Procedure and House Affairs committee  Do you mean specifically around prorogation?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't know of any system that has a fantastic accountability mechanism around prorogation, to be honest. Some Westminster systems use what we call a cabinet manual. A cabinet manual is a non-binding document but it is something that a government can issue, usually in close collaboration with a Privy Council officer-equivalent.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes. It's limited in the sense that it is political rather than constitutional. Nothing in the Standing Orders can override the Prime Minister's right to advise the Governor General. It's the same as with fixed election dates. Even though it's legislative, it says right there in the act—I am obviously paraphrasing—that nothing overrides a Governor General's decision to dissolve Parliament on the advice of the Prime Minister, so these things are not going to supersede the Constitution.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The previous government did not have any such requirement to justify the reasons—nothing that I know of—whereas this government has put that requirement in the Standing Orders.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, that makes sense.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, I would agree with Professor Cyr. It can't be too long.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think avoiding or silencing committee investigations into the WE Charity situation was a major reason for the prorogation, yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  The concept of providing the justifications in advance as opposed to retroactively is interesting. I think when a prime minister makes an announcement around prorogation, in fact he—in this case it's a he, that's why I'm saying “he”—does provide some sort of justification and rationale for that.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  It does provide a rationale for proroguing. The narrative in the report is quite consistent with that of the fiscal update that we saw in November and the fiscal snapshot we saw in July. Of course, there is a narrative there. As I said, as well, there's another narrative that's not there.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think it certainly provides a narrative. To go back to the previous question, there is always going to be an acknowledgement of any other political narrative that's relevant. To be honest, in my view, even though the Standing Orders have created a reporting requirement, the Prime Minister, as the person who holds the power to advise prorogation, from a constitutional perspective, does not have to have good reasons.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think that is fair, to be honest. Even to move into the previous question, I think it's very difficult to ever say that a prorogation meets a threshold of being necessary in a constitutional sense or in a legal sense. Therefore, when it happens, there is going to be a lens put on that where people are saying, “Why are they silencing Parliament?

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think at this point it would be not totally impossible, but the only kind of prorogation that's not going to be controversial, I think, is if you get, literally, a “We're going to prorogue on Friday”, and then they reopen within a week with a Speech from the Throne.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  To my knowledge that is correct.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Yes, you could have stopped me before.