Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 12th, 2020

[The Clerk]

I've been going back and forth with parliamentary publications. I think ideally if they got something in both languages by midday on the 14th, that would help them out as much as possible. However, if we said the end of the day on Thursday, they indicated that should also be workable.

Whatever you're able to get in, if it's in the one language by, say, noon, and then follow that up a few hours later with the translated version by 5 p.m. on May 14, parliamentary publications seem to indicate to me that is feasible for them, on the issue of the dissenting opinions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

This answer should solve the problem. I understand we're on a tight deadline, but it gives you that extra day, given that we're having that one extra meeting. You're essentially in the same spot you would have been in, had you had to submit it tomorrow.

Does that resolve the issue?

I'm going to have one sidebar before we move forward with the recommendations.

Andre, I have a question for you. We were chatting about the fact that there have been a lot of additions to the text of this report as it stands. How long would you require to get that done? Then I guess the committee members need to decide, if it's not all completed and translated for us to view tomorrow, whether they are comfortable with leaving it in your hands, trusting you will reflect our comments and feedback here today accurately.

[Andre Barnes]

I will certainly get the changes done in English before I go to sleep, which may end up being later than I thought I would be going to sleep. However, I think having the translation come back by 3 p.m. would be unlikely, although they have been very quick so it is possible.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's possible.

[Andre Barnes]

I can see there being about two pages of additional material, so if we're meeting at 3 p.m., it is possible. I couldn't possibly speak for translation on that, but I will do my half of that work as fast as I can.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right. I guess we're going to have to keep our fingers crossed. In the past, having worked with you in the previous Parliament, you really have never let us down. Your corrections and your additions usually always reflect what the members had intended. I have a lot of faith in your being able to do that accurately and our not having many corrections to make.

I think we should use all of our time. The questions have been answered. The dissenting or supplementary opinions have to be in by 12 p.m. in one language, and then by the end of business day at 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, in the translated version.

Mr. Richards.

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

Madam Chair, I understood our clerk's comments slightly differently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You can have them both in by 5 p.m., if that makes it better.

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

I took it he was saying that, ideally, we would get in our first version in one language by noon. I can commit that we will certainly endeavour to do that, and if it's one o'clock, we'll do it then. Whenever we have one language, we'll get it to you, whether it's before noon or.... What I thought I heard was that if we do it by five o'clock, we would be okay. However, I don't see any issue with getting it in earlier than five o'clock in at least one language.

That was my—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, it needs to be translated into French and English by 5 p.m. on the 14th.

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

I understood that. My understanding was that it was more of a preference that the first language be received by noon if possible, not that it was absolutely critical.

Again, I don't anticipate it taking until five o'clock to get the first language, but if it were to go past noon to one o'clock or something, from the comments I heard, I didn't take that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I think there is leeway there in terms of when you submit your first language, but we need both translated versions by five o'clock on the 14th.

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

That's understood. I got that. That's how I took it as well.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Justin, do you have anything to add to that?

[The Clerk]

I'd simply echo what you said: by 5 p.m. on Thursday, May 14, in both official languages.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There is leeway for the first language, whenever you could get that in, but I'm assuming it would be quite early, because you would need to give the translators time to translate it and have it ready for five o'clock.

Thanks to everyone on the committee for resolving that.

We are going to jump to the first section of the recommendations. I'm hoping we can get through one or two sections of the recommendations. This is after the discussion section. Raise your hand if you have any ideas.

The first recommendation is LIB 1:

We should establish an alternative set of Standing Orders to be used in extraordinary circumstances to enable a fully functioning virtual Parliament.

There is a note that says, “this recommendation was slotted by the analyst in two possible places in the report”.

Recommendation BQ 10 is similar to that, in a way:

That the House permanently amend its Standing Orders to include a section authorizing the implementation of a virtual parliament....

There is a slight difference, I guess. The rest of it is pretty much the same.

NDP 2 is similar as well. NDP 2, BQ 10 and LIB 1 are all trying to get at the same idea.

Mr. Richards, do you have a proposal? You have your hand up.

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

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

The indication I just received is that, because there are three that have some similarities, we'll discuss them as a bit of a group. I think that does make some sense because obviously I don't think you want to adopt three recommendations that are similar in what they're stating, so I don't disagree.

My comments on all three would be similar, other than on NDP 2. I would maybe have a suggestion on a portion of it that we can work with.

My feeling on all three is that we're taking this past what our expectation was as a committee and what our mandate was as a committee, to some degree, with those recommendations. What we were mandated to do was to look at this current situation and in what way we might proceed with sittings during the current situation, so I think these recommendations certainly go far beyond that. I'm not necessarily suggesting that we wouldn't want to look at that at some point as a committee, but I don't think this report is the spot for that.

The spot for that would be if the committee were to choose to look at recommendations going forward for future circumstances like this, and what we might do. I don't think that's where we are right now. I think if we wanted to go there, what we should be doing is looking at that outside of the context of the current situation when we've had a chance to reflect upon how this situation played out, the actions we took, the methods we used, and then bring forward suggestions on what might be done for future circumstances.

It's generally not typical that during the middle of a crisis, you say, “Here's what we would do in the next crisis.” You look at dealing with the crisis, and then after the crisis is done, you review what occurred and figure out what you would do differently or the same or change about it for the next circumstance.

I would suggest these three fit more in that category, and I would not be supportive.

I would say, however, when it comes to NDP 2, I think there is a portion of that which is useful. I would pull out the part about emergency situations and the part that indicates that modified Standing Orders should only come into force at the agreement of all recognized parties. I would be supportive of that specific portion of it being a recommendation.

Those are my comments on the three, and a suggestion on NDP 2. I look forward to discussion from others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Seeing that all the recommendations in the whole report are before the committee and every member's feedback is valuable, what I would suggest though is that—and this is just from experience—if you don't fathom that you're going to vote for that recommendation in any way imaginable.... I would just hope that this is a good-faith effort, that we're going to try to get to where we hopefully can have consensus on a recommendation. If we adopt things that are agreeable to everyone, then hopefully I will be able to see that we'll all be in agreement, for example, if we spend a long time on something and then vote, we'll vote in favour of it as well. If not, then it ends up that you spent a lot of time on something that you knew from the get-go you were never going to be agreeable to.

I'm just requesting that every member put a good-faith effort forward in making their suggestions for these revisions, so that they're making them in order to be able to vote in favour of them, if that's understandable.

Yes, Mr. Richards.

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

I have a point of order, Madam Chair.

I'm not certain if that was directed at me, because I was the only one who made any comments at this point. I'm not sure where your questioning of my motives comes from. I was simply indicating my thoughts on the recommendations. I don't believe that someone disagreeing with a recommendation is something that should be silenced. I was giving my opinion, and I expressed why I had that opinion, and actually offered a constructive suggestion on how we could utilize one portion of the recommendations.

I hope that wasn't your intention, to silence a member's opinion. It's a legitimate part of the process that we're going through, and it's important to express why.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I think it was constructive, but as I'm seeing hands go up, I'm just trying to figure out how we're going to get through this. Ideally, we should maybe have a brief time for suggestions in order to improve some of the recommendations, but ultimately get to a vote on each recommendation in order to move through them. Given my experience as a member of this committee and other committees, I'm just hoping that all members are going to put forward good-faith efforts to improve recommendations so that they're in the state they would like to see them in so they can adopt them. I don't think there's anything wrong with that. I think all members should be doing that.

Mr. Richards.

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

On that point of order, nobody here is suggesting that we wouldn't try to get through the report, but frankly, to suggest that MPs have no right to disagree with a recommendation and that they should seek only to adopt them, I'm sorry, Madam Chair, but that's quite an unacceptable comment for a chair to make. I hope that you will reflect upon that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I will, but I've had some experience and I'm speaking from that experience. I'm wanting to make some suggestions off the cuff before we enter into this process to everybody with regard to the recommendations, because I think this is the part where we're all going to have to do some brainstorming and some negotiations.

I give guidelines, oftentimes, before we begin any meeting. At every single meeting I have given some guidelines before we have turned to a different phase of the process. This process is going to be a little different from the process we've been going through so far in terms of going through the text of the report. I'm going to continue to hear from everybody on this issue. Eventually, when I've heard one point of.... I don't want the points of view to be repeated either. I think at that point, I will just call the vote on the recommendation and that's how we'll be able to effectively get through them.

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

Madam Chair, my point is that this is what I see as being democratic. Nobody here is trying to hold anything up, and I think for you to suggest that people don't have a right to express their opinions is not a very good start. I certainly hope that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm saying I'm going to hear from everyone until the point of repetition. That is what I'm saying.

Next we will hear from Madame Normandin.

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

Madam Chair, I think that some consensus in the three proposals to have two parallel sets of procedural rules.

However, if we're going to vote on the NDP's proposal, I'd like it to be split, because it seems to contain two ideas: there is the adoption of a block of procedures and there is the enforcement mechanism to trigger the emergency procedure, which makes me a little uncomfortable. I have the impression that each party would have a veto. Either we'll never be able to use the second set of rules, or we'll never be able to get rid of it, because it would be enough for one party to decide to maintain the virtual Parliament. So, if we were to vote on this proposal, I would like it to be split into two parts.