Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 21st, 2020

[Philippe Dufresne]

Thank you for that question.

I think questions of privilege with respect to a member's access, a member's privilege to have unimpeded access and full participation in the proceedings of Parliament, are types of questions that are dealt with on a case-by-case basis by the Speaker, by the House. They consider the circumstances leading to issues when a member has not been able to have access to votes or to the House for reasons of physical obstacles: what those were, what steps were taken, and so on.

It seems that the general principle is that steps ought to be taken to ensure the participation. Then it would be up to a case-by-case review of what happened, what the obstacles were, what solutions have been considered and used in the current circumstances. It's not something you can address in a hypothetical case, other than to say that the efforts ought to be made, as much as possible in the context, to ensure the full participation of all members.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I'm trying to get a general sense of this, and I do understand that all circumstances have to be taken into account. Are you indicating that you would see the possibility of a ruling that privilege hasn't in fact been breached if a member is not actually able to participate, just on the basis that reasonable efforts were made to try to enable that participation? If it were to come down to members not being able to participate because of their Internet connection, do you see a scenario where privilege would be seen to not have been breached? Is that a possibility under those circumstances?

[Philippe Dufresne]

I would have to say that any circumstance or situation would have to be considered when it arises on the basis of the facts at issue. These would be determinations made by the Speaker on a prima facie case of privilege, and ultimately by the House. It's not something that I can make a conclusion on in this context.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I would say for the record, and for the benefit of others who are listening, that this is a serious concern. We would not be able to ensure the privileges of all members to be able to participate, which I would say are pretty significant. There's no certainty here as to whether, if someone were not able to participate because of a poor Internet connection, we could actually say that this would enter into a breach of privilege. I think that's something that we all need to be really seriously thinking about before we move ahead.

I'll move on, though, to the practice of catching the Speaker's eye, whether that be for a point of order or by simply standing to give remarks in the House. On a procedural basis, how would this practice work? How would we deal with those issues?

I don't know who is best to answer. I wonder if both of you have comments on this.

[Charles Robert]

I think you're raising some tough questions that we will have to consider seriously and try to develop a kind of technology that will better ensure the proper participation of the members in a way that we are accustomed to when we meet in person in the chamber. The points that you are raising are excellent from that perspective.

Another example we were considering is that the dynamics of question period would change dramatically—whether or not it involves privilege is another issue—because when you're not speaking, you're on mute. In question period, the energy that is exchanged with the banter or the heckling, if you like, among the members in response to questions or in response to answers, you would not actually hear in a virtual sitting, unless the technology changes from what we have now.

I think this is one of the reasons that the Speaker, in his presentation, spoke about the gradual development of our practices so that we can properly accommodate these accustomed practices that we have. At the moment, there are limitations. It's better that we try to develop this through the virtual meetings of our committees, through the creation of the special committee, as opposed to doing it in the chamber.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Hopefully we will have a bit of time for one or two other issues, but on this specific issue and others that maybe you are not able to respond to, as to how we will deal with those things—you just indicated that this is a difficult one for you to respond to at this point but that you are working towards that—would you be able to come back to us prior to our producing a report as to what your thoughts are on how we would address this? Obviously, we'd have to be certain of that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'd like a brief response to that, whether you would be able to come back.

[Charles Robert]

Yes, in one word.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

If I can, Madam Chair, I'll just finish the question off.

Both you and the Speaker have alluded to gradually developing this. So, are we not here just to discuss the idea of virtual sittings during this current crisis and maybe any crisis that would come in the future? I don't believe we are here to discuss the idea of sort of gradually developing something that becomes standard practice in the House. Am I mistaken on that?

[Charles Robert]

No, you are quite correct. That was why I suggested that you may want to take the opportunity of the experience you are doing now to consider at some future date whether or not you would want to develop options when we are confronted in the future with circumstances similar to this one. We would be able to slip into it without having to go through the process we're going through now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Robert.

That's all we have. I have given lots of leeway on that questioning round so that issue is not questioned again, but I do want to remind everybody to please speak slowly. This is a reminder to the witnesses and to the members as well. Some of the problems that we're having with interpretation—not all, but some—are also caused because people are speaking too fast, and I will try to slow down myself as I say that.

Also, I want to remind people that the view that ParlVu has is generally the same view. I did say at the beginning that you would see that the speaker is the main focus, so be mindful that you will probably not be on the screen the way you see it on Zoom. On ParlVu, it will be just the speaker, so we do prefer if you could keep your camera on as much as possible so that the technical team knows that there is no technical difficulty, that you are still there, just like you would be in a committee room. If you have to walk away or look away for a little bit, that's fine; just leave your camera on so that we know that's what you're doing.

The next speaker is Mr. Alghabra, please, for six minutes.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Let me start by echoing what many of our colleagues have said and thank everybody on the committee, the support staff and the IT staff. This is unusual, and I don't think we have said it enough how unusual these times are and how flexible we are compelled to be under these difficult circumstances. I am honoured to participate in this committee.

I have a few questions. Let me start with Mr. Dufresne. If I were to summarize, basically you said that the House has a lot of flexibility in choosing and deciding how to conduct its business, obviously within a framework. Is that correct?

[Philippe Dufresne]

Yes.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

So, if we agree to this committee virtually, we can conduct other parliamentary business virtually or remotely. We would still, of course, put an effort into respecting member privileges and being considerate as to how we conduct our business, but we can be still compliant with the role of Parliament.

[Philippe Dufresne]

My statement here is really to say that there is strong recognition in the case law of Parliament's privilege and Parliament's autonomy to determine its procedures and its proceedings, and the way it is going to conduct its business. The courts have said that time and time again.

There are constitutional provisions that apply, such as section 48, and so, if there is legislation that is adopted by the House, the court may look to that to see if that legislation was adopted validly and if there was a quorum or if there were some other constitutional provisions at play. However, in terms of the manner in which the House chooses to comply with that requirement, in my view there is going to be a lot of leeway, because it is how the House decides to manage its internal proceedings.

As long as the House is mindful of those constitutional provisions and those requirements and turns its mind to it—adopts proceedings and makes it clear that in the conduct of its proceedings it is meeting this quorum by recognizing the presence—all of those things should lead, in my view, the courts to find that this is the exercise of its proceedings.

Obviously, the question doesn't arise at all if you have 20 members physically present. I am saying that, if you don't have that, then there are some other arguments to put forward.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you.

A lot of questions that our colleagues have been posing are about the health and safety of MPs and their staff, but there's another angle that I want to address or point to: We have, as a government, as public health officials, as a society, just asked the entire economy to start working from home. Several million people have been laid off because of a lack of ability to access their work, and businesses have shut down. Obviously, the entire country—in fact, the entire world—knows that we are under extraordinary circumstances.

I think that it's really incumbent upon us as parliamentarians not only to think about the health and safety of employees and MPs, but also to follow the advice that we're asking the rest of the country to abide by, that we're asking people who just lost their jobs because of these requirements to abide by. So, it is incumbent upon us, as political leaders and as politicians, to really do our best to abide by that advice.

My question is for Monsieur Robert.

There have been several questions about MPs' access to the Internet. Are you aware of any members of Parliament whose constituency offices do not have access to the Internet?

[Charles Robert]

I'm not sure that I have the precise information for that, but I do believe that in the northern regions there are challenges for some of the MPs.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

By “challenges” you mean that they have access to the Internet, but it's not high-speed.

[Charles Robert]

I think, in fact, that would be correct. Their access is limited; it's not high-speed.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

It would be interesting to know how many MPs have those challenges so that we can try to figure out if there's a way we can accommodate those. However, I think it's fair to say that the overwhelming majority of MPs have access, if not at home then at their constituency offices.

[Charles Robert]

I believe that's so, but it's also why I think our IT people are trying to reach out to the MPs to see if they can find solutions.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I don't have any more questions, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for that, Mr. Alghabra. That leaves some time. Would you like to share it with somebody?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Sure. I don't know if Madam Elizabeth May is interested.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. May, would you like one minute?