Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2020

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I'm mistaken, Madam Chair. I was looking at another recommendation. I'm sorry.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right.

Other than that, then, are we good with “Canada's seat of Parliament”? Okay.

Next is section C, “Procedural considerations of modifying sittings of the House in response to COVID-19”.

Yes, Ms. Blaney.

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

I have one suggestion.

I'm trying to go between both versions. I actually did my work on the clean one, so forgive me as I try to do this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm going through both too. The clean one was just nicer to read.

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

This talks about our role, about “a member's parliamentary duties”. For me, my number one commitment is always to my constituents.

I just want to ask the committee if we could also add to that list. After “debating, legislating, the business of supply, committee work and holding the government to account”, I would add a part that says “representing constituents”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is everyone okay with that?

Whenever I give school presentations on government and the role of a parliamentarian, I always, always—foremost—talk about the role to constituents. I think that's important.

Andre, can you add that in? All right.

Turning to section D, to the technological and practical considerations, there was a big change here.

I'll just point out, too, that on page 12, line 4, of the English version, the word “for” needs to be stricken. It's the word right after “staff”, so that it says, “the number of support staff was double than that required”. The word “than” needs to be added in and “for” needs to be taken out, or else it could be reworded slightly.

Okay, Andre?

Ms. Blaney.

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

I was going to say the same thing as you, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. Perfect.

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

Madam Chair, on the same point in that section that's amended about the first virtual sittings and the number of support staff, could we acknowledge there that if it gets more complex in terms of hearings or types of committees or whatever it may be, it may require additional further staff?

I think it's important to note that the more we do, the more staff will be required, and to have that understanding in there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is it not in there? I remember reading it that way, that it was going to require more.

As it gets easier, though, less will be required, but you want it to state that if it gets more complicated, more will be required.

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

I wasn't speaking to the complexity of it. It's one thing to get used to it, but, again, it's going to increase the complexity. On the other hand, the longer we go on, the easier it's going to get, but the more complex we get, and the more we do, the more is going to be required.

Hopefully we can get both factors that way. That would be important.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I would just make a point in follow-up to Mr. Duncan's point, and I get his sentiments.

I'm wondering, since this is the more factual portion of the report, whether that was reflected in the testimony we heard. Maybe he could point to a specific example of testimony that said it would get more complex. I think intuitively I would agree that it may. It also might get easier as technology is adopted.

Do we have any testimony on that?

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

I would argue, as we discussed and I think we will discuss further in the recommendations about voting, for example, that if we have more committees or if the types of tools we give committees change, that may require extra people if there is voting or whatever there may be.

I think in those examples they spoke about how there's more technology that could be adapted, and more details committees could be empowered with, but I think it's going to make the meeting more complex.

Again, I think it wasn't specifically alluded to, but I think it's obvious that if we're getting into voting, or if we're getting into more committee work at some time or in some form, that would make it more difficult, or more complex, and more hands on deck would be required.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Is that an assumption you are making, or maybe some of us are making, that is not necessarily fact-based? I wonder, because I know of lots of technology tools and virtual platforms that actually reduce significantly the number of human staff or support staff required.

I don't know that what you're saying is true, and I'm not sure we heard testimony on that, so I would just push back respectfully and ask you to consider that. Maybe if we had a quote from the Hansard, then that would back up your point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. We will move on from that since we got the thumbs-up. It doesn't look as though we have testimony on that.

Is that right, Andre?

[Andre Barnes]

I'm trying to recall some, but I don't have any offhand, unfortunately.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I don't either, but good try, Mr. Duncan.

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

[Inaudible—Editor]

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes.

We are looking at “E Modified procedures at national legislatures...”.

We're looking at Scotland first. Is everyone good with Scotland? We had pretty much gotten through these last time. There was a little bit of a change to Scotland, but not overly complex.

Section (b) is “Changes to Standing Orders” for Scotland.

Future plans is section (c).

Pandemic response plan is section (d).

Since we're going so quickly, just raise your hand in the participants bar if there is an issue, because I'm just going to keep going through them.

Now we're on to the United Kingdom. It was just after the United Kingdom and Wales that we ended last time.

On the United Kingdom there are no changes to the overview.

For the hybrid House of Commons, there is a change at the end of that section. Is everyone okay with that change?

Mr. Brassard.

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

Sorry, Madam Chair.

With regard to page 17, line 9, I think somewhere in there, whether it's at the end of the sentence or even in a new paragraph, there should be a note that the U.K.'s temporary measures were scheduled to expire on May 12. The House was scheduled to debate that day, today, and I don't know the results of it because I haven't seen it. They were going to debate a renewal to May 20. At that point, on May 20, they are expected to start a two-week adjournment.

Again, I don't know what the result of today's debate was, but I think we should put a note in there just for clarity's sake to say that was what their intent was.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I guess that just goes to keeping the report as updated and current as possible. We're limited by time, but I think this one is probably possible.

Is that right, André? Can you get that updated? Okay.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

One other comment that I have, Madam Chair, is regarding this section.

I like the way it has been updated at the end of the section with the specific reference to the U.K. I wonder if we could also include a reference to the MemberHub platform that has been approved based on single sign-on and multi-factor authentication, which is basically up to a standard for cybersecurity that the U.K. Parliament was okay with. I think it would be nice to see that referenced in there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Was that in the letter we received?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

This is the document that we received from the procedure committee. It's dated May 5, 2020.