Evidence of meeting #14 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was interpreters.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Jim Thompson  Communications Counsel, International Association of Conference Interpreters
Greg Phillips  President, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
Nicole Gagnon  Advocacy Lead, International Association of Conference Interpreters
Clerk of the Committee  Mr. Justin Vaive
Tremblay-Cousineau  Parliamentary Interpreter and Occupational Health and Safety Representative, Canadian Association of Professional Employees
Michel Patrice  Deputy Clerk, Administration, House of Commons
Stéphan Aubé  Chief Information Officer, Digital Services and Real Property, House of Commons
Charles Robert  Clerk of the House of Commons
Andre Barnes  Committee Researcher

3:15 p.m.

Advocacy Lead, International Association of Conference Interpreters

Nicole Gagnon

Mr. Finnigan, if I may, in answer to your question about whether the MPs could sustain injury in a remote setting, yes, you could, because, to the best of my knowledge, none of the major platforms out there provide hearing protection to anyone. The hearing protection the interpreters are getting is due to and thanks to the technical team that is riding the consoles and ensuring that all of the audio goes through a limiter/compressor so that there is no possible damage, or little damage, in terms of acoustic shock. Again, this is the most serious injury sustained by the interpreters.

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, do you want to take your one minute?

3:20 p.m.

NDP

Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC

Sure, I'll take one minute.

Madame Gagnon, I wanted to ask you specifically about the double standard you've identified. You talked about other government departments, including the PMO, using uncertified interpreters. I'm wondering if you could explain what the risk could be in that.

3:20 p.m.

Advocacy Lead, International Association of Conference Interpreters

Nicole Gagnon

As we explain in our brief, and we've spoken to this in the past—we were on the Hill three years ago—the issue is that at one time every government department, every agency, the Houses of Parliament, went through the Translation Bureau to obtain the services of Government of Canada accredited interpreters.

In1995 the Translation Bureau became a special operating agency. Then the Translation Bureau was still providing services to the Houses of Parliament and to those government departments and agencies that were willing to call on it, but government departments and agencies are free to call on the private market, where there are accredited and non-accredited interpreters.

3:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

Thank you so much, Ms. Gagnon. That's all the time we have for this panel.

Thank you, Madame Normandin, for forgoing your one minute, and Ms. May as well.

We're going to switch to the next panel. Please be back in five minutes with your computers and your videos turned on, to take questions and to hear the statements. Thank you.

3:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

Welcome back. We're going to get started.

Without further ado, I'd like to welcome our witnesses back.

We have the Speaker of the House, Mr. Anthony Rota. Could we start with your statement first? Before we do so, I also want to point out that Speaker Rota sent a letter to the committee on Friday. Members may want to take a look at that if you haven't already.

Thank you as well for sending the committee that letter. Welcome.

May 4th, 2020 / 3:30 p.m.

Nipissing—Timiskaming Ontario

Liberal

Anthony Rota LiberalSpeaker of the House of Commons

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you all very much.

Madam Chair and committee members, thank you for your invitation to reappear today as you continue your study of parliamentary duties and the COVID-19 pandemic.

As I explained in my previous statement to the committee, your challenge is to consider and recommend how the House and its members can perform their roles of advancing legislation and holding the government to account while observing the necessary health precautions during the current pandemic.

I have been following your committee's proceedings with interest over the past two weeks as you have heard presentations and posed questions to witnesses who have provided important evidence.

Today I would like to offer some suggestions on how the House of Commons could adjust these practices in light of the two operating functions: one, as a deliberative assembly engaged in debate; and two, as a decision-making assembly on legislation, resolutions and orders.

Through the first meeting of the special committee on COVID-19 on April 28, most members have now participated in virtual deliberations. A virtual meeting is undeniably different from our usual in-person proceedings, but as we continue to adjust to using new technologies, we have seen it is possible to gather, debate and deliberate in virtual meetings.

As chair of the committee I was impressed by this experience, both from the technological standpoint and the quality of the exchange. I took some notes that I want to share with the committee. They may provide some ideas for your consideration as you prepare your report.

One issue that I think must be addressed has to be with the visual background in front of which members appear. Based on established practice, these backgrounds should be as neutral as possible, and consistent with the non-partisan environment of the chamber or committee. I have written to the chair of this committee expressing my concerns on this topic.

Absent a decision of the House to the contrary, I will be advising members to refrain from including any background that is not consistent with the norms and standards followed within the parliamentary precinct.

I also noted that many of the House's practices surrounding its deliberations can readily accommodate virtual participation. For example, the Chair is aided in recognizing members in debates by the rotation lists established by all the parties. This already brings a degree of predictability to the proceedings, something that is equally helpful to members and the Chair participating through a virtual setting.

Other proceedings, such as question period, where fixed interventions are relatively brief, might need some adjustment. In a virtual sitting, time must be managed differently, and the exchanges between members asking and answering questions will not be the same as in an in-person sitting. These aspects of question period—the length of interventions and the unpredictability surrounding who will respond—are, however, matters of adjustment among the parties or matters of practice, and could be adjusted to provide more time for questions and answers without requiring formal changes to the House's rules.

Many of the House's more routine practices could also be adapted to accommodate virtual participation in a straightforward manner and without changes to the rules. For example, the provisions that allow members to present petitions in the special committee on COVID-19 specifically ensure that such petitions are deemed presented in the House. In a virtual sitting of the House, no change to the rules would be necessary for members who are participating virtually to present petitions. Members would simply continue to submit the petition certificates electronically.

In short, as this committee decides what types of business it would like to see in the House debates and how—whether virtual or some hybrid of in-person and virtual—the procedural experts in the House administration will provide the committee with a more detailed proposal on how to accomplish this. In fact, the House administration has already begun work on how to support such an outcome, following the guiding principles I shared with the committee during my previous appearance.

On April 5, I received a letter from the government House leader asking about the ability of the administration to support and facilitate virtual sittings of the House during these unprecedented times. In my response on April 8, I stated that I had mandated digital services and real property, in collaboration with procedural services, to prepare for the possibility of holding virtual sittings within four weeks.

Similar to the approach to virtual participation of a number of international legislatures, including the United Kingdom's, the administration has begun testing with simulations of a hybrid model and will soon be ready to go beyond what has already been achieved with the virtual meetings of the special committee. This hybrid model would allow the deliberative aspects of the proceedings to continue throughout the pandemic with options for all members to participate. In this model, minimum changes to the House's rules would be required to allow its deliberations to continue, all while incorporating members' virtual participation.

As to the second operating function of the House, its decision-making authority, the challenge is greater. The standing orders that define this function are closely connected to the physical presence of members in the House itself. A more extensive review is required of the procedural mechanisms involved.

I was informed that the House administration is ready to provide detailed advice and options once it has received some direction from the committee as to what kind of approach it would like to consider. The technology is available and the rules can be adapted, and while the time to do this is tight, it can be done so as to leverage the capabilities of virtual sittings during the period of this pandemic.

Once this committee has determined the types of deliberations it would recommend to the House that the House undertake during the current crisis, and how much virtual participation it would like to see in those deliberations, we can begin implementing as quickly as possible. Whatever the deliberations, they will involve the participation of all members, all the while respecting physical distancing and travel guidelines.

Similarly, once the committee has decided on how it would see the House exercise its decision-making function during this time, we will develop specific options for consideration. This would be in line with the incremental approach that I strongly recommended in my initial appearance.

With that, the Clerk and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. Thank you.

3:35 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

Thank you so much, Speaker Rota. It's a pleasure to have you and your whole team back again. I'm sorry to have kept you waiting, but I thank you for your patience.

I believe this is going to be a great opportunity for us to be able to learn about some of the challenges you have and to verify some of the testimony we've heard from other witnesses before this committee. I'm really glad you were able to make it in today, as opposed to Thursday. I know that you haven't had a lot of opportunity to test out the COVID-19 committee, but hopefully you'll still be able to do your best job to answer the questions we have.

Just so everybody knows, we do have with us the Clerk of the House, as mentioned by the Speaker, and the deputy clerk as well. We also have with us the clerk's assistant and the law clerk, and I believe we also have somebody from the digital services team.

Starting off, we will have Mr. Brassard, please, for six minutes.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Mr. Speaker, for coming back today as we conclude our sessions on virtual sittings.

Let me begin by saying that I can't overstate how difficult this task is, given the volumes of information that we've received from our various witnesses. It will be difficult to come up with even some incremental report on these virtual sittings, given the fact that we've had only roughly five sessions to do this.

I appreciate that, and I also appreciate your advice, Mr. Speaker. As you can tell by the backdrop, I've tried to keep it as neutral as I can, other than my old fire helmet and a picture of José Bautista's bat flip.

One of the first witnesses we had was Dr. Raymond, an executive medical adviser in the infectious disease prevention control branch for the Public Health Agency of Canada. She's also a specialist in epidemiological diseases. At that time, there had been three sessions of in-person Parliament and the daily briefings that are being held by the Prime Minister and by the ministers in West Block. I asked her whether she thought we were in full compliance with public health guidelines as they relate to physical distancing and other measures.

Mr. Speaker, my question is for you and Mr. Robert. Given the experiences of limited Parliament, do you feel that we have been complying to physical distancing and other measures to the satisfaction of the Public Health Agency of Canada?

3:40 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

I understand that the time that you have been allotted to come up with some kind of solution is very limited and the number of meetings that you have is very short, but I would hope that the report that you do come up with is something that is more at a macro level. I really do hope that this continues for some time after May 15, so that you will continue to have this committee inquiring into this area and so we can come up with some kind of a solution, should this come up again. There's no question that a crisis will come up again, and it would be nice if the report covered that. It is very important to all of us in the House.

As far as the public health guidelines go, we have been doing our best to make sure that does take place. When it's done virtually, that is really up to the individual members, but in the House, sitting in the chair, I get to observe what's going on and, overall, everyone is staying at least six feet apart. We do take sanitary precautions, but there are times when that six feet really does get a little bit smaller and then it's a concern.

Overall, we're putting the guidelines out there, but it is up to the individual members when they are in the House to conform to the guidelines put out by the public health authorities.

3:40 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

Mr. Patrice, we have it on record that 55 staff members have been required at any given point of a normal sitting of Parliament, a reduced Parliament. We've had at least one session of the COVID-19 committee when all members were expected to participate. Then, of course, we've had several committee meetings, including this one.

Can you advise the committee how many staff members are in West Block when a virtual setting takes place?

3:45 p.m.

Michel Patrice Deputy Clerk, Administration, House of Commons

I will have to find out the exact number because it varies. It's not necessarily West Block because we also have staff members in other locations.

As you understand, in the first virtual COVID special committee, we had a number of staff on standby who were communicating with members as the meeting was going on, to address any potential or actual technical issues that could occur during the meeting.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Could you guess, Mr. Patrice, how many staff members would have been involved for a virtual sitting of Parliament last week?

3:45 p.m.

Deputy Clerk, Administration, House of Commons

Michel Patrice

It's about the same or similar numbers to what is happening when you meet in person.

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Mr. Speaker, given the fact the same number would be required for a virtual sitting as an in-person sitting of Parliament, what's the need to have a virtual sitting? We have virtual sittings on Tuesdays and Thursdays now, and then Wednesday. If the concern is for the staff, yet members are not there during the virtual sitting but would be during the in-person sittings, why would we not move to three sessions during that week if it takes the same number of staff to have that type of meeting?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Is it three virtual sessions or three in-person sessions?

3:45 p.m.

Conservative

John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON

Now we're having two virtual sessions. One of the concerns we've heard throughout is about the number of staff required to hold an in-person sitting. We just heard from Mr. Patrice that it takes roughly the same number of staff for virtual meetings. If the members are there for only one day a week, why couldn't we keep them there three days a week when it takes the same number of staff to have those meetings?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

You're far over your time for questioning, Mr. Brassard.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

I can reply to that very quickly. When we're looking at people's safety, I think we're looking at the MPs' safety as well.

The idea of having a very limited group there on the Wednesday—I think the whole idea of having the virtual is having multiple people.... The last thing we want to do is to regionalize it so we only have people from the area show up and represent their parties.

One of the things I am very concerned about is parliamentary privilege. Every individual MP has the right to represent his or her riding in Ottawa and by doing—

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

Okay. Thank you.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

I'll continue on that later.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota

Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I think we got the gist of that.

I'll move to Mr. Gerretsen, please.

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

Thank you.

On that point, Mr. Speaker, is it safe to assume that the level of engagement those particular staff people would have on the Tuesday and Thursday is significantly less—their potential exposure to the virus would be significantly reduced on the Tuesday and Thursday because all these extra people are not there?

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Anthony Rota Liberal Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON

Yes. That would be a logical assumption. I think for something like that, to get the exact numbers, you would have to talk to someone in public health, but because you're not in the same room, my assumption as a layman would be, yes, you would have less chance....

3:45 p.m.

Liberal

Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON

I want to go to your letter to us and some of your questions around the protocols, visual backgrounds and stuff like that. I think this is really important to get right.

One of the things I noticed from the first sitting of the virtual Parliament was, at least the way it displays on my screen, when the meeting began there were 17 pages of thumbnails of video. When it first began, only the last page was of people who had shut off their video, because they all go to the end. By about 20 minutes into it, people had muted their video on seven or eight pages, as some people on this meeting are doing right now. What's your take on that? Does that concern you?

At least when somebody is in the House physically you know they're there; you have no idea when somebody mutes their video, or audio for that matter, if they're even in the same room. Is that a concern? Do we need to address that issue?