Thank you for inviting me to this meeting. I am very honoured.
I feel a bit like I'm involved in the creation of new rights. I must say that I have approached today's topic from a constitutional perspective. I am better known as a constitutionalist than as a legal expert in other areas.
I have been thinking about whether the work of Parliament could continue virtually in a much more comprehensive way than what Mr. Milliken has just set out. I very much appreciate his practical approach. Only a former Speaker of the House of Commons has that kind of knowledge. It is knowledge that I do not have.
For my part, I approached the issue from a constitutional law perspective and focused on the House of Commons, meaning that I did not focus on the Senate. Although my review has focused on the House of Commons, my comments are applicable mutatis mutandis to the Senate of Canada.
For my study, I examined a number of normative sources. Obviously, I examined the Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1982, the Parliament of Canada Act, the Canada Elections Act, the regulations developed by the House of Commons itself, case law, and constitutional conventions, which are extremely important in parliamentary matters.
I can tell you at the outset that I have found no constitutional constraint on the work of the House of Commons taking place virtually. The conclusion I have come to is that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prevents virtual proceedings from taking place. However, there are a number of principles in the Constitution that must be respected. To the extent that they are respected, the work of Parliament can be conducted virtually.
I remind the honourable members that, even if the Constitution were to contain inescapable requirements or conditions with respect to parliamentary proceedings, there is always a possibility for the Parliament of Canada to amend certain constitutional provisions.
One of the inescapable conditions laid down in the Constitution is, of course, the obligation for Parliament to hold at least one sitting once a year. This follows from section 5 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Second, the maximum term of office of the House of Commons is five years, with a few exceptions provided for in the Constitution. This follows from section 4 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Speaker of the House must preside at all sittings, according to section 46 of the Constitution Act, 1867. A quorum shall consist of 20 members, the Speaker being counted as a member, according to section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Questions must be decided by a majority of votes, according to section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
English and French must be used in the debates, records, minutes and journals of the House of Commons, according to section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Governor General has the power to dissolve Parliament at any time under section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The principle of responsible government must be respected. It is a constitutional convention that has probably acquired a supra-legislative status over time. It must be respected.
Immunity from speeches made in the House remains. This means that the absolute immunity that members enjoy in respect of what they say or do in the House remains, because that immunity relates to the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and not to the physical place where it is usually held.
It is therefore aimed at the proceedings, not at the areas within a building. It also applies to the proceedings of parliamentary committees.
I also note in passing that under sections 7 to 9 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the immunity enjoyed by the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings must also be respected and must remain an essential feature of the House of Commons.
I also note that there must be a publication of parliamentary proceedings, pursuant to the Publication of Statutes Act and the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. Of course, the duties of the Parliamentary Protective Service do not change. The Parliamentary Protective Service is responsible for security throughout the parliamentary precinct and on Parliament Hill.
However, two considerations are, in my opinion, a little more difficult to combine with the holding of parliamentary proceedings in a virtual way. The first consideration is the public nature of the House. I believe that it is the very essence of the House of Commons to have that public character. The House of Commons has a legislative function and a deliberative function. It also has the function of controlling the government. However, we must not forget that it also has the essential characteristic of having a public nature. If ever the business of the House proceeds virtually, it will be necessary to ensure that this public nature of the House of Commons is respected.
The last condition, as you may have guessed, is of course the media. It is absolutely essential that the House of Commons continue its work in front of the media. In the context where the House operates virtually, we have to find a way to ensure that there are no impediments to the media's role, that nothing affects the media's role. Obviously, that is also one of the essential characteristics of the House of Commons.
When I look at the essence of the House, the constitutional provisions applicable to the House, the constitutional conventions and the applicable laws, I see nothing that a priori prevents the business of the House from proceeding virtually. Of course, a number of conditions, which I have just mentioned, must nevertheless continue to be met.