure that we not adjourn just because it's QP, and if that is the decision, we should be suspending and returning after QP if this issue has not been voted on and settled.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I am having the team look at resources. Right now other committees have the space occupied after this meeting, so we definitely have until 2 p.m. and—
Conservative
Karen Vecchio Conservative Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON
We have confirmed that. It should be good. Thank you.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
At the beginning of the very first meeting of this committee's study on the government's prorogation, the member for Moose Jaw—Lake Centre—Lanigan had preamble in his question to Dr. Ian Brodie, former prime minister Harper's chief of staff, by saying that this committee is “charged with the responsibility of conducting a study on the reasons why this government and the Prime Minister prorogued Parliament.” He continued in the same breath to say, “Quite frankly, the reasons are crystal clear, and we all know it”, again, implying that they knew what was really going on and assuming the conclusion.
That same member, at the last meeting held on February 16 continued to show his pre-judgment of this matter and his inherent bias by stating without a study or concurrence by this committee that “It is clear to everyone in this committee, and I know it's clear to you as well, there was only one reason for prorogation being called in early August.” Again, this demonstrates that there's not a good faith intention being brought to this study. It's assuming the conclusion.
Again, what's the point of doing a study and not moving forward to our recommendations if the opposition already have their minds made up? This is really what we're seeing here. You have your mind made up, so what's the point in hearing from further witnesses. It doesn't make sense to me.
I think there's only one reason. Does the member think that prosecutors should also be able to sit on a jury and pre-submit their vote before an investigation starts? It seems kind of ridiculous, doesn't it?
Anyway, I'd be happy to engage in some good faith debate with some of the members opposite, but they make it increasingly difficult for me to give them the benefit of the doubt, and really, how could I?
The member went on to say that there was a “singular reason for doing so”, and by “so”, the record should reflect that the member is referring to prorogation. A singular reason, Madam Chair. It is baffling that the member and other members of his party and only opposition members can sit here and say, “Let's study prorogation and get to the bottom of this”. Get to the bottom of what, Madam Chair? It looks like they've already made up their minds long ago.
I have so many other statements here of members who have made claims about this over and over again. This is something they're trying to impress in people's minds. I would say it's merely for political points. It's trying to create a perception out there among Canadians that prorogation was done for the purpose that they want it to seem like it was done for. That's just not the case.
When you don't get the evidence that you want, do you keep searching and searching until you find what seems like it will support your theory? That's bad science. You haven't got what you want, and it's unfortunate, I guess, from your perspective, but it just doesn't make sense from my perspective as to why we continue delaying other important work that we have as a committee.
I have at least three other ideas of other studies that we could undertake. We have a list of other committee business that was provided to us in the brief in advance. There are a lot of important items of business here that could really be helping Canadians right now.
Madam Chair, I really find this motion confusing. First of all, I don't understand why Ms. Vecchio would want to hear from certain people in it. It doesn't make sense to me. I think for the reasons that I mentioned, it really assumes a conclusion that I think is reaching, at best.
I strongly oppose this motion because of the intentions with which it has been brought forward.
Thank you.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
My colleagues will no doubt be pleased to hear that I don't intend to speak for very long. However, I would like to give you my point of view on the motion, and about the comments I've heard from my colleagues. I know that the member for La Prairie has already made his own comments, but as we are two different people, I'll allow myself to make my own.
I heard some arguments to the effect that some people have already testified before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I find it difficult to understand how this argument can hold water, because the people who have already testified before the Standing Committee on Finance did so before prorogation. Here today, we're asking for them to give evidence about prorogation. That's why their presence would not be entirely pointless simply because they previously testified before the Standing Committee on Finance.
We're being told that it's pointless to have more witnesses appear, and that we've already made up our minds. The evidence heard was mainly circumstantial or based on an analysis of prorogation criteria. It's relevant from that standpoint, because it could give us an idea of what the conclusions of an eventual report would be. However, as my colleague Ms. Petitpas Taylor mentioned, the prerogative for prorogation belongs to the Prime Minister. He is well aware of the factors that underpin his decision, hence the relevance of his testimony.
We've also been told that it's not relevant to have Minister Chagger come, or chief of staff Katie Telford. I think you'd have to be deliberately blind to say that it is frivolous to suggest that prorogation was used to hide the WE Charity scandal. It's certainly possible. The party in power may not be happy about it, but if I were in their shoes, I'd be uneasy about saying it's completely frivolous. Given the context, evidence from those affected by the WE Charity scandal definitely becomes relevant, even if only as circumstantial evidence.
What I was hearing about the very idea of a study of prorogation almost made me fearful. For example, someone said that it's the Prime Minister's prerogative and that we ought not to challenge it unduly, because the Prime Minister can do it and if he wants to do it then let him do it.
Moreover, in his testimony, professor Daniel Turp Said that the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom had rendered a decision in the fall of 2019 ruling to the effect that even when there is a prerogative, it's a power that requires limitations. The Supreme Court of the United Kingdom came to a decision, indicating that there had been an abuse of power and ruled the prorogation at issue unlawful, thus cancelling it. In such a context, I think that the subject is altogether relevant, not only for what has just happened, but also for the future. After all, people on the government side mentioned that there had been four prorogations under the Conservative government. That's completely pertinent in the exercise of democracy. According to the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom, prorogation cannot be exercised irrespectively of Parliament's capacity to perform its constitutional and legislative duties. It's altogether relevant to ask whether this prorogation was legitimate. Doing so would make it possible to establish criteria for the future, in the event of another prorogation.
Those then are my comments on what I heard from my colleagues. I now gladly turn the floor over to whomever is next.
