Evidence of meeting #17 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 recommendation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. I've written that down. Thanks for that suggestion. We have two things floating.
Next we have Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Brassard and then Madam Normandin.
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
To Mr. Richards' suggestion, although I understand it, I think this is basically the hybrid model. It's what we've already been doing.
The intention behind the recommendation is to echo the sentiments of Benoît Pelletier, Joseph Maingot, Philippe Dufresne and Greg Tardi, all of whom basically said in their testimony that—if I were to summarize all of it, the way I read it—the courts would not intervene.
Parliament has a constitutionally guaranteed right over its own domain, which means that it makes its own rules. Any time the courts have interpreted anything like this, they have consistently used the living tree approach, which means that they would adopt a modern interpretation that would essentially allow for a virtual presence.
Finally, the testimony suggests, based on my reading of it over and over again, that no changes are actually necessary. What I think Mr. Dufresne had said is that if we enshrine those changes in a piece of legislation or a change to the Standing Orders, this would make it clear that we were exercising that constitutionally protected right, which is control over our own proceedings as the House of Commons.
From my perspective, based on the testimony that we heard, this isn't a big stretch at all. It's actually, I think, the dominant perception that was shared by the most compelling testimony that we heard from reputable experts.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
8:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
First of all, Madam Chair, I do seek clarification on my motion to strike this, whether we're still on that or not. I am moving a motion to strike it. I just need clarification on that.
8:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I think this debate is relevant to having this motion in the report or striking it. That's why I figured this goes to your motion to strike.
We will hear from the clerk as well, because I need some guidance on that issue. I figured I'd let you all speak first.
8:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
I think the guidance that needs to be followed or directed here is.... What this recommendation says is, “...a virtual presence of 20 members meeting the requirements of quorum as set out in Section 48 of the Constitution Act of 1867”. Section 48 of the Constitution Act of 1867 says right now: “The presence of at least twenty members of the House of Commons shall be necessary to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers....” It doesn't say “the virtual presence”. It says “the presence”.
Going back to what I said earlier, this.... I get it, Mr. Turnbull. We've had four people come in and talk about this, and I didn't get a sense from them that everybody was in agreement. I understand the living tree argument. I understand that Parliament is the master of its own domain and the seat of Parliament is in Ottawa. Those things are very clear to me, from what I heard, but what I need to better understand, and I think what we all need to better understand, is just how a virtual presence can meet the needs of section 48 of the Constitution Act. I don't think we, quite frankly, heard that consistently.
The hybrid model that we're effectively using now on Wednesdays, at least for the purposes of the committee, is very similar to the hybrid model Mr. Richards spoke of earlier. I would strongly encourage that this recommendation is beyond the scope of the mandate of this committee, which is to look at the current situation of COVID-19 and to make recommendations to Parliament given the circumstances we are in today.
This fundamentally changes the way Parliament is to be going forward. I understand that we're talking about extraordinary circumstances going forward. I think we have to be very, very careful on this one. We are heading down a very slippery slope as it relates to the Constitution of this country and the fact that we are to sit in Ottawa. A physical presence means just that.
That's all I have to say, Madam Chair. I find it kind of curious that there's talk here about striking the quote of Mr. Dufresne up top, and perhaps moving it into the body. I don't recommend that we deal with this at all, and this is why my motion stands. The fact that this quote is somehow being administered to change the Constitution to reflect a virtual presence is curious to me, to say the least. I think we need to strike this and I hope members see that as well.
Thank you.
9 p.m.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think we agree in saying that, regardless of what we write in the report, it will not tie the Supreme Court's hands. The Supreme Court could decide that the virtual presence of 20 people is constitutional or that it is not. No one has a crystal ball. My understanding of the recommendation is that we feel that the virtual presence of 20 people in the House is sufficient, given the testimony we have heard, to open the House and continue our daily work.
I understand that this recommendation is not intended to tie the Supreme Court's hands. It is intended to help us operate with 20 people virtually because we feel sufficiently comfortable with the testimony we have heard to say that, in our opinion, this will likely not be overturned by the Supreme Court.
I don't think this recommendation has any other uses than to allow us to manage our own affairs.
9 p.m.
Liberal
9 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Chair, just to build on the comments.... I'm a stickler, obviously, and I think you could tell from my passion for a hybrid system.
I just want to comment on Mr. Turnbull's comments about a hybrid model. I think he suggested that we have that right now, that some of our sittings are virtual and we have, on Wednesdays, a presence in the chamber. I'll clarify that. That's not what a hybrid model is, or what has been talked about in the next section that way. When it goes back to quorum, a lot of these issues, including the next section, get back into the legalities of quorum. I think it can easily be resolved through this hybrid model of being very, very safe, having a minimal, safe number of members in the House and those being able to participate.
When we talk about a hybrid, I think it's important to understand the U.K. context versus what we have now. It's not a hybrid model. We're not set up in full, and those types of things.
I just want to leave it at that and chime in what I could on that item.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Justin, you're still with us, right?
Yes, Mr. Nater, I see you, and Mr. Alghabra, I see you too. You guys will be next.
Justin, please, on the point of moving to strike the whole recommendation as is.
9 p.m.
The Clerk
Yes, Madam Chair.
As of right now, all of these recommendations that the members are looking at are suggestions until such time as they decide to put them into the report. The recommendation that the committee is considering right now is merely a suggestion. It's not, formally speaking, part of the report, so there's nothing, per se, to strike.
The way to address it, obviously, if the committee didn't want to see this suggested recommendation in the report, would be to simply decide not to have it in the report, which could be done through the consent of the committee or, if it came to it, a recorded vote. If the committee voted in a recorded vote not to have it included, it wouldn't be included. That would be the main way for it not to appear in the report.
9 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Mr. Nater, for comments on this, and then Mr. Alghabra. Then we'll see if we can move to the procedural part of this.
May 13th, 2020 / 9 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Madam Chair, I appreciate your giving me the opportunity to have the floor. Considering that I'm not a member of this committee, I do appreciate having a few very brief moments to comment on this.
I just think that whenever we're looking at the Constitution and we're looking at effectively making an amendment to the Constitution, it requires more than a few committee meetings to undertake that.
I recognize there has been some testimony before this committee that suggests it would be adequate to infer virtual presence as meeting the requirement of the Constitution. I would, however, caution that the Australian constitution has a very, very similar phrase as we have in our Constitution and the clerk of their house of commons has indicated clearly that their interpretation would require the physical presence within the chamber to constitute quorum.
If we're looking at our Commonwealth cousins, Australia is a good example, with very similar wording in their constitution. Granted, we have had slightly different histories over the past 100-odd years in both our contexts, with their constitution being implemented in 1900. That said, if we're looking at interpretations, it's a pretty good comparator.
It would be important to take a pause with this. Going ahead with this interpretation is taking a massive step, and I would caution against it. Granted, I'm not a member of this committee, and I have no voting authority on this committee. I would just suggest that would be an important indicator to be looked at before we make a change to our Constitution.
Thank you for your indulgence, Madam Chair.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
I'm just here for the pure enjoyment of this committee.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. That's what I was thinking. I could see that all the other members are still here, but you do have a lot of procedural knowledge, so thank you for that comment.
Mr. Alghabra, and then maybe we can [Technical difficulty—Editor]
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Madam Chair, I'm going to try again to make a proposal here to avoid any confusion that the way this recommendation is worded may be causing. Since we've already adopted recommendation number one, which calls on the House to establish a new set of standing orders to be adopted under exceptional circumstances, I think one can conclude that the new set of standing orders would also cover the idea of quorum. I would be comfortable in referring to that recommendation again here in this section, just to highlight that, hopefully, the exceptional standing orders would take the issue of quorum into account.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
I'm proposing a replacement of LIB 9 and basically removing LIB 9. I still think it would be useful to keep the quote in the body of the text, because that quote has come to us from an objective witness, but also to then completely remove the rest of LIB 9 and just refer to recommendation number one, maybe just putting it back exactly as it was worded at the beginning.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Do you want recommendation one to mention quorum now? Quorum wasn't mentioned in recommendation one.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
We can, sure, but we don't have to; honestly, we don't. I feel that the new set of standing orders will have to take that into account.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Do you want to vote on the proposed amended recommendation, as I guess Mr. Turnbull proposed? You're just stating what Mr. Brassard was stating. I think we'd need to have a vote to really eliminate it.
You can vote and you can all eliminate it, if you want to eliminate it, or have consensus, or however you want to go about it.
If you would like to see it stricken, then we can take it out by not adopting it, if that's what you're saying, Mr. Alghabra.
I do see a few more hands up: Ms. Petitpas Taylor, Mr. Brassard and Mr. Turnbull.
Ms. Petitpas Taylor has given up her spot.
Mr. Brassard, go ahead, and then Mr. Turnbull.
9:05 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Chair, if I'm hearing Mr. Alghabra properly, he's suggesting that we strike recommendation LIB 9. He's referring back to the first recommendation that was adopted, which I voted against, by the way.
I mean, if it's his intent to strike the motion, then that was clearly my intent, and I would agree with that.
Thank you.
9:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Mr. Turnbull, and then I guess we could vote on it or just have consensus. If nobody wants it, that's fine; our problem is over and we can move forward.
Mr. Turnbull.