Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 4th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Good morning. I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 31 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee is meeting today to begin our review of the House of Commons virtual hybrid proceedings provisions, pursuant to the House order of June 23, 2022.

Our first panel consists of the Speaker, the Clerk and other House officials, followed by a second panel of current and former members of Parliament.

For the first panel we have the Speaker, the Honourable Anthony Rota; Charles Robert, the Clerk of the House of Commons; Mr. Eric Janse, deputy clerk, procedure; Michel Patrice, deputy clerk, administration; and Stéphan Aubé, chief information officer, digital services and real property.

Before we start, this is just a reminder that all comments should be made through the chair.

With that, I will pass the floor over to you, Mr. Speaker, for five minutes.

[The Honourable Anthony Rota, Liberal, Anthony Rota]

Thank you, Madam Chair and honourable members of the committee, for your invitation to appear today as part of your study on hybrid proceedings.

It is an honour to be here this morning.

I'm pleased to be joined by officials from the House administration. They're sitting on both sides of me, and you pointed out their names and their functions. They will be here to assist with any questions that are asked.

It has been two years since the House first adopted hybrid proceedings in response to the pandemic.

The hybrid model and the resulting temporary changes to our practices and to the Standing Orders that have been implemented have allowed the House to carry on its business.

This has allowed members to fulfill many of their parliamentary duties and to vote in proceedings securely and reliably from anywhere in Canada.

Now that public health measures have been lifted, it is worthwhile to reflect on what parts, if any, of hybrid proceedings the House may wish to retain.

I would like to bring to your attention several considerations.

First, in terms of procedure, the provisions of the hybrid model required temporary and incremental changes to the House's practices and Standing Orders.

These changes, such as social distancing, were adopted to meet public health measures.

Some procedural changes also led to more flexibility in chamber business, such as, counting video conference participants in quorum; adjusting the number of members required for certain procedural activities; amending the procedure by which the chair determines if there is unanimous consent; enabling the electronic tabling of documents; and allowing members to speak and vote from any seat. I can tell you that last one was a bit of a learning curve for me, because you're used to people being in certain areas. All of a sudden, especially during S.O. 31s or during question period, you're suddenly looking for them and madly trying to find out where they are. But that's for you to decide whether you keep that or not.

In committees, changes helped accommodate the participation of members and witnesses, and supported in camera portions and membership substitutions. Special orders also led to the adoption of the electronic voting application change. That changed the way votes are requested and enabled the automatic deferral of votes to after question period.

The issue of electronic voting has also been studied by various committees, including this one for many years. This committee will now have to consider the matter in more detail, taking into account the use of the electronic voting application.

The committee may also wish to recommend additional changes to the Standing Orders to address some of the challenges of hybrid features that we have observed—for example, matters of decorum, dress code and backgrounds when members are video conferencing or guidance on how the House should proceed when members, witnesses or interpreters face connectivity issues.

In addition to these procedural elements, there are several administrative factors that should be examined, especially challenges relating to interpretation services.

The availability of interpretation services has had a particular impact on committees. They have had to adapt their meeting times because of resourcing constraints and to facilitate the participation of members across multiple time zones.

Certain other types of activities, such as regional caucuses and parliamentary associations, have also faced challenges accessing these limited resources and have had to curtail their activities.This is a very important point, which concerns our decisions in the House and the decisions of this committee. We will need to continue working with the Translation Bureau to find solutions to these challenges.

The House has also made significant technological advances, including a new videoconferencing system with a higher capacity and better quality for members and witnesses. This new system also benefited from a new webcasting standard for committee meetings.

I would like to congratulate the members of the information technology team, who have worked very hard. They have continually provided us with everything possible and allowed us to get to this point, as far as virtual meetings are concerned. I saw them work day and night, especially at the beginning of the COVID‑19 pandemic. I was really exhausted myself, so I can imagine how they felt.

We see increasingly that members seem to prefer either televised or webcast meetings, and rarely depend on the old standard of audio-only meetings.

There are also some big-picture questions the committee may also wish to explore. For example, should the House continue to allow remote participation for all members in any situation at any time? Should this option be available under specific circumstances that the House will define? Will these provisions apply differently in the chamber, in committees, or in other parliamentary activities?

This reflection could help to provide clarity and direction in several instances. For example, if the House retains its use of the electronic voting app, can the video conferencing system be maintained and used as a backup?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's really some good food for thought, Mr. Speaker. We look forward to having this conversation, as members will ask some additional questions.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Can I finish, or am I being cut off?

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

It's that time, Mr. Speaker.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Very good, I appreciate that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We have a strict five-minute rule for opening comments.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I'll just thank everyone, and I'll go on from there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We appreciate those opening comments.

What I'm going to do for the purpose of this meeting moving forward is to keep us really tight and on time. I know everybody's time is valuable.

We will start with six-minute rounds, starting with Mr. Calkins, followed by Mr. Fergus, Madam Gaudreau and Ms. Blaney. At six minutes, I will be going to the next person for their session. If there isn't enough time for the answer, that should be mindful in the way that you use your six minutes.

I will start with you, Mr. Calkins.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

How did that feel, Mr. Speaker?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

Very fair.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

All kidding aside, Mr. Speaker, you brought up the salient points for discussion.

It should be noted, and I don't want to draw attention to it, that you and I have been here a long time. There are times when members of Parliament have issues that they have to deal with, be they personal or whatever the case may be. Depending on what your role and responsibility is in the House of Commons, what we're talking about here is just a regular, ordinary, everyday MP having the ability to participate virtually.

In your opinion, are there roles in the chamber that will never be able to be addressed from a virtual capacity, for example, being the Speaker?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

As we're going on, you see certain roles where it's essential to be in the chamber: maybe Speaker and House leaders. That's something that has to be determined by the committee: Who has to be there?

I know, when we first started some of the hybrid committees we had.... They were actually just virtual; they weren't even hybrid. They were just committee meetings. They weren't actual sessions in the House, so we did everything virtually.

To start picking certain positions right now would be very difficult to do, but I would lean towards something.... The Speaker would have to be there, as would some of the key positions in the parties, but I think that would be something the parties would have to determine themselves: Which ones are essential to be there?

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

You brought up that this committee should be circumscribing who some of those essential people in the House might be—whether we should have it open to everybody or whether we should have very specific circumscribed roles.

Have you personally given any thought to what some of those roles might be?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I've given very much thought to it. I believe that, if a hybrid situation is picked as an option, the committee and Parliament should decide what the parameters are, so that anyone deciding to take part in a hybrid Parliament would have limitations.

What we don't want to see is someone getting up one morning and saying, “I'm not going to fly across the country” or, “I'm not going to drive into Parliament. I'll just participate”, and it's willy-nilly. I think there have to be parameters for each and every participant in the chamber regarding when they can go for hybrid—whether it's illness, or special occasions that we'll have to decide on as a Parliament. A lot of it will depend on the decisions or recommendations that this committee makes.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

Notwithstanding the fact that virtual Parliament allowed us to continue through the pandemic, it now seems to me as if we're asking ourselves if we want to continue with this, even though the necessity or impetus for having hybrid Parliament appears to no longer be there.

Are you worried about the image of us having this conversation at a time when Canadians are struggling to make ends meet? This appears to be something that could be interpreted by some Canadians as parliamentarians making their own lives easier at a difficult time in the Canadian context, rather than coming to Ottawa and representing their constituents.

Do you have any concerns about the image and the institution if we choose to keep hybrid Parliament?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

As Speaker, that's not something I'm able to comment on.

The way I look at it, we want to make sure that we have a Parliament that will work in the best capacity possible. The role of this committee, in my eyes, is to find that best way of doing things, the best way of proceeding with Parliament so it works and so Canadians get good democracy. I think that's the role of this Parliament. To me, it's more about making sure that Canadians get what they deserve: a good democracy and a good democratic system that works.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I'd like to move on.

You talked about decorum. There were some issues with decorum. I'm not going to highlight what those were, because I think there were a number of issues and different cases. I think those are definitely concerns.

If Parliament and this committee recommend that Parliament adopt some semblance of hybrid Parliament for the foreseeable future, what would your recommendations be to this committee in dealing with issues of decorum?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I found that the decorum with hybrid, with not having the numbers in the chamber, actually improved. When you're on a hybrid system, or a virtual system, for that matter, and you are going to heckle or come out and speak loudly, trying to overtake someone, you not only overtake that person, but you're centred on the screen, and it's easy to identify who is shouting.

One thing we find in the chamber especially when it's a dull roar that drowns everyone out is that we don't know exactly who it is. That makes it very difficult for the Speaker. However, when we have people in the chamber, in certain cases what happens is—

I see a big smile there. I won't comment on that one.

[Blaine Calkins, Conservative, Red Deer—Lacombe, AB]

I was talking more about the clothing-optional components of decorum, but that's fine.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That was an excellent exchange, and we look forward to seeing another one.

Mr. Fergus, you have six minutes.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you as well, Mr. Speaker, and your colleagues, for your testimony.

First of all, if I may, I want to thank all of you, and so many of your team of people who are not here, for bringing together the hybrid system in such a short time. Frankly, you could look at a spot on the wall and say, “There's a spot on the wall,” or you could say, “Oh, that wall is white.” You guys did a really great job. Congratulations.

I'm wondering if you could tell all Canadians, through Madam Chair, how that success story came about so quickly, because I think, frankly, we were world leaders on this front.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

We were world leaders on that, and it's something that we did put a lot of time into, but we didn't have a lot of time to put into it. That's why these 24 hours.... I think it was Mr. Patrice who described the first two months as not really two months but just one long day with naps occasionally.

The team was amazing. They came to the plate and batted a home run. Every time there was something changing, they were there with new solutions. When something would come up, when there was an issue—and there have been a lot of issues—they stood to attention and made sure that everything was taken care of.

A lot of the discussions that took place were not just internal here in Canada. They took place virtually with other countries in the world, with New Zealand, with Australia, with England—the U.K. was very strong in it. We spoke with the French Speaker, as well. It was right around the world; it was global. What were they doing? What was working? What wasn't working? I've made this joke before: I often say that it's easier to learn from somebody else's mistakes, so we were learning from each other what not to do, what worked, how they made it work, and how we made it work. It was interesting because many of them were looking to Canada for the guidance.

I look to the end to Mr. Aubé who is here and who was.... I can't find the words to describe the energy that he had and the determination to make it work. He and his team were just out of this world. They were constantly bringing things up to snuff. Whenever there was a problem, they made sure it was fixed.

[Greg Fergus, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

That is great. I agree completely and I congratulate you.

Although the hybrid model was a huge success, some serious questions have been raised, and I think it is important to take them into account.

Many of my constituents are interpreters who work on the Hill. We were told that there were significant problems with how the hybrid system could affect their ears, which are, in effect, their work tool.

I know you are aware of this situation. Could you tell us what arrangements you have made or are in the process of making to resolve what is a real problem for our valued interpreters?