Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 12th, 2020

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

I'll try in English. Please bear with me if I stumble on words at times. I'll try my best. I understand these are very special circumstances; otherwise I would have made a point of having interpretation. We have such a lovely guest with us and I don't want to lose some of the time we have.

What I was mentioning earlier on is that since I'm new to the procedure committee, it's the first time I have met you. I'm really disappointed that I didn't have such an opportunity last time because it's very agreeable to have you with us.

I would like to hear from you on the hybrid parliament. I understand that when you first started, Parliament was only virtual and now it is hybrid. I would like to hear from you on the pros and cons of maybe going back to a solely virtual parliament, because I guess there's maybe a bit of a fight among MPs who want to be physically in Parliament, but there's a limit. We see that in our own party. We fight to be on the Hill because we like that proximity with people.

On the other hand, you mentioned there are also problems with the physical presence since an MP went very close to the Prime Minister. I would like to hear what you think and what you think other MPs might think if you were to eventually go back to a fully virtual parliament.

[Harriet Harman]

Thank you very much indeed for being prepared to speak English. I'm sorry I've been the cause of it.

The point that you raise is a very interesting one because there are two principles, really. One is the importance of accountability, and the other is equality of representation for all the different people in all the different ridings. It very much goes against the grain for us as members of Parliament that somehow something about us gives us more or less ability to represent those we are elected by. Therefore, the principle of equality of ability to have your say is a very important one.

I think that, when there are restrictions and limits, and it's decided by the whips and decided by the Speaker, there is a danger that there becomes an “in crowd” who are in the building and able to be part of the machinations, and there are those who are connecting remotely in their constituencies. I think that's not as bad as I thought it might be because so much is done on WhatsApp anyway. We have a situation where often people are in meetings in the same room, and there are two conversations going on, one face to face, but then people, under their desks, are texting each other on WhatsApp saying, “I don't know why he said that, it's rubbish”.

There are different conversations going on, but I think in a way, perhaps after the immediate nature of the crisis is over, it's all right to do it like that if it's by virtue of choice. I think if people choose to be a more remote MP, and there's flexibility where basically you could choose at some point to vote remotely, and then you could choose to go in, it would be your choice.

I think that this is a really important role for procedure committees now, not only to be helping work through the COVID processes, but to look at it as a moment for the opportunity for change. People do complain in the U.K. that we spend too much time in Westminster all cliquing together and losing our sense of connection with those who represent us, that we do too much wasting of time travelling and that we're burning up fossil fuels as we go from one end of the country to the other. Also, I think that for those people who have a disability or for women who have young children.... We do want to hear in Parliament from people with disabilities, so if travelling down to London is an inhibition to doing that, then you widen access to Parliament.

I think we've got to have as wide access as possible. We've got to have equality as part of our principles. I think if we lose some of the collegiality, it's not a good thing. Some of it harbours a quite toxic culture, and having been a woman MP who was one of a tiny minority, I was never part of that clubbiness anyway. We don't really want that sort of clubbiness. We want a much more transparent way of doing things.

I think it's really important for procedure committees in our Westminster-style parliaments to not let it all turn the clock back but see how you can make accountability better. It's a great committee for you to be on at this point because it's going to be very important for our democracy.

We can ask people what they want. We can ask the public. Why do we have to decide it all ourselves? They might quite like the idea that their MP is based where they live and that their children go to school there because they don't move to London. There's a sort of populist uprising against people all moving to the capital. It might well be that this would be assisted by this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Harman.

Next, we have Ms. Blaney, please.

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

Thank you, Ms. Harman. I always enjoy listening to your feedback.

One of the things you said was that this process has really allowed for the perception of the coming together of constituencies. As a member of Parliament in Canada who has one of the longer trips to make across the country, one thing I've been fighting for the whole time is to make sure the voices of every corner of this country are heard. The uniqueness of every riding is very important, especially in such a large country as Canada.

A concern I have as well is with regard to people or their loved ones who have health challenges. It's really not fair to ask them to risk their health and the well-being of their family by travelling across the country during this time with COVID. One of the things we've seen, as you talked about earlier, is the sudden change when the government made a decision to call everybody back. I know there have been some health ramifications, not necessarily around COVID, but there have been some. Can you speak to the importance of those voices being heard and how the U.K. is adjusting to having people? I really appreciated your telling the story of people in their own houses and people being able to look right in and see where they are, so there's that sense of collaboration.

One of the biggest fears for some of our members is that we won't go back, that we're going to stay in this new realm. I also think that after this is done, it will be time to study and reflect on that. Right now, the decisions we have to make should be just specifically for this time frame. I don't want to set a precedent for something to go on into the future, so it's very important for me as we do the study that everything be limited to this time, and then we can come back and have those conversations. I don't feel this is the time to make long-term decisions, but it may be a time of reflection.

If you could speak to that, I would appreciate it.

[Harriet Harman]

I completely agree with you that for the moment, the health issues must be a priority. Nobody should take a risk with their life in representing those who elected them or take a risk with the lives of those with whom they share their home.

You're also absolutely right that we have one set of imperatives for now, and then there should be real deliberation and consultation. That's why I think, in a way, that there needs to be public consultation as well. I know that in the past our procedure committee has been more or less inward–facing into Parliament, but I think it's a time for procedure committees to ask the public.

In this country there has been quite a lot of alienation from Parliament. It's been quite easy for people to whip up hostility to MPs. That was part of the spirit of the Brexit decision, actually: The experts in the House of Commons didn't know we wanted a referendum and wanted to say something different. There has been alienation, a sense that London is different, a sense that when anybody is in London, they don't have a sense of what is going on in the rest of the country.

One of the things the Scottish National Party did earlier was to have its First Minister give press conferences not from the grand apartments of the Office of the First Minister, but in different parts of Scotland. He would be standing in front of some amazing cliffs and forests. There would be a small croft in the background, and you'd think that he was there, and that's where the people live and that's what it's about. We don't have any crofters in Camberwell and Peckham, but he would be speaking for that constituency. We have a really big issue of people feeling alienated from their elected representatives and their institutions, and this surely is a moment to find out whether changing the relationship between the MP and the centre is an opportunity to make some sort of change and adjustment and to make Parliament more inclusive.

However, you're absolutely right that it has to be done in a deliberative and more open way, and it has to be done by consensus. I hope our procedure committee will be able to work closely with you, because nobody should reinvent the wheel. We can all learn from each other.

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

I couldn't agree more.

One of the things you talked about was the loss of consensus. One of the things I heard at the beginning of COVID was that people were feeling reassured by the growth of collaboration among parties. Of course, that is hard to maintain, for sure.

Could speak to that feeling of concern that you've perhaps heard from your constituents around the need for politicians to work more collaboratively?

[Harriet Harman]

I think that whilst people want a choice and know there are different views and want those different views represented and want to see Parliament challenged, they often do like to see parliamentarians working together. I think that when it comes to how Parliament is working, it should never be a political football. The Leader of the House of Commons should really be the champion of Parliament in government, not just someone sent from government to kick Parliament's backside and tell us how it's going to be done.

I think the key relationship is that of the opposition parties, the whips, the Leader of the House of Commons, the Speaker, and the procedure committee. I think that if all of those can work together to face outwards and say that very little is going to be the same after this COVID outbreak—that everything is challenged, everything is changed, and we just have to make the future better than the pre-COVID past—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Harman.

Next up we have Mr. Tochor, please.

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

Thank you so much.

This has been a very interesting debate and presentation. I thank you so much for appearing.

You talked about not letting this become a political football, hopefully, and said that as long as we as parliamentarians are working for the betterment for our country, perhaps good things can come as a result.

It sounds like the opposition and the government party have had a pretty good relationship, but have there been times when the government tried to potentially jam the opposition, such as, by any chance, eliminating written questions?

[Harriet Harman]

Well, before we came to the situation of the government wanting Parliament to come back as part of schools coming back, I would say that there was a really high degree of co-operation, with ministers briefing their opposite numbers, the shadow front benches, and making information available to them. That's the way it should be when there is a national emergency. Even if there is not a government of national unity, structurally there really needs to be a unified approach. It did break down somewhat and seems to be really deteriorating, but it did start that way.

Can I just say that it gives me a sense of where you are that I can see you in your kitchen? It gives the sense of place so much. If you were on your front doorstep and I could see your whole house, it would be even better.

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

Thank you very much.

With regard to some of the tools that your opposition parties have, were there any restrictions on questions asked in your Parliament?

This is the difference between how our mother Parliament has approached things versus Canada's Parliament. In your words, this is the time for accountability and “eyes and ears”, but as opposition parties we have seemingly been put in the position of not being allowed to use the tools that are usually at our disposal. Have you had such far-reaching restrictions put on opposition parties from the government?

[Harriet Harman]

I think it's a question of the government benches and the accountability to the backbenchers from their own party as well as opposition parties. I think that although it's more clunky when it's done remotely, and it's less spontaneous because you have to apply in advance and because there has been less sitting time, and therefore not so many people have been able to contribute to debates, I don't feel the government has been trying to evade accountability. I think that's just part of the problem of—

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

We have limited time here. They haven't limited the scope of questions you can ask ministers?

[Harriet Harman]

No.

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

Would that be part of the partnership of parliamentarians that you seemingly enjoy, maybe at different degrees, as this pandemic goes on? At the start, though, there wasn't partisanship from the government, so there's that trust that we can hopefully find a solution that works for everybody.

Your experience in Westminster is that the government hasn't restricted access to questions and tools that you usually have. Would that be fair?

[Harriet Harman]

In the normal way of doing things, the government is not able to restrict questions, because that is a matter for the Speaker. They therefore didn't seek to try to change that and try to rule questions out of order or restrict them. Obviously it was restricted time-wise, but no, they haven't done that.

I think it's always important for governments to recognize that while sometimes it feels it would be much better without Parliament and you could just get on with the business of running the country—

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

That's what we're experiencing right now.

[Harriet Harman]

Parliamentary accountability—and I say this as somebody who's been in government—means that sometimes you can be heading towards a mistake, and it's Parliament rather than your civil servants or the experts who will tell you that you're heading for a mistake. You'll suddenly find your arguments deteriorating in front of your own eyes when you have to make them in public in Parliament, so it's important in time of crisis to have Parliament even stronger than ever, because the decisions the government is making are so huge.

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

It is massive. We're looking at some of the expenditures and what our society is going to look like after this, and we need more scrutiny, not less scrutiny, of our government. Would you agree?

[Harriet Harman]

Yes, although I'm a big fan of Trudeau, I have to say.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

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

We'll put that in the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Dr. Duncan is next.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you, Ms. Harman. It's wonderful to have you back again.

I could not agree more that Parliament is so important during this crisis and that accountability is so important at this time and always.

I'm going to start with a few yes-or-no questions, if I may.

Was the remote system secure, yes or no, please?

[Harriet Harman]

Yes, as far as we know.