Evidence of meeting #16 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
My only point is that on page 40, line 3, there's some very tiny writing. I can't read it. I don't know what that is. Maybe it's a weird thing on mine. It looks like a line.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
There's a line, but if you look closely, there are words. I don't know what it is, so just delete that.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes.
Andre, do you see that on yours? There's something that showed up on all of ours. No, not yours?
Some people are nodding no, and some people are nodding yes. I don't know, but I'm sure we'll have the final version scrubbed and looking good.
Is there anything else on quorum?
Mr. Turnbull.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I remember the conversation we had in our last meeting about this section on quorum.
I think the analyst, Andre, took the information from there and moved it up in the report. Looking at the edited version, I can see that it has been changed. That made sense and I think that's what the committee asked for, but the intention was that it was also reflected here. It's relevant to be in the report twice, or maybe slightly reworded. I think that was Ms. Normandin's point as well and I appreciated that. It should be there.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Thank you.
We're moving on in the report to “Hybrid model for sittings of the House”.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
On the quorum part, okay, yes, you do, after Mr. Turnbull. It came up just now.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Sorry about that. I thought it was up.
Again going back to the section on quorum, from line 20, on page 39, and continuing on to page 40, Andre, you can correct me if I'm wrong, but we also heard evidence from Mr. Dufresne acknowledging that he could also be wrong with respect to quorum and that the consequences would be that any decision taken by a virtual quorum could or would be invalidated.
I know that there was evidence in that regard, so I think we may want to add the content to this particular paragraph, because it does reflect not an option but a counter to what Mr. Dufresne did say, or a caveat to what he did say, with respect to those consequences. That needs to be in the report as well.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, so there are no changes to line 20 because it's actually a recommendation, and we'll get back to that later, but you want both views that were stated, or the alternative view that was stated.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Right, Madam Chair, and just to be clear, that would fall under section (a), Quorum, not necessarily within the recommendations, just what Mr. Dufresne's testimony was.
Thank you, Andre.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That sounds good.
We're on (b), "Hybrid model for sittings of the House".
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Speaking from all points of view, what I suggested to be added last time isn't what was added in the document. Mr. Pelletier had mentioned that quorum could be virtual, because it's a meeting of minds. However, Mr. Pelletier also said that, if it couldn't be virtual, the Standing Orders of the House could be amended under section 44 to make a virtual quorum constitutional and, therefore, it would stand up in court. If we want a complete picture, this is a good place to put this amendment.
So it's the reference to section 49 and section 44.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Andre, I think the "Quorum" section lacks some of the discussion we heard and the varying viewpoints. It looks as if the committee wants a lot of that inserted because it is a very short section.
Andre, did you want to say something?
May 12th, 2020 / 12:55 p.m.
Committee Researcher
If I may just clarify this, Madam Chair, I moved a lot of that legal information to the front and now I've left a big hole behind where I had.... It should go in both places, from what I gather from the committee.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I wanted to speak to Mr. Brassard's point. I think he is referring to a caveat, whereas I think the general sentiments of the testimony that I recall were very clearly in favour of the fact that the House governs with its own set of rules and procedures, and that the courts, on many occasions, have consistently employed a flexible approach that reflects the realities of modern life, consistent with that living tree interpretation of the Constitution Act.
We heard this from multiple, very reputable experts, and I'd like that reflected, because that seems to be, in my recollection, the sweeping and expert advice that was provided to this committee; it was not to say that the caveat that somebody made, based on a question, does not negate the overall dominance of that perception expressed by multiple experts on the subject matter.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Point noted. I think the majority of the experts did lean one way, but we'll have both points reflected, and if you can balance the weight of the evidence as it was stated.
Yes. Thanks. Andre gave a thumbs up.
We're moving on from "Quorum" now. I don't see any hands up on the "participants" part of Zoom.
The next section is “Hybrid model for sittings of the House”.
Yes, Mr. Brassard?
1 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Chair, it's a minor point I have, but it isn't minor to Mr. Barnhart. As he is a former lieutenant-governor, the term “Honourable” should be before his name.
Andre, just so you know, it doesn't reflect that in other parts of the report, but I believe he is entitled to that style. Thank you.
Just while I'm on that, I know another section speaks about Peter Milliken, who, as a member of the Privy Council, should have “Honourable” in front of his name as well. I think we should reflect that. Thank you.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. That is protocol.
Are there any other issues with or comments on this section?
With regard to (c), “Alternate locations”, everyone has a thumbs up.
Ms. Blaney, you have a comment, then Mr. Richards.
1 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Yes. I'm wondering if it's normal practice to quote a member of the committee, as I've never seen that happen before. I'm sure Mr. Brassard really enjoys that.