Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 16th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay, thank you.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Madam Chair, could I get on the speakers list, if that's allowed?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Yes, Ms. May, I will put you on the speakers list. You are right behind Ms. Duncan, who will be next.

I just want to summarize some of what we've been hearing from different witnesses and private sector representatives. We've been speaking about other parliaments that are engaging in this type of work right now, especially in the U.K. We have also heard concerns about safety for members, and also security. Safety and security have been coming up, and also alternatives. Those are all things everyone should note.

On extending the meetings, I should also remind everyone that we have to work with our technical team. There are other committee meetings that are at work on Tuesdays and Thursdays, and there may be some resource difficulties, but we will look into that.

Ms. Duncan is next.

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

Madam Chair, could you put me on the list as well, please?

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

I will, Mr. Brassard.

Ms. Duncan, are you there?

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, colleagues. It's so nice to hear everyone's voice.

Accountability and oversight are fundamental to our democracy. I like the idea of having the Speaker, the Clerk and the House administration.

This is ultimately a health crisis. It's a pandemic. It is important to hear about the latest information on health from our experts. I would be concerned about bringing together 338 colleagues from all parts of the country where there may or may not be COVID spread. It is important to remind people of the importance of asymptomatic spread. Bringing people together would be irresponsible. We've asked Canadians to stay at home in order to flatten the curve, and we are achieving this in the communities. Our first order of business must be to protect Canadians. It is important that we serve our communities, but that we also demonstrate that protection. It is important to hear from our health officials.

I would just reiterate that virtual parliaments are taking place, and it will be really important to hear those perspectives on how they are doing it, because accountability and oversight are so important.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Duncan.

Ms. May is next.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to colleagues for allowing me to weigh in as a non-member of the committee and take my virtual place at the virtual table.

I think there are three categories of inquiry for the committee.

The first, of course, is one of those things that are essential for parliamentary functioning. It is that we are, by our rules, required to do things in person, and to change the rules to allow us to do things remotely.

The second category of inquiry is with regard to the technology and whether we currently have the bandwidth to take it all on. I know that the existing resources of the teleconferencing functions of the Government of Canada are stretched. That's why the unanimous consent motion restricted us to only six committees that could be meeting in the fashion that we are now meeting in. However, there are many other committees that have urgent business, and it would be good to be able to find a way for those to meet as well.

The last set of inquiries is to look at what's going on internationally. The U.K. is in about the same boat we are in. I'd also flag that it seems that South America's parliaments and legislatures, such as those in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Ecuador, are doing far more. There are countries around the world, such as Poland, that have taken the steps to be able to allow remote voting. They have moved a little bit further and faster. I know the parliamentary analysts and the Library of Parliament people will be able to do better research than I've been able to do by googling at home, but it does seem that some countries around the world have addressed the real crunch, which is the ability to vote remotely.

In the reports from other countries, people are very specific as to the platforms they're using, whether it's Zoom or another virtual method of pulling people together in the same space. Those should be examined by tech experts. I also think we need to turn our eyes to security questions around the security implications of having a lot going on over specific private sector platforms.

I should have mentioned the European Parliament. They're allowing remote voting, but they are also meeting with social distance.

I just want to put on the record that even with the small number of people we had in Parliament on Saturday, the opposition lobby did not have adequate social distancing. I didn't go in because it wasn't possible to walk through it to the door to the chamber and practise social distancing at the same time, so if we're going to be moving to more sessions with 30 to 40 people, there will have to be physical changes made to the layout of the opposition lobby in order to keep social distance.

Personally, I agree with Dr. Duncan's comment that we should be paying attention to public health officials and not having a physical session just for the sake of having it. We should expand our technological limits and we should enter the 21st century. Maybe we can make some innovations that will last beyond the pandemic, such that people who are bedridden and in hospital are able to vote in Parliament without physically getting up from their deathbeds to go to vote. I've seen too much of that and I think it's time that....

The argument for taking it beyond the pandemic might actually be making it harder, but I think we should explore remote voting, teleconferencing and a virtual Parliament, and hear from witnesses of the countries that are actually doing it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. May.

Mr. Brassard is next.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm not going to expand too much on what Mr. Richards has already spoken about. I'm in agreement with a lot he had to say. I do want to pick up on a couple of things.

First and foremost is the security issue. I think we need to spend time not just with House security and some of our IT people, but with outside IT security experts as well, because, as more and more people become involved in this type of technology, if we decide on some form of virtual meetings, there are questions related to software on computers such as the private entity of Zoom, for example, the bombing and hacking of the Zoom site and the possibility of hijacking feeds. We've already talked about remote areas and whether they're most susceptible, given the fact that there's less rural broadband security there. Security needs to be a big part of what we do in terms of our focus on this study.

I'm also aware that the U.S. Senate has done a cybersecurity study as it relates to virtual meetings. We may want to consider someone from Homeland Security or some security team related to the U.S. Senate, perhaps the chair of the Senate committee, to highlight what they found in their study.

The second point I would want to make that differentiates from Mr. Richards' points this morning is that we need to expand this beyond just looking at virtual sittings within the chamber. We've seen over the last couple of weeks that committees have been structured virtually, whether through the telephone, as we're doing today, or online. I think we have to understand that this is more House procedure standpoint—not just understand, but also accept the fact that committees need to have the same power they would if we were all sitting together today in Parliament in one of those committee rooms. It relates to moving motions. My experience in watching some of these committees is that they become more like seminars, as opposed to performing the duly constituted legislative functions of committee. The ability to request information, documents or other information, from the government has to be a priority in what we look at as we move forward.

Again, my two main points, just to reaffirm them, are, first, the issue of security and the impact that has on our ability to perform virtually, and second, the ability of the committees to function as they are purposed for, not just as an audience. That speaks more to the House, and there are a lot of other issues with respect to privilege and the ability on points of order. All of this stuff is something we can cover procedurally.

Last, I want to reaffirm what Mr. Richards said, that we're going to have the Speaker and the Clerk of the House come at the beginning and, as we move through the witnesses over the next couple of weeks, I think it's important to bring them back on the back end, to address any of the issues or questions that may come up as a result of procedure, security and all the other issues that we will discuss over the course of the next couple of weeks.

That's all I have to say. Thank you, Madam Chair. I would ask for some consideration of those points when it comes to witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

Everyone has raised really thoughtful points. I have had a chat with the clerk on the side as well, regarding the first meeting. We think that there will be very many questions for the Speaker of the House and the Clerk of the House. We will be trying to figure out where to fit in the law clerk. Maybe at that point we'll be able to decide how many questions we have for the law clerk. We were also discussing on the side that perhaps we can entertain having the law clerk on our calls more regularly. That's something we're exploring, and we'll get back to you on that.

We have many ideas that have come forward in terms of where everyone's mind space is at. This reminds me a little of the witness from the U.K. we recently had at our informal meeting, when she stated that sometimes it's not until it's absolutely necessary that Parliament and parliamentarians feel there's a need for some changes to take place. At this point, necessity is the mother of all invention at this time. I think we'll be able to come up with some interesting things. I look forward to that.

I will just remind everybody that it's 11:45. Perhaps we can get some more discussion as to specific witnesses and maybe some of that grouping that was mentioned by Mr. Richards and others.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Madam Chair, I would like to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Please go ahead, Mr. Therrien.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Personally, I agree that people from Parliament should come with the clerk. I don't have any issue with this. I agree that we need to hear from technology experts. Technology is crucial if we want to work effectively, understand each other and hear each other properly. That's also clear. I also agree that we should hear the experiences of witnesses from other places. I don't see any issue with this. Obviously, I imagine that we'll talk to them by video conference or by teleconference, given the situation. I don't think that these people will go from one side to the other to come talk to us.

However, I have a suggestion. I think that you were trying to draw up lists of specific people. I think that constitutional issues are extremely important. We must ensure that the legislative structure of Parliament will be respected in this process.

I suggest that we invite Benoît Pelletier, a former minister who is a constitutional expert and a professor at the University of Ottawa. I think that it might be worthwhile to hear him speak about the potential for the virtual Parliament to comply with the basic rules of the Constitution.

I'm therefore submitting the name Benoît Pelletier. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

What was that name again?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Benoît Pelletier.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

He's a former Liberal minister in the Quebec National Assembly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Richards, go ahead.

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

I have a question for Mr. Therrien.

For Benoît Pelletier, I don't need a lot of context, but just some sense as to who he is or what his expertise is. I'm not familiar with the name.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Therrien, could you answer that question, please?

[Alain Therrien, Bloc, La Prairie, QC]

Yes.

He's an experienced constitutional expert and a professor at the University of Ottawa. In Quebec, he's truly a leading authority on constitutional issues. He used to be a Liberal minister in Quebec City. I believe that he was the minister of intergovernmental affairs. He knows the ins and outs of the Canadian Constitution extremely well. I think that it would be worthwhile to hear from him so that he can enlighten us. It would be a win-win situation for everyone.

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

It sounds like he could potentially be a good witness.

Since we're on the area of constitutional issues, I'd suggest we group the constitutional and procedural areas together. I could suggest, in that area, some other potential witnesses that we've put together as a group.

We have two former clerks who have been able to provide our committee with some good advice in the past, both during their time as clerks and since then. They are Audrey O'Brien and Marc Bosc.

Other suggestions we would have as well are a couple of former law clerks and parliamentary counsels. One is Rob Walsh, who has been at our committee a number of times in the past, and Joseph Maingot is the other.

Another former clerk, and also previously the privacy commissioner, is Robert Marleau. We could also look at the former clerk of the Senate, Gordon Barnhart.

Another suggestion is someone who has been very helpful to the committee numerous times in the past, the former speaker of the House, Peter Milliken.

Those would be some other suggestions that I'd have in that particular area.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for those suggestions. I like the way you're doing the grouping. I think these are just suggestions, because the list is getting long.

We have to remember we will have four or five meetings, potentially. If we're not able to extend the length of time of our meetings, then it really limits us in time.

We have experts in IT, which I would imagine could be one meeting. I don't know if it would go into another meeting to deal with the security and safety aspect or if they could be coupled together.

Then we have another meeting with reference to other parliaments that are going through this experience right now.

Then we have a meeting with constitutional, legal and procedural people. That would probably be more than one meeting.

Are there any other groupings that you see at this time?

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

Madam Chair, you mentioned one grouping of safety and security. That certainly makes sense to me. We've already identified this one on constitutional, legal and procedural matters. You mentioned technology. I would broaden that and call it feasibility, and technology would be a part of it. There may be other issues surrounding the feasibility that we want to explore. You mentioned other legislatures. That seems to be one we've all agreed with.

There is another one I suggest we look at. The focus has mainly been on this discussion about virtual or not virtual. Maybe we could explore if there are alternatives to look at other than virtual, or just nothing, essentially. Mr. Brassard already mentioned the idea of exploring further how committees and their functioning could work as part of this, so maybe we need a meeting on that. That would take us to about five meetings, which is about what we were looking at, right? I suggest that we try to do that.

Certainly I've suggested a number of witnesses that might be too many for, say, that one grouping, but we may find that some are not available. We can always revisit the idea of extending the number of meetings if we need to. We could have a good list of potential witnesses and then pare it down as needed or as things happen based on the availability of witnesses.