Debates of June 17th, 2010

Opposition Motion—Prorogation

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, my colleague said that she supports this motion which calls for the formation of another special committee to study prorogation.

She should be aware that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has been studying this issue for the last number of months. It has already heard from many witnesses, experts and constitutional scholars who have warned us to be cautious in making any changes. In fact, they are urging us not to make changes. Many of them have spoken out against imposing new rules.

The real question for me is why my colleague would not trust the work of her colleagues who serve on the procedure and House affairs committee. The deputy whip, the whip and the deputy House leader all serve on that committee. Is she indicating that she does not trust the work of the procedure and House affairs committee, which is already studying this issue, and particularly the three members from her own caucus who serve on that committee?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am certainly not second-guessing the hon. member's intent or the work that is being done on that important committee.

We need to look at it in the broader sense. We are functioning under rules that have been in place for a very long time. Up until now they have worked quite well. Broadening the debate on other issues, such as shutting down committees, the issue of who appears before committees, whether it is a minister or his or her staff, maybe it is time to look at a few of those rules. All people are accountable no matter who they are, whether they are the ministers' staff or PMO staff. Their having to run around trying to avoid being served summonses does not do well for Parliament as a whole.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I will go further than my colleague did a minute ago.

We just heard an answer that suggests amending today's motion again. Earlier this morning the Liberals had to scramble around and amend their motion so that it might fit something they are trying to do, because how it was originally written did not work. Now the member wants to expand it further to include an examination of how committees can call witnesses.

As my colleague has already said, we have had up to 16 witnesses at the procedure and House affairs committee, many of them scholars on constitutional law and prorogation.

Could she tell us how she disagrees with Professor Russell, Professor Pelletier, Professor Mendes or Professor Franks and all the information that they have shared with the procedure and House affairs committee on how to deal with prorogation? Could she tell us why she disagrees with her own whip, deputy whip and deputy House leader and the hard work they have been doing on that committee?

[Judy Sgro, Liberal, York West, ON]

Madam Speaker, what I disagree with is the abuse of prorogation. Prorogation was supposed to be used for when a government's agenda had run out. Clearly, the Prime Minister has used prorogation as an opportunity to run away from the difficult issues that he was facing.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the Liberal Party for its motion today on this opposition day. However, with praise comes criticism. I am in complete agreement with the member for Elgin—Middlesex—London, the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Furthermore, as the deputy chair of that same committee, when I read this motion I wondered what difference another special committee would make to the whole issue of prorogation.

At the Liberals' suggestion, we have been studying this issue in committee for a number of weeks. We have heard 16 witnesses: academics, select and well-known people. We are in the last hours of this parliamentary session, but I am convinced, if it is the will of the committee—committees are masters of their own proceedings—that a report on prorogation will be prepared by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The subject is interesting but the suggestion of establishing a special committee does not strike me as being the right approach. Once again, the Liberals are masters of their own proceedings and they must make their own decisions.

As for prorogation, I would point out that the Conservatives have indeed used this parliamentary tool excessively, specifically, twice in the past two years, once at the end of 2008 and again at the end of 2009. Furthermore, it is becoming clear that the Conservative Prime Minister uses prorogation as soon as things heat up or get out of hand, as soon as he thinks his minority could be overturned.

Two events in particular have convinced me. I would remind the House of the coalition talks that were taking place at the end of 2008. It would have been a coalition between the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party, supported by the Bloc. Incidentally, I want to set the record straight: the Bloc was not part of the coalition; it merely supported the Liberal-NDP coalition.

What was the Prime Minister's reaction? Instead of facing a vote of confidence on his lack of leadership, he suddenly decided to use prorogation. That was the first event. A year later, almost to the day, this government felt caught in a ever-tightening vise, and did not want to face the consequences of the fact that it knew about the allegations of torture in Afghan prisons and that it had clearly violated various international conventions, including the Geneva convention. This government refused to hand over documents and once again refused to face the music, so it decided to use prorogation again on December 30, 2009. What is interesting is that it announced prorogation the very next day on all the television and radio stations, and in all the newspapers.

As we all know, December 30 is the day before New Year's Eve and all of its festivities in Quebec and Canada. Let us look at what the Conservative government did on December 30, when the public was busy preparing for their New Year's Eve parties, doing their shopping or calling family members to make sure everyone would be there to ring in the New Year. On December 30, like hypocrites, the Conservatives prorogued Parliament yet again.

Who was the spokesperson we saw all over the news? Dimitri Soudas. He was a press secretary at the time; his work had not yet gotten him promoted to the Prime Minister's communications director. This is the same Dimitri Soudas who is literally hiding and refuses to account for his decisions before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, where my colleague from Châteauguay—Saint-Constant does an excellent job on behalf of the Bloc Québécois. All of the committee members do a good job, except the Conservatives.

Dimitri Soudas is hiding and refuses to face the music. A bailiff has tried to serve him with an order to appear—a subpoena—before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, but he is nowhere to be found. He is somewhere in the Langevin Building, on the other side of Wellington. The bailiff knows he is there, but he is well hidden. They make calls to see if he is there, and he is, but he refuses to come out for his subpoena. In Ontario, subpoenas must be delivered by hand, but that is not the case in Quebec, where an adult can sign the acknowledgment of receipt for the subpoena.

This same Dimitri Soudas was not hiding on December 30. He was proud to announce prorogation on behalf of the Prime Minister. We must not forget the real reason for the prorogation. The Conservatives did not want to face the music and release the secret Afghan detainee documents. The Speaker had to issue a ruling to force the parties to negotiate an agreement, which was reached after seven weeks of negotiations. The process was difficult, but three parties came to an agreement. The NDP decided not to participate, and too bad for them. They will not have access to any documents and will not see any documents.

What does the Conservative government do when it feels threatened, when it feels that it could lose power or that the opposition agrees on certain principles? The opposition parties have different view, and that is the beauty of democracy. We have different opinions, but we can agree on principles. Democracy, openness and transparency are principles the opposition parties share, despite their differences. I do not expect the Liberals to like me as a parliamentarian, but I do expect them to respect me. That is the difference. These are matters of principle on which we have agreed.

When the Conservatives were in opposition in the days of the Paul Martin and Jean Chrétien governments, they used to brag. I have been a member of the House since 1993. The Reformers, who became Alliance members, then Conservatives, used to say they were the champions of transparency, the Mr. Cleans of transparency. But the Conservative government excels at hiding things and being hypocritical.

That is why we think this is a good topic, even though the motion was the wrong vehicle for raising it. The rules on prorogation need to be tightened so that prorogation is not used willy-nilly, for every possible reason. The only way to do that is to develop mechanisms that would prevent the Prime Minister from doing whatever he wants. We have to set guidelines. That is all I have to say for the time being.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague. I could not help but observe his energy, his passion and his enthusiasm. I only wish he would show that same kind of passion, energy and enthusiasm for our great country of Canada.

It would have been good if he could have focused, at least for 10% of his speech, on the actual motion. He started talking about prorogation, and he used the word once or twice during his speech.

However, does he agree with the motion that is before us? The motion asks that a special committee of the House be established to study the issue of prorogation? The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has studied this motion for months and has heard from 16 witnesses.

Does he agree that we need another committee, possibly chaired by a Liberal, if the Liberals get their way, to study this issue again?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, my colleague just talked about my passion for Quebec and said that I should show the same kind of passion and love for Canada. I know I am going to disappoint him. My loyalty is to Quebec, Quebeckers and the regions of Quebec. I want to tell my colleagues in the House that regardless of their party or region, they were elected democratically. People have no choice but to accept the democratic results of an election.

I feel that every member of every party here was legitimately elected. I know that my colleague did not question my legitimacy, but he said I should show the same kind of passion for Canada as for Quebec. I do not know whether my colleague realizes it, but I am a sovereignist; I want out of Canada. When Quebeckers say yes to sovereignty, we will form a country. We have nothing against the rest of Canada; we will always be neighbours. I want to tell my colleague that being a sovereignist does not mean being anti-Canada; it means being pro-Quebec.

That was my response to my colleague's opening comments. As for the Liberal motion, it is not worded the way I would have liked it to be. It could result in the creation of another special committee. If the motion is adopted and implemented by the government, we could compare what we did at the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

It seems clear to me that the members of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs spent a lot of meetings talking about this issue and heard from a lot of witnesses. If this motion is passed, and if the government agrees to form a special committee, the documents and witness statements will be transferred. I hope that the committee will not have to hear from the witnesses again.

That being said, the Bloc Québécois members support our Liberal colleagues' motion as amended.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Bonavista—Gander—Grand Falls—Windsor, NL]

Madam Speaker, I would like my colleague to comment on two things. First, let us take a look at the prorogation in this sense and what has been complained about in the past. Would the member reiterate what he said? It seems somewhat opportunistic on the surface to delay the functioning of Parliament for the sake of the government getting out of a tight squeeze. However, in doing so, 37 pieces of legislation were dropped from the order paper, legislation the Conservatives felt were sacrosanct to their philosophy and their ideology to proceed within the House of Commons.

The Conservatives seemed to have wrapped themselves in a catch-22. They have wrapped themselves in this political pretzel. Could the hon. member comment on that? The element of this separate committee raises the bar by which we can deal with the situation of prorogation, which the majority in the House feels has been abused by the government.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague from Newfoundland for refreshing my memory because that is something I wanted to mention.

Before the last prorogation, the House was supposed to resume business on January 25. Because of the prorogation, we did not get back to work until March 5. At that time, we were in the middle of an economic crisis with job losses and cuts.

I believe that my colleague is from the Grand Falls region. I worked for Abitibi-Price. There was a plant in Grand Falls that I visited several times. It closed its doors. There were unbelievable cuts in Canada's pulp and paper industry, but especially in Quebec, and Parliament was not sitting.

We were supposed to come back to work on January 25. We were ready to work, to do our jobs, but the Prime Minister decided on a lock-out. We were locked out. The boss closed up shop on December 30 even though we were ready to work. We could have been productive, passed bills, dealt with the economic crisis and the job losses affecting individuals and families. Women and children are still suffering from the effect of this crisis because the government did not want to do the responsible thing and resume Parliament on January 25.

[Nicolas Dufour, Bloc, Repentigny, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to ask my colleague a question along the same lines. As usual, he delivered an extraordinary speech. He even managed to remind us—it may not have been necessary because we already know how he feels—of his faith in sovereignty.

As I was saying, my question is along the same lines. With regard to the economy, the government told us that it had to prorogue Parliament so that it could recalibrate its economic recovery plan. However, prorogation delayed passage of the budget. Every bill that could have helped employees and employers, businesses or the unemployed died on the order paper. We had to start the entire legislative process all over again.

I would like to know what my colleague thinks about the Conservatives' argument that prorogation was for the good of economic recovery.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my young colleague from Repentigny—the youngest member of this House, who fulfills his duties admirably—on his earnestness and credibility.

He is quite right on one point: a government speaks through its laws and motions, just as a municipal council speaks through its resolutions and bylaws.

The main purpose of a Parliament is to pass legislation. It is the democratic legislative entity par excellence. The government says it has worked very hard, but its work consisted of putting up a smoke screen. I do not know if it is because I am party whip, but I received a rather thick tome showing all the travels of ministers during prorogation. Maybe all members received this document, which would have us believe that while they were not in Parliament, the Conservatives were on the ground and working hard, making all their partisan announcements. They refuse to invite opposition members when they make such announcements, because they are afraid of seeing them.

I encourage all members of this House, when the Conservatives make announcements in their ridings, to attend those events—through their connections to journalists—and to crash their party, given that they refuse to invite us democratically.

I have several complaints to make about the Liberals. I have been a member of this House since 1993, and as I recall, Liberal ministers usually invited us when they were making announcements, and I hope they will continue to do so if they return to power. At the time, at an event at the Quebec City airport, David Collenette even invited me to speak first. Now that is democracy. We knew that the Conservatives had problems, but now we have proof that they have problems with democracy.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, I am dividing my time with the member for Vancouver Centre.

Prorogation can be mostly for benign reasons but in this case it was not. Done arbitrarily and out of the government's own convenience, it was done to shut down voices that the government did not want to hear. That may be very human, but for a democratic society, for Canada, it is a big problem.

The Prime Minister does not like a lot of different voices, not in his caucus, not in his cabinet, not in committees, not in the bureaucracy, not in media, not anywhere.

During his now more than four years in office, think of any big public discussion his government has generated on the transforming issues of today and of the future, on the changing national and international economy, on global security, on climate change, on energy, on anything. Nothing. The Prime Minister does not like other voices. Other voices might be critical, embarrassing or inconvenient. They may simply be different from his own. He knows where he wants to go. He thinks he is right. So why do these voices matter?

Prorogation was just part of it. In his more than four years as Prime Minister, he has used and misused the power of his position, its rewards and punishments to entice an intimidate, to play on human weakness, to prop up voices he wants to hear and to shut down those he does not want to hear. All this may be very human, but for democratic society, for Canada, it is a big problem.

This past Monday we brought together about 20 community groups from across the country, some national and international and some small and local, that after years and sometimes decades of receiving federal government money to do important community services and to give voice to those who are less advantaged, to help them to live the way all Canadians should live, they had their funding cut. These were aboriginal groups, health groups, women's groups, learning and child care, international aid groups and others. However, this round table was not really about their funding cuts. It was about what the loss of the services and the voice they provided means to their communities and to Canada.

These cuts, this different understanding of the importance of public voice, represent a great change from previous governments, from the Liberal governments of 1970s and early 1980s, from the Progressive Conservative governments of the late 1980s and early 1990s and from the Liberal governments again until 2006.

When I was minister of social development, my responsibilities included those for seniors, people with disabilities, the volunteer sector as a whole and child care. People who worked for advocacy groups on these issues did so because they believed in these issues and knew that so much more needed to be done. These groups pushed hard. We got to know each other, maybe even trust each other a little, but these groups were intensely politically no-partisan and intensely issue partisan.

They had to deal with whoever was the government. At times they drove me crazy. Sometimes they were too right, uncomfortably right when it was not sure that I could deliver that right. Sometimes I thought they were completely wrong, that to meet their own goals and mine they wanted to go down the wrong path.

However, I knew what every party for decades had known, which is that these voices are part of the essential mix of voices necessary for a properly functioning healthy society.

Then in 2006 the Conservatives won. During the first three or four months there were signs of trouble for these groups but to them they hoped it was just a matter of getting used to a new government and a new government getting used to them. They had seen it before, whether a Liberal or Progressive Conservative government, and eventually they knew they would get through to that government and everything would end up roughly as it was. However, not this time.

There were cuts to the court challenges program, women's groups, literacy and child care, and aboriginal groups. The first groups in these areas thought they were the only ones affected. They kept waiting for the train to arrive at the station but I would tell them that the train was not coming.

The Conservative government thinks differently. It does not know why it should give money to these groups. It thinks it is its job to reflect the different voices in the country. It believes that if these issues had any real public support, people would give to these groups themselves. It believes that if any money does go to these groups, it should go directly to the people in need, to feet on the ground, not to mouths in corner offices. It cannot understand why any government in its right mind would support someone who just criticizes it anyway.

All this might be very human, but for a democratic country, for Canada, it is a big problem.

We all knew and the government knew what would happen next. For these groups, their effectiveness, their voices and their existences threatened, they would go nuts. Instead, most have gone quiet.

I think this even surprised the government at first, then it realized the power it had. Essentially it said to these groups, “You thought you were strong. You are not. You need our money and now you have a choice. You can go quiet and maybe get some money, but not likely and certainly a lot less, and by going quiet, you become powerless, or you can go loud and certainly not get any money and become powerless. What do you want, to be powerless or powerless?”

For the government it meant that it could keep its money and keep these groups quiet. Life does not get much better.

On Monday, together some of these groups told their story. Many others are still not willing to. There was also someone who took part but who decided to do so only by phone because a government contract was pending for a group she would like to work for and she did not feel that she could put herself or this group at risk by being identified. This is a person who has a reputation for fighting every fight, loudly, publicly and never taking a backward step. It is all about shutting down voices.

Another group, whose funding has not been cut, had intended to be there to show solidarity with the other groups because this group knows that but for the grace of one cabinet minister who has a personal interest in the issue that is its focus, its funding might be cut too. In the end, however, the group decided that it could not risk being there. In one way or another, again, it is shutting down voices.

The round table was not about groups losing their funding. It was about what the loss of funding means, what the loss of services and the voices that they provide means to local communities and the national community, and what it means to all of us.

Here is what some of them said. One said, “I am acutely aware that--today--there may be consequences associated with speaking publicly about social and political issues of importance to Canadians. ...few would deny that the "chill" is real and that this is a new development in Canadian democracy”.

Another person talked about organizations that are now afraid to be visible in a press conference and about groups that historically have had too few resources to act alone. The person said that they were divided by fear, divided by a race to survive financially. The person said that the result was distrust, fear and a lack of cohesiveness.

Another person said, “We are witnessing some of the most prominent organizations in this country being silenced, reduced. ...ensuring that the government will have little or no opposition to their actions and policy.“We are witnessing some of the most prominent organizations in this country being silenced, reduced, ensuring that the government will have little or no opposition to their actions and policy. It seems that NGOs have been given two choices--stay quiet and don't represent the challenges facing vulnerable Canadians or voice those issues and quietly disappear”.

Those words do not convey their full stories nor the tone of their voices. Their tone was one of sadness, anger, disappointment in themselves for being so weak in the face of their organization's survival, for turning against other groups, for turning selfish and greedy, for being so unlike what they ever thought they were. More than that, their tone was that of disbelief and denial. They could not believe this was happening. They could not believe it was possible to stop themselves before they could say what needed to be said. This was not Canada.

These groups knew their own stories and knew the stories of those in their own sectors but they were stunned by the other voices they heard and by how broad and how deep the problem went. I think it took so long for these groups to speak out because of this disbelief, because of a feeling that surely they were the only ones, that no one else would understand, and because to say something about losing their funding would sound to others like sour grapes and would sound self-serving, as if they really did not have the right to say something.

It is the same story for all the opposition political parties and for the media. We are losing our voice, but what right do we have to say something? It is called sour grapes and self-serving.

This is not, first of all, most of all, about us. It is about the public, about Canadians, and about how this country works. That gives us a right. That gives us an obligation.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I would like to thank the member for his very passionate speech. He went on at length and was very passionate about his subject matter. Unfortunately, it had nothing to do with the motion we are here debating today.

I do not know if prorogation was mentioned in the beginning of it, but he really did go on. Certainly, as an opposition member will, he criticized the government for things we stand for and for things we have done. We will even forgive him that. It is his prerogative to not speak to his own party's motion, because that certainly proves to us how important it truly is to the Liberals.

However, I will ask him about the importance of the hard work of members of the House and the hard work of members of the committee on procedure and House affairs. I will ask why he believes that a further study or a different study from the months-long study the committee has undertaken is necessary.

Members of his own party, his own whip, his own deputy whip, and his own deputy House leader sit on that committee. I happen to chair it. We have worked reasonably hard toward an answer, and in a very collegial way. At any time, at any place, members can certainly bring forward changes to our direction, what we are looking at, and what rules we are following. We are very free on the time allotment, whether for opposition or government members. I try to make friends rather than enemies. I would much rather hug than present a fist.

I would like to ask him why he thinks the work of those members, including the members from his party, has so little value.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, as I said in my initial remarks, the prorogation was a shutting down of voices. That is what it fundamentally was.

Prorogation can be used for lots of different purposes, but one of its purposes, surely, is not just for the convenience of the government to decide to shut down voices. It is too much of a central theme, a central attitude, and a central way of doing things by the government. It shuts down voices that it does not want to hear. Whenever it does not want to hear them, it just shuts them down. Prorogation is just part of the same thing.

In terms of the hon. member's question about the work of the committee, I am sure that the committee has worked hard. The fact is that prorogation as it now exists allows for the possibility of the shutting down of Parliament and the shutting down of voices at absolutely inappropriate and unworthy times. Unless and until we get prorogation right, we open ourselves to these kinds of abuses in the future.

[Jim Maloway, NDP, Elmwood—Transcona, MB]

Madam Speaker, I want to thank the member for his presentation today on the motion.

The fact of the matter, trying to be charitable and nice here, is that the Liberals went to bed last night thinking that their opposition day motion was going to be about MS, on which they did a very good job two or three days ago in the House during a take note debate. Some time this morning, at 8:30, somebody and their management changed the agenda and brought in the prorogation motion, which they had to amend.

It has put them on the defensive. I can appreciate the difficulties they have trying to defend this actual motion, which they do not even really want to talk about, so they talk around the issue. It has caused them a lot of problems.

I agree with the hon. member's point about how the government has acted and how it should not be proceeding. It should not be bringing in prorogation every time it needs a way out.

[Ken Dryden, Liberal, York Centre, ON]

Madam Speaker, however the process worked or did not work to the satisfaction of the member in terms of how we came to present this motion, I think that the essence of the question is the functioning of the current government and how prorogation can be misused to shut down voices.

I would not be so distracted as that member is. I think that is an absolutely central question for all of us, the shutting down of voices.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I want to speak very strongly in support of this motion, which, in essence, speaks to establishing a committee with the powers of a standing committee so that it could look at all of the issues pertaining to prorogation. It further goes on to elaborate on those issues and expands on what this committee would do.

I support it because, currently, as many of the hon. members rightly said, there is a special committee of the procedure and House affairs committee that is doing this, but this is an arm of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

What I am suggesting here is that this is a tool, in effect. As one of my hon. members said earlier on, the motion is raising the bar. It is asking for a committee in its own right, with all the powers of a standing committee, to study this issue in its entirety. The powers of a standing committee give the committee a very special ability to report directly to this House and to do certain things that special committees and subcommittees cannot do. What it really is trying to do is strengthen the teeth of a committee as it does its work. The question really is, at the end of the day, about a study on prorogation.

A lot of people seem to think that picking up a thread and moving it logically through from prorogation to silencing of voices is reaching. It is not, actually. It is a fairly logical progression, because this is really all about the abuse of power and the abuse of a particular tradition of power called prorogation.

Of course, this power was used by the monarchy, historically, to shut down or shut up Parliament. Historically, Parliament sat only at the whim and at the behest of the sovereign. If the sovereign thought that Parliament was getting in his way--and in those days it was a “his”; the only time Queen Elizabeth ever prorogued Parliament was when there was a plague, which was a valid reason—prorogation was a way of shutting up all those little niggling voices that tended to get in the way of the monarch and his absolute power.

When a prime minister abuses this power of shutting down Parliament and shutting up the voices of duly elected parliamentarians, there is a sense that it is because, like the old monarchs of the day, he or she does not like what they have to say. They are getting in the way. They are really becoming a nuisance, and the prime minister just wants to keep them out of the way. That in itself is arrogance, as if this country is now ruled by a single monarch.

I might tell members that the Tudors used to make frequent use of prorogation as a means of controlling Parliament. Does that sound familiar? Henry V considered Parliament to be little more than a necessary rubber stamp. He used his powers of prorogation to call elected officials together just long enough to get what he wanted out of them. He would send them off again if he did not like what they had to say.

In the times of Oliver Cromwell, prorogation continued to be a favourite tool for trying to keep Parliament subservient to the Crown.

Well, the Prime Minister and the government of this country are not the Crown. To try to keep Parliament subservient to the Crown and shut it up is not an appropriate use of the power of prorogation.

Today, prorogation has actually evolved and is now traditionally used to allow a government, when it has done all of its work, to recast its plans and agenda and set a new course for the future, as has been done in the past. All of the bills have been passed. All of the committees have finished their work.

The use of prorogation in both instances by the current Prime Minister actually stopped the important work of committees. It stopped important bills that were in the House. It took them off, and they had to be resurrected again and again, twice in a row.

That in itself seems to give, again, a sense that the Prime Minister is saying, “I am a monarch. I do not like what you are saying. You are getting in my way, and you are raising things that I do not wish to discuss.” That is one of the reasons the last hon. member spoke about silencing. It is a method that is now being reused by our Prime Minister as a means of shutting down and shutting up parliamentarians who have been duly elected.

If we recognize that the current government has a tendency to shut up anything it does not like, we can take that and move it a little further, to one of the actual arms of Parliament, the standing committees of Parliament.

We can extrapolate and move on to say that if the Prime Minister does not like what standing committees are doing, they will be shut down as well, because, actually, they are in the way, he does not like their recommendations, does not like their witnesses, and does not like their processes. The Prime Minister, by saying that he does not like those things, is basically shutting down, filibustering, and creating problems for committees in doing their work.

I want to draw attention to something that happened in the House today that is another way of showing disrespect to the House. Very clearly, there are rules for a committee in tabling its reports. If there is a dissenting report, the committee actually presents it under the clear motion of rules on the number of pages, the font, and the timeline. When that does not happen and the committee actually tables its report, it will not have that dissenting report there. If it is done according to the rules, the dissenting report is tabled in the House.

Today we saw two attempts, one successful, because it was the minister's, to actually go over those rules and find a way to get that dissenting report, by hook or by crook, onto the table. That, of course, occurred because the minister was able to do it. However, it shows a fundamental disrespect for the rules of the House for standing committees of Parliament. In fact, I wonder why we want a standing committee to look at prorogation, because it is obviously going to be equally disrespected. Anything it tries to do will be equally silenced.

When we talk about taking that logical thread and moving from silencing the House and silencing parliamentary committees of the House, we can take one further step. We can see how ministers of the Crown use their power to assist ordinary Canadians and civil society in the things they need to be assisted with, through programs and policies, by tying to it that same silencing. If people do not like what Conservatives say, if they dare to criticize, they will be shut up, because the committee will be disbanded.

I know that there are many groups and NGOs currently that not only do not dare open their mouths but that no longer have a little office or a phone or a computer to send out emails to say what they feel is wrong about the whole issue.

Last year I asked a question of the Minister of Canadian Heritage in the House about the arts communities in Vancouver. It was coming up to the summer, and they should have had their money for putting on their festivals, and they had not even heard from the minister. When those NGOs asked me to bring this question to the House, they actually were so frightened that I would use their names that they said to please just call them “a group of”. They asked that I not use their names, because they said that they would not be able to get the funding at all.

We see the shutting down of many women's organizations. They are refused funding, as we have seen happening, because they dared to criticize, because they dared to speak out. Again, it is the same thread that moves from shutting up Parliament, shutting up things the Conservatives do not like said, shutting up committees, and then using one's powers as a minister or as the government to shut up people who they do not think will vote for them, who do not like them, and who dare to criticize them.

There was a meeting here of many women in January. It was interesting, because the women all said that they were so pleased to be able to come together in this place and speak and meet with ministers, as they had been accustomed to doing under the Liberal government and under the Progressive Conservative government. They laughingly said that the problem is that they at least knew in those days that they could criticize government, and no one can criticize government anymore. No one is able to speak out against anything the government does, because they are afraid.

This is again a method of shutting down, shutting up, and silencing, which is what prorogation was originally set up to do. I guess that one can suggest that the government and the Prime Minister are trying to prorogue Canada and the citizens of Canada. Unfortunately, they are unable to do that, and unfortunately, the Prime Minister is not yet a monarch. We see that there is push-back. This motion is about push-back.

This motion is about putting teeth into a process, into a committee structure, that will find a way to take away from the Prime Minister the power that he has shown himself able to abuse so readily.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Madam Speaker, it is becoming increasingly obvious that the opposition members are really embarrassed about this motion that they have put forward. In fact they have been droning on now for hours. It reminds me a little of the vuvuzela, that great instrument that South African soccer fans are using. Members are just droning on and on and wandering off into other topics.

The procedure and House affairs committee has heard from a number of scholars, 16 witnesses, but Professor Weinstock said, “I think we ought to be wary of quick fixes, of magic bullets that will solve this problem once and for all, and certainly of ones that might make the situation worse”. On and on we heard that kind of statement.

I really trust the work of my colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee. Our chair is doing a fantastic job on that committee. Our members are working hard.

Why does the member not trust her deputy whip, her whip and her deputy House leader who also serve on that committee?

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I tried very hard to show the logical thread. I guess it was lost on some people in the House who do not understand logic and do not see what I was really talking about. I was not avoiding anything to do with the motion. I referred to the motion at least five times and my support for it.

What it does is it gives a tool. As for quick fixes, the point of the motion is that it sets out a series of things that must be studied in order to find not a quick fix, but a long-term solution to this problem. Everyone knows there is no such thing as a quick fix.

It is a standing committee we are asking for that would have the ability to study and prepare all the right answers. As was said earlier today by the mover of the amendment, all of the excellent work already done by the current special committee would be brought into the standing committee so it could be used. There is nothing that says the same members on the current committee need not be on that committee. All their whips have to do is support them. That is it. All the whips have to do is support them.

[LaVar Payne, Conservative, Medicine Hat, AB]

Madam Speaker, I have been listening to the hon. member across the way and her well-spoken words about prorogation and how terrible the government has been. I would like to ask the hon. member about prorogation by the Liberal Party.

As I understand it, the former prime minister, Jean Chrétien, prorogued Parliament for some four months. It was during the Gomery inquiry I believe, which related to $40 million stolen by the Liberal Party. I am wondering if the member could comment on the prorogation by the former Liberal prime minister as he shut down Parliament.

[An hon. member]

Do you remember that?

[An hon. member]

Yes, the $40 million.

[The Acting Speaker, NDP, Denise Savoie]

Order, please. I would like to ask hon. members to give the person who has the floor the opportunity to speak without being interrupted.

The hon. member for Vancouver Centre.

[Hedy Fry, Liberal, Vancouver Centre, BC]

Madam Speaker, I am going to re-read what I read earlier on. Obviously the member was not listening or someone was talking to him at the time.

The common use of prorogation in current times, this century and last century, is to allow the government to recast its plans and agenda once it feels it has accomplished enough of its goals for the current session. When all of the government's bills have been passed and all the parliamentary committees have done their work, then government regroups to decide the next steps because it has done all the work it said it was going to do.

That was why the Liberal government under Mr. Chrétien shut down Parliament. There were no outstanding issues on the table and all the committees had done their work.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Madam Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to add some sanity to a motion that seems to have been put together very poorly today.

The motion before the House suggests that a special committee of the House be appointed to study proposals for restricting the royal power of prorogation. I oppose this motion for many reasons, the first of which is the fact that there is a committee of the House that has already been studying this issue for some months. I chair that committee.

The study is well under way. The committee has heard some 16 witnesses. There have been hundreds of thousands of words of testimony. There have been 10 meetings. I will at some point quote some of the learned scholars who appeared to help us look into the study on prorogation.

I will even compliment the opposition members of that committee and my colleagues on this side for the hard work they have done. At times it has been boring and at other times it has been very exciting. I will speak in a minute about the lecture Professor Russell gave committee members and the chair on how we should listen and learn. I had not been in a lecture hall for a while.

I am going to start by talking about the member for Wascana who moved the motion this morning. I believe he said, “With respect to the study that is under way in the procedure committee, it is unfortunately a rather invisible process. That is not a criticism of that committee”.

I would point out that I have fairly broad shoulders and I am able to take those types of insults, although I do not need to. If the member for Wascana had simply spoken to his whip, deputy whip or deputy House leader, people whom I think he probably meets on a daily basis, although by the way the motion was written and the clown show that went on, perhaps not, he would have been told that this work is already being done. I am not saying the work is complete. The study is ongoing. There has been some hard work, very good witnesses and great questions from all members, including those I have already mentioned.

I am not certain what the point of the motion is. I guess one is that this would create a special committee now chaired by a Liberal member. Somebody needs an extra paycheque over there, I suppose. That may be the answer for this. Other than that, I do not get it because the work is being done.

I will compliment the member for Hamilton Centre, who represents his party on the committee. He has done an excellent job of asking some of the tough questions of some of the scholars who appeared. Do the member for Hamilton Centre and I agree on everything? Absolutely not. As a matter of fact, we have great conversations about the philosophical differences between our two parties. However, as the chair, I try to be as collegial as I can be. I certainly try to give everybody all the time possible at every meeting to discuss these issues. I do my best.

What did the member for Hamilton Centre say this morning? I will paraphrase him, which I am sure he will not mind, but if he does, I will hear about it at the next meeting. He said, “When this was brought to my attention yesterday I was bemused. I understand prorogation is a hot issue with the Liberals and it is with us too”, speaking on behalf of his party, “but this motion calls for a special committee. We already have a committee that has been holding meetings for months. I would like to know why this motion is even in front of us since it does not seem to make an awful lot of sense to me”.

I will explain that the last sentence by the member for Hamilton Centre is one on which we can agree. It does not make a lot of sense to me either.

Some of my colleagues, such as the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, have spoken on this issue already today. He is a great member of the committee. He brings great levity to it but also asks very good questions of all of the witnesses, including most of the scholars and some of the citizens.

He said, “Yet, what do we have here? We have an opposition day motion that basically says that the Liberals do not care about the work we have done for the last two and a half to three months”.

The previous speaker from that party talked about shutting things down and shutting out what people have said. Well, I am sorry but this motion does exactly the same thing. This motion talks about shutting down the hard work of a committee and saying “Thanks for your work, but we do not care about it”. I cannot believe that one party in this House expects that is appropriate with respect to the hard work of a committee including members from all parties.

I will carry on. The member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine also serves on the committee. She has become a special friend on the committee. She has worked very hard on the committee. However, today she said, “Our motion is not outdated. Our motion goes beyond the scope of what the procedure and House affairs committee is dealing with. In fact the study that is being conducted as we speak at that committee is a motion that I brought to that committee, and I know very well what is happening”.

If she knows that, then she knows the nature of our committee. She knows the nature of the chair. She certainly knows the nature of the other members on that committee. She knows that there has been no time when a request from a member has not been honoured. She knows there has been no time when a request from any member of any party about a witness coming forward has not been honoured. Whether it is the terms of reference of the committee study, changing them or moving them in other directions, it has been honoured each and every time it has been asked.

As often as not, we will ask the members what they think and should we go a certain way. We work in a very collegial way. I know I sometimes sound large and gruff, but as a chair I tend to have a fairly good time doing it and I have tried to move that committee forward.

Let us talk about the work the committee has done. We have discussed at length the expert witnesses. There have been at least 10 meetings and 16 witnesses. A majority of the witnesses were people suggested by opposition members. We have been extremely hard working as a committee, but in every case we have asked each of the members who we need to see or if we have left anybody out we have not yet seen. We have even mentioned a couple of learned scholars who we would like to see and we have been trying to organize our time so that they can come. Let us talk about some of the ones we have seen.

Our own law clerk, Mr. Walsh was our first witness. He gave us a great set of parameters for the committee to use.

Some of the other witnesses included Thomas Hall, a retired clerk from the House of Commons, who meets with some of his other clerk friends at the local Tim Hortons and other coffee shops to discuss procedure and House affairs. He came to our committee to give us his views on prorogation.

Professor Mendes, constitutional and international law, University of Ottawa appeared.

Professor Peter Russell from Toronto appeared. I talked about Peter Russell before, and I would like to say what a great professor Peter Russell was even at the committee. He shared with us his thoughts on this issue. He lectured us and certainly set us straight on two or three issues. I think we all went home that day with a new admiration for a professor of political science.

Professor Benoît Pelletier, University of Ottawa appeared. I have some notes here from him and I will share them later in my speech.

Professor Ned Franks, professor of political studies from Queens University appeared.

Again learned scholars appeared at many committees around this House, not just ours.

Christopher White appeared. What a great story he was. He alone had set up a Facebook group about prorogation during the time of prorogation. We thought that was admirable. I think an opposition party member suggested that he come and speak to us. He shared with us his thoughts and views.

One of the thoughts and views he shared with us is that it was not the same sitting at the committee. He said it was not like watching question period where members are attacking and yelling at each other. He said it was amazing to see members collegially working together towards a common end, and working together as a committee.

I took that with great pride as the chair. I took it as a huge compliment, and so did the other members.

Professor Weinstock, professor of philosophy from the University of Montreal appeared. Professor Weinstock had written a letter about prorogation during the time of prorogation, and had many scholars sign it. We asked him to come forward and talk to us about that.

Professor Eric Adams, faculty of law, University of Alberta appeared.

Professor Nelson Wiseman, department of political science, University of Toronto appeared.

Professor Hugo Cyr, public law and political science and law, University of Quebec in Montreal appeared.

Brian Topp, a former NDP national campaign director, came and spoke too because we thought he had some views he could share with us, and he did. Donald Sproule, an ex-Nortel employee, spoke to us about what we needed to know from his group. Professor Andrew Heard from the Department of Political Science at Simon Fraser University, Professor Monahan from York University and just this last week Professor Bradley Miller, a constitutional law expert from the University of Western Ontario in London, part of my riding, spoke to us.

We have learned a lot. Are we done? No. Have we written our report? No. However, apparently we want to be thrown out with the trash. That is not what I want to see happen. This motion would do that.

Enough about the committee and where it has been. With the time I have left, I will share some of the other reasons why the motion to change prorogation is not correct.

The motion begins from the false premise that there has been some misuse of the prorogation power that needs fixing. I have shared somewhat in my speech already some expert opinions on the use of “gotcha” solutions to constitutional issues. Many of the learned professors told us to watch that we did not use “gotcha” solutions to some of these constitutional issues. We have been careful to watch for that.

The other reason, which is the one I wish to discuss in my remarks today, is the motion seeks to use this false premise to undermine the long-standing constitutional principles and conventions that form the basis of our parliamentary system of government.

Some speakers before me talked about what has happened in previous Parliaments, going back to the 1500s and 1600s. We have studied them all and from time to time it was not as exciting as one would think. We pushed through it because we needed to understand how our system worked.

To put this discussion in context, we need to go back to the first principles, and I ask members to bear with me here because it might get a bit boring, but I hope to come back to some excitement before I finish.

Under our Constitution, there is a separation of powers between the executive, the legislative and the judicial branches of government. Section 9 of the Constitution Act, 1867 affirms that the executive authority is vested in the Queen. Section 17 establishes that the legislative branch, the Parliament of Canada, is comprised of the Queen, the Senate and the House of Commons. The judicial branch is comprised of the courts.

While it might be trite to state this fundamental tenet of our constitutional democracy in the context of today's debate, it serves as a useful reminder to members that under the separation of powers, some functions are vested exclusively in the executive authority and in which the House of Commons is one component of the legislative branch simply plays no part.

As the Supreme Court of Canada stated in the 1997 Judges Reference, “The separation of powers requires, at the very least, that some functions must be exclusively reserved to particular bodies”.

The prerogative to prorogue Parliament is exclusively vested in the Crown. The authorities are unequivocal on this point.

In the 23rd edition of Erskine May on page 274 it states:

The prorogation of Parliament is a prerogative act of the Crown. Just as Parliament can commence its deliberations only at the time appointed by the Queen so it cannot continue them any longer than she pleases. But each House exercises its right to adjourn itself independently of the Crown and of the other House.

In the third edition of An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, it is observed, at page 103 that:

It is the ancient right of the Crown to call both Houses of Parliament together when it needs their assistance and to put a temporary period to their labours when it pleases. [...] This joint action of ending the old and providing for the new session is the "prorogation" of Parliament.

In Canada the royal prerogatives to summon, prorogue and dissolve Parliament were given to the Governor General to exercise in the Letters Patent of 1947. Under article VI of the Letters Patent, the sovereign authorized the Governor General “to exercise all powers lawfully belonging to Us in respect of summoning, proroguing or dissolving the Parliament of Canada”.

Consistent with our constitutional conventions, the prerogative is exercised on the advice of the prime minister alone.

As O'Brien and Bosc simply state at page 382:

Prorogation of a Parliament, a prerogative act of the Crown taken on the advice of the Prime Minister, results in the termination of the session.

Consistent with our democratic values, the government must hold the confidence of the House and ultimately must answer to the people for its use of those prerogative powers. However, the House itself does not and cannot exercise the royal prerogative. The House can adjourn its proceedings at its discretion, but it cannot prorogue or dissolve Parliament. That is within the discretion of the Crown alone.

Another important feature of our system is that certain matters relating to our Constitution are entrenched and cannot be changed but through special amending procedures. Many of our constitutional scholars who have visited our committee so far suggest that the only way to change the prorogation prerogative of the Crown would be through constitutional changes. It is a tough thing to get to but that is the only way to change it.

One such matter is changes to the office of the Queen or the Governor General. Under section 41 of the Constitution Act, 1982, any such changes must be effected by a royal proclamation having unanimous approval of the House of Commons, the Senate and every provincial legislative assembly.

The procedure and House affairs committee as I have stated is already doing a comprehensive study on prorogation and we have heard from many experts on the topic. Many of these experts are of the view that the changes to limit the royal prerogative on prorogation would affect the office of the Governor General in such a way as to require a unanimous constitutional amendment.

What is more, Professor Benoît Pelletier, a constitutional expert at the University of Ottawa, concluded that prorogation in itself was a constitutional power intertwined with the separation of powers. He stated:

In my opinion, prorogation can be seen as a component of the separation of powers in government. The separation of powers is obviously a pillar of the Canadian state, and there is every reason to believe that the Supreme Court of Canada would recognize that even the principle of the separation of powers is based on the Constitution. In other words, the separation of powers enjoys tacit constitutional protection, and because the power to prorogue is a critical component of the separation of powers, it, too, enjoys that same constitutional protection....I have concluded that the prorogation power is tied to the separation of powers, because it provides for these checks and balances between the legislative branch and the executive branch. It contributes to those checks and balances. Therefore, I do not see how the prorogation power could be dissociated from the very principle of the separation of powers.

It was about that dry at committee but we chose to study it and we chose to look at it.

These checks and balances are at the heart of the principle of the separation of powers and what makes the Westminster parliamentary system function. While it is often more art than science, it has served us well thus far in our country's history.

I stated at the outset in my remarks that I oppose the supply day motion and the debate under way today. At the very least, it would be duplicative of the work already nearing completion by the procedure and House affairs committee and the hard work that it has done. At the very worst, it was start us down the path of undermining the long-standing and basic tenets of our parliamentary system and of constitutional government.

Prorogation, as I have stated, is at the core of the separation of powers. It provides the Crown with a mechanism for responding to changing circumstances, such as the serious global economic crisis of last year. It allows for a new session of Parliament to be launched with the new priorities of the government set out in a throne speech, presented to parliamentarians and to the people of Canada.

It provides the House with an opportunity to respond to the government's recalibrated legislative and policy program through votes of confidence on important matters, such as the recent budget bill here in the House.

In my opinion, this motion goes too far. I would encourage all hon. members and all hard-working committee members in the House to please join me in opposing this motion.