Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

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

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I just want to clarify that. Because we were planning to do the “on division” thing and there was a call for a recorded vote, it didn't give me an opportunity to clarify that.

The recommendation indicated additional proceedings, but they were virtual, of course, and the feeling that I have and I know other members have is that we should be doing something that allows people to be physically present as well with a hybrid type of proceeding. It's not the idea of extra proceedings that we object to—because we think there should be more sittings of the House right now—but it's the fact that it's being proposed and prescribed as virtual. It's also indicating that it's been successful and we certainly haven't had enough to be able to justify indicating that at this point. I just want to make that clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. That's noted and on the record.

Next is BQ 7 on “Alternate locations”. BQ 7 is basically recommending that we not have in-house sittings in locations other than Parliament Hill in Ottawa unless they are approved by the Public Health Agency of Canada to protect the health and safety of all members, staff, administrative employees, security and interpreters.

Is there agreement to approve?

That's adopted.

Mr. Brassard, sorry. I thought you were putting your hand up in agreement.

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

Madam Chair, the concern I have with this—and I understand Dr. Raymond's testimony—is that when she was questioned about the pandemic—and I recall this, because I was the one who opened up this line of questioning—we were talking about whether social distancing measures would work, given the option of different venues and against the backdrop of the fact that, after the fire, everything moved down to the Victoria museum. We were investigating the fact that there were options that were available to Parliament to look at different venues.

In the line of questioning, Dr. Raymond spoke about not necessarily the public health issues, but familiarity issues with where the washrooms were, where people—presumably members of Parliament and staff—weren't in familiar surroundings. That's not up to the Public Health Agency to determine. That's up to the House administration to determine if there are other venues we could use in order to have a full Parliament.

I find that very curious, unless those locations have to be inspected and approved by the Public Health Agency of Canada, which again doesn't determine where we are going to be. That would be the House administration.

If we were dealing with the issue of social distancing and whether those measures in other venues were compatible with, or if they actually followed, Public Health Agency guidelines, similar to what they do now when we hold our in-House sessions every Wednesday.... In fact I think it was acknowledged clearly by Dr. Raymond, as well as by the Speaker and the Clerk, that we were following the guidelines. I don't think it's up to the Public Health Agency to decide whether we are, in fact, going to use another venue. That would be up to administrative staff. Certainly not for the reason of familiarity, it would be a public health issue.

I really find it curious in this recommendation that there is a suggestion that the Public Health Agency would dictate or determine whether, in fact, other venues are compatible with members of Parliament sitting in them. I don't know what sort of resolution we can come to on this, but I don't think the Public Health Agency is in a position to determine whether we should be using other venues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards will speak, and then Madam Normandin.

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

I can forgo. I just wanted to make sure that it didn't appear that it was unanimously supported. I'm okay with letting my spot go.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Madame Normandin.

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

I will be brief, Madam Chair.

I think it is somewhat reductionist to say that Dr. Raymond, during her testimony, talked only about the fact that members must be very familiar with a new venue. She also mentioned that the venue must be disinfected overnight by skilled teams. She raised a number of factors in her testimony, not only the fact that members must be very familiar with the chosen venue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there agreement to adopt this recommendation, or should we have a vote?

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

Can I just make a point? I'm sorry, Madam Chair, to belabour this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I just saw your hand come up now.

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

It's six and a half hours in, I know.

Again, I think there was a majority there.

I just think, from what Dr. Raymond said—and I respect her and appreciate all that she's doing in the Public Health Agency of Canada—but I think she specifically said that day, the agency is not in a position to approve locations. It sets guidelines. It sets those measures, and then it would be the House administration...it would be theirs. I just don't actually think she or the Public Health Agency can give an approval.

I'm not opposed to saying we listen to what they're saying about all the different precautions and measures; don't get me wrong. I just don't think there is an actual approval process by the Public Health Agency of Canada to give the House of Commons an okay on one person, on one thousand people or whatever it is. I think we're asking something of a parliamentary committee that is not possible to adopt, even in the House of Commons.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there any further discussion on that?

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

I'm going to call for a recorded vote on that, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We'll have a recorded vote, Justin.

(Text of recommendation agreed to: yeas 7; nays 4 [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next, LIB 11, in the decorum section, talks about maintaining “the authority and dignity of Parliament including all matters relating to decorum in the House”.

There are some guidelines that have been listed underneath that, Andre.

We'll go to Mr. Turnbull, and then Ms. Blaney.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just wanted to make a quick suggestion here. BQ 9 refers to having a neutral background or sign symbolizing Parliament that's set behind us in these virtual types of proceedings, which I think would address some of the concerns that were expressed by the Speaker.

In the LIB 11 suggestion, there are a bunch of bullet points. If this were something that Madam Normandin would support, I would recommend taking out “neutral background” and including the language of BQ 9, which refers to a “uniform” virtual background. Instead of a “neutral background”, we could use that language and maybe combine those and vote on all of them.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

LIB 11 has bullet points, and the suggestion has been made to make an amendment to incorporate the essence of BQ 9 and “neutral background” into one of the bullet points. Is that what you stated, Ryan?

Andre, are you able to incorporate what Madam Normandin has suggested into that?

[Andre Barnes]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay. This is amended and BQ 9 will no longer exist as a suggestion and will be incorporated into LIB 11. Is there agreement to adopt LIB-11 as amended?

Madam Normandin.

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

We could remove the fifth point, which concerns the microphone and the headset, as that has already been mentioned elsewhere.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is that okay with everyone?

Ms. Blaney, you have a point as well.

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

I have a lot of questions about these, actually.

First of all, I'm a little confused. When I read this recommendation, I started to feel confused. Are we talking about COVI as a committee or are we talking about a virtual Parliament? Because if we are in a virtual Parliament, the rules of the House would continue, from what I understand, and the rules outline most of these issues, so I feel a bit confused about what we're talking about.

Another thing I saw, both in LIB 11 and in BQ 9, is that I want to understand if this commits the House of Commons to something. What I mean by that is, if we're going to have a uniform sign that is behind every member, is that a task that we're giving Parliament? We're talking about things like adequate lighting. Again, when we put these things in there, I get confused about what tasks we're actually adding to the House. I don't want somebody to be coming to Campbell River to figure out my lighting. I just want us to note that.

To go back to my original issue, are we talking about a committee or are talking about actually having a virtual Parliament. If it's a hybrid or a virtual Parliament, I feel a bit confused about that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I don't think we bind the House of Commons to anything, really, by submitting a report and making recommendations, but maybe the clerk can help us with that, as he did have his hand up to clarify how this is worded.

Yes, Andre.

[Andre Barnes]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Just for clarity, LIB 11 was only the first line. Where the parentheses begin, I added, after the words “for the Committee's consideration”, some information because the committee received a letter from the Speaker asking for guidelines that would be included in this report.

To be quite honest, I made them all up. The first three come from House of Commons Procedure and Practice. The Speaker himself mentioned prohibiting the use of displays, props and exhibits, and encouraging the use of a headset with a microphone. I just made up the bullet point on adequate lighting because it would help to be able to see. If someone turned off the light in the room, could the Speaker recognize them? This is just my fatigue talking, but I thought of crazier ideas, like a member shouldn't be able to lie down and take the floor.

Feel free to take or leave any of them, and I would also mention that “cameras should be in a fixed position” comes from the procedure and House affairs guidelines for media showing up at committee meetings, because it wouldn't make sense for a member to walk around the room with a camera.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

In terms of what binds the House, I was also going to say that some are prescriptive and some not so prescriptive, so they could figure out lighting and how to consult on lighting without having to physically come, I'm sure. Our sound is consulted on without anyone having to physically come.

Clerk, do you have any comments on that?