Declaration of Emergency Committee on March 14th, 2022

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to clarify something for all committee members.

The order initially adopted by the House at the start of this Parliament specified that all witnesses should appear only virtually. However, on December 7, 2021, the House of Commons passed another motion, which relates to the parliamentary committees of the House and which ensures that some witnesses are allowed to appear in person:

That, notwithstanding any Standing Order, special order or usual practice of the House, members, senators and departmental and parliamentary officials appearing as witnesses before any standing, standing joint, special or legislative committees may do so in person.

This motion essentially allows certain witnesses to appear in person, but it limits which witnesses can appear in person. This rule was adopted specifically in the context of House committees. It mentions special committees and standing joint committees. It will be up to the committee to decide if it feels this that is....

To my mind, this should also allow this committee to have certain witnesses in person. However, I should say that the caveat with this motion is that only certain witnesses can appear in person.

According to this motion, only members of Parliament, senators, departmental officials and parliamentary officials are allowed to appear in person before the committee. All other witnesses must appear virtually.

I don't know whether this helps you understand the situation, Mr. Fortin.

That said, public servants with offices on the Hill may also experience technical issues, even if their equipment is checked and tested beforehand.

I don't know whether an amendment to the motion would clarify this issue.

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

I gather that the witnesses you listed, meaning members of Parliament, ministers, and their staff, for example, are allowed to appear in person. I would personally suggest that the wording say that they must appear in person, rather than that they can.

Perhaps this can't be done. The clerk raised a significant issue when he told us what motions were passed by the House.

If we can't require witnesses to appear in person, can we at least ask them to make an extra effort to appear in person? This would make things easier for the interpreters and for the whole committee. We could avoid some of the issues or delays caused by a poor connection, for example.

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

I'm glad that you raised the issue.

According to the motion passed by the House, the witnesses, not the committee, must determine whether they'll appear in person. However, the committee can always strongly suggest to eligible witnesses that they appear in person, in order to make things easier. The committee can always use wording to that effect. It can't require witnesses to appear in person, but it can strongly suggest that they do so.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Mr. Fortin, I'm wondering whether the motion as it currently reads could stand on its own and then, when we get to witnesses, we can deal with that request on behalf of the committee.

Would that satisfy?

[The Joint Co-Chair, Bloc, Rhéal Fortin]

Madam Chair, I suggested that we add a paragraph to the end of motion number 14 about the appearance of witnesses who have an office on the Hill. We could refer to the list from the motion passed by the House of Commons in December, which the clerk read. I can't remember the wording off the top of my head. However, we could refer to that list.

Of course, I first suggested that we require these witnesses to appear in person before the committee. If this type of requirement isn't possible, I would settle for language stating that we strongly encourage them to appear in person or that we ask them to make an extra effort to appear in person. We could just add a paragraph to the end of the motion. I can write it if you want.

I was particularly interested in hearing all the committee members' views on this issue. I suspect that we're all concerned about these types of situations, which arise in our regular committees. Now that this special joint committee has been struck, we're moving into uncharted territory. The situation is even trickier. If we could make provisions right away to eliminate these types of inconveniences, it would make our work easier.

I'm personally concerned about this. I don't know what the other committee members think.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

It's Mr. Motz, to be followed by Mr. Naqvi.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would tend to agree with Mr. Fortin. “Incumbent on members” would be the words I would use, as the motions in the House read for members, senators and departmental and parliamentary officials.

There shouldn't be an option as to whether they could appear virtually. It should not be an option, especially at this committee. I know the motion says “may”. I think quite honestly that we as a committee might be able to put a bit more emphasis on “should” or “must”.

The responsibilities of this committee are very serious. We all recognize that. Given my background, I want to see someone in person. I want to see how they answer. I want to see their body language. I want to see all that sort of stuff because I will know whether or not they are giving me a load of BS.

It makes a big difference to see them in person. I can't see all of that virtually. As much as is reasonable and possible, even for non-parliamentary staff and senators and members, I would encourage us to invite people to appear in person, Mr. Clerk.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

It's Mr. Naqvi, then Mr. Brock, and then I will ask the clerk to respond.

Mr. Naqvi.

[Yasir Naqvi, Liberal, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I respect the points that my colleagues are raising, but I will also respectfully disagree with them on two grounds.

One, as the clerk mentioned, a motion has been approved by the House with respect to the hybrid nature of Parliament until June 23, and we are obligated to live by that motion, which is how this Parliament is going to function until that time.

Two, I want to remind the members that we are still in a global pandemic. The pandemic is not over yet. I'm concerned about people's personal health and to what extent they feel comfortable being present here in person versus appearing in a hybrid fashion. I think, given the times we are living in, we should give due consideration to their views.

If the committee wishes, when witnesses are being invited, a line may be added to say that if they are able and feel comfortable coming in person, they will be most welcome to do so. I think we have seen of late that many ministers have been making the effort to appear in person, but requiring them by way of a motion of this committee not only contravenes the House motion but also puts us in a difficult position from a public health perspective, which we should be mindful of.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you.

Mr. Brock will go next, and then Senator Carignan.

[Larry Brock, Conservative, Brantford—Brant, ON]

I can't underscore enough the importance of the words of my colleague, Mr. Motz.

This is to all the lawyers who are on this committee, particularly my colleague Mr. Virani, who worked for the Ontario public service as a Crown attorney. There is no substitute, in my view, for questioning someone in person. I'm mindful of the House order. I'm also mindful of the fact that we can't force anybody to attend in light of that order. However, we can use words such as “strongly encourage”, “strongly recommend”, “make every effort to”, or “wherever possible”.

To the extent that some ministers have already appeared in person on the public safety committee in the last couple of weeks—the Minister of Public Safety, Minister Mendicino, has done that on numerous occasions—it is within the purview of this committee to make that type of language possible. I would encourage that wherever possible.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Mr. Brock.

Go ahead, Senator Carignan.

[Claude Carignan]

I agree with my colleagues. We can't force people to appear in person, but we can strongly recommend that they do so. We should adopt this type of wording. It would be appropriate, given that we must see witnesses' body language.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Senator Carignan.

Yes, Senator Harder.

[Peter Harder]

I just want to say that I agree with my colleague, Senator Carignan.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Clerk, do you have comments on that?

[The Joint Clerk, Mr. Paul Cardegna]

I would just say that, unfortunately, the order of the House applies to the committee. The committee can't overturn an order of the House, though I certainly appreciate the comments made by all members about the value of having witnesses in person.

I might suggest something as a possible amendment, or as a possible text that could be added in at the end of the motion.

The text could say that the committee strongly recommends that witnesses who can appear in person, pursuant to the order adopted by the House of Commons on December 7, should consider doing so.

I'm sorry. It's not my best writing in French, but it would be something to that effect. I guess the loose translation in English would be that the committee strongly recommend that witnesses who are able to appear in person, pursuant to the order adopted by the House of Commons on December 7, consider doing so.

That's just the text that I've put out. I don't know if members are happy with that or not.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Mr. Virani, you have your hand up.

[Arif Virani, Liberal, Parkdale—High Park, ON]

I want to return to the statements that were made by Yasir Naqvi and the most recent statement that was just made by the clerk.

We have a motion that's been passed with respect to hybrid Parliament. We have a statement that's been endorsed by Parliament itself, by the House of Commons, that relates to the hybrid nature of the sittings. While perhaps that may not be convenient for the way this process rolls out for this committee, that is where we're at. We're not at this juncture because of any political or ideological imperative. It's based on the public health nature of the fact that the global pandemic is still with us, as Mr. Naqvi rightly pointed out.

I guess I'm a bit puzzled by the concern that is being voiced by members of this committee with respect to in-person attendance, and the feeling that they need to alter the language that's been used at many committees, because the track record with witnesses, including government witnesses and government ministers, is that at least four or five in the last few weeks have appeared in person. Everyone is trying to do that whenever possible. That's already the status quo. Changing the status quo to address a concern that actually isn't present, to my mind, is illogical at this point.

We're following something that has been enacted by Parliament that relates to every single committee. At this point, trying to wordsmith it at the eleventh hour does not, to my mind, seem like an efficient use of this committee's resources.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Mr. Virani.

We'll go to Mr. Green, followed by Mr. Motz and then Mr. Brock.

[The Joint Chair, NDP, Matthew Green]

Thank you.

I've been listening intently to positions that have been put forward by all sides. I have to defer to my policy of what's good for the goose.

There could be a scenario where any of us at any given time, including today, would have to rely on the meetings being in a hybrid format. I suggest that we extend to the witnesses the same principles in courtesy that we extend to ourselves as committee members, notwithstanding the importance of having people in person.

I agree that I'm recapturing an element today that I've missed in other meetings, but it's also not lost on me that we have two members of this committee logging on in a hybrid format, which is good. It's something we may have to rely on in different places throughout this process, understanding that some of us are coming from a bit further away. Given the uncertain nature of our own planning and scheduling, it may be required that each of us at any given time may have to do that. If we have the ability to do that, it would be fair and consistent to ensure that this is extended to the witnesses.

I wanted to say that this wasn't lost on me throughout this discussion.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you.

Mr. Motz, before I go to you, I'll check in with Senator Carignan. Is your hand still up or do you want to be on the list?

[Claude Carignan]

I just want us to make a distinction. Hybrid meetings have their place. I'm participating in today's meeting virtually. However, participating in a meeting virtually doesn't have the same significance for a committee member as it does for a witness. We must assess the credibility of a witness. If they're at their desk, someone else can suggest answers or pass along notes to ensure that they respond in a certain way to the issues at hand. This isn't possible if they appear in person. You can see these types of things when you're there in person. To assess the credibility of a witness, it's better to have them appear in person.

Again, I think that we must comply with the order adopted by the House and encourage witnesses who can appear in person to do so.

[The Joint Chair, Hon. Gwen Boniface]

Thank you, Senator Carignan.

We'll have Mr. Motz, to be followed by Mr. Brock.

[Glen Motz, Conservative, Medicine Hat—Cardston—Warner, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

In light of these conversations, it's important to recognize.... I know that the House order requires non-official witnesses to appear virtually. However, we also know the Board of Internal Economy has made a decision to allow spectators in committees after Easter. That House order may very well be relaxed with respect to the other witnesses, so we need to keep that in mind and be flexible to the whole concept that there may be a relaxation of the requirements to be here as much as possible.