Evidence of meeting #16 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 report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Committee Researcher
Thanks, Madam Chair.
I put this specific quote in the report because the order of reference had three suggested things that the committee look at, and this was one of them. It was, for lack of a better term, the only testimony that was really given on alternate locations, and it came from Mr. Brassard.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
That's fantastic. I'm wondering if we could at least have something in there, in that section, that recognizes the reality that this was not something the committee spent a lot of time studying, unfortunately. I think it's important to have that on the record.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
Yes, on this point, it wasn't something we discussed a lot, and I have no problem with reflecting that. However, we were looking at the comparatives from the provincial legislatures and whatnot, and there are a number of places that are at least looking at alternative venues. For example, it's being discussed in New Brunswick. There's been some consideration given to it in Prince Edward Island, and the motions adopted in both Manitoba and British Columbia authorized alternative venues.
We could also add a paragraph that notes the possibility that MLAs.... New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island are looking at potentially seating MLAs in galleries. We could add those points to give some context around the idea of alternate locations and what's being considered in provincial legislatures, so that we can give a bit more expression to what we were actually directed to look at.
Even though time was very short and we didn't get to those things as much as we would have liked, there are ways we can work that into the report as we were directed to do.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, time was short, and that's why we're heading down this rabbit hole where we've allowed injecting things into the report that we actually didn't hear because we didn't have time.
Do you want that added—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
No, that's fine. I'm not saying we shouldn't.
Should we add it in the “Alternate locations” section, or in the provincial section?
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
It could be added in both, but obviously it should be added here, for sure. A report doesn't require that we look only at the testimony we heard. We can look at all the evidence that's available to us and the facts that are available to us, and this is one of those facts.
Given that this was one of the things we were directed to look at, we should try our best to include something on it. I think it should be in this section. If we want to include it in the provincial section as well, in addition to that, that's fine with me. Certainly we should include it here, so that we can provide a little bit of meat to something that we were given direction to look at.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I just want to express the concerns I have about this being in the report. I don't think it's appropriate. All of us have made recommendations throughout many of the proceedings of this committee, none of which are reflected in this report or quoted and referenced with our names attached to them. I just think that's inappropriate.
I would also say that I thought the way committees functioned was to receive testimony from expert witnesses. Is Mr. Brassard an expert witness on venues in Ottawa for other locations? I don't see how this is actually expert opinion. I think it's one committee member's opinion, and it seems inappropriate—no disrespect to Mr. Brassard. I appreciate the comments and the suggestions, even though I don't agree that these were good suggestions. I just don't think that it's appropriate to have this in there, given the fact that we haven't given voice to the many other, I think, substantial recommendations that other members have made. If we did so, I think this report would probably go on for hundreds of pages.
Bloc
Christine Normandin Bloc Saint-Jean, QC
I don't want to take away your quote, Mr. Brassard, but if we're looking for a quote that deals with the change in location, perhaps we could use Dr. Raymond's quote, which is currently in the “Canada's seat of Parliament” section. It could be put in place of the existing one.
This recommendation states that before changing locations, an audit should be conducted and the location should be checked to ensure that it is safe. This would then be linked to our recommendations on validating another location. We would then have expert testimony on a different location where Parliament could sit.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That was from the doctor who testified.
Andre, could that be added in? That was the only testimony we had on alternate locations.
Next up we have Mr. Brassard and then Mr. Gerretsen—or, Mr. Brassard, I think you already made your point. I think it's Mr. Gerretsen—
Conservative
John Brassard Conservative Barrie—Innisfil, ON
Yes, I did, Madam Chair.
First of all, Andre or Justin, correct me if I'm wrong, but was it not the mandate of this committee, as part of the motion or through some other reference somewhere, that we were to look at the possibility of using locations other than the House of Commons to hold our meetings? I'm getting a thumbs-up from Justin.
In the context of our study, then, I thought I made.... First of all, my kids are going to be disappointed if my name is struck from this report, because I told them that I would be in a PROC report for the history of Canada.
We were obligated to look at alternative locations as part of this study, so I'm bringing it up. I think we should reflect in the report that when I asked Mr. Patrice whether we could use TD Place, the Canadian Tire Centre or the Shaw Centre as an alternative location, he said that was “quite interesting” as a possibility.
I think what is in part of this section accurately reflects the discussion that went on, including Dr. Raymond's comments. I suggest, and may make this point a bit later when we look at the recommendations, that despite the fact that the Public Health Agency of Canada provides the guidelines and mandates, we made it very clear in the line of questioning with Dr. Raymond and House administration that we were doing a good job of following those guidelines during the committee sessions that were occurring in the House of Commons, that social distancing was being adhered to, etc. Ultimately, it's up to Parliament, with the help of House administration, to figure out whether we should look at these alternative locations.
It may not suit the narrative of not wanting to sit in Parliament, but I think it accurately reflects the mandate that we were given to look at alternative locations. If it's the will of the committee not to look at these, that's fine, but the fact that we had this testimony and had this discussion needs to be reflected in this report, in addition to Mr. Patrice's comment that the concept of looking at an alternative location is “quite interesting”.
That's all I have to say about that. Any suggestion to strike this out of the report basically whitewashes what was discussed and what we were mandated to look at, and this was one of those things.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Okay, yes. In the order of reference we were asked to look at the issue of alternatives.
Mr. Gerretsen and then Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I understand that the order of reference has dictated that we look at this, and perhaps we failed in that responsibility. We'll let those who read this report be the judge of that.
However, my concern is that.... This is with all due respect to Mr. Brassard. I would say this to anybody.
I'm fairly new. I've only been around since 2015. In the three standing committees of Parliament that I've been on, we've never accepted a member's comments as testimony. If we do, then I have some questions for Mr. Brassard as a witness. Does he think that the costs would be justified? How much would it cost to do something like this? Does he think that's a good use of taxpayer dollars? I have questions that I would like to ask, if that's going to be allowed.
If this is a matter of addressing the fact that we missed a spot in the order of reference, I would be more open to the idea of a wording that said something like “other than one instance when it was brought up by a member of the committee, we didn't have any further discussions on it”, something to that effect.
As Mr. Turnbull said, there are a number of different comments or recommendations. I made a specific recommendation, as did many people throughout the meetings, that could just as easily be turned into a two-sentence paragraph like this one and added into the report.
I do share the concerns that have been expressed by other members on the committee, and I don't think we should be using this particular sentence to illustrate the fact that we have gone down the road of looking at this, as it was, at best, an ad hoc comment that made it into the report.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I think Andre tried to do the best job, when given this heading and in wanting to include something, since there wasn't much to pick from. It was unfortunate that it was all we had, other than what Dr. Raymond said.
Mr. Turnbull.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I agree with Mr. Gerretsen. I have numerous objections and questions on alternate locations that we never got to discuss with Mr. Brassard.
I agree completely that if that comment were to be allowed in there, there should also be numerous other comments. I think we did talk about the seat of Parliament. We did talk about constituency offices serving as alternate locations for members that would be included in a virtual Parliament or in any virtual proceedings. Therefore, there is a sense in which we did look at some alternate location, or aspects of that.
I really don't feel that having one member's thoughts and opinions about this really adequately.... Like, it just seems inappropriate. I would ask the clerk for clarification, if possible, on whether this is normally done.
I think during testimony, to Mr. Gerretsen's point, we as a committee all get access to ask witnesses questions so that the evidence that's reflected in these reports really reflects the robust conversation we've been able to have with each one of those witnesses. We did not get a chance to do that with Mr. Brassard. If he's an expert witness, I would like to ask for more time to have him come before the committee so we can ask him questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
There's unfortunately no more time, but I see what you're saying.
Three of the Conservatives wish to speak to this.... I feel as though we are going in circles and are going to spend a lot of time on this. I'm hoping we can come to some kind of resolution.
It seems like everyone is going to jump to make sure that Mr. Brassard's children are not disappointed at the end of this. If you are going to be repeating what you've already said, then I would just ask you to please refrain from doing so. Then we'll hear from Andre and try to come to some conclusion on this matter.
Yes, Mr. Gerretsen.
Liberal
Mark Gerretsen Liberal Kingston and the Islands, ON
On a point of order, Madam Chair, I believe Mr. Turnbull asked a question of the clerk. Will we get to hear the answer to that?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes.
On whether it's customary, Andre, do you want to answer that now or do you want to hear all the questions?
Committee Researcher
It appeared that Justin had something to say on that. I will defer to him.