Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 7th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Oh, okay. I just wanted to clarify—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Rather than repeating it, I just thought, in the interest of time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, I get it. Thank you.

Ms. Blaney.

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

First of all, I want to put it on the record that I'm absolutely fine with having Ms. May join our group today. I appreciate what she sent out, and I welcome adding her voice to this very important discussion.

Also, Mr. Richards, I'd be very happy to support your motion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Next we have Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Good morning, folks.

I appreciate what has been shared this morning. I, too, would like to add my voice.

First of all, I've read through the report, and I'd like to thank all the witnesses who appeared and, of course, all those who prepared the report. I read it through carefully this morning. I hope we can go through it.

I think it's really important to point out that we have been given a mandate from the House. I would like to quote from the motion:

...during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology may hold meetings for the sole purpose of receiving evidence....

It continues:

...members shall attend and witnesses shall participate via either videoconference or teleconference....

The motion goes on:

...the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the temporary modification of certain procedures, sittings in alternate locations and technological solutions including a virtual Parliament....

I won't keep reading. The point is that we have been given a mandate. Witnesses have appeared. We've been given a report that I think we must review and discuss today.

Also, to add my voice to others, I think it would be important to hear from Ms. May this morning.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you to everyone who participated in this discussion.

I have to say, I think a lot of points have caused me to think more deeply about this issue. They were all very good points. Mr. Brassard, you were definitely able to elaborate a bit more and give me a better understanding of your apprehension about carrying on with this in public.

The only thing I can say as to your discomfort about the different platforms we're going to discuss using and the different parliaments we've spoken with is that I'm not sure what your recommendations are and how far you want to go into the nitty-gritty of things when it comes to this report, but as it's laid out right now by our analysts, and upon reading the report, it is higher-level principles, and it very much focuses on our Parliament and our country being unique.

It's not that this is an ideal situation. I am by no means saying that this is ideal, but I'm wondering if there is a way we can go through this report and perhaps then take a look at whether our recommendations would even get anywhere near saying whether a certain parliament is doing something that's not right. I think we're really trying to pick something that is right for us, and we're not really even getting into picking platforms. Perhaps we will be putting that ball in the court of the administration and the technical teams, so they can make those decisions. We're focusing more on guiding principles.

That's the way I see the analysts having laid out the report. A lot of these decisions are just guidelines for us to give back to the House in how they can move forward.

Having said that, and having heard from everybody about—

I see some raised hands on this issue. Maybe it's in response to something I've said. Maybe I've said too much.

Mr. Richards, you're up first, then Mr. Turnbull, and then Mr. Brassard.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Chair, it's actually not in response to anything you said. I appreciate that you're trying to provide some clarity.

What I didn't get was some clarity about the suggestion I made. I heard Ms. Blaney say that she thought it was a good idea. I didn't hear from anyone on the government side who spoke afterwards that there was agreement on the idea of waiving the confidentiality of the report or taking the confidential label off the report so that we can feel comfortable we're not divulging something confidential in a public setting.

I certainly won't feel comfortable moving forward until I hear that assurance. Then, of course, we still have to address the second—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There's a new point of order.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

There are numerous people indicating that Mr. Richards cannot be translated. I think it's getting to be quite disturbing for those individuals.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Maybe we can pause here for a second again.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Chair, I forgot to hold the microphone close. Is that better?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That is much better. I'll try to be more mindful, and you can be as well, to hold your mike up closer so that the interpreters can hear.

Of course, it's really important, because we need to ensure that Ms. Normandin can participate fully in this meeting. We certainly do understand that it is a member's privilege to be heard in either English or French in this committee meeting. We'll do whatever we can, and if we have to pause, I think everyone's okay with doing that.

I take your point about the motion you're willing to raise. Let's just hear from a few more commenters, and we might be able to get to that motion.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Madam Chair, my apologies. I did forget to raise the mike, and I will try to remember to do so. I'm happy to be prompted if I forget. It is obviously a little unnatural to hold something up like this, so it's not something you necessarily remember to do. I will try to remember.

I will repeat what I said. If people didn't hear it, I want to make sure they have that opportunity.

What I indicated was that it wasn't in response to anything you had said, Madam Chair, that I raised my hand. It was more in response to something I wasn't hearing. I raised the issue that I thought we had a way around one of the concerns: I, or whoever else would like to do so, could move a motion to take the confidential label off the report so that we are not discussing something confidential in a public setting. That would address my concern at least.

I don't know if others feel the same way about that. I heard from Ms. Blaney that she felt comfortable with that. I didn't hear any indication from our Bloc representative or from any of the government representatives as to whether they were comfortable with that. I think it would be important to know that before we move out of the point of order so that we know if we're in a position to have that addressed.

I will also point out, though, that it still doesn't address the second set of concerns, which are also very valid concerns, so we do need to figure out a way to address those as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

I believe there are two more hands raised for the same point of order. After that, if it's okay with the committee, perhaps we can entertain the motion.

Mr. Richards, I'll remind you that there are limited circumstances in which this committee can take motions. The order of reference stipulates that only motions needed to determine witnesses and motions related to the adoption of the report are in order. There is a grey area here, but I think we can say this motion relates to the adoption of the report, and I could hold it in order if you wish to present it. Before you do, though, I'd like to hear all the members on the original point of order.

We have Mr. Turnbull, and then Mr. Brassard.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I appreciate the suggestion Mr. Richards made, but I would say, respectfully, that I think the motion he is suggesting would be out of order, given what you've just stipulated.

I wonder if removing confidentiality from the report requires a motion at all, since I think the motion that Mr. Richards is proposing would be out of order technically. As you said, only motions that pertain to witnesses and their scheduling seem to be in order, if I'm not mistaken.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's motions related to the adoption of the report as well.

Let's hear from Mr. Brassard, and then maybe we can hear from the clerk on that.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Quickly, as for what we need to do, perhaps each committee member should go back to the leadership teams and talk to them about the unintended consequences that are going on with respect to not only the drafting of the report, but also our discussion. If we are going to proceed with this, then....

In committee, I am used to having very frank discussions. Sometimes we don't agree and sometimes we do, but it's going to be difficult. I understand that this is a high-level report, but there may be some things that any one of us can call into question.

I think we need to go back to our leadership teams and express the view that there are some unintended consequences to the motion, particularly as they relate to the situation we find ourselves in. If we are going to be in this situation for some period of time, an amendment could be made to the original motion. I don't know the mechanism to make that happen, but I think we need to be aware of that.

I think we need to deal with these types of things confidentially so that we can express our opinions, views, concerns and perhaps counter-arguments about what individual witnesses say without the potential of either affecting our relationship with those individuals or impugning the companies that came before us.

I think we all need to consider this, as members of this committee. If this is the first time we've seen this situation evolve, I think it's incumbent upon us and we have a responsibility to let our leadership teams know about it.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

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

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

This isn't the first time we've seen this, Madam Chair. A number of people have cited that this has happened, and the precedent has definitely been established at this point.

As a point of order, I want to point out that what we have been engaging in for the last hour is a debate on an issue, not a point of order.

You, as the chair, should receive the original point of order, listen to any other input on it and then make a decision. That's how a point of order works. This issue has turned into a free-for-all debate over an assumption that we need to come to some kind of joint resolution, when we don't. With a point of order, the decision is made by the chair, and then if a majority of members are not happy with that decision, there are other options we can take.

In terms of going back to our leadership to advise them of some potential unintended consequences, this is out of the hands of our leadership at this point. This motion was adopted by the House of Commons. Once it's been adopted, it is the will of the House. If we want to go back and suddenly tell the House that it made an error, that can be done through the individual channels that allow us to do that. It certainly should not affect the way this committee continues to operate.

This committee must operate under the direction that it has been given, and that's the job we've been tasked to do. We need to get on with this because we've been having a debate on this issue, which was raised by one or two members, for the last hour, and it's certainly gone well beyond what would be considered a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm going to hear from one last speaker: Madame Normandin. Then we're going to move to the motion that Mr. Richards is—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I have a point of order, Madam Chair. Maybe it's an issue with the technology. I don't know what it is, but I did have some other points I wanted to make. I see that my hand is still raised, so I—

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

Maybe you could bring the microphone closer to your mouth.