PROC Committee Report

Bloc Québécois Supplementary Opinion

Study on the Prorogation of August 18, 2020

Le Bloc Québécois is appalled that the Committee was hijacked by the members representing the Liberal government, who prevented the Committee from completing its study on the prorogation of Parliament by filibustering and stonewalling for three months. Three months of using, mobilizing and wasting the Committee’s work time, as well as the human and financial resources required to support parliamentary operations, and at a time when the interpreters, information technicians, analysts and clerks have been significantly affected by the difficulties of a hybrid Parliament since the beginning of the pandemic.  The Liberals engaged in purely partisan tactics before the Committee, beginning on February 23, 2011, and derailed the debate, preventing the clear will of the majority from being carried out so that the Prime Minister would appear to explain the reasons for proroguing in August 2020. It is important to note that Committee members representing the governing party did everything in their power to prevent the Prime Minister from being summoned to appear before the Committee, which casts doubt on whether the reasons cited in the government’s report on the prorogation are the real reasons. According to the Bloc Québécois, the current report is substantially incomplete and unfinished. The Committee did not hear from the Prime Minister, who is the only person who has the prerogative to prorogue Parliament.

The Bloc Québécois would like to stress that, because the decision to prorogue ultimately lies with the Prime Minister, it is the Prime Minister who should have appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, even if simply to testify to his good faith and show more transparency and leadership. We want to mention that, by failing to appear, the Prime Minister also missed a golden opportunity to act in accordance with the intention he shared in 2015 to ensure that prorogation would be used as part of a transparent and honest process. The Bloc Québécois would like to point out that this was the first time Parliament had been prorogued since the Standing Orders of the House of Commons were amended in 2015 by adding Standing Order 32(7), and that ideally the Prime Minister would have set an example for all future prime ministers who decide to prorogue Parliament by explaining his reasons before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The Bloc Québécois would like to point out that the evidence given by Mr. Pablo Rodriguez in his role as Liberal House Leader was not sufficiently in depth to answer all of the Committee’s questions about the reasons for the prorogation of August 18, 2020. Unfortunately, the House Leader’s answers were evasive, using hollow and meaningless phrases. The House Leader was unable to demonstrate he had sufficient knowledge of the file, and was unable to answer several basic questions asked by the Bloc Québécois. For example, Mr. Rodriguez was unable to convince Committee members that a five-week-long prorogation was in fact necessary. Furthermore, he mentioned before the Committee that he was not aware of important facts regarding his government, such as the resignation of Mr. Bill Morneau from his position as Minister of Finance, which took place the day before Parliament was prorogued, on August 17, in the midst of the WE Charity and student service grant scandal.

The reasons listed by the House Leader in his report on the prorogation do not hold water. While the pandemic provided the appearance of a good reason for the Prime Minister to have prorogued Parliament, in fact the government used it as a pretext to mask the true reasons for proroguing. Evidence given by various experts shows that the political context in which the Prime Minister and his government found themselves at the time of prorogation, and the length of the prorogation, are enough to conclude that the real reason Parliament was prorogued was that the Liberal government was under pressure following the awarding of the new student service grant to WE Charity.

We believe that the prorogation was used to protect the partisan interests of the Prime Minister and his government. On that topic, the Bloc Québécois refers to the remarks of Mr. Daniel Turp, Associate Professor at the University of Montréal’s Faculty of Law, when he appeared before the Committee. His statement supported the idea that Parliament had been prorogued to put an end to the studies being carried out by various parliamentary committees as part of the WE Charity scandal. The Bloc Québécois would like to point out that, at the time prorogation occurred, four parliamentary committees (Ethics, Official Languages, Finance and Government Operations) were working on studies calling the government to account for its actions involving the granting of a suspicious contract to the WE organization and its leaders, the Kielburger brothers. It is important to note that granting this contract placed the Prime Minister, some of his family members, the then Minister of Finance, and several Privy Council employees in a very awkward situation, which could be very politically damaging for the Liberal government. Proroguing Parliament in the summer of 2020 is a perfect example of a royal prerogative used for political and partisan reasons by the Prime Minister in a moment of desperation to create a distraction in the midst of a scandal that could blow up in the face of his government and tarnish the reputation of the Prime Minister and some of his family members.

Experts were highly critical of the fact that prorogation had been used: in their view, it was a diversion tactic to avoid a no-confidence vote, to reset committees working on studies that were politically damaging to the governing party, or to prevent or delay calls for accountability from the opposition parties. Professor and constitutionalist Patrick Taillon’s analysis shows that prorogation is used as a political and partisan tactic to protect the governing party, to be accountable or as a delay tactic.

This strategy was used in the midst of the COVID-19 pandemic, while many Quebeckers and Canadians were fighting for their lives, while everyone was making sacrifices to avoid spreading the virus and to protect seniors and vulnerable people, while workers were losing their livelihoods, and while businesses and the arts and culture industry were facing unprecedented economic difficulties. By proroguing Parliament for just over five weeks, while a public health crisis was ongoing, the Prime Minister was putting his own interests and the interests of his government ahead of the best interests of Quebeckers and Canadians, who needed a stable and functioning Parliament in case of emergency.

In acting this way, the government deprived the citizens it represents of the legislative branch, which is an essential tool in a minority Parliament, used to implement assistance programs, pass any legislation needed in emergency circumstances quickly and meet the needs of the population. The Prime Minister could have prorogued for a much shorter period, in order to avoid leaving Quebeckers and Canadians without a functioning Parliament that could respond to changing circumstances. Unnecessary risks were taken when caution was the appropriate course of action in the context of the pandemic and in the best interests of the population. Furthermore, many experts confirmed that there was no need for the government to prorogue Parliament in order to set a new legislative agenda and align its policy directions with the pandemic response.

In conclusion, it is unfortunate that the government Committee members filibustered for months on end, and that the Committee was unable to hear from the Prime Minister as part of its study on the reasons for the prorogation of August 18, 2020. The Bloc Québécois regrets that, for these reasons, this report could not truly be completed and the Committee was unable to conclude its work for the benefit and in the interests of the population of Quebec and all Canadians.