Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2020

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I want to thank our witnesses for being here today.

My comments and questions are for Mr. Power and Ms. Griffiths. What we're having here in the Canadian Parliament is an ongoing tension or a debate between one group of MPs who are saying that we need to accommodate public health advice and make adjustments to how Parliament works, obviously on an interim basis just during this pandemic because it's an exceptional circumstance, and another group of MPs who are saying that if we make these short-term changes, is this going to make permanent changes and affect how we do our work forever, and are therefore resisting any type of short-term adjustment.

As a member of Parliament from the governing party, I can tell you that I hear your calls that governments need to make sure that Parliament plays its role to hold government to account and that Parliament plays an important role that holds government accountable. However, what would you say to MPs who are refusing the idea of introducing short-term measures to accommodate the pandemic we have so that Parliament can function and ensure that MPs represent their constituents?

[Greg Power]

I think Sue's leaving me to answer that one. Is Canada the same as Serbia and Hungary? I can't give you a quick answer to this question, in that I think it's just the nature of parliamentary politics.

If you're in government, inevitably you see that the pressure's on governing and the need to get stuff done, and get stuff done quickly, because if you do not you will be held to account by the public for your failure to deal with these problems. If you're in the opposition, you will inevitably treat any changes to Standing Orders with suspicion, whether they are permanent or temporary, because of the sense of what you might lose by accident by giving away certain powers to the government.

I think there is inevitably a tension, and that's the nature of parliamentary democracy, which sounds like a very pat answer. It's not a great answer, but....

[Sue Griffiths]

If I could perhaps give one example, standing orders are only permanent until they're not, once it's not written into tablets of stone that standing orders can never change.

I think of a previous experience of a completely different crisis, for example the expenses crisis that we had a few years ago in Westminster. A lot of things were changed as a result of that crisis. Some of those, I think, perhaps were regretted afterwards, but others were not.

Short-term changes can be short term, can be limited, but they will still stick in people's minds as a memory of the thing that happened that was good or bad or indifferent. It will alter people's views of how Parliament should work, having had it work in a slightly different way for a while.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Both of you, I think, agree that both government and opposition MPs have a responsibility to address the pandemic. We can't, on the one hand, say we respect the pandemic but at the same time ask for all not to change anything in how we do our roles.

[Sue Griffiths]

I think it's quite striking that pretty much all the parliaments we looked at have managed to keep functioning in one way or another during the pandemic, even the ones that initially just went into a long recess or suspended for a while. Pretty much all of them have decided to do something. I think we could say doing nothing is not an option.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Cuevas Barron, I'd like to ask you a few questions.

You mentioned that several legislative assemblies have suspended operations, assemblies that represent some two billion people.

Have you noticed a correlation between parliaments in countries with healthy democracies that hold virtual parliamentary sittings and those with a less healthy democracy that don't?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

I don't see a correlation between authoritarian regimes and having or not having virtual meetings. I will give a few examples.

The Spanish Parliament stopped working completely, with a huge complaint from the opposition parties. In my own country, the parliamentarians and senators stopped working about three months ago. We have a permanent committee that is always working—that's in our constitution. That's the way we work here during the moments when Parliament is not sitting. That's a different case. A couple of weeks ago, the Parliament of China was having a plenary session. There's a huge variety.

I don't see a correlation between the kind of regime and the work of Parliament.

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

Thank you.

Based on the reports you've received, have you noticed whether several opposition members and opposition parties have been asking for virtual sittings of Parliament, or have those requests been coming only from the party in power?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

I think that, in general, it comes from the majority party. Regardless if that is coming from the ruling party or not, for parliamentary systems it's very obvious that a majority is a ruling party. For presidential systems, we can have what we call a divided government, where the president comes from a political party but the majority is represented by a different one, like the opposition. Usually it comes from the majority, but there are a lot of complaints.

I think we all want to go back to our duties. I would like to recall that some of you were mentioning that essential workers are making a huge effort, and perhaps we should be doing the same. I note that, for example in Mexico, like Canada, to come to Mexico City you need to take at least one flight. At the same time, we need to respond to an emergency with budgets, with emergency legislation. I think there's a huge paradox we need to resolve.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Cuevas Barron.

Ms. Blaney, please.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I think one of the biggest challenges we hear, and especially today in committee, is that the decisions we make today could have influence on how Parliament works tomorrow. There's a lot of concern around that. I think it's an important concern.

This question is for all three witnesses. Do you have any recommendations, or do you have other examples to demonstrate the ability to have the checks and balances in place? I don't know if I'm making it very clear, but for me, the real point is this: What do we need to put in place so that when we come back to Parliament, we're not fundamentally changing how we do things without a thoughtful process during the time that is not in a middle of a pandemic?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

I will be super brief and say that I think we need to set the rules—rules that are built by the majority and the opposition and rules that will satisfy all of us with regard to, for example, opposition days. We need not only the rules but also the technology solutions. It is not only for health emergencies. What happens in other emergencies?

We are about to face an economic emergency, and I really hope that parliaments will be prepared to respond to this crisis in terms of jobs and salaries. We are starting an economic crisis. Regardless of technology, parliaments must be there. We need to be prepared.

[Sue Griffiths]

I would add sunset clauses or temporary standing orders that lapse unless they're renewed; all of those kinds of things can provide a safeguard. I'm sure that after the crisis there will be a number of reviews of the different ways and the different aspects of the experience.

I think particularly parliamentary committees like this one will probably play a very crucial role in that and in taking a measured view of what happened and whether there are things that worked better or that wouldn't be appropriate to carry on or that should be preserved for crisis situations. I think that's very appropriate for the role of a parliamentary committee.

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

Thank you.

I have only a few seconds left, but one thing we've heard from parliamentarians around any type of virtual voting is predictability. I'm wondering if anybody has an example. If you don't have time to answer, perhaps you could table that with the committee.

I think my time is up. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're looking for examples of virtual voting—

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

Yes, examples of virtual voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

—and of the predictability needed for virtual voting. Okay.

As well, Ms. Cuevas Barron, on virtual voting in general, I believe you were going to take a look at that for us. You can submit that to the committee. You can email the clerk to provide that information.

That's the end of our second panel for today. Thank you so much to all of the witnesses. This was a spunky and enjoyable panel. It was fun. We learned a lot from the lessons of the world, and also how to be respectful of our democratic institutions and to be careful and mindful when making some of these changes. Thank you for the very valuable information.

To all of the regular members on the committee, we'll now move into committee business. Please remain connected as we say goodbye to our witnesses.

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, colleagues.

[Greg Power]

Thank you for the invitation. It was a pleasure.

[Sue Griffiths]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Just as we did last time, we do have a little bit of time. We may have 15 minutes of leeway, so let's see how much of the work plan we can get through today. If not, I have some backup plans for us. I know there were some issues that were being raised last time.

Committee, we've been agreeing on our witnesses day by day. On our next panel, which will be on Thursday, we will have our security witnesses. I know that all of the parties were very interested from a security aspect in making sure that we have witnesses to speak to that. I'm wondering if everyone is okay with the way Thursday's meeting is laid out at this time.

If you are okay with Thursday's meeting, the only other issue we have about witnesses is with the interpreters. We have not been able to slot them in anywhere. There are some international witnesses as well who said they wished to appear before us. We had them on our witness list, but due to conflicts in scheduling we weren't able to have them on today's panel. That's why there weren't as many witnesses as we originally thought there'd be for today's meeting.

I just want some feedback from the committee as to whether you still would like to see the interpreters in a future meeting, whether you think there is a need. We did hear from them in our last study, but it is up to you. Do you think there's a need for any more of the international witnesses in another meeting, or are you good with what the schedule looks like? That would just leave Thursday for the IT and security witnesses.

Madam Normandin.

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

I have a question for members who want interpreters to appear as witnesses. Maybe I missed something.

All we need to do is choose our stance on virtual voting. I'd like to know why people are talking about having interpreters appear and what they have to do with virtual voting. Maybe I missed something, so I'd like someone to fill me in. I'm having a hard time seeing why these people should appear.

That is time we could be spending on the report, rather than having to do what we did last time, which was spend eight hours straight writing the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Madam Normandin.

Maybe the Conservatives can help answer this question. They were asked by the Conservative members to appear.

Are there any comments as to why they appeared on the witness list? Was there anything in particular that pertained to this study that maybe was not elicited in the last? We can still refer back to any testimony they gave us in the previous study. Andre can add that into this study and refer to it.

Are there still, to any of the members of the Conservative Party, maybe...?

Thank you, Mr. Richards.