Evidence of meeting #17 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 43rd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was recommendation.
A recording is available from Parliament.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I think the best way is for the House to adopt extraordinary measures and for the House to adopt a decision to declare that the extraordinary circumstances have passed. There's nothing more transparent than a public vote.
I understand where Ms. Blaney is coming from, and I really want to see us achieve all-party agreement, but I think all-party agreement could imply agreements behind the scenes. A public vote will hold every member of Parliament accountable to their constituents on how they voted to adopt those extraordinary measures or how they voted against the adoption of extraordinary measures. It empowers the House of Commons. It empowers all MPs to vote for it, instead of the leadership of the parties.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Is that a proposal for further amendment to the amendment that was proposed? I guess that would be....
After this, we'll hear from Mr. Duncan.
Ryan, would you be able to read out your amalgamated recommendation that comes from the ideas in LIB 1, BQ 10 and NDP 2? Then, I don't know if you consider this to be a friendly addition to that or a modification to it.
3:50 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
I do. Yes, I would.
Maybe after we hear from Mr. Duncan.... I'm interested to hear what he has to say, as always.
3:50 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull and Madam Chair.
I hate to belabour the point. This is me as a newbie rookie here, and I apologize. This is an observation.
I know Mr. Richards and Mr. Brassard were talking about the high-level discussion. We're talking about the Standing Orders right now, but for me, reading this over, with our wanting to get the collaboration and get as much consensus as we can, I'm having some concerns or some questions about virtual Parliament. What is it exactly? It is 100% virtual. Is there a hybrid? I think there is some merit in having a discussion of how we can go back and forth on that a little. I think it's a good compromise. Just as we're going through, we don't deal with the hybrid model until later at the end.
I know we're trying to get done by six o'clock, and I'll wrap this up. I just think there are some things where, to me, changing the Standing Orders, knowing that's the direction we're going in, there is some balance to that. There are some safety measures, of course, that are in that. I think it balances the members, like Ms. Blaney and Ms. Petitpas Taylor, who very appropriately talk about their struggles in the current context of being able to get back to Ottawa. For those in a small number, whatever is deemed safe by the appropriate health and safety part of the House administration....
I just think these high-level conversations might actually expedite a conclusion to a lot of these things. If that's a no-go and that's an area where the majority don't want to go, okay, but I really think that could actually help make our report better, give some recommendations and build on them. I have several reasons as to why I think in the short term and in the long term a hybrid option is good to getting us back safely, at some point down the road, to our regular times, whenever that may be.
I'll just leave it at that. As we go through that bit by bit, we're going to have this trouble, I think. I'm struggling with it, frankly.
Thank you.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Omar Alghabra Liberal Mississauga Centre, ON
I want to comment on Mr. Duncan's point. I'm not going to quibble with the order of recommendations because that may make sense if we start.
The intent here is to recommend that the House of Commons prepare itself to be able to conduct its business fully virtually under emergency circumstances, and then it recommends that in the meantime it does the hybrid model. It doesn't necessarily mean that maybe we will never use a fully virtual Parliament, but what it means is that if we one day come to that point, we need the House of Commons to be prepared. It doesn't recommend when we must use it fully virtually. It doesn't say today or tomorrow. It just recommends that today, in the meantime, another recommendation is the hybrid model. It says we ask the administration to prepare itself for being fully virtual one day when the House decides we need to go fully virtual.
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
I think you're referencing LIB 2 there, so the difference between the first section.... Yes, we can decide to put this at the end, on page 48 or 49, where the analyst also has it and Ms. Blaney has suggested.
Mr. Turnbull, are you able to package this all up, everything that's been discussed, in one recommendation?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
To Ms. Alghabra's point, and in response to Mr. Duncan, I really do feel that the hybrid model is a great interim solution, but developing capacity for a fully virtual Parliament is what most of us want to recommend.
I've reworded the initial suggestion that I put forward. I think there is a friendly amendment here that's emerging, and I appreciate all the input and all the really good questions. Do you want me to read that out now so we can get that on the record?
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
Ryan Turnbull Liberal Whitby, ON
Will do.
One thing I wanted to also mention before I read it out is that the Standing Orders don't necessarily require unanimous consent, I believe. I think it's a majority vote that can change the Standing Orders. I just want to put that in context.
Here is what I would propose: “That the House establish an alternative set of standing orders which enables the implementation of a virtual Parliament so that the House can continue with its business in the event of a crisis or exceptional circumstance such as those arising from the current pandemic. The committee further recommends these modified standing orders only come into force and be rescinded by a majority vote in the House of Commons.”
3:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Some hands have gone up, but I was going to say, perhaps now we could get a sense of who is in support of this recommendation. It would be one of the recommendations either in this section or at the end, and we have a couple more to go through, CPC 2 and NDP 1, which weren't amalgamated into this.
Mr. Alghabra, did you put your hand up again? Okay, it was from before.
We'll go to Mr. Duncan, and then Mr. Richards.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Eric Duncan Conservative Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON
Madam Chair, I've been a head of council and mayor before and I feel as though I'm one of those really annoying councillors who goes off topic when there is an amendment, so in good faith I will hold and just continue the conversation on the virtual Parliament. We'll deal with the amendment specifically and then maybe have that conversation about the theme of the report, which I have some comments on in terms of a constructive way forward.
I'll stop there. We'll deal with this, and I'll put my hand back up when this one is dealt with.
4 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
We'll all be interested to hear it. Any advice can be helpful.
Mr. Richards.
4 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I wouldn't go so far as to say I have “grave concerns” about this amendment, but as I've already indicated, I'm not a fan of the recommendation to begin with. Mainly I'm not a fan of the recommendation because I still strongly feel that it's outside the scope of our report. When you are looking at future situations, it should not be done in the context of dealing with the current situation.
I won't belabour that. I won't reiterate all of it any more than to say that.
The amendment is a very dangerous place to be going. I can understand and appreciate from Mr. Turnbull's perspective why he might not share those concerns, but I will just lay it out. The way it works, right now, we are in a minority Parliament. I've had the benefit, if you want to call it that, of having served in all four different ways you can serve in Parliament. I've served in a government minority. I've served in a government that was a majority. I've served in an opposition that was opposed to a majority, and I'm now serving in a minority Parliament as an opposition member. Therefore, I've seen all the different ways that a parliament can function.
One can understand in a minority Parliament, which is obviously the only experience Mr. Turnbull has had, why potentially there isn't as much concern about the type of motion he just made in terms of this amendment, but I've served on both sides of a majority, and a majority that was certainly accused by members of Mr. Turnbull's party and others, and I know if he spoke to some of his members who served during that time period, they would probably say they would have been horrified to imagine the government having the power to do this.
I had the benefit or the experience of serving in opposition to the current Prime Minister and saw a number of things that I was quite concerned about in terms of the behaviours of the Prime Minister looking to gain extra powers for himself to avoid accountability. For that reason, I would be horrified to imagine his having the powers of a majority vote, if he had a majority government once again, to invoke something such as this. We should all consider, wherever we sit right now, whether we are government or opposition, or what type of experience we've had as members of Parliament, that this type of thing can be incredibly dangerous.
I don't want to risk seeming like a conspiracy theorist in any way, but these kinds of things, these kinds of powers to declare these kinds of situations without having to have other parties in agreement, are what lead to democracies being eroded to the point where they are no longer democracies. I won't get into grand examples of that happening in the past, but certainly there are examples. We should all be incredibly cautious and incredibly reluctant to go down this very dangerous road.
I expressed my opposition to the initial recommendation that was being made here on the fly. However, should the majority of the committee want to go there, that's obviously what we will do. This one is so incredibly dangerous that, let's put it this way, I would be prepared to speak in opposition to this for as long as I have to, to convince others that this is a very dangerous road, if that's what is required. It is incredibly dangerous.
On the main recommendation itself without this amendment, I am still opposed because I think it's a mistake. However, I would not feel the need to go down that path in order to prevent it.
It is so important that we protect our democracy that I would be prepared to go to any length to prevent this from happening.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
You definitely have a lot of experience, Mr. Richards. Even though we've had our tiffs, it has been an honour to serve alongside you, at least in two Parliaments so far.
At the end, you said—and I'm just trying to clarify before we move on to Ms. Blaney, who I think could help out here—you are still opposed to the original, the original being LIB 1, I'm assuming. However, you are not as opposed to that. This, you think, is a lot more problematic, the new version.
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
To clarify, what I was referring to is the motion that we're debating now, I guess, that was made on the floor by Mr. Turnbull. Then he, of course, made a suggestion to amend his own motion, and the amendment is to allow something to be done by a majority vote, rather than by all parties being in agreement on [Technical difficulty—Editor] measure. That is what I was referring to as being incredibly dangerous.
I still disagree with his main motion, but although my objections are there, the main motion is not one that I would go to any length to protect democracy from. If that's the will of the committee and I just happen to be in opposition to the majority of the committee, that's where dissenting reports are an option.
On something fundamental that could actually lead to the very erosion of our democracy, like what Mr. Turnbull has suggested now with this amendment, I will go to any lengths to prevent that from happening.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Sorry. I think I added more time on there. I'm trying to get through this. I think if we—
4:05 p.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I am too. I just wanted to point out that this is how strongly I feel about this one.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
Yes, and I wanted clarity as to what you had said so that we all understand.
Ms. Blaney, you are next.
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Just to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with the vote. I want to see all parties working together. I think this is absolutely imperative, and we've demonstrated the capacity to do that over the last couple of months. I agree with Mr. Richards. If you're in a majority government, it really gives away all the power to the governing party, and it does not acknowledge the members of our country who have voted for other parties.
Also, I just want to reiterate that I still think this should be moved further along in the report under “B. Future work”. I'm just offering that as another moment of consideration as it could move it a little further down and allow us to take some time to contemplate it and work on some of the other recommendations.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
My understanding of that was that this was probably not going to be as contentious an issue, and that after having adopted, rejected or amended them, we could have the analyst just move them further along.
I think we've made a lot of headway here. I'd hate to now pass by this without either going to a vote or getting an understanding of where we all are on this. I think we're too far in now to really leave it. That's just my feeling right now. I'd hate all this to go for...and then we forget later on what we discussed.
To clarify, the original amendment that Mr. Turnbull made with regard to all-party agreement, would you be in support of that, Ms. Blaney, that amalgamated suggestion? Is it just the majority vote that you're opposed to?
4:05 p.m.
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
The majority vote I am very against. As for the rest of it, I think I would support it. I still don't have all of the language. I tried to write it down. I know that other people are faster writers than I, so I did my best. I think that I support it, and the intention of it I support 100%, but I want to see the exact wording.
4:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Ruby Sahota
That's excellent. That gives us a better understanding.
Mr. Alghabra, can you help with that? I was going to go to Mr. Turnbull to see if.... I want to get a sense of whether there was a friendly amendment made to the new recommendation, whether you're willing to go back to the amalgamated recommendation that was made, or whether you want to keep it at a majority vote. Then, also, if we could get the clear language for Ms. Blaney again....