Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2020

[Joseph Maingot]

I see.

I don't know how I could answer that. That's a technical problem dealing with procedures and I want to restrict myself to the area with which I'm most familiar.

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

Thank you.

Does anyone else have anything to add to that?

[Gordon Barnhart]

I don't mind jumping in. I think I understand what you're saying in terms of having a staggered approach, but I would argue in favour of having it all simultaneously.

If you had 25 members physically in the House with distancing and the remainder, however many, online, I think that could work. It has been shown to be working somewhat now. I don't think staggering it would make it simpler. I think it would make it more complicated.

That would be what I'd recommend.

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

Mr. O'Brien, do you have anything to add?

[Gary W. O'Brien]

Yes, I would agree with a staggered approach. I gather that the U.K. House of Commons at Westminster is starting slowly and seeing how it works, perhaps starting with question period and ministers' statements, those sorts of things. The values of Parliament are so much at stake.

I know it's a terrible illness. The pandemic is so terrible—there's no question about that—but this is our Constitution. This is our primary constitutional institution and we should guard that as much as possible.

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

Thank you, Mr. O'Brien.

As we've gone through this process, one thing I've reflected on is how organic it has been as we figure out how to move forward. We know that holding the government to account, making sure that the processes are transparent so that Canadians understand them and that democracy continues even in a pandemic are absolutely important.

I'm just wondering if you have any thoughts on having this opportunity to create a set of standing orders that we could shelve during normal times. I agree that those discussions that happen in lobbies between parliamentarians of different parties are so important. I refer to standing orders that we can put away, but if something like this ever happens again and we're not able to sit in person, we could pull those out and have at least a framework to start on.

[Gary W. O'Brien]

I would agree that we should try to get a template. That's why I'm proposing that we have the experts plus members try, not in a time of crisis, to rationalize what would work and what would have minimal impact on the House. We don't want to open up a Pandora's box for other future crises.

I know it may take a little bit of time, but you certainly have the expertise in the House of Commons to perform this function.

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

Thank you.

Mr. Barnhart, do you have anything to add to that, any thoughts?

[Gordon Barnhart]

Yes, I agree with Mr. O'Brien that we want to be careful on this.

I like your idea of having two sets of standing orders, one for normal times and another for abnormal, because this COVID-19 is not going to be unique. I think we're going to have another one come at some time in the future. I like your idea.

The issue would be who's going to make the decision to flip the switch from the standing orders for normal times to those for abnormal times. I certainly agree with you that it's worth considering.

You have to, though, be able to make sure that Parliament is adaptable to the circumstance and not just say, “Well, we have a crisis, so we can't meet.” That would be the extreme that I certainly wouldn't support.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Barnhart.

Next we have Mr. Brassard for four minutes, please, if we can agree to do what we did in the last panel and do four minutes and then two. Thank you.

Mr. Brassard, go ahead.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Barnhart, Mr. O'Brien and Mr. Maingot, thank you so much for being here. I found your insight really valuable.

I want to pick up on the theme of Parliament within a pandemic. The challenge that we have is that this is, presumably, a temporary measure. There's very little in the way of government business that is being done. Most of it is in response to the pandemic.

As it relates to what we're dealing with now, it's a temporary version, and then, as Ms. Blaney said—and this is really the direction I want to go—it's about flipping the switch, if you will. We have to look at this as temporary, given the situation we're in now, and what trigger points would occur in the future. I want to get your perspective on both of those.

I have one question, Mr. O'Brien, that I want to ask you. If you could make it quick, both of you, I would appreciate that.

What would be those trigger points, in your opinion?

[Gary W. O'Brien]

Maybe, Gordon, you could start with that.

[Gordon Barnhart]

I'm not sure exactly what a trigger point would be. You're right. I think Parliament right now, government, is focused right on the pandemic, but I wouldn't want to see government focused on that solely, because the other issues in the country have to be addressed. I think we also have to make sure that you, as a member of Parliament, be it government or opposition, have to be in a position to be able to hold the government accountable.

In terms of the trigger point, I guess the declaration of a pandemic would be a trigger point in my mind. The WHO would make that declaration. I think it would also be an agreement with the House of Commons to say, as Ms. Blaney has said, you'd have that second set of standing orders that you'd switch over to in a pandemic, which would be a trigger point, in my mind.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Mr. O'Brien.

[Gary W. O'Brien]

It's a health and safety issue, and health and safety issues are paramount. But all parliamentary business is important. I know emergency legislation is key, but there's also the matter of a vote of confidence. You have to have confidence in a government that's facing this crisis. All these factors have to be put into it. I don't think it's black and white.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

It's very difficult within the committee's mandate of five meetings to come up with what all of those scenarios are going to look like. I agree with you, Mr. O'Brien, that we have to have a post-mortem on this crisis to determine what the consequences are going forward.

My last question is for you, Mr. O'Brien.

You spoke about the rules of attendance, attendance being required under Standing Order 15, and the principle of physical attendance in the House of Commons. What are the consequences of members not being in attendance?

[Gary W. O'Brien]

I think that's the kind of thing that needs to be looked at. Members themselves can give that answer perhaps better than I can.

It certainly changes the dynamic of the House completely, because there is so much informal work in some ways versus the rules of procedure which determine how the House works. The long arm of history is what I'm concerned about. The House has always had obstacles. I'm a student of pre-Confederation history. The first meeting took place in 1792, in Upper Canada. Imagine the member from Ottawa who had to go all the way to Niagara Falls, which is where that was, and the hardships he had to endure to get to Parliament, but he did it because of the importance of the institution.

I think we have to keep that in mind even in this pandemic.

[John Brassard, Conservative, Barrie—Innisfil, ON]

Thank you so much, gentlemen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. That's all the time we have.

Next is Mr. Turnbull, please.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to all the witnesses today. We appreciate your comments and your incredible depth of experience. It's great to have you here.

I'm an ethicist. I believe in the precautionary principle. I believe at this time, more than ever, in a global pandemic, in a health crisis, we actually have a duty to protect the health of all MPs and all workers. The risks associated with physical meetings, to my mind, are greater than the risks of virtual sittings.

Would you agree, Mr. Barnhart, that we should be doing everything in our power to have as many virtual sittings at this time, in this pandemic, as possible to protect people's health?

[Gordon Barnhart]

Yes, I very much agree with you. For example, my wife and I have been practising that very much, in terms of social distancing and not going out any more than necessary, etc., but I would argue as well—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you for doing that. I really appreciate it.

Sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt. My apologies, but I'm just short on time and I was looking for a quick answer to that one, so I appreciate that.

If you don't mind, I'm just going to move on.

[Gordon Barnhart]

Yes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Mr. Barnhart, you also mentioned regarding heckling that there could be a positive outcome of some of the virtual sittings. Being a relatively new MP, I really do think that heckling in the House does impinge upon people's parliamentary privilege to some degree. It makes people feel less able to self-express in a place where they're supposed to feel completely open to that debate. It's interesting that maybe there are some positives to a virtual environment.

The information and communication technology sector has been called a “megatrend” by Harvard Business Review. A megatrend is something that affects every industry and every aspect of life before it's completed. It started in 1958, well before I was born, but what I'm privy to is a very slow adoption rate within Parliament, as maybe one of the last areas of society that are adopting digital and information technology to increase inclusivity within debate, which I think it can help to enhance. I wonder if you could tell me about why you think we might be very slow to adopt this technology.

[Gordon Barnhart]

I'm assuming that was directed to me, Mr. Turnbull.

You're right. First off, I think that Parliament has a very long history, as Mr. O'Brien said, of some 800 years. It does have an image of being small-c conservative and slow to react to change in that sense. That's not a bad thing in many ways, to make sure there is consistency and that Parliament is not just reacting to a whim.

As for the comment on heckling, I'm a traditionalist and think that heckling can get too much and can detract.... Now, I'm starting to lecture members of Parliament. I apologize, but it can start to detract from the image of Parliament. I love to see debate. I love to see the cut and thrust of debate, but heckling, when it gets too much, takes away from that. That's my view.