Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney, I think that's in reference to NDP 2.

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

I don't have an opinion on whether or not it should be split, because I don't think we've come to a core motion. I have concerns about splitting it. For me, the whole factor in this is that right now, as we have moved through COVID-19, we have had a lot of party collaboration and I think, regardless of whether we're in a majority or minority Parliament, making sure that all parties have a voice is really important. My concern would be that if we took it out of this recommendation we would lose that.

The other thing I want to say, given some of the comments made earlier, is that none of these recommendations, in my opinion, identifies what the Standing Orders should be. It is just setting up something specifically to address this type of issue. I think that is, in fact, part of the reason we were sent to do this work, to create a bit of a framework for us to move forward.

That's all I have to add right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Those are good points.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just wanted to make some constructive comments.

It seems to me that the Liberal, Bloc and two NDP recommendations are quite compatible. In particular, LIB 1, BQ 10 and NDP 2 are almost identical. There are some slight differences of course, and NDP 1, in my mind, speaks to the process for creating a list and presenting a list of areas of the Standing Orders that could be or need to be modified in a situation like the one we're in. I think that's a good addition, and it seems like it could almost be rolled into one recommendation, with a sub-point about process.

The other thing I would say is that, from my perspective, the Conservatives' recommendation, although it seems to be more limited in scope in terms of only applying to standing committees, still could be couched within a broader recommendation that represents—or looks like it anyway—the majority of the committee members.

To say something more specific about standing committees and having them be able to exercise all of their ordinary powers is still a very good recommendation that I would certainly support. I think it's just that the will of the committee is a bit broader and is pointing to the fact that we should have an alternative set of Standing Orders in these times of extraordinary circumstances.

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

I agree with Mr. Turnbull in the sense that, in the scope or context of what we're dealing with under the current crisis, in any of the recommendations that we put forward, that should be the context by which we discuss this. If there are, for example, changes to the Standing Orders that need to be looked at in the event of any future circumstance, then we can do that at a later time. We don't have to make those recommendations now as to those Standing Orders.

The other thing I frankly have a concern about is some of the recommendations that I'm looking at. Take for example LIB 1. If you look at an alternative set of Standing Orders to be used in extraordinary circumstances, I think we've heard clearly throughout the course of this study that we are currently in an extraordinary circumstance, but what would trigger a movement to a virtual Parliament or a hybrid Parliament—whatever you want to call it—at a later date? Who defines that? Who determines what that extraordinary circumstance might be?

Some of these recommendations are very broad in nature, and I don't know whether we want to get them to be more specific. These are the concerns that I have.

We're going to make a recommendation for when we're under extraordinary circumstances, but what constitutes an extraordinary circumstance? We know that this current crisis does. Does a flood? Does a famine? Does a war? Even in the scope of what we're discussing right now, I think perhaps this is another example of what could be pushed out to a later date or a later study, to find out what those triggers and mechanisms are because of the evidence that we heard.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think that's a really good point, Mr. Brassard, about what triggers this mechanism. I think that is addressed in one of the other recommendations made by one of the parties, but it's a point well taken.

Looking at the clock, since it is 2:03 p.m., and since this committee room and our support staff need to be helping another committee at this time, we don't have a lot of time. However, I will sit down and, maybe with the assistance of the clerk as well, try to group “like with like together” a little bit better for the next sitting tomorrow, and maybe even try to have some wordsmithing done. If all of the members of the committee can do the same, if you can work with each other, work across party lines—of course, that is ideal—and try to come up with some compromises or to make improvements to these recommendations, that would be welcome as well.

We're going to meet tomorrow at three o'clock, so we have some time to do that. I think it's actually a good idea that we have this extra time now so that we arrive at good recommendations and a concise report at the end.

Mr. Duncan, you had your hand up. Do you still want to make a comment, or do you want to save it for tomorrow?

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I can save it for tomorrow.

I was going to try to summarize and get common ground, but we'll continue that discussion tomorrow, I'm sure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, absolutely.

I'll try to group all of that together. I'll try to assist the committee a little more, and then you can also take a look from that point of view.

We will meet back virtually tomorrow at 3 p.m., and hopefully we'll have a final report at that point.

Thanks for all of your assistance and all of your participation.

The meeting is adjourned.