Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

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

Madam Chair, speaking to this point, I agree with Ms. Blaney on the fully virtual side of things, but I do think, if we're going to speak about an incremental approach on this, the hybrid model is one that not only can we be comfortable in recommending, but clearly the House administration, including the Speaker, indicated that the hybrid model will work.

We've seen it in other jurisdictions, other parliaments and the Westminster Parliament, which I would argue is the mother of all parliaments, and if it's the mother of all parliaments, then we are a child of that parliament. If it's good enough for the Westminster system, then it should be good enough for us.

Furthermore, I would suggest to you as well that we've heard, particularly from Ms. Blaney and Ms. Petitpas Taylor, about their concern about coming to Ottawa. It would alleviate some of that concern and provide a more regionalized approach and an opportunity for members to engage in a hybrid Parliament, including those who would prefer to come to Parliament. Of course the whips would determine that, but I think it would provide the opportunity and the inclusivity that everyone spoke about during the testimony and expressed concern about as well, and that might be where we need to go on this as a recommendation.

I agree with Mr. Richards that this would be a very incremental, if you will, approach. It would be a very practical approach, given the Speaker's and the Clerk's correspondence to us—and I don't think I'm speaking out of turn; I'm not sure whether that was confidential or not—but if the House is adjourned at this point and is scheduled to come back on May 25, this could set a direction on the part of the leaders of all parties to work towards, implement and implement in a good way, in a very practical way, which would satisfy all members of Parliament, I would suspect.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard and Ms. Blaney.

Next is Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just wanted to participate in this debate.

I think the intentions of this recommendation were to acknowledge the significant public health risk that's before us, but also to anticipate the potential need for additional capacity around a fully functioning virtual Parliament if there is a second or third wave of this pandemic in the future.

Also, I think the wording is intentional in terms of undertaking the necessary steps to expand the House's capacity. It is reflective of an incremental approach. It doesn't preclude us from slowly implementing and evaluating every step of the way. To be fair, we included the realization, given the limited capacity that we know the House has at the moment, to say that the hybrid model in the interim would really be something we value and can serve the purpose for the time being.

However, why not develop the capacity for Parliament to operate virtually, especially knowing that there may be second and third waves of this pandemic? We don't want to put people's health at risk by calling them back too early, or, in cases where we do call them back and there's a surge, we may be suspending, and we may find ourselves back in the same situation.

Therefore, instead of repeating the past, we would be thinking ahead and being proactive and progressive about developing that capacity now, which I think is a positive, progressive way to look at this current issue.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madam Normandin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I also think the way the proposal is written means that there is no result-based obligation, but that can be introduced gradually. We are leaning toward that objective, contrary to the proposal made by the Conservatives a bit earlier. I don't see the irony because the Conservative proposal contained a result-based obligation. We want to make all the committees operate as in normal times without any problems, but we have not discussed the issue of committees. No experts have spoken about committees when we considered the matter, but experts have talked about the possibility of having virtual parliamentary sittings and about that approach having worked in the past.

In this context, I am comfortable with the proposal as drafted. I don't see any obstacles to this being done gradually, and it has an objective. There is no result-based obligation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I want to comment on Ms. Blaney's comments and others I've heard.

The fundamental aspect of a virtual Parliament, which we just passed as a committee, is making sure that we prepare a set of standing orders for a virtual Parliament.

This second recommendation just asks the House administration to make sure that we have the capacity. We heard about Internet issues, headsets, and all that type of stuff. This recommendation asks that the House be ready in its capacity and operations to meet what we said in recommendation one. It is not a requirement that the House move to recommendation one. It asks that the House prepare itself for the time when we as members of Parliament choose to implement recommendation one.

I wanted to make sure that clarification was added because recommendation one only talks about the standing orders. It doesn't talk about the hardware, the software, and the preparation that needs to take place in order for us to get there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

While you're still here, Mr. Alghabra, are you okay with Ms. Petitpas Taylor adding “in the event of extraordinary circumstances”?

There was also a suggestion made by Mr. Richards about removing “virtual Parliament” and leaving it at “hybrid Parliament” only. Are you okay with those?

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

I'm okay with Ms. Petitpas Taylor's suggestion. I agree that we should maybe clarify when that is needed.

Mr. Richards' suggestion makes the whole recommendation null, so no, I'm not okay with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Right now, we're discussing the amended version of LIB 2, which includes the language “in the event of extraordinary circumstances”.

Mr. Duncan, you had a comment to make.

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

Madam Chair, again, while I appreciate the amendments by Ms. Petitpas Taylor in an effort to get a compromise, I'll just go back to the idea “with the possibility of employing a hybrid model in the interim”. I'm hoping to have a discussion here to hear from government members and others that the hybrid model should be the foundation of what we're doing, and as we build that capacity it's done from the hybrid model out.

To Mr. Turnbull's and Mr. Alghabra's point, heaven forbid we have a second or a third wave. I hope we don't, but I fully agree with you that it might go up and down. Recommendations from provinces and regions about physical attendance may go up and may go down, and some travel may be restricted at times. It's the hybrid model that can be the foundation, not in the interim, but the foundation of everything. As we need to go up and down, we're using the chamber as our basis for everything.

My concern with this is the tone we're setting is saying, “Well, the hybrid is interim and it will go away when virtual is at full capacity.” I don't agree with that. If it's not the case that we support hybrid, I think we need to be clearer that hybrid can be the foundation, and go back and forth on that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Maybe Mr. Alghabra has a suggestion there.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Yes.

Mr. Duncan, the foundation is not actually a hybrid. The foundation is the real traditional model of Parliament. We are talking about extraordinary circumstances.

All this recommendation is saying is that we call on the House administration to prepare its capacity. It doesn't talk about the implementation. It doesn't talk about when we should go to hybrid and when we should go to virtual. It just recommends to the House of Commons administration to prepare its infrastructure to be ready. Maybe we'll never need it, but if we come to a point where we need it, we don't want the physical infrastructure to be the obstacle to get us there.

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

Madam Chair—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I support Mr. Alghabra's comments. I think that helps. The public health advice that we've heard is that having people in the same physical space obviously, no matter what, poses more risk than having people come together virtually. I think the idea here is to develop that capacity ahead of when we'll actually need it so that we don't run into a circumstance where we don't have that capacity and therefore would not be able to operate virtually.

Maybe we do see it differently from you, Mr. Duncan, but I agree with Mr. Alghabra's point that the physical space of the House of Commons is the foundation of all of the proceedings of the House. I recognize the validity of what you're saying and the perspective you're bringing to this. I think we just see it a little bit differently.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Turnbull.

I'm having a bit of a problem with my participants list. Madam Normandin, were you trying to make a comment as well?

Go ahead.

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

If we just removed the words “in the interim”, would that resolve the issue?

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

At first glance, I think that's certainly something that can get us there that way.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Did everyone hear me when I read that out? No? Okay.

I'll read that out again.

It will read, “Undertake necessary steps to expand the House's capacity and operations to achieve a fully virtual Parliament, with the possibility of employing a hybrid model in the event of extraordinary circumstances.”

Do we have agreement to adopt this recommendation?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

There seems to be general agreement to adopt this recommendation.

Andre, do you have a question?

[Andre Barnes]

Could I please make a quick comment?

I would just say, for consistency, in recommendation one the language was “exceptional” as opposed to “extraordinary”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I agree that we should be consistent.

Thanks for catching that, Andre.

It looks as though everyone agrees as well.

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

I don't agree, but....