Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
It's an honour to be invited to contribute to your work.
It is rare that the House of Commons and its committees are confronted with existential issues such as those they are seized with today; hence, there is a need to step back and reflect on the broad principles that you will need to consider in formulating your recommendations.
The Speaker has outlined a series of such principles. The committee should heed these, as they are important reality checks on the practical implications of experimenting with the concept of a virtual House of Commons. I would add one overarching principle—the need to have an active and functioning legislative branch of government during the time of crisis.
In too many countries around the world, dominant executive branches of government eclipse Parliament. This makes parliaments weaker and less relevant. That imbalance needs to be addressed, especially in a time of crisis. The House of Commons needs to be functioning and to be seen to be functioning.
I want to be clear: Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, is an essential service to the country.
Members of Parliament are also essential workers, despite the fact that, in order to meet public health standards, the parties wisely decided to reduce the number of MPs attending the sittings, as did the House administration, limiting the presence of public servants to the strict minimum absolutely necessary for the functioning of the House. I'd like to point out, for information purposes, that the House sat the day after the fire in Centre Block in 1916, and that the House sat the day after the October 22 shooting in 2014.
So it was encouraging on Monday to see the House take steps towards resuming operations. It is a start, but more can be done.
The committee has already been made fully aware of the finite capacity of the House administration to deliver a virtual House on short notice. Indeed, the technical challenges are immense, and were evident at the committee meeting two days ago. Clearly, it will not be possible for all members of the House to participate next Tuesday.
Despite the superhuman efforts by House staff, led on the technical side by Stéphan Aubé's team and on the procedural side by the team of the deputy clerk, André Gagnon, the physical and technical limitations of a virtual House are significant and numerous. I'm convinced that these people will do their utmost to ensure that this project can eventually succeed, but I would ask you to be lenient with them and understand that this is the art of the possible.
Given these realities and the need to fully take into account legal, procedural and constitutional considerations, it would be preferable to move quickly to a hybrid model of House sittings. By this I mean in-person sittings augmented by virtual participation, for which the number of attendees would gradually increase as the House administration's capacity increases. As has been done so far, in-person sittings conducted with limited attendance that respects the proportions of the House obviates any concerns related to sections 16 and 48 of the Constitution, namely Ottawa as the seat of government and the need for a quorum.
As an aside, I am perplexed as to why, for the special committee agreed to on Monday, the quorum is set at only seven, when in reality it is for all intents and purposes a committee of the whole House, where quorum is 20, as it is for the House in full sitting.
A hybrid approach has the benefit of retaining for members and the House the flexibility and agility afforded by in-person sittings, while respecting public health guidelines by supplementing such sittings with virtual participation that has the added benefit of safely ensuring cross-country representation. That virtual participation will increase in numbers and efficiency over time. This way, Canadians will continue to see the physical House in action on a regular basis, will be reassured to see that their key democratic institution is functioning and thus that a return to normalcy is beginning ever so modestly. Public confidence is increased by a regular and visible challenge to the actions taken by the executive. As representatives of all parties and regions are heard, all Canadians will feel that their views and concerns are being expressed.
Naturally, there are still countless procedural details to be considered, particularly for virtual sittings. How will the Speaker know which minister will have the floor during a virtual question period? How will points of order and questions of privilege be handled? What happens to questions and comments in the context of a debate? What about recorded divisions? The list of questions goes on and on.
However, I have every confidence that the procedural services team will be able to support the Speaker and the House in coming up with creative solutions to the majority of these issues. One thing is clear, though: any approach will require collaborative, patient and constructive input from each party and all members of the House. Things can and should be simple so that we can focus on the real function of our assembly: to legislate, to study the business of supply and to hold the government to account.
With regard to votes, one possible avenue to explore is to build on the existing practice of applied votes by the whips, which is already routinely used, mostly in instances where the House is faced with large numbers of votes. On the other hand, if a purely technological solution is preferred, I am sure that House procedural and technical staff could advise the committee on how to devise a method of remote voting for virtual participants.
These are just a few of the issues the committee and ultimately the House will need to consider in the days, weeks and months ahead. A deadline such as that imposed on this committee in the current context is not realistic, in my view, if the committee wishes to thoroughly explore the subject area of virtual sittings. It is an extremely complex issue with broad implications, and would benefit from a longer, more in-depth study. As such, the committee may wish to present an initial report and then continue its consideration of this subject matter beyond the terms of its order of reference.
That brings my remarks to a close.
I'm available to answer any questions you may have.