Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2020

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Your position seems to be that from a practical implication, it's more difficult to manage more people in a virtual setting like this. That was Speaker Milliken's position on it too. But assume for a second that it was totally manageable, that there was a platform, that there was a way to completely handle it and that it was just as easy to do as this meeting is. Would you see anything wrong with functioning that way in times of emergency, which is what this committee is looking at right now?

[Gordon Barnhart]

I would agree. In times of emergency—and it showed the other day. That was a bit of an experiment, a trial run. The feedback I've had is that basically it worked quite well. There were a few members who weren't able to connect, but those bugs could be worked out.

Once the pandemic is over, I'm hopeful that Parliament would resume meeting in the House of Commons. I would also make the argument, following up on what Gary said, that quorum should mean quorum in the House of Commons, with 20 people distancing and the rest could join by virtual connection.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

[Gordon Barnhart]

You're welcome.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much.

Next is Madam Normandin.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you very much.

I have another question in the same vein.

Mr. Maingot, you told us that Internet service is not considered an obstruction that would keep a member from attending, because it's something outside Parliament's control, like a missed flight or a storm. I want to examine that question from the other direction.

If the House increases in-person sittings, by prolonging the sitting day and increasing the number of members, could that be considered as obstructing certain members from attending, if they are afraid of going to Parliament for health reasons because they are older, ill or immunosuppressed or have children?

Would that be considered obstruction, because the decision to extend the periods of physical attendance would have been made by the House?

[Joseph Maingot]

Forgive me if I reply in my mother's native tongue.

People can't get there for a variety of reasons other than being obstructed and that doesn't represent a contempt of Parliament. Aged or otherwise, people have to make their way. People who are elected and who have disabilities make their way. Unless you're actually obstructed, I don't see any concern.

I hope I understood your question correctly.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Interpretation makes it a little harder. That being said, I would like it if Mr. Barnhart and Mr. O'Brien could answer my question as well. From the beginning, we've been hearing arguments in favour of the virtual committee and arguments against, but we rarely hear anyone talk about balancing the drawbacks of each side. For instance, we need to balance poor Internet service against the health risks that some of the more vulnerable members would face if we increase in-person sittings.

I'd like to hear your thoughts on balancing these drawbacks.

[Gordon Barnhart]

Gary, I defer to you first, if you wish.

[Gary W. O'Brien]

Thank you, Gordon.

The essence of my presentation was that the committee should try to get a big picture of not just the changes but the consequences of those changes. We don't really understand because it's so new. We can make the rule change but what effect does it have on the House, the functioning of the House, and the little things like how important the lobbies used to be? Members would go to the lobby, and the folklore is that most of the business took place in the lobbies. How is that all going to be impacted by a virtual platform? That's my major point.

Thank you.

[Gordon Barnhart]

My French has become rather rusty since I left Ottawa. If I understood you correctly in terms of balancing the electronic risks and the health risks of the pandemic, I think with appropriate physical distancing the House can meet with 20 or perhaps 30 people spread around. The risk isn't all that high and physical distancing should be practised, but to make sure a greater number of people can participate, I would weigh in on the side of virtual attendance by the other members.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Let me clarify my question.

If we reduce the number of virtual sittings and increase the number of in-person sittings, could that have an adverse impact on the parliamentary privilege of a member with an underlying health condition, for example?

[Gordon Barnhart]

I would argue that privilege would apply, and I think this is what Mr. Maingot is arguing as well. Whether you're there in person or attending by Zoom, privilege would apply. If you're saying something on Zoom that could be considered unparliamentary, I think it is, whether you're there virtually or in person.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Mr. Maingot, I have a hypothetical question for you.

In the future, it will be possible to write questions and comments on electronic platforms. I'd like to hear what you think about that mode of expression.

Would our parliamentary privilege still protect us from charges of defamation, for instance, even if the statements are made in writing rather than aloud?

[Joseph Maingot]

Thank you for your question.

Maybe I can reply by saying, whether it's virtual or not virtual, privileges remain the same.

I suspect that if we're speaking in terms of members who have difficulty getting about, that's not a matter of privilege. Getting to and from the House is up to the member. Unless he has been obstructed, there's no relation to immunity or parliamentary privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Maingot.

Next we have Ms. Blaney.

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Thank you to all of you for being here today.

My first question is about the reality we're facing right now and how quickly we and other governance systems across the planet have had to respond to this issue.

Do you agree that Parliament should be looking at a more staggered approach, implementing different virtual proceedings one at a time and correcting as we go? This is a huge amount of work that we need to look at. The administration is doing a fantastic job, but there are a lot of challenges and changes with technology.

Could I please get the first answer from Mr. Maingot?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Maingot.

[Joseph Maingot]

Madam Member, I'm not sure if I seized the question properly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Could you repeat your question or rephrase it?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Absolutely.

As we are a committee looking at how to implement a short-term virtual Parliament, I'm asking if you would recommend a more staggered approach.

[Joseph Maingot]

A more sacred...?

[Rachel Blaney, NDP, North Island—Powell River, BC]

Staggered. Not all at once, but a staggered approach.

[Joseph Maingot]

I'm not sure what you mean by a staggered approach. We're now sitting in a virtual sitting of—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Maingot, I believe she means in different stages, in different phases and not all at once.