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.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Based on a previous discussion with Ms. Duncan, I thought that moving this whole section up to the top with the same title, having it at the very beginning of the recommendations because it's.... I agree the first one is a very general recommendation. It's almost the key principle that grounds this entire study. I think it's so pivotal, it's almost like the keystone in an archway. That's the way I look at it. I would opt for putting it right up top. The whole section includes the analysts' overview of some of the testimony that was given by Dr. Raymond, if I remember correctly.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
So it would go under discussion and become the next A.i.(a). It would move "Temporary nature of procedural changes", and put this in place of that. Then would "Temporary nature of procedural changes" would come after that?
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Chair, I want to say how much I appreciate Ms. Duncan saying how important it is to plan for a pandemic or other emergency. I really appreciate that comment.
Thank you.
8:40 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay.
Andre, does that look good then?
Okay, we're on the "Quorum" section. We have LIB 9. That's the only recommendation in that section, thankfully.
Yes, Mr. Brassard.
8:40 p.m.
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Madam Chair, I think this is one of those recommendations that really fall outside the scope of this committee's mandate, and I've mentioned this a few times today. The scope of our mandate is to look at the COVID-19 crisis. When we look at this particular recommendation, it sets us on a path, and I don't think any of us, without further study and not knowing what the implications are.... It really isn't within the purview of this committee to make this kind of recommendation.
I'll be voting against it, but I would strongly suggest that if this is not the will of the committee, we move this forward potentially into another study. I understand the testimony of Mr. Dufresne and the context on which this discussion was based, but we are talking about changing hundreds of years of parliamentary tradition. We all understand that Ottawa is the seat of Parliament, but we are literally, with this recommendation, suggesting to Parliament that somehow quorum will be constituted through my Wi-Fi box here at home and that if 20 members sign in by Wi-Fi, we are going to end up having a quorum. I think this is one of those recommendations that are really short-sighted, and I think we really need to understand the implications of this as it relates to the Constitution and the impact that this could have.
I won't be supporting this, and I'm actually going to move to strike this from the recommendations, because I think it way oversteps our boundaries in the context of this study. Beyond having an hour of testimony from Mr. Dufresne, I really think we need to look at this from a constitutional standpoint and gain a little more understanding and have, not better constitutional experts, but well-informed constitutional experts before we even think about putting a recommendation like this into this report for Parliament's consideration.
I will not be supporting this. I'm going to move to strike it from the report, frankly. I hope I can get some support on that. We can look at it at another time. This is not the time to be looking at such an important constitutional question.
The other thing I would suggest is that this really moves us down a path that I'm not comfortable with. I've stated several times today that this moves beyond the scope of a temporary emergency situation. The word “permanently” is inserted in this recommendation. I'm actually quite shocked that this is the type of recommendation that would come into this committee's study, Madam Chair.
I'm going to move that we strike this from the report and from the recommendations.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay. There are some comments regarding what you have just suggested.
I have Mr. Turnbull, Ms. Blaney and then Mr. Alghabra.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I appreciate Mr. Brassard's comments and I totally respect his perspective on this, but I think I see it quite differently.
I would say the word “permanently” appears there because we quoted the recommendation that was made by the law clerk, Mr. Dufresne. If you look at our recommendation, it has that in quotes. It wasn't our intention to indicate that this would be a permanent change to quorum but that this would be a recommendation for a virtual presence to be considered within a pandemic or an exceptional circumstance like we are in.
The other thing is, I think it's a bit contentious around the “20 members”, etc., because that may change. I have some suggested wording for a revised version of this recommendation that takes out the quote, but I have more to say about quorum in relation to the testimony we heard to back up why this recommendation appears here and how I don't think it's overstepping, based on the testimony that was given by three or four very reputable sources or experts on parliamentary procedure.
I want to give the revised version of it first, if you're okay with that. What I would recommend is that we state the recommendation as follows: “Consistent with the Law Clerk of the House of Commons: The Committee recommends that during extraordinary circumstances, virtual presence meets the requirements for quorum as set out in Section 48 of the Constitution Act of 1867.”
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I said it too fast. “Consistent with the Law Clerk of the House of Commons: The Committee recommends that during extraordinary....”
Sorry, I'm reading it too fast again. I'll start again. “Consistent with the Law Clerk of the House of Commons: The Committee recommends that during extraordinary circumstances, virtual presence”—
8:45 p.m.
A voice
[Inaudible—Editor]
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Or whatever the word is. Is it “exceptional” or “extraordinary”? I don't know; Andre does.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Whatever we said before. I can't remember; we've used so many, but to stay consistent.... Maybe Andre could make it consistent.
8:45 p.m.
A voice
“Exceptional”.
8:45 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I think we said “exceptional”, yes. My mistake. I'll continue: “exceptional circumstances, virtual presence meets the requirements for quorum as set out in section 48 of the Constitution Act of 1867.”
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
You're essentially taking out the quote from above, and then you're just adding the words to the second half: “Consistent with the Law Clerk of the House of Commons”, gets added to the front of “The Committee recommends that during exceptional circumstances, virtual presence”, and then you're scratching out the words “of 20 members”. You're going to cut that out “virtual presence meets the requirements of quorum as set out in Section 48 of the Constitution Act of 1867.”
Is that correct?
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
It's correct, yes.
It takes out the reference to “20 members” and takes out the reference to “a permanent change”. Part of what I could see people reacting to—and I can understand why they would be concerned about that—is thinking this was now changing the way the House of Commons would operate in regular times or circumstances, and that was not the intention. It was really focused on those times of exceptional circumstances.
I think it's fairly consistent with how we've been operating to date. It's probably taking one step further in terms of having a virtual presence count as quorum. I think we need that in order to have formal proceedings.
8:50 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you for the change. I am still not comfortable. I feel that there was not enough. I hear that for you it felt like there was enough information. For me, I just feel that, in a virtual setting, there's just not enough. I need to know a little bit more. There are some questions that I have.
I just can't support it even with the change, and I just want to have that on the record.
8:50 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
I want to build on what Mr. Turnbull has just said.
I would like to suggest that the quote be moved to the body of the report. In fact, if I recall, Mr. Brassard suggested that we add a quote from Mr. O'Brien, who argued that there might be an issue of quorum. Perhaps we can add the quote, which is currently in bold in the recommendation of the law clerk, to the body of the report.
8:50 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I still think there remains a question about the constitutionality of the idea that “presence” could mean virtual. I don't think a requirement to change the Standing Orders would be enough to necessarily effect this change. It may actually be unconstitutional as well.
Having said that, there's still a debate around the idea of virtual versus, maybe, hybrid sittings. I could make a suggestion for that last part. If it's accepted, great. If not, then I wouldn't be able to support it.
For the part after “extraordinary circumstances”, we could change it to read, “hybrid sittings with at least 20 MPs present in the chamber meet the requirements for quorum”, and then it would carry on as is from there. The difference would be that we're doing what we've done with the sittings we've had lately, where you have 20 people present and the rest could be virtual as long as we've met that quorum requirement. Then we don't have the issues with the Constitution, and so on.