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.