Talking about the Prime Minister's behaviour often makes me want to shower as well, Peter, so I appreciate your contribution and I take it as being quite on theme. Relevance is a rarity here on committee.
It's because of the fact that there are questions as to the way in which the Prime Minister exercises the special prerogatives of his office that we need to have a timely study of Bill C-19. If the Prime Minister would just say that he is not going to call an election during the summer, we'd have lots of time to study Bill C-19. It's not a problem. We could study it over the summer and we could have something that the House could be prepared to vote on in the fall. The urgency for studying Bill C-19 comes directly as a result of the behaviour of our Prime Minister, and I put it to you that it's a false sense of urgency.
Canada does not require an election this summer. There shouldn't be an election this summer. Canadians don't want an election this summer. All of the opposition leaders have pledged not to trigger an election before the summer because they've all pledged not to trigger an election during the pandemic.
Certainly if we can get through these next five weeks without the opposition parties voting non-confidence, there could be no reason for the Prime Minister to decide to trigger an election in the summer, other than because he considers it to be in his own political interest. The opposition parties can't obstruct a Parliament that's not meeting. If there's a way to do that, why don't you let me know?
I'm looking at Mr. Turnbull there, because it seems to me that if Parliament is not meeting, opposition members can't obstruct it. Therefore, it seems to me that it would be perfectly reasonable for the Prime Minister to say that if we get to the point where Parliament is not meeting, he's not going to be the one to call an election. We can't get that. That's where the sense of urgency comes from on Bill C-19.
It would be a mistake to simply move on from this study. I do think we need to get to the point where we report back to the House. Look, PROC has spent a completely disproportionate amount of time debating how to proceed with this study. I think it would be an awful shame if we didn't report anything back to the House on that.
Simply moving on to the study of Bill C-19 and not coming to some kind of agreement as a committee on how we might proceed is a mistake. I recognize that it's challenging. I know that government members have dug in on various positions over the course of the debate, and I recognize that opposition parties don't always agree and that it can be difficult to carve a path forward. That's something I mentioned last time in the context of committing to try to do that, as the other parties did. We did indeed meet to try to find that way forward.
Again, we've seen what can happen to a committee when the interests of one political organization are at play. We've been going through dozens of hours of debate because Liberals don't want to have a vote on the motion that was put forward, despite the fact that there seems to be a majority consensus on the committee to move forward in the way proposed in Mrs. Vecchio's motion. Then you try to take three different political organizations, with different goals and different thoughts about where to go and how to do it, and that discussion certainly can become quite difficult as well.
However, we have been having that conversation over some time because I don't think anybody wants to hold this up. I don't want to speak for anyone, but certainly my impression in the discussion with the other parties is that I don't detect a real desire to be holding up the study of Bill C-19. However, I did also hear loud and clear that there needs to be some kind of resolution to this study.
I want to remind Liberal members on the committee that the reason we're in this study is because of a mechanism that the Prime Minister brought forward. As members here have heard me say before, it's not my preferred method for how to deal with questions on prorogation, or even dissolution. Again, I think those are very related powers, and they should be dealt with in a related way.
The best way that is not outlandish or coming from nowhere...In fact, the United Kingdom, which is where our model of Westminster parliamentary democracy comes from, has adopted a provision, so that it's actually Parliament that makes decisions about prorogation and dissolution.
Unfortunately, those more democratic ways of navigating the questions of dissolution and prorogation have not yet come to Canada. There are some reasons why it's more difficult to implement in Canada, but like many politically difficult situations, provided there's adequate supply of political will, there's usually a solution.
When it comes to prorogation, for instance, I've heard that Canada may even need to go so far as having a constitutional amendment in order to allow the House of Commons to make a decision about prorogation as opposed to leaving it uniquely up to the Prime Minister.
There have been some really interesting witnesses here. I think of Hugo Cyr, for instance, who was here talking about prorogation. Some witnesses essentially proposed workarounds in recognition of the fact that, by convention, it seems to be a constitutional power of the prime minister, and therefore, needing some kind of constitution-level intervention in order to change the way that prerogative would be exercised.
I think the best way to deal with prorogation...That would get us around the need to even have this study, because we would have a fulsome debate in the House of Commons, and then a decision by elected members of our Parliament on whether to prorogue or dissolve earlier than a fixed election date. That's the gold standard.
However, that's not the one the Prime Minister chose. What did the Prime Minister choose? The Prime Minister chose to say that the government would table reasons for prorogation, and that those would be deemed referred to PROC. Presumably, that didn't mean, “Let's refer them to PROC, so that PROC can use the file as a door stop.” As is often the case, when things are deemed referred to a committee for the purpose of study, just as the estimates are typically deemed referred, a committee typically deals with them if it's a well-functioning committee, and they are not held up in filibuster over what is a pretty straightforward motion.
That was the Prime Minister's solution, and that's why we're here. So, yes, Liberals did agree to have a study of prorogation. I take that to mean that they agreed to honour the Prime Minister's intent when he said that political abuses of prorogation were real. He recognized, in that proposal, the political dimension of accountability, that is to say, the dimension of accountability that goes above and beyond, strictly speaking, legal questions of the kind that a conflict of interest commissioner might rule on, for instance.
Here we are, and we're undertaking that study. We're undertaking it for the first time ever. I say with some measure of embarrassment, not individually but as a member of this committee, that when people look back to the founding study at PROC on reasons for prorogation, in some future instance where a prime minister is alleged to have prorogued for political reasons above other kinds of more altruistic reasons, or political reasons in the pejorative sense...There can be political reasons in a good sense, as well, and some of those may have been at play with respect to the pandemic, but they were used as cover for some other kinds of political motivations.
Fair enough, let's get the guy in here. Let's talk to him about it. That's the whole point after all.
Here we are, and this has been the kind of launch, if you will, of Prime Minister Trudeau's idea about how to stem political abuses of prorogation. I don't think it's gone very well, but I don't think it's beyond redemption.
It was very good until the filibuster started. We heard from people that we ought to have heard from. I'd have been happy not to have heard from the Government House Leader, though, and go straight to the Prime Minister, because, as I say, it was very clearly a decision for him to make, and that he did make.
We did all of that. It was going very well and then there were some reasonable proposals for other witnesses that had to do with some of the alleged reasons for prorogation. Suddenly, that wasn't acceptable to the government, so here we are stuck in a filibuster.
I think it's really important, in terms of setting a good precedent, that the Prime Minister appear. I think it's even more important that the upshot of this entire process not be that PROC fails to report back and that the Prime Minister uses a similar special prerogative to end the Parliament before PROC ever has a chance to report back. It would be a really bad precedent to say that these reasons are going to be flipped to PROC, that they might start to study it and hear from some good voices, but then they descend into a completely unproductive, months-long period of debate and never emerge. I think that would send the wrong message.
I would hope that if the Prime Minister or some of his folks are listening or some Liberals on the committee report back, there would be some sense of duty to this proposed solution so that we don't end up in a place where we don't even bother reporting back. How sad would that be?
I do think it's incumbent upon us to work towards some kind of resolution to what has been a very frustrating ordeal. That's why members of the opposition parties have been discussing what a way forward might look like. It's an odd position of reverse onus.
I've been part of opposition filibusters. If you're in an opposition filibuster, usually you see it as your own responsibility to find a way out of the filibuster.
With respect to Mr. Turnbull for having tried, it didn't really work. We haven't seen a lot of flexibility in terms of what the government might be prepared to accept or not accept. We had an up-and-down offer from Mr. Turnbull. I'm appreciative of the fact that we finally got to vote on that. I think that was good. As I say, it kind of clears the space for trying to find some other kind of alternative.
We may have to cycle through several attempts. If we can get into a place where we're proposing things and dealing with them without having to debate each proposal for months at a time, I think the committee would be well served. I think this special mechanism of the Prime Minister would be well served because it might actually get us to a point where we break the impasse.
If the model is that we're waiting on one person to propose one solution that's automatically going to rally everyone and if it doesn't, we're stuck in a months-long filibuster, we don't have enough time to make that model work. Arguably, even if we had another two years, we might not have enough time to make that model work. I'm just basing that on the precedent we've already set with the length of time we've spent considering Mr. Turnbull's amendment. That all gets hard to do.
I would definitely encourage, as we work through these things, a spirit of voting within a few meetings on any one proposal, so if it's not the one that's going to do it, we can dispense with it and move on and hear some other proposal. I think that might be a nice way to break the deadlock. There is definitely going to have to be some deadlock-breaking at this table, it seems to me.
I don't know that we're going to be able to negotiate something behind the scenes that brings everyone aboard all at once. The rhythm of the committee has to change because it's been quite slow. We need to move from what we've been doing in a couple months to doing in a couple meetings. I'm willing to make some proposals and not take their passage or failure personally. I think one is always disappointed if one makes a proposal toward resolution and it doesn't pass—at least in the sense of being hopeful for a resolution.
I would rather know that something I propose isn't going to work within a couple of meetings than to have to take a couple of months to get to a rather obvious conclusion.
In any event, I do now want to propose something. I know it may not be the thing for which everybody suddenly says, “That's amazing, I love it, obviously, why didn't we all think of this months ago?” I want to throw it out there as something for consideration. I would urge members to take a reflective approach to the proposal. I do think that there are advantages and disadvantages for all in this proposal. I certainly don't want to be causing any knee-jerk reactions.
I think it's fair to say, and other opposition members can correct me if I'm wrong, that I don't think we have a fully formed three-party proposal that's going to come forward today, so I'm going to put something out there that I think probably won't be shocking to anyone, but with an adequate period of reflection I think may be the solution. If it's not the way forward, then perhaps we could vote on it next day and dispense with it, so that the table can be clear for somebody else to put something forward. Maybe in the meantime there will be some discussions that help shepherd us all towards a common solution. I would certainly invite that and be happy to talk to people about what that might look like, if it's not the thing that I'm going to propose.
would like to propose an amendment to Ms. Vecchio's motion. I would move that the motion of Karen Vecchio concerning the committee's study of the government's reasons for the prorogation of Parliament in August 2020 be amended by 1) replacing paragraph a) with the following:
a) renew the invitation issued to the Prime Minister to appear before the committee, provided that if he does not agree, within one week of the adoption of this motion, to appear for at least three hours, the Chair shall be instructed to report to the House forthwith a recommendation that this committee be empowered to order his appearance from time to time;
2) by deleting paragraphs b) through h).
I want to talk about some of the advantages of this proposal. One of the things that we have heard loud and clear at this table many times is that the government takes exception to the idea that the procedure and House affairs committee would be for lack of a better term—I'm not sure I like this term—but relitigating the WE Charity scandal in the way that it has been dealt with at other committees.
We have heard that very clearly. It's something that I'm prepared to do, because I still think there's a dearth of answers. As I say, I don't think the government has really adequately been held to the kind of political accountability that I think the WE Charity scandal demands. That's why I've been very happy and comfortable about supporting Ms. Vecchio's motion.
I do hear that the government doesn't want to do that. For me, the question about the WE Charity scandal in the context of this study isn't about all of the details of the WE Charity scandal. We have seen the ethics committee deal with a number of those questions and hear from a number of the witnesses who were in Ms. Vecchio's motion. Rather, for me, the interest of the WE Charity scandal, as I say, has to do with the timing, the length and the nature of the prorogation that the Prime Minister in fact executed. Why did he prorogue on the day that he did? Why did he cancel a unanimous decision of Parliament to have four summer sittings? Why did he not heed calls by at least some opposition parties—I'll speak for the NDP here—to resume earlier in order to have some time for parliamentary dialogue about the replacement of CERB?
These are all important questions. I think the details of the WE Charity scandal do bear on those issues. I do want to talk to the Prime Minister about those things. Do I need to talk to the Deputy Minister and Minister of Finance, and to the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth? Even though a lot of the parliamentary dialogue certainly, and a lot of the media conversation and the evidence, points to their involvement in the way that the WE Charity scandal unfolded, they aren't the decision-makers when it comes to the timing and the nature of prorogation.
While I would like to hear from them here, and while I think their interventions may have some light to shed on how things happened, I don't need to hear from them in the same way in a study on prorogation. If I have to prioritize one witness in the entire motion by Ms. Vecchio, the Prime Minister is clearly it—for political reasons, sure, in the best sense. He was the decision-maker. The very kind of political accountability that Parliament is at least in part established to deliver rests with him. He is the appropriate person to ask about those issues.
I don't think I'm going to learn more about the nature of prorogation from the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth than I am from the government House leader. Those are two people who are part of a cabinet that the Prime Minister might have spoken to about the decision, but they aren't ultimately responsible for it. I do think that in the case of the Prime Minister, there's cause to believe that we might yet learn something. Even if we don't learn something new, it will have been a valuable exercise. That is how political, as opposed to legal, accountability operates. The decision-makers have to answer questions about what they did and why they did it.
Likewise, I think it would be very interesting to hear from Mr. Morneau about what his reasons for resigning were and why he thinks his resignation happened. I dare say it was “precipitated”...but I won't use that kind of prejudicial language, although it did happen right before prorogation. Does Bill Morneau think there's a link between those two things? I'd love to hear whether he thinks so or not.
The point remains that it wasn't Bill Morneau who decided to prorogue Parliament. It wasn't Bill Morneau who went down to the Governor General's residence when he did—because he didn't. The Prime Minister did. He made that call.
It would be useful to hear from Katie Telford, who I'm sure was involved in the decisions that led up to the Prime Minister exercising his special prerogative in the way that he did. Is it strictly necessary in order to better understand prorogation? It is not anywhere near to the same degree that the Prime Minister is.
The Kielburgers clearly had something to do with WE Charity, had a role to play in the proposal that WE Charity was pursuing with the government and had relationships with government that landed Bill Morneau in a conflict of interest. Did they decide when Parliament would be prorogued? No, they didn't decide that. Only one person could decide that, and that was the Prime Minister.
In a study of prorogation, who is it most important to hear from out of all these witnesses? It's the Prime Minister. There's no big surprise here, but I think it's important to reinforce. I recognize that the Kielburgers weren't the ones who made that decision. By saying we're going to limit the scope of this motion, does that mean there will be no questions about WE Charity for the Prime Minister? Absolutely not. If the Prime Minister appears, those questions will be properly directed at the decision-maker on prorogation. They can be asked in a way that gets to the bottom not just of the fact of prorogation, which obviously happened and is obviously a prerogative of the Prime Minister to prorogue, and nobody has ever disputed that....
The question is how he has used that prerogative and whether he has used it appropriately. There you have to get into the details of the actual prorogation. While many of these witnesses can help us get into the details of something that I think still calls for answers—that is, the WE Charity scandal itself—they can't give us any kind of privileged information or insight into the nature of the prorogation.
The same would go for the Perelmuters, who have testified at other committees that were looking directly, and rightly so, and I'm glad for their work.... I'm grateful to Charlie Angus for the leadership he showed in that study and the work he did along the lines of holding the government politically to account for what was a serious scandal, but I don't think that the Perelmuters are going to have a lot of insight into the nature of prorogation. Again, while I think it would be helpful to hear from many of the witnesses in this motion in order to better understand the WE Charity scandal, which might help us better understand some of the motivations of the Prime Minister, if we're looking to try to wrap up this study now on an expeditious basis after spending a lot of time on it, I don't think they're the one witness that we need to hear from in order to get that work done.
Likewise, there was a call for the production of a lot of papers, papers that I think ought to be produced, papers that I think would give more insight into the WE Charity scandal that Canadians deserve to know about, but those papers are not going to shed light on the question of why the Prime Minister decided to prorogue Parliament the day after the resignation of his finance minister, which apparently had nothing to do with the WE Charity scandal or his, at that time, very recent appearance before another committee of the House where he was held to account for the fact that he actually had a debt of $40,000 to the organization that was being sole-sourced for a large government contract that he had only cleared the night before.
Are we really supposed to believe that none of these things are connected? I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but I wouldn't be doing my job if I accepted such a facile explanation.
Even all those things considered, there's still a question, as I say, when you consider all of the needs of the pandemic and the desire of many government backbenchers to spend some time consulting with their constituents on what might be in the Speech from the Throne. I would note, Madam Speaker, that we only had one scheduled sitting day over the time of that prorogation, but that one scheduled sitting day also happened to coincide with the deadline for documents like the ones called for in this very motion that we've been debating.
Our Liberal colleagues would like us to believe that it's a coincidence. Coincidentally, the timing of the prorogation just happened to rub up against the deadline when documents like the ones in this motion were actually due and which the government clearly doesn't want to provide.
Again, we have this odd coincidence about the timing and the nature of that prorogation, how long it lasted and the effects of proroguing at that exact moment, on the heels of the resignation of the finance minister after embarrassing testimony on the WE Charity scandal and on the eve of an important deadline for the tabling of documents that would lay out many details about that scandal.
Despite the recent finding that the Prime Minister wasn't in a legal conflict of interest, what we do know is that his right-hand man was. We know that political accountability has a broader application than legal accountability and that the Prime Minister does share in the political blame for this fiasco that even the finance minister refuses to take responsibility for. If he has taken responsibility for it somewhere, then I would urge my colleagues to point us in the direction of where that happened, because I haven't seen it yet.
In fact, I think the predominating quote in response to inquiries about the recent conflict of interest report by the former finance minister, Mr. Morneau, is “no comment”, which has been what I've seen. If he has commented more extensively on that, I haven't seen it. I might have seen something that was a prepared statement that was to the effect that it was in the past and it doesn't matter anymore. Of course, we all remember Rafiki's compelling refutation to Simba in The Lion King of the claim that actions of the past don't matter anymore.
I'm just trying to generate some interest on the committee, Madam Chair. I am beginning to suspect they might be losing interest, so I thought maybe a reference to The Lion King would spice things up, but it's a tough crowd. I appreciate that, and I appreciate the reasons for that.
What am I saying? What I'm saying is that this particular amendment offers, I think, a real and significant olive branch to members of the Liberal Party on the committee who have spent a lot of time telling us how irrelevant many of the witnesses are. While I don't agree with them in that assessment, what I am offering here is to dispense with all of that. Not only am I dispensing with that, or proposing that the committee does, I am also reducing the amount of time that the Prime Minister would have to appear from three hours to one.
Essentially, everything that Liberal members of this committee found objectionable in the other motion disappears except for one hour of the Prime Minister's appearing. That's, I think, pretty good, because, if you were to make a list of what the Liberals didn't like about this motion, to have everything off the list except for one thing, and to have the length of that presentation be reduced by two-thirds, is a pretty good offer.
I won't speak for the other parties on this, but what I will say is that I think I'm not alone in feeling that it is very important that the Prime Minister appear in this study.
I won't be alone in asking some questions about the WE Charity scandal in that hour either, but my questions will certainly revolve around the circumstances of the prorogation, as I see them mattering to Canadians who were concerned, while on CERB, about having a better sense of what was waiting for them on October 1. Having then participated in the rushed debate that occurred at the end of September in Ottawa, I can tell you, that would have been time well spent, having heard from tons of Canadians from coast to coast to coast in the lead-up to that deadline about the anxiety and the uncertainty they faced. I can tell you that it would have been productive to create more space for Parliament to hash out what the agreed-upon way forward at the end of CERB would have been.
Having heard from students who were very disappointed that the NDP's proposal for a student benefit was cut down and didn't match what was on CERB, and the fact that those extra jobs that were supposed to top up that income support didn't happen, I can tell you that this was a decision that is very real to a lot of Canadians and had an impact on them in a very difficult time.
Folks on CERB ultimately did get an answer. We, the NDP, were ultimately able to maintain the benefit level. Even last summer, the government was looking at cutting the benefit level. We were able to avoid that. I was happy for that.
Students, on the other hand, never did see that income they lost made up. When you're a worker and the only thing you have to sell is your time, that kind of lost time really matters. It's not that easy to bounce back from. There's no extra cheque coming for the time you couldn't spend working and getting paid a wage. That's why this continues to be a very relevant matter.
Again, I know this is not totally new. I don't know that any committee member is going to get particularly excited at the proposal. In my experience, the fact that nobody is particularly overjoyed is usually a sign that some kind of meaningful compromise is afoot. I can tell the committee that I share that feeling in respect of this amendment, but I do think it's a way forward. We clearly need a way forward.
Before the constituency week, we were building some momentum to a way forward. I appreciated that Liberal members of the committee allowed us to have a vote on the amendment that had been before us for a very long time, to clear the way to have a discussion about another proposed solution. Given the fact that we spent months on the last solution, I think it would make sense to spend at least this meeting on the current solution. I'm quite open to having a vote on it at the next meeting. I think that might be useful. If folks want to talk about it a little bit more, I'm obviously happy to do that.
If this isn't going to be the one to do it—which I hope nobody will decide today because in these kinds of delicate conversations, time for reflection is important—then I do think that we can try to dispense with it relatively quickly the next day or at some subsequent meeting in the not-too-distant future.
I'm trying to honour here what I perceive to be an important need to conclude this study. I really think it's important that we report back to the House somehow. I'm satisfied that if we hear from the Prime Minister, we can at least report back. That's something we can get done. That's worth an hour of the Prime Minister's time. I think it would be worth it, anyway.
Frankly, I think there's a duty here, as the decision-maker, for him to appear. It's a double duty because I think he also has a duty to honour what he proposed as the solution to potential political abuses of the power of prorogation. He proposed that decision-makers answer for that. Of course, he is the decision-maker. That's important and that allows us to get on, conclude this study and report something back before the end of June. I think it is very important to do, so that when people look back on this....
I appreciate that, clearly, Liberal members feel there was no political abuse either in the fact of having prorogation or, apparently, even in the details of the prorogation, such as the nature, the length and the timing. That's fine, but that doesn't mean that at some future point they aren't going to suspect another prime minister of having abused that political power to prorogue Parliament. Indeed, I can find some common ground with Liberal members on the committee about past abuses of prorogation.
The question then becomes what we think is a good process for how to introduce some meaningful political accountability into that. I think having some written reasons tabled and forwarded on to PROC, which hears from some academics and then just buries it as a testimony item rather than reporting back to the House, would be a mistake. That's what we're at risk of doing if we don't find a way to wrap up this study.
I think the quickest and most straightforward way of doing that is to have that opportunity for political accountability with an appearance by the Prime Minister. That allows us to move on quickly, if the Prime Minister is prepared to do that in the spirit of his own solution.
The other reason it's important to try to find some kind of conclusion to this is that I want to see us get on to the study of Bill C-19. I want to see Bill C-19 sent back to the House with enough time for it to pass before summer. Again, to be very clear, I mean that I want that because I don't trust the Prime Minister not to call an election during the summer.
If the Prime Minister would do one of two things, it would help the situation at the committee a lot. If the Prime Minister would appear, I think this would reasonably resolve our issues here at the committee. If the Prime Minister would say that he's not going to call an election during the summer months when Parliament isn't meeting, then that would give us more time to consider Bill C-19 and again would help with the work of the committee.
I guess what I'm trying to say is that it's an odd scenario to have government members filibustering a committee with an expectation that the opposition is going to help them break their own filibuster. As I say, in the filibusters I've been engaged in before, we talk about what our end game is and we talk about how to get out of it if it's not producing what we want, because we recognize that the people who start a filibuster are the people who have the obligation to finish it.
We're in this odd moment where I think government members are trying to shift the onus onto the opposition to break their filibuster. They can break it at any time. I'm not the one, with the exception of a longer intervention today—and I appreciate the patience and interest of members of the committee with my intervention today—who has been filibustering for the last number of months, so it's not for me to end it. I can't end the filibuster just by stopping talking, which is normally the power of somebody who is engaged in a filibuster, and it's normally up to that person who has the power to end it by stopping to find a way forward.
It's a very odd position to be in, with having colleagues imply that somehow it's the responsibility of the other side of the table to find a way out of their own filibuster so that we can consider their own legislation. I hope the Canadians who are listening appreciate what an unlikely and broken kind of situation this really is. I've done my best in good faith to try to bring about an end to this filibuster on a number of occasions, but it's true that I have not been willing to compromise on the importance of getting the Prime Minister here, because, significantly, I believe there are some really important non-partisan parliamentary reasons for having the Prime Minister at this committee, and I'm not really prepared to bend on those.
This amendment brings us a long way towards getting rid of what government members found most offensive—if you take them at their own word, and we should here—in the motion. In fact, I think just prior to my own intervention, it was Mr. Turnbull's contention that one of the things that was so objectionable about the motion was this litany of witnesses and documents. With this amendment, that's gone. It's a request for the Prime Minister to appear for an hour. All of the additional stuff that government members have said is a fishing expedition that has nothing to do with prorogation—all of that is done. All of that is gone with this amendment, if it passes.
This is a real opportunity for government members to be able to take out of the motion the lion's share, and I'm talking everything but one hour with the Prime Minister—all of the witnesses who are only being called because they have a connection to WE but don't have a clear connection to prorogation except through WE. We hear that Liberal members aren't interested in exploring those connections, even though I think those are connections that ought to be explored. We take them off the table.
The only call here is for the principal decision-maker in respect of prorogation, which is of course what we are studying. How do we know he's the principal decision-maker? Because you can go back to 1935, when cabinet said, by special proclamation, that those decisions—the decisions around prorogation and dissolution—rest with the Prime Minister alone as a special prerogative.
That is to say it is different from many of the other prerogatives of his office that he often jointly exercises with cabinet. It's not to say there wasn't a discussion at the cabinet table, but it is to say that, at the end of the day, he is the sole decision-maker.
It's why the NDP has asked the Prime Minister, not the Deputy Prime Minister, not the Minister of Diversity and Inclusion and Youth, not the Minister of Finance, not anybody else. We've asked the Prime Minister to commit to not calling an election during the summer, because we recognize it is a special prerogative of the Prime Minister to make that call or not. We haven't asked that question of any other member of cabinet. Why? Because no other member of cabinet makes that decision. Cabinet does not make that decision collectively. It's the Prime Minister that does it.
We heard many things about how far-reaching the motion was, what a fishing expedition it was, how we should be talking about prorogation and not going down rabbit holes. While I say to my honourable colleagues on the other side that I don't agree with that analysis of the motion, for the sake of having five weeks left and in the context of a Prime Minister who won't commit to not calling an election during the summer, we need to get on Bill C-19. We need to do it in a way that, above all, sees this committee report back on the issue of prorogation.
It's not for the reasons of this Parliament but for the reason of future parliaments, which is what, presumably, the Prime Minister wanted when he pursued a change to the Standing Orders because he recognized that the prerogative of prorogation was sometimes abused. He wanted a mechanism in order to create the context for political accountability.
If the Prime Minister is really comfortable in his reasons for having prorogued, when and how he did, then he ought to be willing to come to PROC for an hour to allow the work of a senior committee of Parliament to continue. Particularly, in light of the fact that our next bill and the consideration of that bill.... It's a bill of his own government. It's a bill that has a sense of urgency attached to it, because of the way he carries himself in respect of a special prerogative—just like the one we are studying.
When it comes to proroguing and dissolving Parliament, the power is the same. It rests uniquely with the Prime Minister. Bill C-19 is urgent, because he refuses to say that we're not going to have an election during the summer. That has everything to do with his exercise of the prerogative that's at issue in the report we're doing.
Like I say, with no pretension that this is a perfect solution or that it's going to satisfy everybody.... In fact, it will be dissatisfying to all of us in some way, shape or form, but it might be the way that we can move forward on this. Before anybody makes any hasty decisions, it's important to have some time for reflection. It's important to have time for news of this proposal to work its way up to the Prime Minister and the people around him, so that they at least have an opportunity to consider whether they think this is worth it. I do think that the way out of this quagmire is through prime ministerial leadership.
While I may have my own doubts about how on supply that really is, I want the opportunity to be proven wrong in what I think about the Prime Minister. I want to give him the opportunity to come to this committee for an hour and explain his reasons for prorogation, so that we can file our report and move on.
My proposal to you, Madam Chair, seeing that we happen to be at our normal ending time for meetings.... I know my Liberal colleagues are great believers in coincidences, so this is just one more for them to believe in.
I would propose that we suspend our meeting at the normal time, so that we can come back on Thursday at 11 o'clock. Perhaps by then, people will have a sense of where they would like the debate on this particular amendment to go. If at that time, members would like to have a vote so that we can dispense with it, that would be great.
With that, I'll cede the floor.
Thank you.