Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 2nd, 2020

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, I want to thank our witnesses for taking the time to answer our questions. It's always enlightening to hear from them. We greatly appreciate their contributions.

I have a question that would help shed light on Ms. Petitpas Taylor's question. Currently, in the Special Committee on the COVID-19 Pandemic, we find that we're somewhat limited with respect to question period, while Parliament's role is much broader than this.

If we wanted to start adding certain tasks tomorrow morning, for example, in practical terms, would anything prevent us from tabling unanimous consent motions? In the short term, could this be done with our current tools?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

According to the study conducted so far, the technology is in place. The technology isn't an issue. However, the House must decide what it wants to do.

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

The House must decide how to proceed with the vote on the motion. Is that right?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

The House must make decisions about everything that happens in the House. If the House were to decide tomorrow to allow the votes, it would be possible.

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

So, the tools are in place.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Exactly.

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

Perfect.

I have another question about the 15-minute or 30-minute bell. If we decide to proceed with remote voting, do you already have some technology options? For example, we could receive telephone alerts that are similar to weather alerts. Also, in the event of a fire, we often receive an alert on our computer. However, I've noticed that the alert is often only in English.

Has this been taken into consideration? Is the technology already in place for this?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

The software exists. When there's a vote, a notification is sent to all members. Mr. Aubé could talk about this in more detail when the committee meets in camera later, unless he wants to talk about it now. The notification will be sent to all members and they'll be able to vote, from what I've seen. However, the House must decide how this will work.

Right now, a bell rings to summon the members. Instead, the software would send a signal to the members, who would have 15, 20 or 30 minutes to vote. They would vote while the bell is ringing, whereas now they vote when they return to the House. Of course, this scenario applies to electronic voting. For a recorded division, the scenario would be a little different. The House must decide which approach it feels comfortable with.

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

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Gagnon and it concerns the procedure.

I gather that, if we want to implement procedural rules, they must be timeless, because technology will surely evolve much faster than the rules themselves. We must find a balance.

In terms of the approach, should the technology tool be specified in the rules of procedure or should we instead give ourselves a set of criteria that the technology tool must meet? Which approach would be the most useful in the future?

[André Gagnon, Deputy Clerk, Procedure]

Good morning, Ms. Normandin.

Thank you for your question.

The second option seems to be the option that the Speaker referred to in his presentation. The best example is when a member wants to rise on a point of order. In the recent virtual and hybrid proceedings, a reference was made to the fact that members could use the “raise hand” function. Conceivably, a year from now, this could be a new function provided by new technology. Getting into these details certainly wouldn't be helpful to the House. You would be forced to amend the rules multiple times simply based on the availability of the technology.

Mr. Speaker was referring to an aspect where, once a general motion has been adopted, the Speaker could specify the terms of application and adapt them to the current reality.

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

Thank you.

When we decide to implement the hybrid Parliament or electronic voting, should the House's procedures already set out the way in which the parties will need to agree on whether to accept the electronic tool suggested by the House?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

The House must decide what it wants to do. These details will be established based on the recommendations of this committee. When the recommendations will be made to the House, the House must make a decision on the parameters. The Speaker and the administration must implement the House's decisions to ensure that the House runs properly.

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

I want some clarification on this before my time runs out.

When the House introduces a tool, should the rules of procedure already state whether it must be accepted unanimously or by a majority vote?

Should we establish a procedure for this type of technology tool, or should we have a free hand?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I can—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time we have, unfortunately. We're over time. Perhaps you can save that answer and fit it in somewhere else.

Next up is Ms. Blaney.

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

Hello, everyone. It's very nice to be with you all today and, of course, it's always lovely to see you, Chair.

The first question I have is around the Standing Orders. From what you just told us, basically there's a list of standing orders that the Clerk's office has looked at. It sounds like there's a bit of discussion about whether we should review all of those standing orders or move one standing order change that would allow the Chair to oversee that.

A request to see what standing orders would need to be modified was in our last report. I think I would still like that to come before the committee. I think that's a pretty significant question to review.

As I look through this process, one of the things I feel strongly about is that there should be an incremental approach where we evaluate what we're doing, see how it's working, and then have a process. You spoke in your report about consultations with the House leaders, but I think we need a more formal process.

Will you make sure to table with this committee all the standing orders that should be at least understood to be reviewed? If we're going to be making a recommendation on what we should do with that, we would need to know that.

The second part is how we would look at an incremental approach that would allow parties to have a review process and have that very important feedback come back to the House.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Most definitely. I have spoken with the Clerk and his staff. They have gone through it and gone through the different standing orders. They do have a list and some suggestions for the committee on what could be changed and how we could do it.

Very basically, we continue business as usual but done a little bit differently. It's making sure that how we do it a bit differently in a virtual manner, in a hybrid manner, is acceptable to all the parties and, more importantly, to all the members. We do not want to infringe on anyone's privilege.

The incremental approach is something we've been slowly doing, because we've added a little bit more and a little bit more as we've gone along. Again, it will be up to the committee what they want to recommend and up to the House on how quickly they want to make that incremental increase of use of whatever changes they want. Any change will be incremental, and that's basically what it comes down to, I would think. Again, this is something that the House has to decide as a whole, and they will adopt it as they see fit.

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

I really believe strongly that we need that evaluation process that allows all recognized parties to have a voice at the table. This is an important part of looking at our democracy.

I also think there's another thing we have to look at, which is the change of our workplace. Although we are still doing the work the best we can, and this is why we're here to study how we can do the work in the House of Commons, I just want to recognize.... You talked earlier about connectivity. Predictability matters. If I was in a different part of my riding for an emergency situation, I would not necessarily know that there was going to be a vote. I wouldn't be able to access that information. I think that is important.

The other reality is we have parenting happening. What I mean by that is there are MPs who are home-schooling their children as well as doing their parliamentary functions. If they were in Ottawa in the House, they certainly wouldn't be doing that. I think when we look at certain things like bells and some of these other standing orders, we have to recognize that.

I want to make sure there will be a process of evaluating some of these key changes. It isn't business as usual for so many of our parliamentarians, and I think we have to find a way to recognize that. That's just one of the things that I had a bit of a rant about there.

The other part I want to know about, Mr. Chair, is around connectivity and what happens "if". During a COVI committee, what is the process if somebody gets pushed off? I mean this to reflect the fact that, if we want to do something in the House, there are numbers that are required for certain things. Five people have to stand to force a vote. There are all these different functions. If somebody is knocked off, I'm wondering what the process is and whether we've done an evaluation of how often that is happening, both in committees and the COVI committee as well.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

We can get you some statistics on that, but overall it's been very good. Once someone is connected, we do get the odd one who misses out; but if someone gets knocked off, say, during something crucial like a vote or during discussion, the process of getting back on usually works out fairly well. That's something they'll have to work out among themselves and make sure.

The important thing is that the individual members get to the best possible locations. I know that you, Ms. Blaney, have a rural portion to your riding, as do I, so I understand cellphones not working or dead spots and I understand what no Internet connectivity is all about. Overall, the votes are usually brought forward in a way that people would have a good idea when they would be happening. It's making sure they are in a place where they will have connectivity. It is a lot like, say, if members are coming to the House to vote and there's a snowstorm and they can't make that last mile or can't come in. It's very similar to being in a place where they can't get connected. That's something to consider. Again, we would have to look at different cases or different possibilities for that happening.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time we have.

Next up, for five minutes.... Is it Mr. Nater again? I think I have the order a little messed up. Who would like to go for the Conservatives?

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

I think it's me, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely, go ahead.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for being here.

On April 23, 2013, the all-wise, intelligent Speaker Scheer had a great ruling about the rights of members in terms of the process of seeking recognition. I wonder, just as we think about the process of seeking recognition, whether you agree with Speaker Scheer's ruling from 2013, and whether you are guided by it when deciding how to recognize members.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I have the note here. It's the Warawa ruling.

Most definitely. It is the right of every member to be recognized, and one thing that really concerned me up front was member's privilege and making sure that they have the right to be in the House. That was one of the concerns I had with the U.K. system, where not everyone was participating at the same time or on the same level. I think we've overcome a lot of that, where, with the system that we've developed as far as hybrid goes, those members in the House and those members participating virtually can come together in a place and actually have an equal voice.

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

Yes, but just to pinpoint, the issue is not so much the question of presence in that ruling; it's about the right to speak, and in particular the fact that the right to speak is not dependent on presence on a party list. I'll just quote what I think is the key line. He says, “The right to seek the floor at any time is the right of each individual member of Parliament and is not dependent on any other member of Parliament.”

Being guided by this ruling, Speaker, how would you ensure that principle would be respected in a virtual Parliament, that I, as a member participating online, would have the right to seek the floor, to seek the Speaker's eye, and that my right to do that should be equal to that of a member who is in the chamber, whether he is on the list or I am?