Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2020

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

All right. Thank you for that response. It was a good response.

Ms. Cuevas Barron, does the IPU have a particular definition or standard it uses to consider whether a parliament's remote participation and voting are models to follow?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

No. I think that the IPU has also been learning day by day in terms of parliamentary practices, in terms of sharing and understanding those just practices and in terms of tyring to apply them to our own organization. For example, we had to cancel our assembly in Geneva in April, which was of course not what we wanted. We also share most of your concerns that it's better to meet person to person. I think that we also need to update our best practices in terms of how a parliament must be working in times of emergency. We cannot afford to have another two billion people living in suspended or reduced parliaments again.

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

Right. I have a follow-up question that relates more to bidirectional interpretation. One of the unique challenges here in Canada, as you're understanding today, is the issue of bidirectional interpretation. We have two official languages, English and French. How many other parliamentary examples can you cite? Have there been any difficulties with respect to that?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

I don't have a note on that, but I know how they are working. For example, the European Parliament has a huge experience when it comes to interpretation services and the use of languages. Some other parliaments have more diversity, even more than Canada. I know Canada very well, but there are some other countries that are having this challenge.

For example, what comes now to my mind is that some of the European parliaments are using that practice. Let's remember that in Africa and in some other countries, the tribal languages are also official. Some of them are using this practice. I can take a look. If you or the committee staff send me your email, I can update you with the information. That's something that I think is improving.

For example, when the pandemic started, I remember that Zoom did not have interpretation available, and now it's—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. As we're using it today, we see that the platforms are updating. I think the clerk is writing this down. If you have more information, you can definitely send it to the committee.

Next up, we have Mr. Gerretsen for five minutes please.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Mr. Power, the entire discussion that you were having with Mr. Richards, notwithstanding Mr. Brassard's suggestion that you use Canada as an example for your next blog post, was based on your observations of Hungary and Serbia.

According to the democracy index put out by The Economist on an annual basis, in 2019 Canada ranked seventh in terms of our democracy, a score that we tied with Denmark at a 9.2 out of 10, which puts us in the category of full democracy.

Hungary scored 55, and Serbia scored 66, both of which put them in the category of flawed democracy.

Is it safe to say that you have more confidence in Canada's ability to proceed with something like this as opposed to the two examples of Hungary and Serbia?

[Greg Power]

I think I can answer that question quite quickly by saying that I wouldn't put Canada in the same category as Serbia or Hungary.

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

Thank you very much. I appreciate that.

You talked about Parliament and shifting the balance of power over time. I understand, even through a discussion you had with Mr. Brassard a few moments ago.... You were talking about whether or not it might be the precedent that might be set over time.

If we're doing this study just in the context of COVID-19 and the parameters are set very specifically, that this is to be used just during this time, and that if any future times were to be deemed necessary that would require further study and implementation by Parliament, would that put you more at ease?

[Greg Power]

I might hand it over to Sue again to talk about some of the sunset clauses that have been introduced.

I think that in exceptional circumstances, you need to do exceptional things, but it shouldn't be inevitable... I think there is a risk to doing something now that then has a permanent impact on the ability of a parliament to hold government to account. That is why most parliaments—and again, I'll let Sue in at this point—introduce these measures as temporary, with sunset clauses attached to them.

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

I have to jump over to Ms. Cuevas because I'm limited on my time.

When you were talking about connectivity and the need for different members of Parliament to be able to connect through the various networks, in your observations, have you seen other members or other representatives talking about it in the context of using it as an excuse or reason not to do it, or do they identify it as a challenge that needs to be overcome?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

That's a reality. I think that reality can be used...accepting it and improving the circumstances.

However, also there are some countries and parliaments that are using a crisis for their own benefit. They are profiting from people's fears.

I think that—

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

With the risk of asking you to be partisan here, I'm going to ask the question anyway. If you don't want to answer it, you don't have to.

Do you think that Canada is using the crisis as an opportunity?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

Honestly, I don't think so.

I am not sure if I have a comprehensive perception, but I don't think so. Canada—

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

Thank you. I'm sorry to interrupt. I have one more question for you.

In the other areas you've been witnessing, and in the data you've been collecting, either anecdotally or otherwise, do you know if opposition parties have, generally speaking, been embracing the opportunity to continue to work through virtual settings and hybrid settings?

Is it something that both sides seem to be adapting, or is it something that the governments and certain sides of representation have to push through?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

I think we are all doing our best. We got awful lemons for 2020 and we're trying to make the best lemonade.

That doesn't mean that we want to accept these circumstances. I haven't heard a single parliamentarian in the world saying that they are okay with the circumstances.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I'm having a bit of technical difficulty here.

I believe I was listening to Dr. Griffiths. I'd like to hear a little more about the concern about the legitimacy of virtual parliament and not having parliamentarians attend, with full function of their parliament, while we are forcing other essential workers to report to duty to carry on the important work that they do.

[Sue Griffiths]

There are a lot of issues in that question, I think. I'll try to be brief.

One of the initial questions about legitimacy I think has been covered earlier by saying, “What is your legal basis for having a virtual parliament at all?” That will vary from country to country, whether there needs to be some kind of resolution or legal change to enable that to happen, but once it does, I think a big concern in a lot of parliaments has been that fair representation among different MPs should be achieved. We're talking about whether you have a hybrid system, where certain people are there in person and others are there virtually.

I know that this has been a big issue in the U.K, which was covered in your earlier session. How do you ensure that both of those types of members can have an equal input, which in theory they should have, if they are both full members of Parliament? Then, are you disproportionately disadvantaging certain sectors, such as older people or people with health conditions? Because they are probably the ones who can't come in person.

On the second part of your question about the kind of public image, if you like, of parliaments, it's gone in different ways in different countries. Some countries have seen parliaments meeting virtually as a kind public example of “don't come into work, this is not what we should be doing now, we should be staying at home, we should be making sure that we're not leaving the house”. Others, particularly as the situation has kind of eased a bit in most countries, do take the view that now we should be back at work and everyone should be seen to be coming in, and in solidarity, if you like, with normal people who are doing normal jobs. I think it varies a lot depending on the context.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

I'm not sure who would like to take this up, but in studies of other countries that may have may unification issues or parts of their country that are feeling neglected or abused by other parts of the country or other regions of that democracy.... We're feeling that in western Canada, where many people out here feel that we're not getting the representation in Ottawa because we're not there and we're not actually asking those tough questions or utilizing all the tools at our disposal. Are there any other countries that have issues with unification, where there are remote locations that are maybe singled out to exploit those feelings of neglect?

[Sue Griffiths]

It's a very interesting question, and I'm sure there must be examples around the world. The only one that comes to me immediately is my own country, in the U.K., where there have been particular worries about Scottish MPs who physically cannot get to Westminster because there are no transport links, some of them from remote islands. There's not the scale of distance that there is in Canada and I'm sure in many other countries, but it does go back into the whole question of whether you are disadvantaging certain sectors more than others.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Would any of the other guests like to talk about any other examples they have witnessed out there that are similar to that?

[Greg Power]

I'm afraid I can't really add much more to what Sue said, because Scotland was the first thing that came into my head as well.

I think part of the reason why South Africa rejected the idea of delegating the management of business to a smaller committee was a reflection of some of the internal divisions within the country and the perhaps under-representation of certain parts of the country in that smaller committee. It is not a direct parallel, but I think those sorts of issues are going on in a number of different parliaments. Unfortunately, off the top of my head, I couldn't give you another specific example, I'm afraid.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We have Mr. Alghabra.