Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 17 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today is Wednesday, May 13, at 3 p.m. I know that during this pandemic some of us are losing track of our days and dates, so it's always good to have a reminder.

Today we're going to continue going through the draft report and hopefully adopting the recommendations. This is our last meeting, so we should be through all the recommendations by the end of today's meeting and have a final report that will then have any dissenting or supplementary opinions submitted by tomorrow, Thursday, at 5 p.m., with the translated version.

I want to remind members to make sure to unmute their mikes when they are about to speak.

Obviously we are going to have an informal meeting in order to have some discussion around adopting the report. Basically I'm in your hands as to how you'd like this to work.

I would suggest that we look at each recommendation separately and adopt it, reject it or rework it with a view to adopting it. Then we'll move on to the next recommendation and so on until we've considered each recommendation in the report. I hope this will allow members to debate and decide on the recommendations in an orderly and systematic fashion.

We obviously have no witnesses at today's meeting; however, I want to just let you know that we have received two letters from the Speaker as of late. We received one on May 11, which was brought up in yesterday's meeting, and we received one as of this morning, May 13. The letter was written to the House leader, Mr. Rodriguez, with the committee copied on the letter.

There was an attachment to this letter—four key procedural issues to consider and Standing Orders to consider—so I just want to make sure that everyone has had a chance to maybe look at that letter. You may wish to reference it today in making any suggestions or amendments to the recommendations. I want to alert you to that off the bat. Basically in the correspondence there is a limited number of possible amendments to the current Standing Orders. The Speaker is trying to provide a workable approach when addressing the issue of changing the Standing Orders, given the current circumstances, of course.

We're going to start where we left off yesterday, and that was in the discussion portion of our draft report. I know the clerk also informed us all earlier today that the edits, suggestions and comments that were provided yesterday have all been reworked by our analyst, Andre. They have been incorporated, but they're in translation currently so we don't have that current copy. We're going to be working off of the copy we had yesterday. The version two copy we had yesterday is what we'll be working off of. It has been recirculated today in case anybody needs to reprint it.

We're going to start on page 26.

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

Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely. This is the best time for that.

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

Okay.

We did receive a copy of the Speaker's virtual chamber report. I just want to be really clear, though. It says on there that it is confidential, so I've definitely reviewed the document but I have not spoken about it because it is confidential. I am assuming that it's not part of this report. I just need clarity on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I am assuming that has been written on there just because it was also on our draft report as well at first. I believe the Speaker has submitted it to us so that we can incorporate the suggestions, but we can hear from the clerk on how to move forward or what the right thing is to do in that circumstance.

Justin, there is a question about the letter from the Speaker being confidential.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Yes, hello, Ms. Blaney.

My understanding is that the Speaker and the Clerk's office wanted to share that material with the committee so that committee members would be aware of the contents of the letter as they begin to look at the recommendations for their own PROC report.

Some of the content from the Speaker's letter may be relevant to some of the recommendations that the various members of this committee have put forward, and it might be something to keep in mind as you are considering the draft recommendations today.

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

Sorry to be a stickler, but I'm going to be because I think what we're talking about really is important.

When I look at that report, one of the things that is said in it is that the administration consulted with more than 30 parliamentarians and collaborated closely with several who share similar requirements, co-testing solutions and so on. Are those parliamentarians Canadian parliamentarians? Are they international? I wasn't clear on that. If they are Canadian parliamentarians, what I understand, at least from the NDP, is that none of our members were included in this process.

One of the things I think is very important as we talk about a virtual Parliament is that working collaboratively together and respecting all the parties is even more important, because we're not in the same area or able to see what everyone is up to. I think it's important that we respect that and that our report reflects that quite honestly, so I need clarity on this as well.

I think one of my challenges right now is that we're getting information at the very last minute, and that makes it harder to get the report done. It puts a lot of stress on the analyst as well. I really agree with Mr. Turnbull. He brought this up yesterday, and I know it was a little bit of a discussion. I was on the other side of that, but it is a little bit hard to be discussing the future of our democracy in this sort of set-up and feel that I don't have all of the information to propose the best solutions.

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

I would like to clarify the following point.

The French version talks about a consultation with 30 parliaments and not with 30 parliamentarians.

What are we really talking about?

Is it parliaments or parliamentarians?

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

I think you're right now that I read that, but still, it just says 30. I guess what I'm trying to say at the core of this—and thank you so much, Ms. Normandin, for that clarification—is that we don't know which 30 parliaments. I get this report, and what I really want to do is sit down with the Clerk and with the Speaker and ask more questions. I think it's really important, and I want to make sure that's on the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney, I know there's a lot coming at us every day. There are some great recommendations that all of the parties have made. The NDP have made some great recommendations, which I was just suggesting to the clerk are very much in line with letting the House of Commons, the Speaker and their staff decide what Standing Orders we need to take a look at.

I know there are also many recommendations to continue the study after this report is submitted so that, into the future, the future of our democracy, we can take some real time to study them in depth and perhaps give the recommendations that we're able to give, knowing the evidence we have had before us so far in order to make some temporary solutions for this pandemic.

I'm going to put my participant list up on the side so I can see everybody. I'm sorry if I have overlooked anybody.

Mr. Alghabra, go ahead.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, to Ms. Blaney's point, may I propose that we accept the fact, given how late this report has arrived, that we do not take it into account as evidence, at least for this report? The reality is that all of our work is done examining evidence, and while I'm sure the Speaker and his team have done tremendous work—and I think it would have been helpful had we received it earlier—we should accept and come to terms with the fact that it arrived on our desks a bit too late.

Maybe we should mention in the report that we haven't had a chance to review the recommendations and that this report is on a parallel track, but accept the fact that we were not able to incorporate it into this report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Your suggestion is well taken.

Next is Mr. Richards, please.

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

Thank you.

I think Ms. Blaney actually raises a very good point, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Alghabra just indicated that we wouldn't include anything in terms of quotes from other things like that in the report. I think she raises a really good point, and I think she was far too polite about it.

Without knowing who these members are, how are we to know that it wasn't just entirely or mostly the cabinet, for example? Maybe this is something that's being imposed upon the Speaker and is, therefore, something that we, as a committee, are being asked, essentially.... Whether we include anything in the report, we could be being pushed to recommend what the government wants, and by the government, I mean the cabinet. As a committee, we're being expected to rubber-stamp that, which would be completely and utterly inappropriate. I certainly hope that as we go through the course of today I'll be proven wrong about that, but I now have some suspicions.

When we start to talk about these letters, I can't even.... This goes back to one of the problems that we had previously. We also received another piece of correspondence from the Speaker not that long ago that was marked “confidential”. I now, therefore, can't even talk about the contents of that letter, but it was also of importance. Here we are in public, and we can't reveal anything about that letter, so we can't even discuss that. We're being asked to discuss selective portions. Why was this one not confidential? Why was that one confidential? It raises a lot of questions, and I hope the answers aren't what they appear to be. Those are my thoughts on that.

I will also make the suggestion, Madam Chair, that maybe a wise way.... You talk about trying to go through these recommendations from the perspective of finding ways to adopt them. The problem is that they're on various different places on the map. A good starting point might be for each of us, whether it be as individual members or as one person from each of the parties, to give some indication of where we're hoping to end up at the end of the day. That might actually help us get some sense of how to deal with these various recommendations, rather than just shooting all over the map on things. It might be better for each party or each individual to give some sense of where they're hoping to end up at the end of the day. That would probably be a very good starting point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I definitely hear you. Both you and Ms. Blaney raised good points about the suggestions that have come from the Speaker. I think Mr. Alghabra also raised a good point: that the committee could decide to not look at that since most of our recommendations are already written and have been submitted since the weekend. We had a clear understanding—at least before any of these letters really got to us.... We had already created our recommendations from what we had heard from the witnesses. This was before the first letter that the Speaker sent and the second letter in which we were asked to submit our recommendations to the clerk so that they could be incorporated into the draft report. We could just work off that, really. What I intend to do today is to work from that.

I'm sure the committee members will probably start getting a better idea of where people want to be. I may be understanding this incorrectly, but I think the recommendations are slotted in a systematic way in the appropriate sections. For some, we can debate which section they should be in. I think, from being able to read through myself.... When I read through the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberal and the CPC recommendations, it gave me a better idea of where the different parties were—just by doing that alone.

I may not be understanding you, Mr. Richards, as to why there is no understanding of what the wishes of the different parties and the different members are.

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

You may view it somewhat differently than I do.

I've looked through the recommendations. I think I have a reasonable sense, maybe, of the other opposition parties and where they might be. I'm not as clear on where the government is, per se. A lot of the recommendations that I'm seeing from the government side are more along the lines of what we would do going forward and those kinds of things. We're not really here to talk about that. I'm really quite unclear on where the government hopes to end up. It would be really good to get some clarity on that, because it would help us determine how we might be able to work together on common ground. If we don't know that, then it's hard to do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's fair.

I'm going to take just the hands that are raised at this point, and then we will start with the recommendations. As we go through the recommendations, I think that clarification can be provided by whomever is speaking about the recommendation. They can let you know. I'm sure there are going to be some amendments along the way, in order to make sure we are talking about what is at hand and that it's clear in each recommendation what we want to look at in the future and what we want to adopt now.

Mr. Brassard, you're next, and then Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Turnbull. After that, we'll begin on the recommendations.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As I look at these recommendations, and I think I expressed this concern yesterday, the generalized sense of what these recommendations look like is that many of them are forward looking, perhaps beyond what the mandate of the committee is with respect to this study. I went through it again and I want to make this clear. It is important that we all get a sense of what we would like to see in this, and those recommendations are disjointed, in my view.

I go back to the original motion that was put before the House, the House order on April 11. It is:

(m) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the temporary modification of certain procedures, sittings in alternate locations and technological solutions including a virtual Parliament, provided that (i) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the provisions applying to committees enumerated in paragraph (l) shall also apply to the committee, however, the committee may consider motions related to the adoption of a draft report in relation to this topic, (ii) the committee be instructed to present a report no later than May 15, 2020, (iii) any report which is adopted pursuant to subparagraph (ii) may be deposited electronically with the Clerk of the House, and shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House on that date;

The rest of the motion talks about receiving evidence.

From my standpoint right now, we need to look at this on a macro level. Many of these recommendations look beyond what our mandate is. Given the time to study this properly, we can push this off to study further a little later on.

What we're dealing with right now are recommendations on the current crisis. Of course, we've seen evidence, even when we first started this study on April 16, that things are starting to change significantly right across the country. There are legislatures, as we know, that are opening up. Businesses have been opened. There are several more businesses that are opening. People are working. I think that, at a minimum, what we need to do today, as we go forward with these recommendations, is to set and be the example of what is happening and what is reflective across this country.

It doesn't necessarily mean the fact that all 338 of us are going to come back, but I think the basis of our recommendations needs to reflect how Parliament is going to function, function as we're used to, whether or not that's a hybrid model of Parliament. We have to get back to some sense of normalcy where there is a level of accountability that occurs. The place to make that happen is in the House of Commons, but there are options available to us. As we narrow down these recommendations, we really need to focus on how we're going to function properly.

As the House sits now, it's adjourned, but obviously, May 25 is coming up, when the House is expected to reconvene. That should be our sole focus. Any talk about the future of Parliament, changing the Standing Orders and all of that stuff, we can deal with at a later date. The basis of this motion is in relation to the COVID-19 crisis. I think all of us can agree that has evolved greatly over the course of the last couple of months. We're in a position right now where we, as leaders in this country, should be making recommendations to Parliament that we get back to a sense of normalcy.

I'm not talking about full normalcy in terms of Parliament, but some sense of normalcy to show that leadership and to make sure that Parliament is functioning and that it's functioning well, and that there is a level of accountability that exists. I think that is well within our mandate. Looking beyond to the future, as many of these recommendations do, we can do later.

Right now, let's stick to what we are mandated to do and make sure that we come out of this with recommendations to Parliament that will allow us to function.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for that.

Madam Petitpas Taylor.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'll be very brief as well. I simply want to make a point of clarification for the record.

Mr. Richards indicated in his statement that the letter that was provided by the Speaker indicated that the administration had consulted with 30 members of Parliament or cabinet per se.

I want to quote the paragraph in that letter. It states:

The Administration consulted with more than 30 parliaments and collaborated closely with several who share similar requirements....

Then it continues on from there.

It's very important, for the record, for Canadians to know that the consultation was done with international parliaments as opposed to parliamentarians here in Canada.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

As just a brief comment here, I appreciated Ms. Blaney's comments stressing the importance of collaboration. I really think if we have this broader discussion, as Mr. Brassard and Mr. Richards are suggesting we have, we'll get hung up in a broader debate rather than focusing specifically on the task at hand, which is clearly to finish this report.

All the parties have put forward their best foot in terms of providing specific recommendations based on the testimony, and I see a lot of alignment in most of those recommendations. They're specific. From my perspective, most of them are actually focused on what we were tasked to do. They're forward looking, of course, as I think it would be not as useful to only look backwards at this time. We're really talking about how Parliament can continue to function at a time such as this, which is forward looking.

Therefore, we need to push forward and really focus on what we're here to do, which is to find a way forward on finalizing these recommendations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Normandin, go ahead.

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

I will also be brief.

I don't think it is pointless to make a few projections, especially since testimony has come from other parliaments that already had certain rules established to make it possible to hold a virtual vote or a virtual Parliament. Had our procedural rules included those kinds of provisions, we would have proceeded more quickly.

Considering that we have indirectly discussed amending our procedural rules to make it possible for Parliament to operate virtually, I don't think it would be pointless to make recommendations, so that we could later adopt a parallel set of procedural rules. I think that is indirectly part of our mandate. We would have been more prepared to operate had our procedural rules provided for the holding of a virtual Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

I think this was good. It was a good discussion to get us started, and it probably gives us all a frame of thought in which to discuss these recommendations. Therefore, I'm hoping that the members will be able to provide clarity when we go through the recommendations so that it satisfies some of these concerns that have been mentioned.

We're going to start with “LIB 1”. I want to get a bit of feedback. I'm going to see if we have consensus on this, and then we might have to move to a vote if I can't get a clear picture of whether the committee would like to adopt this recommendation.

Is there any discussion on LIB 1?

Ms. Blaney.

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

Thank you.

I personally think LIB 1, BQ 10 and NDP 2 should be somehow put together.

Also, the better spot for this would actually be in section B, on page 47 of the document I'm working from, about future work. One of the things that I feel is very important from the NDP recommendation is the agreement of all recognized parties. That's an important part for me.