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.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
For example, Speaker Milliken, committees can't move motions under the current agreement. How important is it that they maintain that same functionality virtually as opposed to in person?
Former Speaker of the House of Commons, As an Individual
You mean motions to move what?
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
To compel the government to provide documents, for example. Committees have been limited in doing all kinds of hearings.
Former Speaker of the House of Commons, As an Individual
It was just done by changes to the rules of the House?
Conservative
Former Speaker of the House of Commons, As an Individual
I was not aware of that. Certainly hearing witnesses I don't think has been restricted from what you've said; providing documents is another issue.
I'm surprised that's the case, but certainly the House could demand production of the documents and then the committee could look at them to their heart's content. It's a matter of dealing with that in the House, in part, because the House is able to make these demands. The committee could recommend to the House that the House demand production of the documents, I suspect, and then if the committee reports are concurred in....
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's all the time we have. I have given some leeway because we had some technical difficulties.
It is true that in committee right now we cannot move motions. We have been requesting documents and that hasn't been a problem with the witnesses so far, but I understand the complications that could arise.
We have one more questioner and then that's all the time that we are going to have for this meeting today. I will have a couple of housekeeping items at the end.
Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today.
I have three questions. I am going to start with one that I've been puzzled with for quite some time.
I think we often hear the terms “essential work” or “essential workers” and we're talking about front-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, construction workers, etc. All these workers have a very physical element in performing their functional duties that I believe are essentially different from parliamentary functions and our roles.
I'm a new member of Parliament, so excuse me if my understanding of my duties is simplistic. I've been told that we're here to debate, legislate, take care of the business of supply, conduct committee work and hold the government to account.
I'm wondering, Mr. Tardi and Mr. Pelletier, whether any of those functions require us to be physically present in principle.
Professor, Faculty of Law, University of Ottawa, As an Individual
I don't see any function that requires members of Parliament to be physically present. It could be done virtually, though I would like to add to your description that I consider the House of Commons to also be a public forum, which means that freedom of expression has to be exercised in public and that is what is difficult to reconcile with virtual work of the House of Commons.
There will be a challenge.
There is a challenge for everyone here to make sure that democracy is still alive, that the media is still able to cover the work of the House of Commons and that the House of Commons itself stays as a public forum.
In my opinion, this is the great challenge ahead of us if we are to move towards more work in virtual format. It is a matter of really ensuring, on the one hand, that the media maintain the quality of coverage of the proceedings of the House and, on the other, that the House, despite its virtual character, maintains its public nature.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Thank you.
As long as it is made public and the media has access, then essentially there is no physical requirement.
Mr. Tardi, do you want to respond to that as well?
Executive Director, Institute of Parliamentary and Political Law
I have an answer for you in three parts. First of all, with respect to the necessity part of having Parliament and in particular the House of Commons, I think the even more fundamental aspect of this is that democracy is in question. If there is no Parliament, if there is no give-and-take, if there is no communication between the governors and the people, essentially, in my view, democracy breaks down. That requires there would be a Parliament, a viable legislative institution at all times.
The second part is your point about the physical presence of members of Parliament almost, you could say, facing each other. I have taken the view, and I want to reiterate now, that what is much more important is a meeting of the minds.
I think I agree with what Professor Pelletier said about that.
I think he and I are on the same wavelength about this.
Finally, there is one point I've been trying to make in response to several members who have questioned this, and that is the temporal nature of whatever solution the House decides to adopt on these points. At some point, this pandemic will be over. In the worst-case scenario, we can take the Spanish flu as an example. It lasted two years. That theoretically could bring us to—
Executive Director, Institute of Parliamentary and Political Law
Absolutely.
That could bring us into 2022. At some point, the House will be able to resume its sittings in Ottawa with all MPs present.
With that, thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
That wraps up our questioning for today's meeting.
Our meeting on April 28 will also be a video conference meeting on the same Zoom platform and there will be two panels of witnesses. The first panel will be on Internet connection challenges and Internet security. The second panel will be on video conferencing platforms and feasibility.
We're still awaiting confirmation about our request for a three-hour time slot. We were able to get accommodations made for the last several meetings. My hopes are high that we will be able to get the same time slot, which is 11 a.m. to 2 p.m.
Yes, Mr. Richards.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
On that point, my understanding, if I'm not mistaken, is that the House question period would be occurring at I think noon eastern time and would be overlapping with our meeting. I know that there was already some discussion about the feasibility of this. Can you give us any update on how that would be handled if there's a conflict there and what that would mean for the timing of our meeting?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's a very good question, Mr. Richards. Just give me one moment, please.
I will investigate further with the different parties and their whips as to how this is being dealt with, but as far as I, the clerk and our team know, we are scheduled for 11 a.m. It might be something that you may want to bring up, Mr. Richards, but that is what's planned for now. If I get more information as to what talks are happening about that conflict, I can share it via email with all of you.
Seeing as no hands are raised at this time, that adjourns our 11th meeting of the procedure and House affairs committee. Thank you, everyone, especially our esteemed witnesses, for participating today.