Evidence of meeting #13 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 question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
2 p.m.
Former Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons, and Author of “Parliamentary Privilege in Canada”, As an Individual
Factoring in the aspect of minority government—I don't quite get that.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Since there's not much time left, let's ask Mr. O'Brien to answer the question.
2 p.m.
Former Clerk of the Senate, As an Individual
Yes, Madam Chair, I do think we should factor in the question of confidence. A government can never continue to operate without the confidence of the House of Commons and that should never take a secondary step no matter what the situation is.
2 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
So as I understand it, we should factor the minority government into our recommendations and plan accordingly in the context of another crisis or similar situation.
2 p.m.
Former Clerk of the Senate, As an Individual
I fully agree with that assessment.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you. That's all the time we have.
Ms. Blaney, you have two minutes, please.
2:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you for some of those questions. I really appreciate the questions of the Bloc member today.
One of the things we talked about in the last period I had with you was having separate standing orders, and procedures or processes are another part of that.
I think Canadians expect to see parliamentarians from different parties collaborating and working together during this crisis, this pandemic, but one of the things I have contemplated is the fact we are in a minority government, which has led to an increased level of collaboration both before and during COVID-19.
Having that separate set of standing orders to move forward, should we be looking at how to increase collaboration between all parties regardless of whether it's a majority or a minority government? Do you have any recommendations on what that could look like?
Mr. O'Brien, I'd be happy to start with you.
2:05 p.m.
Former Clerk of the Senate, As an Individual
Thank you very much for the question.
The history of parliamentary reform has always been the efficient work of small committees that work in a non-partisan manner. That's how the major standing orders changes that were brought in in the early 1980s—that's the Tom Lefebvre committee, and that sort of thing—worked. I think whenever we talk about standing orders, there should be a lot of co-operation, and I think a smaller committee, steering or whatever it is, is the most efficient way to go.
2:05 p.m.
Former Clerk of the Senate, As an Individual
I would agree. Not only am I opposed to heckling, but I'm opposed to a lot of partisan game-playing.
Parliament is partisan. It has to be, because you have the various political parties. When I was clerk of the legislative assembly, for example, as long as the House leader and the opposition leaders were working together, there was good debate and things were moving along. If there was a misunderstanding, if it all broke down, we got nothing done, and that is a shame, I think, and you try to avoid that. Therefore, the non-partisan co-operation, especially among the leaders, is very important.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you. That's all the time we have.
I want to thank all of the witnesses here today. You've brought a wealth of knowledge and experience to our committee hearing. It was really nice to bring you together virtually, old colleagues and friends. It was nice to see you all together.
2:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Before we end, I just want to bring up a couple of housekeeping items. I mentioned them briefly yesterday as well, just to flag them for you.
First, Mr. Richards, we have invited the International Association of Conference Interpreters and the Canadian Association of Professional Employees for the first panel of the May 4 meeting. On the second panel, we will be having the Speaker, the Clerk of the House and the various administrative witnesses we have agreed on. Because we have only two witnesses for the first panel, I and the clerk thought it best to have them in for an hour, and then leave two hours for the Speaker and the Clerk, because they are vital and essential to our getting our report done at the very end. I'm sure there are many questions we have for them from what we've learned.
After that, I want to remind all of you that we're really going to require the committee to be efficient in the use of time. We essentially have only two meetings left to consider the draft report, agree to changes and then adopt it no later than May 12 or 13. It's a very tight timeline.
I'd like to also mention that submitting dissenting or supplementary opinions will also be tight. We need those by May 13 so that there's enough time to prepare and have our report presented to the House on May 15.
Are there any comments or questions about that?
Seeing as there are none, we will adjourn today's meeting. I look forward to seeing all of you on May 4 for our final meeting with witnesses.
Take care.