Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2020

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

What could happen here, Mr. Dufresne—and correct me if I'm wrong—is that we could effectively upend 800 years of parliamentary experience if a majority of a minority Parliament or a majority government decides that this is the direction we want to go in. A majority government gets elected; it has the most seats in the House, and it decides that it's going to determine—or the potential exists that it could decide—how Parliament is to function. Does that fall under this category? Or if, in a minority situation, a majority of the seats.... Using the current example, the Liberals, the Bloc and the NDP get together and say, “This is the way we're going to change it.” Isn't it dangerous for our democracy that this type of power exists to change and upend 800 years of parliamentary democracy?

[Philippe Dufresne]

What I can say is that it is recognized as part of the long-standing legal and constitutional principles that the House is the master of its proceedings. Whether in a minority or a majority, the principle is there that the House can make those decisions. In terms of the Constitution itself, it can be amended by the House, the Senate and royal assent. Again, majority or minority is not going to be the determining factor. The question of whether it should be temporary or not temporary is for this committee and for the House to determine, as well as what is appropriate and what is not.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

I would submit, again, to the members of the committee that we look at this as a temporary measure, as is our mandate, with an eye to the future in the event that these types of circumstances happen again. This is not to undermine 800 years of parliamentary democracy. This is to be able to work through this situation. I just bring that to the attention of the committee members.

Madam Chair, I cede the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much. If we can shave off about 30 seconds from everyone, I think we'll be in good shape.

Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you very much.

Mr. Robert, when you were commenting about a reduced amount of heckling during question period, I couldn't quite discern whether or not you thought that was a good thing or a bad thing. Did you want to clarify that?

[Charles Robert]

I think I would prefer to avoid answering that question.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Fair enough.

On the issue of jurisdictions and voting, let me take it back for a second. Mr. Brassard just concluded with talking about a parliamentary system that's 800 years old. My question from a legal perspective would be this: Did 800 years ago the system that we have just suddenly appear, and we've been using it the exact same way ever since then? Would you like to comment on that?

[Charles Robert]

The history really has been one of evolution. The very first Parliament was, in fact, only one chamber, largely the House of Lords. The House of Commons split off in the 13th or 14th century. Then we had an alternative, the Committee of the Whole, which was developed, I think, in the 17th century. Parliamentary privileges were anchored in Parliament by the end of the 17th century. Ministerial government came into being in the 18th century. The constitutional principle of responsible government came in towards the end of the 18th century and was confirmed through actions in the early 19th century.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Your indication here is that things are evolving over time. Should we expect that, on day one, when we have our first meeting that is done virtually, it will work seamlessly without error, and if it doesn't meet this incredible threshold that we've placed on ourselves that we should abandon it?

[Charles Robert]

No.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Should we be approaching it from the same position that, even in a virtual setting, things evolve as we get better at it?

[Charles Robert]

I like the idea that you would expect it, and we would certainly want to provide it, but, in fact, there will be glitches. We will try to accommodate them to make sure that the system improves and the satisfaction that you feel in the service that we are providing grows.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

If, over time, we saw that something needed to be changed, just like all other parliamentary practices, would it be appropriate to be amending that stuff as we move forward?

[Charles Robert]

Sure.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

My last question is about other jurisdictions and what you're familiar with from talking to clerks in other jurisdictions that have a Westminster parliamentary system. Can you give any information, even if it's anecdotal, about what other jurisdictions that use the same parliamentary system are doing during this time?

[Charles Robert]

For example, the National Assembly for Wales has started going into virtual sittings and they seem to be satisfied with the experience. It seems to be developing nicely.

Today in London, the idea of a hybrid model, having 50 members present and up to 120 members, I think, connected virtually, is being debated. It is expected to be adopted today and it will be implemented for the very first time tomorrow for the prime minister's question time.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

We, by no means, are developing.... We would not be the first to go down this road.

[Charles Robert]

No. I think we're joining a stream of parliaments in various places that are trying to address this problem by the fact that all of us are confronted with the COVID-19 pandemic.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

This will be my very last question and it's regarding Mr. Brassard's point that a minority or majority of parliamentarians could arbitrarily change the system.

Would it not be equally true that should another parliament be elected down the road it could change the system again to completely reverse it? Is that not entirely plausible as well?

It seemed as though it was presented, at least in a way to me, that we would change something after 800 years with absolutely no opportunity to go back, but the truth of the matter is that any parliament could make changes, as we see happen with legislation all the time. Is that not correct?

[Charles Robert]

Largely, yes. I think the real question becomes what the impact of reversal would be.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Okay. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much.

Next up is Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thanks, Madam Chair.

My first question is on the Zoom platform. I understand that you said that we could have rolled out a virtual parliament next month, mid-May, and instead, we're rushing ahead with using the current platform next week.

If we waited until next month, could other vendors provide some services to us that would be more secure or, what is more concerning for me, that wouldn't be routed through China such as the Zoom platform?

[Charles Robert]

I will speak based on my limited knowledge.

I don't think it's really a question of the platform. I think it's really a question of reaching out to the members and making sure they have the equipment that's necessary for them to actually participate.

For example, apparently not all members use P9, and so we have to make sure that members are capable of operating the system, being connected and being comfortable with participation through these virtual means.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Okay.

This is more of a legal question. We're governed somewhat under the British North America Act, 1867. Section 18 states:

The privileges, immunities, and powers to be held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Senate and by the House of Commons, and by the members thereof respectively, shall be such as are from time to time defined by Act of the Parliament of Canada,

This is where it gets important, though:

but so that any Act of the Parliament of Canada defining such privileges, immunities, and powers shall not confer any privileges, immunities, or powers exceeding those at the passing of such Act held, enjoyed, and exercised by the Commons House of Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain

I would say that if we are not to be passed along greater privileges than the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, isn't this exactly that? They are sending in a skeleton crew to sit in their House of Commons, or Westminister, and they have the option for the other members to teleconference in. Our privileges would be greater than theirs. How would you square that?