Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

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

I'm wondering if we could add something to that. This is just off the top of my head, so I don't have the language, but perhaps we could add something that says all represented parties would be participating. It wouldn't be every member, necessarily. It would just be making sure that there's a recognition of inclusion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madame Normandin, are you okay with that inclusion?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Go ahead, Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I don't even know if the MPs need to participate, because it's a mock-up, but that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Andre, would you be able to draft some language off the cuff and help us out here?

[Andre Barnes]

Absolutely, Madam Chair.

Could Ms. Blaney please repeat the gist of what she was hoping to see? I'll work something up.

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

Absolutely. I'd just like something that says that all recognized parties will have representation at the mock-up.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

As a side note for everyone while Andre's preparing that wording, I started having some issues with my participants list before we went on break. You might be able to raise your hand in the sidebar, but I cannot see it anymore. I've tried to correct the problem, but it's not correcting without my maybe logging out. I probably should have done that when we were on break. If you could raise your hand to get my attention, just as you would in a regular committee meeting, I'll try to keep track manually as to who raises a hand and in what order. Justin, maybe you can help me out a little there as well.

Andre, do you have some language?

[Andre Barnes]

Let me know what the committee thinks of this: “That the House of Commons conduct a mock virtual Parliament exercise prior to the deployment of the platform to be used for parliamentary business, and that all recognized parties”, I was thinking, “be invited to participate in any mock-ups.” That way, the parties would have the option to participate or not.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Can I propose that instead of “all parties”, you put “all members”? We all have rights as members, independent of our parties, and if the goal of a mock-up is to test if a system's working for everybody, I think it should say "all members". Obviously that means all parties, not just chosen delegates of parties.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madame Normandin, are you okay with that addition?

You are. Okay.

All right, Andre, I think you can handle that for sure.

BQ 11 is amended so that all members are invited. Is everyone in agreement to adopt that recommendation?

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Chair, could we include an “s” after “platform”, please? It may not just be one; it could be multiple platforms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, it's “platforms” in the plural. Are we agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

All right. BQ 11 is adopted.

Is there any discussion on NDP 3? It is “That the House of Commons continue to take an incremental approach to the adoption of new House proceedings by virtual means, recognizing capacity constraints, the need for testing, and the need for improvements, and that any new proceedings to be added be agreed upon by each recognized party.”

Is everyone in agreement with NDP 3?

Go ahead, Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I want to express concern about the last part of that statement, the part that says, “and that any new proceedings to be added be agreed upon by each recognized party.”

I wonder whether every incremental step needs to be approved by every party. I think that would stall or could potentially stall that process. Without that, I would be fully supportive of this recommendation. I think it's a good recommendation, especially the part about “recognizing capacity constraints, the need for testing, and the need for improvements”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Go ahead, Ms. Blaney.

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

It's not for each incremental step. It's for any new proceedings. It means that if something new is going to be added, there would be a collaborative approach to make sure it's done well. I believe that's important, but I would love to hear other people's feedback.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Is there any discussion on that point?

Go ahead, Mr. Richards.

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

Just for clarification, first of all, Madam Chair, are you no longer able to see the electronic hands raised?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

No, I am not.

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

Just to be clear, that's what—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I am not. I'm going to continue to try to fix the problem, but in the meantime, just keep raising your hand.

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

No problem.

I have a different change that I'd like to propose. Essentially it would make it clearer that this is for emergency situations. The wording as it stands now doesn't make that clear, but I assume that was the intention.

I propose that it would read like this at the beginning: “That the House of Commons continue to take an incremental approach to the adoption, during emergency situations, of new....”