Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I think there is a reasonable amount of confusion about what we're discussing now, given the various versions of the recommendations that we've discussed.

I just want to comment on the issue of threat to democracy in majority government. Majority governments or any other Parliament conduct their business always with a vote. The state of emergency in the province of Ontario, my province, was adopted by a vote. It did not require all recognized and unrecognized parties to talk behind the scenes to agree about their opinions. In my opinion, a state of a emergency is much more invasive and it suspends democracy a lot more than what a standing order does and doesn't do. We can pass in various provinces, and maybe perhaps the same way at the federal level, the declaration of a state of emergency through a vote of the various legislatures. Therefore, I'm confused as to how that is much less invasive or a risk to democracy than adopting a set of standing orders that enables Parliament to do its job in various approaches.

I want to remind everybody that we're talking here about extraordinary circumstances, just like a circumstance in which provinces have decided to use a state of emergency. We don't see provinces, day in and day out, declare a state of emergency and use their majority to abuse their power. That's not what happens. In fact, Parliament and MPs, MLAs and MNAs are held accountable to their constituents. They know they couldn't do something unreasonable such as that, and we all work in that context.

I'm just confused by all this hyperbole I'm hearing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

At this point, Mr. Brassard has a comment too. I'll see if Mr. Brassard gives me permission to move it in this direction, but I was hoping we could get the final wording one more time, perhaps move to a vote on this recommendation, and then move past what the first recommendation would be.

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

Madam Chair, on a point of order, there is a speakers list on this item.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I'm going to move on to the speakers list. That is what I was saying. I just want to throw the thought out there that, after dealing with the speakers, I would like to move in this direction if possible, if allowed by the members of the committee. That's the statement I'm making right now.

If you allow me to, if Mr. Brassard, who is next on the speakers list, allows me to move in this direction, I will then ask Mr. Turnbull to read out the amended recommendation. This will be the first recommendation of the report, and then we'll move to that.

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

On that, I'll make it really clear right now. Don't have any plans for a vote if Mr. Turnbull refuses to pull this amendment, the second amendment that he has made, in terms of the majority vote. Don't make any plans for a vote. Buckle up, because we won't be having any vote today. I will not allow this to go forward if it looks in any way as though it's going to pass.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Brassard.

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

I'm really concerned about Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment with respect to the majority vote. I will tell you why. Effectively the problem with what he is proposing, and I want all the members to consider this, is that if in fact, under these extraordinary circumstances, a movement to a fully functioning virtual Parliament occurs, in the event of a majority government, whether it's Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Bloc, the majority government could by vote move Parliament into a chat room.

You think about that. You think about the impact that might have. I know Mr. Alghabra is laughing right now, but that's effectively what Mr. Turnbull's motion is proposing. That's not the way it should work. There has to be consensus.

The reverse of that is the concern I expressed before.

Listen, if there's any reason that needs to be determined as to why, when we're under the gun like this with a deadline of six o'clock today to come through this, when we're talking about things that should be talked about in future studies, this is a perfect example of it. With amendments on the fly and the impact that some of what's being proposed has on Parliament, on our democracy going forward, this is a perfect example of why the May 15 deadline, and certainly the six o'clock deadline tonight, are problematic.

I suggest as well that on the reverse of that, as I mentioned earlier, if one party agrees that we are not going to come out of this crisis and resume Parliament, that puts us in almost an equal position as we are in right now, where a majority government can propose that we end up moving into a virtual chat room.

I don't know how we're going to resolve this. Certainly Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment on this doesn't address what I think is a very valid concern of the potential abuse of Parliament by a majority government to move us into a virtual setting.

Quite frankly, I don't understand why, with respect to this recommendation, we would even be discussing it in the context of the current crisis. This is something that needs to be addressed and discussed later on in further studies.

Like Mr. Richards, who I know has a lot more experience around here than I do in terms of the way Parliament functions, I am frankly concerned about this amendment and the impact, as I said, for a majority government to simply put us into a chat room. That should be concerning to all members of Parliament, especially those on the committee here, on a going-forward basis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Would you rather the recommendation not refer to how to rescind at all, or rescinding should be done by a majority, but implementing the virtual Parliament should be done by all parties?

I'm just trying to understand whether we can approve things, to try to get more consensus, or at least not as much opposition to it. Is that what I'm hearing, that it's the rescind part that is also problematic, so maybe the rescinding could be removed?

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

I don't know how, frankly, we're going to land on an agreement given the fact that we're under the gun here on what constitutes an agreement, whether it's an all-party agreement or whether it's a majority vote. I don't know how we're going to land there in the context of what we're studying today. Maybe we need to move this particular part of the recommendation forward for a future study and then deal with it in the context of the COVID-19 crisis that we're dealing with today, Madam Chair.

I think we're almost putting the cart before the horse with respect to what a future Parliament might look like. We've talked about virtual Parliament before. What does a virtual Parliament look like? Well, we have a virtual Parliament as it exists today, but maybe a hybrid model or something to that effect is something that we should be talking about as opposed to.... Maybe that should be our recommendation. We're going to recommend to Parliament that we move to a hybrid model as opposed to dealing with a fully functioning virtual Parliament with extraordinary circumstances and trying to define that with our backs up against the wall, with a six o'clock deadline—an hour and forty minutes from now—with many relevant questions that need to be answered on this.

My concern is that we put forward a set of recommendations that really are not reflective of what we should be doing as this committee. That's where I'm at. I have a problem with many of these recommendations in that they're almost too forward-looking, given the context of what we were mandated to study right now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

This is causing me to want to be even more forward-looking and maybe take Ms. Blaney's suggestion to move past this. I don't know where we would be, because I feel as though if I turn the page, we're probably going to get stuck again on the first recommendation in the next section.

We will hear from Mr. Richards and then Madame Normandin.

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

Madam Chair, I'll start by saying that I think what we're experiencing right now is further proof that going down this path of trying to recommend things for future crises in the middle of a crisis, when our direction has simply been to figure out how to get through this current situation, with the short window of time we've been given to do it and, as Mr. Brassard says, when we are under the gun essentially, at this point, is a great mistake.

I think that's why these recommendations are a great mistake. Here we are, with an hour and forty minutes to try to finish recommendations about how to deal with the current situation and we're fighting over what we're going to do in some future situation that might arise instead of dealing with what we're supposed to be dealing with. I'm going to tell you that we could be here a long time, because I will never allow our democracy to be given away this way. That's what we're talking about here with this amendment Mr. Turnbull is proposing to his own recommendation. The bottom line here is that if all the other committee members, or at least all the other parties, feel that's where we're going to go, I guess that's where we're going to go, but I will not, I will never, allow our democracy to be taken away in such a fashion. That amendment is something that I cannot accept.

I may have a suggestion on that. I don't want to cede the floor because we may need to be here a while if there isn't going to be any resolution possible here. Can I start with two things? Is it possible to ask a question of a couple of other members? I would just like to, if I could, through you Madam Chair, while holding the floor, allow some time to Ms. Normandin—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

It's the Simms protocol that we used to use. I think it is. I think I would allow it in this circumstance because we seem to be stuck and it might move us forward.

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

I'm doing it in a way that strives to get us through this. Again, I think it's ill-advised to be going down this path but I sense that I'm in the minority on that, so I want to arrive at a way that we can move on to some of the things we need to be doing and the things we should be talking about.

Can I start by asking Madam Normandin what her feelings are on the proposal that a majority vote of Parliament would be enough to invoke emergency measures? Can I get her sense on whether she agrees or disagrees with that, first of all?

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The point of my remarks is exactly to discuss that.

For starters, we tend to slightly lose sight of the fact that we are discussing a set of procedural rules that will enable members to continue to do their work during a crisis.

I liked the parallel Mr. Alghabra established with emergency measures because I was going to do the same. This could be adopted by a majority government, and there is a political price to pay for doing it needlessly. In Quebec, oddly enough, we still remember this 50 years later.

Similarly, if we must operate unanimously, there is a political price to pay for creating obstacles to prevent a Parliament from being able to operate virtually during a crisis. Be it by a majority vote or unanimously, I am comfortable with the two proposals, as long as work is done to draft procedural rules for the future. In any case, that is what we will do indirectly for the time being.

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

Given that, I don't sense that there is enough opposition to defeat this necessarily. There may or may not be. There doesn't appear to be evidently that. I feel strongly enough about this, and I know there are others who feel this way as well. I just can't allow this to happen. I couldn't, in good conscience, go home and sleep tonight knowing that I may have given away our very democracy.

We'll be here a while, until the end of the meeting—I'll probably hold the floor—barring a successful conclusion to this. Let me maybe turn to Mr. Turnbull with a question.

First of all, could I just get him to read the last part, the second portion of his recommendation as he would have it be, both the initial version and his amended version? It's the part that goes “That the committee further recommends”.

Can he read the original version of that and the amendment he's proposing? I ask him that because I may have a suggestion.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's what I was going to ask because—

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

If he could read that first, then I would then make a suggestion to him. I'll see if I can get some agreement that he would be willing to consider it a friendly amendment. Then we can figure out where we're at.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely. I think that could help.

I'm not going to allow the Simms protocol throughout the whole session because we are limited on time. However, if this can help and can maybe perhaps move us forward, then go ahead.

Mr. Turnbull, would you like to answer that?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Sure. I'm more than happy to.

I'll read the last sentence as it originally was proposed, and then I will read the friendly amendment. It said, “The committee further recommends these modified standing orders only come into force and be rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties.” Then the friendly amendment replaces that last bit, so “at the agreement of all recognized parties” would be replaced with “by majority vote in the House of Commons.”

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

Thank you for that. I just needed to get the wording so I could try to figure out a way that I might be able to suggest something as a way out of this.

I've made my concerns quite clear. I don't believe that a majority vote of Parliament should be enough to create these kinds of emergency provisions. I know there were some other concerns that I hadn't considered myself, but I think they are valid concerns. They're about the possibility that, once these are in place, a governing party, or anyone else who felt they had enough ability to utilize these for their own benefit, could choose to keep them in place by not giving their agreement.

That is the weird situation we're in. I think there may be a way out of it. I'm trying to figure out how to word it, but first I'll explain what I'm trying to do so that I can get a sense if there's agreement. If there is, maybe we can come up with some wording.

Essentially, what I would be looking to do is to make a suggestion that we return to the initial suggestion that the modified standing orders could only come into force at the agreement of all recognized parties. I think what we would then be looking to do is to try to make it so that if one of those parties were to withdraw their consent at any point, or their agreement, then they would be rescinded through that.

Therefore, when all parties are in agreement, the measures could be put in place, and they would stay in place only as long as all parties agree. That would remove the ability for a majority in the House of Commons, or one party in the House of Commons that happened to have a majority, to either put these in place or refuse to remove them.

First, I hope that's clear. If it's clear, can I get some sense from people? I don't know if we can do a straw poll or something to get a sense of whether there is some agreement on the principle. I think I could probably come up with some wording if there is. The idea would be simply that only through all parties agreeing could these be put in place, and they would remain in place until one or more of the parties removes its agreement.

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

Madam Chair, may I ask a question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes. You know, I think we're making some progress—baby steps—so that might help.

Mr. Richards, would you be able to cede the floor so that Madam Normandin could ask you a question?

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

I won't cede the floor, but I will allow her to use some of my time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

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

I think the most important consideration is to vote on drafting a set of procedural rules. I know that this proposal can be taken into consideration separately from that relative to the method of applying that set of rules.

I was very comfortable with Ms. Blaney's proposal, but I would not want to be prevented from debating the drafting of a set of procedural rules. I was wondering whether it would be possible to first vote on the equivalent of what is proposed in LIB 1 and BQ 10—in other words, preparing a set of procedural rules and then voting on Ms. Blaney's proposal. I propose that this be done by unanimous consent and that, if the proposal is rejected, we be able to vote on using majority consent instead.