Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2020

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Will that be under those new standing orders?

[Siobhan Coady]

No, it will not be under the new standing orders as yet because we're still in deliberations, but we will be respectful, obviously. We've made modifications to our House of Assembly. Now that we're at alert level 3 instead of alert level 5, we're able to fit more people in and there is more movement. It's because of the lower alert level that we can bring more people into the assembly.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Right, but you still expect it to be some kind of a hybrid. It's just that you have not finalized—

[Siobhan Coady]

There will be adaptations.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Right, okay.

What about you, Mr. Farnworth? Have you done any business other than a COVID response?

[Mike Farnworth]

Our assessment is that we are going back on the 22nd. We'll be picking up where we left off when we adjourned on March 23.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Unfortunately, that's all the time we have.

Next up is Madame Normandin.

Welcome to Mr. Manly, who has joined us at committee. Elizabeth May oftentimes does join us, but unfortunately....

I hope you are aware that we are nearing the end of the committee meeting, and we have about five minutes left of witness testimony at this point, but welcome nonetheless.

[Paul Manly, Green, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have just one question for the witnesses.

I commend you on the level of co-operation you were able to achieve within your legislative assemblies. That's something that's been missing from our Parliament on occasion. In terms of the ingredients of your successful co-operation, would you say the opposition's lack of resistance to virtual proceedings and the government's openness to a broad parliamentary agenda with numerous checks and balances played a part? Is that fair to say?

[Mary Polak]

I'll answer.

Sure, I think that was essential. We were ready to do whatever we needed to, understanding that the gathering of the legislature was the primary goal. How we accomplished it was secondary.

[Mike Farnworth]

I would add to that.

I think it also comes with the relationships and the trust that you're able to build up. I think part of it has to do with having served in a government a number of years ago when there was virtually no trust between government and opposition, when one said “black” and the other said “white”, and nothing got accomplished. How destructive and debilitating that is. Mary has seen that as well.

We have tried, whether it's through this COVID pandemic or a regular system, to understand that both government and opposition have roles that are better served when the House actually functions, as opposed to its being unfunctional. I think that's been a big part of the relationship that we've had over time, both with Mary and with her predecessor.

[Siobhan Coady]

Very importantly, we all had a common goal.

The first common goal was that we were in the middle of the pandemic and that whatever special measures had to be met, we wanted to do so effectively in the House of Assembly and to meet the requirements of the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador.

Second, I think, was the coming together and making sure that we had an effective, functioning Parliament, taking aside the mantle of any kind of partisanship. How do we ensure that goal? How do we represent the people of the province? How do we advance legislation, and how do we address the pandemic in the most effective way possible? With that common goal, we worked out how to action it and how to function together to meet that common goal.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, please.

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

I'm going to come back to you, Ms. Polak.

You mentioned a couple of things that I want to hear some more about. You talked about participating in mock sessions and also about the ability to do debriefings with the clerk on what worked and what didn't.

As we're going through this, one of the things I've continually asked for is an incremental approach so that we have a place where we can do those checks and balances, and so there is actually a structure in place to ensure that it does occur and is not something that is just talked about.

I'm just wondering if you could speak to those two examples.

[Mary Polak]

It's a good example of “You don't know what you don't know.”

Until I had participated in the simulations, I really didn't understand some of the very small things that can have big consequences for how it operates. I think it's absolutely essential to have a full on run-through. We have the procession and all the different things that would ordinarily happen. We experiment with all of them, and then afterwards, members who have taken part can stay on the line. The clerk is there in the chamber with a microphone, and we talk through what worked, what didn't and what we could tweak. Then we try it again the next time. I think it's essential.

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

I think that's really important as well. In our House, the Clerk has done some great work on that, but representatives from different parties have not been there, and I think it's really important, as we take these steps, that we always include that process.

Minister Coady, I would like to come to you. You were talking about the work your special committee does. I'm wondering how you make decisions. Is it a unanimous system or do you have some other way of making decisions?

[Siobhan Coady]

To be quite honest, we haven't had to have a substantive vote, if I can say that. We've been trying to work through things collaboratively. We talk to each other and find the best means and mechanisms to move forward. It's basic collaboration. We haven't had a split vote or even a divisional vote. It's all driven by consensus. We're trying to be reasonable and co-operative to find the best means and mechanisms to meet the goal of resuming Parliament and utilizing some virtual means.

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

Thank you. Those are all my questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I guess that brings us to the end of this panel.

Thank you to all of the witnesses for being here today. It was quite interesting to learn about the methods that you're adopting to be able to represent your constituents, and especially about the collaboration that has been taking place among all of the parties in the different legislatures. Thank you for informing us and giving us your insights.

For the rest of the committee members, we have a couple of things to go over. One is the work plan that was put forward at our last committee meeting. I want to see if all of the members are okay with it. We've already had two of the meetings that are listed on it—June 2 and June 4. What we have left is the June 9 meeting, the international meeting. For this one there is a bit of an issue because we've had such a willingness on the part of the witnesses to come before the committee to make presentations. I think there's a lot that we will be able to learn, but we have about eight international witnesses and there's no way we can get all eight into one panel.

We're trying to work with the whips' offices to see if we can get an extra meeting tacked on. That would allow us to have interpretation and the witnesses in on that day.

Mr. Richards.

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

Madam Chair, unfortunately I wasn't able to be at the last meeting. I know there was some committee business then and we dealt with a bit of this. I have some concerns about the plan that came out of that, for sure. I know I'm not the only member who does.

We're rushing this very quickly. We are packing panels. As you've indicated, there's one with eight witnesses. I'm glad to see that this will be broken down further. We're packing some panels pretty darn tightly, and I fail to understand what the big rush is to do this by June 11, or whenever we want to finish having panels. I'm just not clear on why we need to rush this so quickly. Why wouldn't we take the time to get this right?

I want to make it clear that this is not an attempt to try to stall anything. Why are we rushing this so quickly, though? We're talking about some pretty significant change here. Why couldn't we take the time that's needed to hear from people?

I know that we've been given this June 23 date. Having said that, I'm not sure why we couldn't, as a committee, choose to extend beyond that date. Parliament wouldn't sit after that until mid-September, so I don't know why we feel the need to be so rushed. Maybe that was explained at the last meeting, but it is certainly unclear to me. I know it is to some others on the committee as well. Perhaps we could get some kind of response to that.

I think we need to slow down and hear from witnesses properly. Having eight witnesses on one panel is absolutely ridiculous. Even having four, five or six on a panel is. When you have an hour and a half, you don't get any time to hear from these people or ask them questions. I just don't get why we're in such a rush.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, I hear you, Mr. Richards. I think there's more feedback the committee would like to give. I'm willing to go in any direction the committee would like me to go.

Mr. Gerretsen, you had your hand up.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

The clerk did inform us at the last meeting, when Mr. Richards was not present, that we are required to return a report by the deadline given to us. If that report includes a comment that we perhaps need more time, then that's a hurdle we can get to when we get to that point, but at the very least, we need to provide a report.

The deadline of June 23 was adopted by the House. It was voted on by all members who were present. My understanding is that it was only the Conservative Party that voted against it, so at least the Bloc and the NDP have agreed to the June 23 deadline, in addition to the Liberal Party.

The only thing I would add is that I have no problem hearing from good, solid witnesses about how we do this, but the reality of the situation is that the first panel we had today—and my understanding is that majority were “conservative” witnesses put forward by the Conservative Party—were just talking about whether or not we should be doing it. We're well beyond that; that ship has sailed. Parliament has decided that we're going to do it, and they specifically say how we're going to do it, not if.

Perhaps, as the steering committee or the subcommittee, we need to go back and revisit who these witnesses are and try to get a determination as to whether or not they're going to be providing constructive input on how we make this happen. We wasted, in my opinion, 90 minutes today with witnesses who offered very little in terms of the how—

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

A point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Mr. Nater.