:
Good morning, everyone. I call this meeting to order.
Welcome to meeting number 11 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Pursuant to the order of reference of Tuesday, April 11, the committee is meeting to discuss parliamentary duties in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.
Before we start, I want to inform the members that pursuant to this order of reference, the committee is meeting for two reasons. It is beneficial to keep this in mind. I know we have new witnesses from time to time and different people who may be viewing this video footage, so I want to remind everyone of the two reasons we are meeting: one, for the purpose of undertaking a study and receiving evidence concerning matters related to the conduct of parliamentary duties in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic; and two, to prepare and present a report to the House of Commons by May 15 on the said study.
The order of reference also stipulates that only motions to determine witnesses and motions related to the adoption of the report are in order.
Today's meeting is taking place via video conference, and the proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. So that you are aware, the webcast will always show the person speaking rather than the entirety of the committee.
In order to facilitate the work of our interpreters and to ensure an orderly meeting, I would like to outline a few rules to follow.
Interpretation in this video conference will work very much like in a regular committee meeting. You have the choice at the bottom of your screen of floor, English or French. If you haven't selected a language, I recommend you do so right now.
Before speaking, please wait until I recognize you by name. When you are ready to speak, you can either click on the microphone icon to activate your mike or you can hold down the space bar while you are speaking. When you are done speaking, you can release the space bar, similar to a walkie-talkie. This is very beneficial for quick back-and-forth responses.
As a reminder, all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Should members need to request the floor outside of their designated time for questions, they should activate their mike and state that they have a point of order.
If members wish to intervene on a point of order that has been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function. This will signal to the chair your interest to speak. In order to do so, you should click on “participants” at the bottom of your screen. A list will pop up on the side of your screen with your name, and the “raise hand” function should either be at the bottom of that list or at the side. You should be able to see if you've been able to click successfully.
When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking, your mike should always be on mute. This is vitally important for these meetings, because any background sound can be very disruptive.
The use of headsets is also strongly encouraged. Of course, Mr. Brassard, it's okay; we can still hear you even if you don't have your headset here today. The sound is just a bit clearer and sharper if you do have one.
Should any technical challenges arise in relation to interpretation, for example, or if you are accidentally disconnected, please advise the chair immediately and the technical team will work to resolve them. Please note that we may need to suspend during these times, as we need to ensure that all members are able to participate fully.
Before we get started, could everyone click on their screen in the top right-hand corner and ensure they are on gallery view? This view should enable you to see all the participants in a grid view. It will ensure that all video participants can see one another. This is also the most realistic, or it mimics what we usually see in a committee meeting. It is the best we can do virtually.
Also, when you are stepping away or looking away for a moment, I do advise that you leave your screen on rather than shutting your video off so that we know you didn't have some kind of a technical problem and that you're still there, just as you would be in a committee room.
During this meeting we will follow the same rules that usually apply to opening statements and the questioning of witnesses during our regular meetings. Each witness will have 10 minutes for an opening statement, followed by the usual rounds of questions from members.
I'd just like to urge the witnesses that if they do have remarks of less than 10 minutes, that would be ideal. If you can shave off a minute or two that will be very helpful, and I'll definitely remind witnesses in the second round of this because there are many questions we want to get to.
Just as we usually would in a regular committee meeting, we'll suspend in between panels in order to allow for the first group of witnesses to depart and for the next panel to join. In today's meeting we may have about a five- to ten-minute suspension at that time so the technical team can get set up.
I'd like to welcome our witnesses today.
We have Michel Patrice, deputy clerk, administration; Pierre Parent, chief human resources officer; and Mélanie Leclair, director of employee relations. We also have, from the Public Health Agency of Canada, Dr. Barbara Raymond, executive medical adviser, vice-president's office, infectious disease prevention and control branch.
I'd like to start with Michel Patrice.
Go ahead, please.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I am here today with Pierre Parent, our chief human resources officer, who is leading the House administration's crisis management team.
We have put in place a number of preventative measures to help ensure the health and safety of members, their staff, and administration employees throughout the COVID-19 pandemic.
Our actions are guided by information from public health officials at various levels, with whom our health and safety team is in regular communication. We are liaising closely on various matters with parliamentary partners, other legislatures and security partners in order to base our actions on relevant and up-to-date information.
For several weeks now, the administration's crisis management and incident management teams have been meeting regularly to assess the situation, discuss mitigation strategies, and determine how to best support members and ensure a safe and healthy workplace.
[English]
In direct support of members and their staff, we have established a medical advisory service for those experiencing health-related issues that may be linked to COVID-19. Available Monday to Friday, the service arranges medical callback support with an on-call physician. Our in-house occupational health nurses are tracking cases, following up and responding to any concerns. In addition, four virtual sessions were offered by our members’ HR services team to provide information to members relating to their role as employers. These complemented the information shared with members on Source.
Our employee and family assistance program continues to be available to members, their staff and administration employees for confidential support 24 hours a day. Mental health support is an ongoing priority. We want to ensure that everyone in the House of Commons community is aware of the resources that are available to them.
For House administration employees, I can assure you that only those whose physical presence is necessary to provide required services are reporting to work on site. All other employees are teleworking where possible. I am proud of and impressed by the ingenuity of employees who are finding solutions to continue to provide support and services while also, in many cases, caring for family members. Where employees are unable to work, we have introduced flexible leave options.
Several steps have also been taken to protect those who are on site. We have increased the cleaning of high-traffic areas to three times a day. This includes entrances, elevators and handrails. A special COVID-19 cleaning and disinfecting service has been implemented for suspected and confirmed cases. This is in keeping with a protocol that has been established based on advice from public health officials. Additional hand-sanitizing stations have been deployed. Sanitizing wipes have been made available to front-line personnel. Physical distancing measures and proper hand hygiene reminders have been communicated, and signage is displayed throughout the precinct. Plexiglass barriers have been installed in areas where physical distancing options are not always possible. Other simple but important measures have also been taken, such as the rearrangement of furniture in lunchrooms. Our health and safety team continues to monitor the situation on site to ensure that guidance is being respected and to answer employee questions.
Regular communication with staff continues to be a priority. We are making special efforts to stay in touch with those who do not have House of Commons mobile devices. As such, we are communicating by text message, email, desktop pop-up and by the public website, and keeping a dial-in information line up to date. We use our regular communications to provide updated information—for example, the ID guidelines for interprovincial travel and changes to the House sitting calendar—and also to remind all employees of public health recommendations. Our occupational health nurses are personally following up with employees who have shown symptoms, and are liaising with public health authorities.
Through consultations with public health officials, we have been informed that personal protective equipment is not required at this time for employees working on site. However, given recent indications of a possible change of view on the use of masks, this policy will be closely monitored and adjusted as necessary. We have procured masks and gloves, and are preparing fact sheets to accompany their distribution, if required.
[Translation]
We are confident that we are in a strong position to support the activities of the House of Commons at the lowest risk possible to everyone involved. We will continue to closely monitor the evolving situation and adjust our actions.
I can say without reservation that this commitment to ensure a safe workplace is shared by all in the parliamentary community. Members of my team and I have been in constant communication with all the whips' offices, and I am confident that everyone is contributing to the application and respect of the various measures put in place to protect us and mitigate potential risks.
[English]
It will be our pleasure to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you.
:
Hello, Madam Chair and committee members. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you this morning with respect to the public health issues associated with this particular study. I will start with a brief overview or update on COVID-19 in Canada.
As of today, we have more than 38,000 cases of COVID-19 in Canada and over 1,800 deaths reported. More than one third of these cases are of individuals over the age of 60. The virus has proven fatal in 4.5% of these cases. Over 600,000 people have been tested for COVID-19. Approximately 6.5% of those have tested positive for the virus.
It has now been just over 16 weeks since the first cluster of COVID-19 was identified in China. In Canada we identified our first case on January 15. We first began to see what we consider community-level transmission in mid-March, about March 15. In Canada at the federal, provincial and territorial levels, governments have taken extraordinary measures to respond to COVID-19.
Border measures are one example. Since February 3 the Public Health Agency of Canada has enacted a number of emergency orders under the Quarantine Act to minimize risk of exposure to COVID-19 in Canada, to reduce risks from other countries, to repatriate Canadians, and to strengthen measures at our borders to reduce the impact of COVID-19 in Canada. The result is that the ease of travel that so many of us have taken for granted has changed dramatically. Travel is now increasingly rare and is often associated with 14-day mandatory isolation or quarantine periods. This even includes some travel within Canada from province to province. This is a really extraordinary switch for us.
Physical distancing is one of the most important measures that have been put in place to control the spread of COVID-19. The need for physical distancing has changed the way we live and work and the way we interact with one another. Mass gatherings have now been prohibited. This has significantly changed the way we come together—in committee meetings, in how we celebrate and in how we mourn. The necessity to protect the more vulnerable members of our society has meant that we've not been able to see many of our family and friends for many weeks. That's a real challenge.
Schools have been closed. That impacts not only students but also parents and families. This has required and generated incredible creativity on the part of educators to support ongoing online learning.
In terms of our workforce, all but essential front-line workers have been instructed to stay home. Some non-essential workers are able to work from home, but many others aren't. This is having a very significant impact on individuals and families as well.
There are impacts on businesses. Many businesses have been closed or have had to significantly modify how they conduct their business, which is having a very significant impact across the board.
It is hard to conceive of all the ways our lives have changed, in such fundamental ways, over such a short period. All Canadians have taken extraordinary steps and made extraordinary sacrifices to bring us to the point where we feel we are seeing some signs that the outbreak may be slowing, at least in some parts of the country. Although the data reported in the coming days and weeks will continue to be critical in determining our trajectory, the rate of doubling of reported cases in Canada has slowed from doubling every three to four days, in the period of March 12 to 28, to doubling approximately every five to eight days, in the period of March 29 to April 10.
We are all anxious for life to return to normal. It is natural that any signs of the outbreak ebbing will give us hope for that return to normal. Unfortunately, we are still in a pandemic situation and we must remain vigilant. How we move forward will be critical. In the same manner that we increased our public health interventions over time, we will have to ease those interventions very carefully over time in a phased approach if we want to avoid a rebound effect of this outbreak.
The Public Health Agency of Canada is working with provincial and territorial governments to determine the safest way to resume many of our previously routine activities. In the meantime, we must stay the course.
At this point in time, the best advice of the Public Health Agency to Canadians remains to stay at home as much as possible. Most importantly, if you feel ill, practise physical distancing, practise good hand hygiene and practise good respiratory etiquette such as covering your mouth or nose with your arm or sleeve when coughing or sneezing and disposing of used kleenex as soon possible. Do all you can to protect others, particularly the most vulnerable in our society, from infection.
Thank you. I am happy to hear your questions.
This would be for both of you, Mr. Patrice and Dr. Raymond.
The committee is charged with looking at non-virtual alternatives. The other day we had Mr. Dufresne come in to testify on the legal and constitutional aspects of a virtual parliament. He referred specifically to section 16 of the Constitution and said that Ottawa is the seat of government and there's no legal impediment to holding meetings outside of Parliament—for example, there was the 1916 fire.
There are other venues within Ottawa. For example, the Canadian Tire Centre has 17,373 seats. The Shaw Centre is 365,000 square feet. TD Place, just down the road from Parliament Hill, has 10,575 seats.
As an alternative, if and when we do return to some sense of normalcy and there is still a requirement for physical distancing—and again, nobody's talking about 338 members coming back to Parliament—would or could those venues be alternatives that we can look at? For example, at the Shaw Centre, the diameter apart from each member of Parliament, assuming 338 members, would be 2,164 feet. The same would apply in the Canadian Tire Centre, with 80 sections of seats. Could those venues be used as an alternative to sitting in the actual chamber?
Mr. Patrice first, please.
Good morning, dear colleagues, and thank you to all our witnesses.
Dr. Raymond, my questions will be for you.
Thank you for everything you're doing to protect that health and safety of Canadians. I have many questions, so I'm looking for short answers, most often just a yes or no.
First of all, do we see a complete picture of the number of cases, or is there a one- to two-week delay between when people get sick and their information is reported to the Public Health Agency of Canada? Yes or no, is there a delay?
:
Hello, everybody. Thank you both for those very important presentations.
First of all I want to say that I was able to sit in the first smaller Parliament. Part of the reason that I, as a British Columbian, was able to sit there was that I stayed. When I came back home to B.C., I self-quarantined with my family for two weeks. I arrived home, and my family wasn't there because they had gone to get my son who was away at university. They drove him back instead of having him fly, just trying to keep him safe. Then we stayed in the home. Family members and friends brought us food. It was very weird. We did that because we knew things were happening, and I certainly did not want to be unintentionally infecting anyone in my constituency and in my riding, so we made the decision to do that.
I'm also hearing from constituents in my riding who are health professionals—nurses, doctors and caregivers—who are now living in their RVs and self-isolating from their families. It's heartbreaking to hear stories from some of those health professionals who are talking about looking over the fence and watching their kids play but not being able to hug them. People are making some really massive decisions to make sure they take care of the health and well-being of their community and their family.
First of all I want to talk about the issue that Mr. Brassard brought up, the idea of having a venue that provides spacing for members of Parliament.
I have some questions around that: What about the workers? How is morale for all of the workers in the House of Commons who are having to come in and work with Parliament? You have 32 parliamentarians, but how many staff does that require to look after them? There is a question about the amount of cleaning. There was discussion about how often they're cleaning in those high areas. When the House is actually sitting for the day, or in our case overnight, how much more cleaning is happening? What does that look like? Are there appropriate spaces?
I think of the amazing interpreters—and that makes me remember to slow down—who are doing so much work in a very unusual environment. For them to be able to do their work effectively, there are so many challenges. I don't know if those spaces would provide for them.
I'm opening it up to both of you to answer given your expertise. The other factor, even having 338 parliamentarians spaced out nicely over those spaces, is flying. For me to fly to Ottawa it's an epic journey. I'm on Vancouver Island. At this point I actually can't fly from my riding. I would have to drive a substantial way to get on a plane.
That's half of my time already, but if you could talk about some of those challenges, I would really appreciate it so we all have clarity.
Mr. Patrice, if you could answer, that would be amazing.
:
Good morning, everybody, and thank you for this opportunity. I want to build on Mr. Brassard's comments and on Dr. Duncan's and maybe vent a bit.
I have the utmost respect, as you know, for all of my colleagues here who have gone around in the line of questioning in the discussions, but I just want to speak about some of what I feel is a misleading perception that some members are advocating. We keep talking about a return to normal and the fear of that or what the consequences would be of a return to normal.
Respectfully, from what I've seen over the course of the last several days of our conversations about non-virtual or different options, I don't think that anybody here on this committee is advocating for a full return of 338 members into the chamber—nor are many parliamentarians—and having all of the staff and support staff there. Some questions were asked about the number of people in a normal working day. I agree with what I think Dr. Raymond said, which is that the new normal is going to be different from the normal that we had before.
I certainly agree with that, but I fear that there is a perception out there, perhaps from Canadians who are listening to this and thinking that there's not physical distancing or that we're jeopardizing the health of each other by perhaps meeting in some ratio format continually in West Block. Ms. Blaney was one who was there. I waved to her from the gallery at the first emergency sitting. Mr. Gerretsen was there as well. I was a backup member, but I got to see it first-hand, and I have to say that the House of Commons administration did an excellent job from a health perspective when it came to our safety.
The physical distancing was I think very well done. I noted what Ms. May said at one point, which I respect, about the opposition lobbies and some of the walking there, but I think that other [Technical difficulty—Editor].
:
Thank you. I'll mention that I'm going to talk to the industry committee about better rural Internet service when this is all done.
To build on the point, again, of what I was saying about the interpreters, I was caught up on that aspect there and some of the challenges. They're in the building already. Security is there.
I will make the comment constructively that over the course of the last month or so the has made announcements every day. That's important for Canadians. I'm not begrudging that on an in-person level. The ministers have followed up in West Block on a near-daily basis, giving Canadians information that they want to know in these challenging times. I respect that. Again, there's a role and a necessity for Canadians to hear the news from the government. Also, in that same building there's an opportunity for all of us, as members of the government or opposition, to ask questions and give the feedback on what we're hearing from constituents on a daily basis.
If a media conference can be done, that requires interpretation, that requires technical support, that requires security, that requires the cleaning process. If that is being done seven days a week without problem, in the West Block, I think with physical distancing, proper health and safety protocols, as have been done, it is not unreasonable to continue to have this ratio, this safe number of members who can have some presence. Most continue to work from home, like myself. The ministers are in Ottawa and likely not travelling back and forth. We can have some team members who are there and who are doing that.
I have the utmost respect for Dr. Raymond and public health officials and our House of Commons administration. At the end of the day, I want people to understand that when we have these conversations we are not advocating for 338 people to come back. The pages don't have to be there. Our staff don't have to be there. We can have these ratio numbers.
In closing, I would make the argument that if it's safe for ministers to do press conferences in the West Block at a ratio level, combining a physical presence and a technological virtual presence, surely to heavens, as parliamentarians, we can do the same as a fundamental part. We can balance those aspects of not having to travel back and forth into our ridings or doing that for extended periods of time. Where there's a will, there's a way to do it safely.
I've been very proud of the three in-person sessions. I wish that when we do get back to normal, the House of Commons and question period look more like the three that we've had during this time—constructive questions, sometimes tough questions and proposals. I think at the end of the day, because of that presence in the chamber, because of those questions and the ability for all members to share what they're hearing in their ridings, we're actually getting better government policy at the end of the day. We've seen changes under the business wage subsidy. We've seen changes in the CERB. That has benefited Canadians.
I want to wrap up my comments by saying more of a rant, and maybe giving Dr. Raymond and her House administration time to breathe themselves. I believe there is no member who is not acting in good faith, who is not wanting to have health and safety measures as they are when they come to Ottawa, to protect themselves while here within the West Block. I think there's a balance there.
I go back to what's being done with media conferences and some of the other features, what's already happening and the staff who are already there. We can do a form of that there safely. I wanted to make sure that this presence, and that perception of what Canadians think some of us may be advocating for, is in no way unsafe. The three sessions we've already had are perfect, excellent models of a safe and good way of doing it. They can be tweaked here and there, I'm sure, to make it even better.
Again, we can add some virtual aspects to make sure—
We obviously have to consider public health when we think about how we do everything we do. As parliamentarians, we are now contemplating how we can continue to perform our roles as representatives of the people and what that means for how the House of Commons sits, how our committees work and how we do all of our other functions, whether they are in our riding or are our political functions.
For example, as I quite often do in non-election periods, I had planned to spend a lot of time in my riding in getting out and knocking on people's doors in order to hear from them about what kinds of concerns they have and what things on their behalf they'd like to see me working on in Parliament and elsewhere. Through the last six weeks or so, that has not been something that I've been able to do. Typically, it would have been something that I would have done quite a bit of through a couple of non-sitting weeks. This affects a lot of the things we do. As politicians, one of the other functions that we all perform, of course, is our political function. That would be a part of this.
I'm curious. We're in a minority Parliament right now, obviously, Dr. Raymond, and elections are always possible in a minority Parliament, at just about any time. Given what we're dealing with in this crisis, I wonder if you could tell us what it would look like if there were to be an election this summer or this fall. Do you think it would be possible for that to occur in the next three, four or five months? If so, what would have to be done to take precautions and to enable something like that to occur?
All right, Mr. Duncan are you there?
Mr. Gerretsen?
Seeing that is 12:31 and we have a jam-packed panel, I'd like to resume as quickly as possible. I hope Mr. Duncan and Mr. Gerretsen are close by and can at least hear.
Welcome back. We're going to get started.
Everyone, I just want to remind you to please click on your screen at the top right-hand corner and ensure that you are in gallery view. This view is best so that we can all see each other at the same time.
As a reminder, all comments are to be addressed through the chair. When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. When you are not speaking your mike should be on mute. Everyone has actually done an excellent job on this portion of it in the last few meetings, but it's the "unmutes" that we sometimes seem to forget, so let's keep that in mind. Headsets are strongly encouraged.
I'd like to welcome all of our witnesses to our 11th meeting of PROC. We are very honoured to have you all here. You have great expertise that you'll be able to share with us.
Today on the second panel of our 11th meeting, we have Monsieur Marc Bosc, the former acting clerk of the House of Commons; Emmett Macfarlane, associate professor, University of Waterloo; the Honourable Peter Milliken, former speaker of the House of Commons. Welcome again.
We also have Monsieur Benoît Pelletier, professor, faculty of law at the University of Ottawa. Last but not least, we have Mr. Gregory Tardi, executive director of the Institute of Parliamentary and Political Law.
Welcome to all of the witnesses. You each have some time allotted. I believe 10 minutes is what you were informed of. I'm hoping some of you will be able to help us out and try to shave off one to two minutes from that 10-minute introductory comment time. Please, if possible, try to do that.
We will start with Mr. Bosc.
:
Madam Chair, members of the committee, thank you for the invitation to appear before you today.
[Translation]
It's an honour to be invited to contribute to your work.
[English]
It is rare that the House of Commons and its committees are confronted with existential issues such as those they are seized with today; hence, there is a need to step back and reflect on the broad principles that you will need to consider in formulating your recommendations.
The Speaker has outlined a series of such principles. The committee should heed these, as they are important reality checks on the practical implications of experimenting with the concept of a virtual House of Commons. I would add one overarching principle—the need to have an active and functioning legislative branch of government during the time of crisis.
In too many countries around the world, dominant executive branches of government eclipse Parliament. This makes parliaments weaker and less relevant. That imbalance needs to be addressed, especially in a time of crisis. The House of Commons needs to be functioning and to be seen to be functioning.
[Translation]
I want to be clear: Parliament, particularly the House of Commons, is an essential service to the country.
Members of Parliament are also essential workers, despite the fact that, in order to meet public health standards, the parties wisely decided to reduce the number of MPs attending the sittings, as did the House administration, limiting the presence of public servants to the strict minimum absolutely necessary for the functioning of the House. I'd like to point out, for information purposes, that the House sat the day after the fire in Centre Block in 1916, and that the House sat the day after the October 22 shooting in 2014.
[English]
So it was encouraging on Monday to see the House take steps towards resuming operations. It is a start, but more can be done.
The committee has already been made fully aware of the finite capacity of the House administration to deliver a virtual House on short notice. Indeed, the technical challenges are immense, and were evident at the committee meeting two days ago. Clearly, it will not be possible for all members of the House to participate next Tuesday.
[Translation]
Despite the superhuman efforts by House staff, led on the technical side by Stéphan Aubé's team and on the procedural side by the team of the deputy clerk, André Gagnon, the physical and technical limitations of a virtual House are significant and numerous. I'm convinced that these people will do their utmost to ensure that this project can eventually succeed, but I would ask you to be lenient with them and understand that this is the art of the possible.
[English]
Given these realities and the need to fully take into account legal, procedural and constitutional considerations, it would be preferable to move quickly to a hybrid model of House sittings. By this I mean in-person sittings augmented by virtual participation, for which the number of attendees would gradually increase as the House administration's capacity increases. As has been done so far, in-person sittings conducted with limited attendance that respects the proportions of the House obviates any concerns related to sections 16 and 48 of the Constitution, namely Ottawa as the seat of government and the need for a quorum.
As an aside, I am perplexed as to why, for the special committee agreed to on Monday, the quorum is set at only seven, when in reality it is for all intents and purposes a committee of the whole House, where quorum is 20, as it is for the House in full sitting.
A hybrid approach has the benefit of retaining for members and the House the flexibility and agility afforded by in-person sittings, while respecting public health guidelines by supplementing such sittings with virtual participation that has the added benefit of safely ensuring cross-country representation. That virtual participation will increase in numbers and efficiency over time. This way, Canadians will continue to see the physical House in action on a regular basis, will be reassured to see that their key democratic institution is functioning and thus that a return to normalcy is beginning ever so modestly. Public confidence is increased by a regular and visible challenge to the actions taken by the executive. As representatives of all parties and regions are heard, all Canadians will feel that their views and concerns are being expressed.
[Translation]
Naturally, there are still countless procedural details to be considered, particularly for virtual sittings. How will the Speaker know which minister will have the floor during a virtual question period? How will points of order and questions of privilege be handled? What happens to questions and comments in the context of a debate? What about recorded divisions? The list of questions goes on and on.
However, I have every confidence that the procedural services team will be able to support the Speaker and the House in coming up with creative solutions to the majority of these issues. One thing is clear, though: any approach will require collaborative, patient and constructive input from each party and all members of the House. Things can and should be simple so that we can focus on the real function of our assembly: to legislate, to study the business of supply and to hold the government to account.
[English]
With regard to votes, one possible avenue to explore is to build on the existing practice of applied votes by the whips, which is already routinely used, mostly in instances where the House is faced with large numbers of votes. On the other hand, if a purely technological solution is preferred, I am sure that House procedural and technical staff could advise the committee on how to devise a method of remote voting for virtual participants.
These are just a few of the issues the committee and ultimately the House will need to consider in the days, weeks and months ahead. A deadline such as that imposed on this committee in the current context is not realistic, in my view, if the committee wishes to thoroughly explore the subject area of virtual sittings. It is an extremely complex issue with broad implications, and would benefit from a longer, more in-depth study. As such, the committee may wish to present an initial report and then continue its consideration of this subject matter beyond the terms of its order of reference.
[Translation]
That brings my remarks to a close.
I'm available to answer any questions you may have.
:
I want to thank the committee for inviting me to join you today. In the written submission I provided, I outline a short set of disparate constitutional issues and principles that I hope will guide your decision-making on virtual activities in the House.
A key concern about Parliament's role during the pandemic is that all MPs be able to participate as fully and as practicably possible. Because in-person meetings of the full House are not possible, and possibly for quite some time, this means undertaking a serious consideration of the full range of virtual activities, including remote voting.
A skeletal parliament is not a substitute for the breadth and depth of debate and deliberation, question posing, and responsibility to vote on bills and motions by all of our elected representatives, be they members of recognized parties or independents.
Another reason for concern about the skeletal parliament so far is that it has not ensured that all regions and provinces are properly represented. While the Senate is properly regarded as the chamber of regional representation, and so regional or provincial representation within the House is not necessarily a formal legal requirement for any given sitting, ensuring such representation in the House is consistent with the broader principle of federalism and certainly from a political and legitimacy perspective.
Moreover, as central as political parties are to our system, our House of Commons is ultimately founded upon elected representatives at the riding level. No voters in any riding deserve to have a representative who can only fulfill part of his or her ordinary role. Maximizing what can be done virtually is the best way to facilitate full participation during this ongoing emergency.
One of the biggest obstacles to online voting by members is possibly the Constitution. Although much virtual activity may be facilitated by changes to the Standing Orders, permitting distance voting likely requires a formal amendment to the Constitution Act of 1867, by virtue of the language of sections 48 and 49 in particular. Section 48 refers to the “presence” of members “necessary to constitute a Meeting of the House for the Exercise of its Powers”, and the language of section 49 certainly implies a physical presence in the House for voting purposes. However, Parliament has clear authority to amend these provisions unilaterally under our amending formula. As a result, the necessary amendments to facilitate online voting by MPs can be brought into effect by an act of Parliament.
Another obstacle suggested by some commentators is that meeting virtually clouds the application of parliamentary privilege. It is true that courts have been reluctant to expand the scope of privilege beyond parliamentary activities. In determining the scope of privilege, however, courts have quite consistently framed their analysis in terms of the sphere of activity or the content of the parliamentary function, not the venue or process by which that activity is pursued.
While I am not an expert on parliamentary privilege specifically, it is difficult to see how privilege would not extend to the core parliamentary duties of individual members if conducted in a virtual context. Nonetheless, formalizing virtual processes through changes to the Standing Orders or even the Parliament of Canada Act may help to ensure that such activities are regarded by the courts as being core to the formal legislative process.
As for practical and technological considerations, it's clear that there's a lot to be worked out. My political science colleague Nicole Goodman, and others, have written about how something like distance voting can be facilitated. It is even a recommendation by a recent report of the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association. Samara Canada has discussed some of the other challenges as well, but I agree with its position that these can be worked out.
I do think that formalizing provisions to enable virtual activities, including voting, is important not only for the next months but also as a future contingency. At the same time, however, I think that any changes to the Standing Orders or to statutes like the Parliament of Canada Act or even the Constitution Act that aim to facilitate virtual processes should be framed explicitly as emergency measures.
Provisions for virtual participation should be regarded as a temporary stopgap measure to ensure Parliament can continue to play its fundamental role to the best degree possible, but they cannot replace an in-person Parliament during normal times.
Finally, I do not have any opinion about the frequency of sittings of the House during the pandemic. There are clear reasons in favour of ensuring Parliament continues to sit and that its activities be as robust as possible, but the number of days per week or the length of any breaks in sitting are hardly scientific propositions, in that they can be left to the resolution of the various parties.
I'll leave it at that for now. I look forward to your questions.
:
I'm not much of an expert on this subject, but having said that, I have recently, as a member of various boards of community or charitable organizations, had to attend a lot of meetings in this kind of format. I have actually done quite a number in the last few weeks, never mind the months before, because sometimes they have their meetings in this fashion.
By that, I mean they are like the one we have now, where you can see everybody on the screen or see their name, which in my view is quite an important part of this and would be very difficult, in my view, for sittings of the entire House. Having over 300 people on your screen is not going to work. It would be tricky, to say the least.
In thinking about this when I was asked to make some submissions on this subject, I thought the first thing I would say is that in my view this could work for committees, and I think it could work reasonably well. If a committee wants to have a meeting and consider legislation, they could have a meeting somewhere on Parliament Hill in one of the committee rooms with a few MPs present who happen to be in town or whatever, and then have all the others connected on one of these devices and continue a fairly normal meeting that way.
I say “fairly normal” because the chairman of the committee can see who is there, members can indicate by holding up their hand that they wish to speak next, which we do on some of the boards I sit on, and the chairman of the committee can recognize the person who wishes to ask a question or make a statement and then move on to the next, and so on through these proceedings.
However, in a meeting of the House of Commons, that is going to be extremely difficult when you have so many people potentially wanting to participate at different times and on different things, and where you are going to have votes that are going to have to be counted by somebody who can watch the pictures of the members and then get a vote. It's going to be a very complicated process, and not one that I think is going to be terribly helpful, but as some of the others have suggested in their comments, if we have a situation like the current health situation in the country, we need to be able to have Parliament continue to do at least some of its functions and to deal with important legislative matters. Maybe this is the only way to do it.
The other part of this that I'm particularly concerned about is how the Speaker is to choose from this kind of screen arrangement persons to speak and ask questions and all of that sort of thing. As I've said, in a committee where you have a fairly limited number of participants it's not so bad, but in the full House, how is the Speaker to know who is going to be next and from which party and all that sort of stuff?
Yes, in question period, we have an order by party and so on, but you would need to find out who is going to be the one asking the questions, and there are points of order that come up from time to time as well. How do you have a member indicate that he or she wishes to raise a point of order or a question of privilege and signal that to the Speaker in a way that might attract attention on a screen of this kind when you have that many possible people on the screen? It's going to be very difficult to catch this, I think, but I'm not an expert on this topic.
:
Yes, I agree. Almost all of my meetings have been Zoom meetings, and so I feel fairly familiar with this in some ways. But, as I say, when it's a much bigger screen with potentially 10 times as many people at least on there, it's going to be very difficult to examine it and see who's popping up, unless there's some technology allowing people who push the button to get their intervention to the front....
The other thing I've noticed in our meetings is that you can turn off your mute button and then start to speak. Members were interrupting one another frequently in these board meetings, not intentionally, but two or three would start speaking at the same time and then the chair had to calm them down, choose one, and say, “You're going first and others please be quiet”. It's not a straightforward process. I'm just concerned, as the means of dealing with a large number of people, that it's going to be even more difficult for that.
What could happen, as what happens in the House, is heckling. You push off your silent button and start heckling the member who's making a speech if you disagree with what he or she is saying or want to challenge the member. You could have a whole bunch of people doing that at the same time, because once one starts, others would respond by saying, “You're not supposed to be speaking. Shut up.” All that sort of stuff can go on, as happens in the chamber. It would make it very difficult, I think, for the presiding officer on a screen of this kind to manage the disorder. It's a numbers game, in my view, that is important here.
The other possibility is that when there is a crisis like this, there could be some worked-out arrangement whereby the House would only sit for, say, a day a week, and on those days, new legislation could be introduced and referred to committees right away. Then the next week, more of that, but then maybe some committee reports would come back with suggested changes to the legislation that could be adopted. Then, if the parties agree, there could be a vote on third reading or second reading, with approval of the amendments, whatever, and then get on with it without having lengthy debates at those stages of the bill. That could happen too. There might be some willingness to do that, at least on matters of national importance that Parliament might have to deal with, where we're not sitting for three or four months because of this infection.
I think those are possibilities for avoiding lengthy chamber sittings. This would also mean that most of the work done on computers would be committee work. As I say, I think committees could function reasonably well compared with the House, given the size. A committee could have a meeting, as we're having here now, because parties could express their views. Each of the members would get his or her say, witnesses could be called and questioned by the various members, and the chairman of the committee could see who's next by the colours that light on people's screens if they push the button. It would be relatively easily managed because of the much smaller number.
I say that, having sat on these boards and watched. It's not that I'm wildly in favour of this method instead of an in-person meeting, but it's not that bad, in my experience, except for the fact that we do have a lack of control in who speaks. A bunch of people can speak all at once, and you then have to have somebody say, “Wait, we have to hear one first, because we can't hear everybody at the same time”, and calm them down. That happens in the House too, but it's a different situation there.
Those are the points that I thought I'd suggest here. Obviously, there's going to have to be some good process for identification of the person, a picture or a camera that picks people up. That needs to be part of the process, in my view, so that we can see who's there doing the talking and that it is not somebody substituting for the member.
I think it's important, too, that the options for intervening in debate should be somewhat limited if the debate is taking place in this format.
We don't need to have lengthy questions and comments at the end of a member's speech. We don't need to have questions of privilege or points of order raised frequently, which could happen, but some of that will happen without much control. It's an issue that's going to have to be dealt with. It might be a little harder for the Speaker to deal with, because you can't always see what's going on in the background with the person appearing. There could be other people in the room with the MP speaking who are yelling at him or telling him to do something else or passing him notes, and this could cause consternation among some of the people watching.
I think it's an area of potential crisis or a problem, but one that may be important from a House perspective, as we have this lengthy period during which we will not be meeting or close to somebody because of this ailment that our country and much of the world are suffering from at the moment—
:
Thank you for inviting me to this meeting. I am very honoured.
I feel a bit like I'm involved in the creation of new rights. I must say that I have approached today's topic from a constitutional perspective. I am better known as a constitutionalist than as a legal expert in other areas.
I have been thinking about whether the work of Parliament could continue virtually in a much more comprehensive way than what Mr. Milliken has just set out. I very much appreciate his practical approach. Only a former Speaker of the House of Commons has that kind of knowledge. It is knowledge that I do not have.
For my part, I approached the issue from a constitutional law perspective and focused on the House of Commons, meaning that I did not focus on the Senate. Although my review has focused on the House of Commons, my comments are applicable mutatis mutandis to the Senate of Canada.
For my study, I examined a number of normative sources. Obviously, I examined the Constitution Act, 1867, the Constitution Act, 1982, the Parliament of Canada Act, the Canada Elections Act, the regulations developed by the House of Commons itself, case law, and constitutional conventions, which are extremely important in parliamentary matters.
I can tell you at the outset that I have found no constitutional constraint on the work of the House of Commons taking place virtually. The conclusion I have come to is that there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution that prevents virtual proceedings from taking place. However, there are a number of principles in the Constitution that must be respected. To the extent that they are respected, the work of Parliament can be conducted virtually.
I remind the honourable members that, even if the Constitution were to contain inescapable requirements or conditions with respect to parliamentary proceedings, there is always a possibility for the Parliament of Canada to amend certain constitutional provisions.
One of the inescapable conditions laid down in the Constitution is, of course, the obligation for Parliament to hold at least one sitting once a year. This follows from section 5 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
Second, the maximum term of office of the House of Commons is five years, with a few exceptions provided for in the Constitution. This follows from section 4 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
The Speaker of the House must preside at all sittings, according to section 46 of the Constitution Act, 1867. A quorum shall consist of 20 members, the Speaker being counted as a member, according to section 48 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
Questions must be decided by a majority of votes, according to section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
English and French must be used in the debates, records, minutes and journals of the House of Commons, according to section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The Governor General has the power to dissolve Parliament at any time under section 50 of the Constitution Act, 1867.
The principle of responsible government must be respected. It is a constitutional convention that has probably acquired a supra-legislative status over time. It must be respected.
Immunity from speeches made in the House remains. This means that the absolute immunity that members enjoy in respect of what they say or do in the House remains, because that immunity relates to the proceedings of the Legislative Assembly and not to the physical place where it is usually held.
It is therefore aimed at the proceedings, not at the areas within a building. It also applies to the proceedings of parliamentary committees.
I also note in passing that under sections 7 to 9 of the Parliament of Canada Act, the immunity enjoyed by the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings must also be respected and must remain an essential feature of the House of Commons.
I also note that there must be a publication of parliamentary proceedings, pursuant to the Publication of Statutes Act and the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act. Of course, the duties of the Parliamentary Protective Service do not change. The Parliamentary Protective Service is responsible for security throughout the parliamentary precinct and on Parliament Hill.
However, two considerations are, in my opinion, a little more difficult to combine with the holding of parliamentary proceedings in a virtual way. The first consideration is the public nature of the House. I believe that it is the very essence of the House of Commons to have that public character. The House of Commons has a legislative function and a deliberative function. It also has the function of controlling the government. However, we must not forget that it also has the essential characteristic of having a public nature. If ever the business of the House proceeds virtually, it will be necessary to ensure that this public nature of the House of Commons is respected.
The last condition, as you may have guessed, is of course the media. It is absolutely essential that the House of Commons continue its work in front of the media. In the context where the House operates virtually, we have to find a way to ensure that there are no impediments to the media's role, that nothing affects the media's role. Obviously, that is also one of the essential characteristics of the House of Commons.
When I look at the essence of the House, the constitutional provisions applicable to the House, the constitutional conventions and the applicable laws, I see nothing that a priori prevents the business of the House from proceeding virtually. Of course, a number of conditions, which I have just mentioned, must nevertheless continue to be met.
:
I'd like to thank the committee for extending me an invitation to participate in today's proceedings. The chair mentioned that I'm representing the Institute of Parliamentary and Political Law. In addition to that, part of my background is 15 years spent in the office of the law clerk. Hopefully, that will be of some use in this process.
Given the relatively short amount of time available, I'd like to address in summary fashion the terms of reference the committee adopted in respect of today's proceedings. I sent the committee clerk a written version of my more detailed comments. I understand that the document is now being translated.
First of all, I think there is a constitutional foundation for the position of Ottawa as the capital of Canada. That is complemented by the convention that a capital city of a country should be, in normal circumstances, the seat of its government, including legislative, executive and judicial institutions. There exists, therefore, a legitimate expectation that Parliament should meet in Ottawa, but that expectation is refutable. I think I join in the sentiment and some of the comments made a few days ago by Philippe Dufresne.
We can ask, first, what is the work that parliamentarians are asked to accomplish? More to the point, what gives rise to parliamentarians' ability to conduct that work? Recent Supreme Court jurisprudence tells us that members of the House of Commons legislate, deliberate and hold the government to account. The condition precedent to enable MPs to perform these various tasks is the requirement for quorum.
This brings us to what I believe is the core of the issue. This core issue that we're asked to address today is the validity of a proposal to have the House of Commons sit, and to have MPs conduct their work, in what the committee mandate calls “alternate locations”. To some extent, the committee's study may have been overtaken by the House decision, reached on Monday, April 20, to divide its work between in-person sittings in Ottawa and virtual sittings, including other locations in Canada. Nevertheless, the present study is constructive in providing such a decision with a sound footing in law.
The legal validity of the issue of holding meetings involving both Ottawa and alternate locations, or of holding virtual meetings across the country, hinges on the current understanding of the concept of quorum. In my opinion, the essence of the matter is that while the meaning of quorum in 1867 was understood to be simultaneous physical presence of the participants, that is no longer the case today. Considering the advances in technology in 2020, it is possible, and certainly more appropriate, to think of quorum no longer as simultaneous physical presence but as being based on the notion of participation—a virtual meeting of the minds, so to speak—wherever the MPs in question may be located.
This notion of participation as the basis of quorum is in fact supported by legal analysis in two mutually enforcing ways. The first is the purposive approach that has been adopted by the Supreme Court of Canada in recent years. What matters is the general purpose of a rule, such as that dealing with quorum. That purpose must be interpreted according to the real-life conditions at the time the rule is interpreted—that is, today—and not according to the world as it was in 1867. Second, the holding of meetings in alternate locations, or using technology enabling virtual presence, is, I believe, in line with the Supreme Court's understanding of the national emergency branch of the peace, order and good government doctrine.
COVID-19 has incontestably started an emergency and one that is national in scope. The House of Commons, therefore, has the requisite rational basis, I believe, for resorting to extraordinary measures. I submit that the understanding of quorum put forward here is in line with the concepts of parliamentary privilege. The requirements for meetings are part of the internal organization of the House and therefore subject only to House decision-making.
On a separate but related note, the House will have to devote particular attention to other aspects of parliamentary privilege dealing with alternate locations for virtual meetings. Most notably, it would be important for the House to decide whether it considers that privileges of freedom of expression apply to MPs in various locations across the country other than the chamber of the House of Commons situated in Ottawa.
Finally, what appears from the mandate of the committee is that it's very important—and I think Mr. Milliken just underlined this—to understand that the technical support rendering meetings involving alternate locations for virtual meetings must be as absolutely fail-safe as possible. The questions put to the committee today require analysis of several other significant aspects. I examine those in greater detail in my written submission.
[Translation]
I am prepared to answer your questions in English or French, as you wish.
[English]
Thank you, Chair.
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
Thanks also to our guests, in particular my predecessor, Mr. Milliken, who's here today.
Speaker Milliken, I have a quick question for you.
At the last meeting, two days ago, we had the current Speaker of the House. I asked him, given the advice from Health Canada, and given the fact that he is ultimately responsible for the employees of the House of Commons, whether it would be his position to heed the advice and exercise social distancing to the maximum extent possible within the House of Commons given his position there? He said, yes, that he would.
As a former speaker, would you have taken the same advice from Health Canada and done everything you could to maximize that?
:
Thank you very much, Madam Chair.
First of all, I'd like to thank the witnesses for being here. I feel particularly fortunate to be able to speak to them.
I'm going to give a little preamble before I ask my first question.
One of the parliamentary privileges of members is to come to the House to speak. However, in the context of the crisis, some members who are older or in poorer health may decide not to go and prefer virtual sittings.
However, my question is the other way around. Some parliamentarians have said that being there remotely or virtually can help us exchange notes and receive suggestions for answers, so there would be less accountability.
Is there a form of parliamentary privilege where, even if our question goes through the Speaker, we can expect the person answering it to be physically in front of us?
In the last meeting with the law clerk and the Clerk of the House, they talked about what we can do to create a process to move into as needed. This sort of hit us by surprise. We're trying to adapt as quickly as possible. We have multiple committees happening. We're working on finding ways to question and hold the government to account, which is our job as opposition parties and something that I believe the government respects and understands keeps them more healthy.
As we move toward trying to discover what a virtual Parliament could look like, I'm just wondering if there are any thoughts on a staggered approach. When we initially look at it—and I think that's what we're going to see coming next week, a COVID-19 committee in the House that will be discussing certain issues related to that—it's about holding the government to account.
This is a short period of time. Is there an approach that could be staggered? There are some specific challenges and you both have mentioned them: questions of privilege, points of order, getting notice from the Speaker. Do you have any thoughts on a staggered approach to this?
That's to Mr. Bosc and Mr. Tardi. Mr. Tardi, maybe you can go first.
:
Simply put, a staggered approach is definitely the way to go.
One of the ways that could be done, which in fact has already been started with the way committees have started up again, is on a subject matter basis. I can easily see, say, a question period done on a thematic basis. You could say you're going to have three ministers one day and another three ministers the next week, and so on, so that you build up to full resumption. As the technology catches up and the health situation abates, you can continue to build up in that way.
In terms of the procedures, I'm confident that the team around the Speaker, the procedural services team, is going to be able to look at all these issues—the practicalities that former speaker Milliken referred to—and come up with ideas. As long as the parties go along with it and are willing to be patient and co-operative, I think it can work.
:
I will answer you first in French, then add a few words in English, since I am more comfortable in French, quite simply.
The original rule in the Constitution in 1867 was that the privileges and immunities of the House of Commons should not exceed those of the United Kingdom. This was later changed so that the privileges and immunities of the House of Commons could not exceed those of the United Kingdom when the Canadian federal law determining those immunities and privileges was passed.
Canada can now effectively adopt privileges and immunities that exceed those of the United Kingdom, under section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982. Therefore, the privileges and immunities now provided for in the Parliament of Canada Act may, in some cases, exceed those of the United Kingdom without being declared unconstitutional.
[English]
The privileges that are in the Parliament of Canada Act could exceed those existing in the United Kingdom without being invalid, without being declared unconstitutional, because of section 44 of the Constitution Act, 1982.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
The question that the committee is seized with on this issue is the temporary nature of what it is that we are to recommend. I think I've heard from several of you this afternoon that having until May 15 is not enough time.
It came up the other day in our meeting that, not only are we looking for a temporary measure during the height of this public health crisis to try to come up with some model, but we're also thinking about the future and what trigger points would exist in order to move us to virtual sittings in the event of another pandemic, for example.
I know, Mr. Bosc, you talked about this being temporary. What potential danger is there going forward if, in fact, changes to the Standing Orders are made and those changes are made by the government of the day to reflect a more permanent aspect of these types of virtual sittings compared to the model that we have right now?
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you all for being here today.
I have three questions. I am going to start with one that I've been puzzled with for quite some time.
I think we often hear the terms “essential work” or “essential workers” and we're talking about front-line health care workers, grocery store clerks, construction workers, etc. All these workers have a very physical element in performing their functional duties that I believe are essentially different from parliamentary functions and our roles.
I'm a new member of Parliament, so excuse me if my understanding of my duties is simplistic. I've been told that we're here to debate, legislate, take care of the business of supply, conduct committee work and hold the government to account.
I'm wondering, Mr. Tardi and Mr. Pelletier, whether any of those functions require us to be physically present in principle.
:
I have an answer for you in three parts. First of all, with respect to the necessity part of having Parliament and in particular the House of Commons, I think the even more fundamental aspect of this is that democracy is in question. If there is no Parliament, if there is no give-and-take, if there is no communication between the governors and the people, essentially, in my view, democracy breaks down. That requires there would be a Parliament, a viable legislative institution at all times.
The second part is your point about the physical presence of members of Parliament almost, you could say, facing each other. I have taken the view, and I want to reiterate now, that what is much more important is a meeting of the minds.
[Translation]
I think I agree with what Professor Pelletier said about that.
[English]
I think he and I are on the same wavelength about this.
Finally, there is one point I've been trying to make in response to several members who have questioned this, and that is the temporal nature of whatever solution the House decides to adopt on these points. At some point, this pandemic will be over. In the worst-case scenario, we can take the Spanish flu as an example. It lasted two years. That theoretically could bring us to—