Evidence of meeting #11 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was commons.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
That's fair enough.
Mr. Bosc, a yes or no on that one?
1:15 p.m.
Former Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, As an Individual
I agree that purely virtual sittings carry a lot of potential difficulty both technically and procedurally. On that score, I agree with former speaker Milliken.
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
To both of you again, on that same point, would you say that one of the issues there might be, given the idea of parliamentary privilege and the ability to accommodate all 338 MPs, that there certainly is potential for breach of parliamentary privilege when someone isn't able to participate properly, whether that be because they don't have good Internet connections in their constituency or for other reasons? Would the two of you share those concerns about parliamentary privilege, and why or why not?
1:15 p.m.
Former Speaker of the House of Commons, As an Individual
It would be a matter of privilege if they couldn't get into it. I hadn't thought of that as an issue, but they don't have to do it from their own riding; they could go to the provincial capital or a nearby city in their constituency and do the work from there. They don't have to be in their house or in their office to do this, I don't think, but it depends on what restrictions the House chooses to put on it.
Again, I don't think there's any reason you couldn't have a group of members of Parliament in one place who are all participating in the discussion like this, maybe all in your office together. Technically it could be done that way. Other members might not like it much, but I don't think you would be required to be in a room on your own for this to happen. I don't know how anybody could tell that was the way it was being done, if the other people were out of sight of the camera.
1:20 p.m.
Former Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, As an Individual
I'll add very briefly. Ms. May suggested on Tuesday that some members couldn't get to a location where connections were better or participate in that way. Each case would have to be looked at on its merits. If there's a snowstorm is one part of the country and people can't participate in a sitting of the House, the House continues. Each case is going to have to be looked at on its own particular circumstances and merits.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Another thought would be that when debate is occurring in the House, if a member who is scheduled to speak isn't there and doesn't rise to speak, and no one else rises, debate can collapse.
What will we do in those situations where we have a bad connection or the microphone might not be working and so then, obviously, there's no ability to recognize that they're speaking? How would you see that playing out in a virtual sitting? Would that be the cause of the collapse of a debate, for example, if we couldn't get the connection up and running for several minutes and nobody else was available or ready to speak? I guess we wouldn't know the reason the person is not rising, essentially. Is it connection trouble, or what?
I want to hear your thoughts on that.
1:20 p.m.
Former Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, As an Individual
If I can just jump in really quickly, I'll leave more time for Speaker Milliken. The reason I'm in favour of something like a hybrid arrangement is that it preserves this agility and flexibility for the House for just those kinds of circumstances that you've mentioned. It takes that all away. People from each party in the House are there physically and they can jump up and say there's no unanimous consent or they're not ready to put the question yet or they've got a member who wants to participate in debate, but can't get a connection—that kind of thing.
That's why I like the flexibility of the hybrid model. It brings in as many people as possible, but it preserves all the good things that the House allows you to do in an actual sitting.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you, Mr. Bosc.
That's all the time we have for questions.
Mr. Tochor, you have your hand raised. Is it because you'd like to intervene or raise a point of order?
April 23rd, 2020 / 1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
No, I'm just wanting to be next in line to question, please.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
You are next in line. You will have five minutes in the second round.
This, I think, is the perfect opportunity for me to reiterate some of the rules I mentioned at the beginning of the meeting. If you want to make a point of order, you just unmute your mike, and you go ahead and interrupt and make that point of order. After that, if you want to speak to that point of order, it's best if you raise your hand in the participant list and then I get a generated list according to who's raised their hand first. It's very easy for me to identify the speaking order from that list.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Corey Tochor Conservative Saskatoon—University, SK
I am aware of that. That's what I was following, and I was waiting in error. There are technology issues here, obviously.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks also to our guests, in particular my predecessor, Mr. Milliken, who's here today.
Speaker Milliken, I have a quick question for you.
At the last meeting, two days ago, we had the current Speaker of the House. I asked him, given the advice from Health Canada, and given the fact that he is ultimately responsible for the employees of the House of Commons, whether it would be his position to heed the advice and exercise social distancing to the maximum extent possible within the House of Commons given his position there? He said, yes, that he would.
As a former speaker, would you have taken the same advice from Health Canada and done everything you could to maximize that?
1:25 p.m.
Former Speaker of the House of Commons, As an Individual
I don't know. I never had to deal with this kind of issue when I was in office. I never saw it happen. I'm sure I would have taken the advice as—
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
You would have taken the advice. Okay. Thank you.
Mr. Macfarlane, help me understand the basic principle of parliamentary privilege. My understanding of it is that at its most fundamental core, it means that all members have access to the same opportunities and the same rights in terms of being present for meetings, and so on and so forth, and having access to the Hill. Is my understanding of that correct?
1:25 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
That's certainly one part of privilege. There are institutional-level and individual-level components to parliamentary privilege. One of the other individual-level components is individual immunity for things like freedom of speech. We could elaborate on those different ones, but what you point to is certainly one part of that, yes.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
But a fundamental principle of parliamentary privilege is that members have the same rights to represent them, and no member has a superior amount of privilege. Would a cabinet minister have a superior amount of privilege?
1:25 p.m.
Assistant Professor, University of Waterloo, As an Individual
No, not in the way I understand privilege.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Right.
Mr. Pelletier, what are your thoughts on that?
1:25 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I'll answer you first in French, if you like, and then I'll add a few words in English.
Immunity and privileges shall be accorded equally to all members of the Assembly. I do not see any disparity between members of the Assembly.
This being said, immunity is related to the work of the chamber. It's not related to the House in itself, to a building—
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
It's related to the work. That's a very good point.
1:25 p.m.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
It's related to the work of the chamber. It means that a member has absolute immunity for everything that he or she says or does within the work of the chamber.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I'm more interested in what they have access to. For example, some members could argue that some ministers have been in every session of Parliament since this emergency, whereas some other members have not been to any, and I'm curious about that.
Mr. Bosc, would you agree with that assessment of parliamentary privilege, that all members should have equal access?
1:25 p.m.
Former Acting Clerk of the House of Commons, As an Individual
I tend to agree with Mr. Pelletier. I think all members have this immunity in the same fashion. Attendance is a tricky one, because the cause of the difficulty in attending might have a big impact on how a Speaker might rule on a question of privilege raised on that basis.
1:25 p.m.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
I guess, Mr. Bosc, what I'm having a really hard time wrapping my head around is that this idea of a hybrid model you've been talking about relies on certain members—and by your description it would be members selected by a party to represent the basic composition of the House—being allowed to be in the House and certain members being allowed to participate virtually. I have a hard time wrapping my head around that hybrid model and how the privilege of some members might be infringed upon because their access is at a different level. It would appear to me that a much more even access would mean everybody having the same kind of access. If that access was virtual, at least you could say every member had the same access to the meeting, whereas using this hybrid model would suggest that certain members have access that other members don't.