Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 18th, 2022

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I call this meeting to order.

Welcome to meeting number 33 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

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

We also welcome new members today to PROC. We're going to give them a warm welcome, but we're going to take care of a little bit of business first.

I'll pass it over to the clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Hello, members of the committee.

Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the first vice-chair must be a member of the official opposition.

I'm now prepared to receive motions for first vice-chair.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

I move that Mr. John Nater be elected vice-chair of the committee.

[The Clerk]

It's been moved by Monsieur Berthold that Mr. Nater be elected first vice-chair.

Are there any further motions?

Seeing none, is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?

(Motion agreed to)

I declare the motion carried and Mr. Nater duly elected first vice-chair of the committee. Congratulations.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Perfect.

Welcome to the new members.

Mr. Nater, we're looking forward to working closely together.

It's a really good day to be here, because we have an exciting first panel, which consists of current members of Parliament representing all four parties. The second panel looks at the use of hybrid proceedings in other jurisdictions, with the Speakers of two provincial legislative assemblies and a representative of the Inter-Parliamentary Union.

I would let the committee know that our virtual witnesses have all successfully undergone the pre-meeting connectivity and audio tests.

For our first panel, I would like to welcome Carol Hughes, MP for Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing; Yvonne Jones, MP for Labrador; Tom Kmiec, MP for Calgary Shepard; Andréanne Larouche, MP for Shefford; and Jean Yip, MP for Scarborough—Agincourt, who is joining us virtually.

Before we start, I will remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair.

MP Hughes, welcome to PROC. Please take the floor for up to three minutes.

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

Good morning. I'm pleased to be with you today.

First, I'd like to recognize that we're on the unceded Anishinabe territory of the Algonquins, who have occupied these lands for thousands of years.

Today's discussion is to determine whether attending meetings virtually should remain an option for parliamentarians and witnesses. Witnesses have long been able to appear by videoconference, so that clearly works to some extent.

As Assistant Deputy Speaker of the House, I must admit that we've had some issues, even in committee. I know the technicians are working to improve connectivity. Moreover, it's primarily the government's responsibility to ensure that everyone across the country has a good enough Internet connection to give them fair opportunity to take part in parliamentary sittings and all other types of meetings.

Even before I became Assistant Deputy Speaker of the House, there were times I'd have appreciated being able to participate remotely in a sitting of the House. However, I couldn't have done that because I didn't have access to the technology.

I've had several surgeries on one of my heels and I know there are more to come. In these kinds of circumstances, it's very hard to travel to attend meetings. It's hard to fly or even to drive if you've had surgery on the foot you use to drive. I don't think I should be penalized for wanting to take care of myself due to health concerns.

Again, there have been instances where I have seen parliamentarians who have illnesses who find themselves coming here to Parliament earlier than anticipated. As a matter of fact, just yesterday I overheard an MP say, “I'm just starting a cold.”

I want to add that whether it's the death of a loved one, injury, illness or flights—we've all been experiencing that if you're flying, it has been very problematic—it's beyond our control. We should still be able to participate no matter what. I went to Mongolia a few years back, and they were further ahead than we were with voting.

I think we need to look at where we are now, in today's day and age, and continue to do this. Obviously, there should be some guidelines the whip's offices, committees themselves and Parliament will have to look at as to what would be acceptable. I would say that I would not expect to be able to just virtually participate without the approval of the whip's office. I just wanted to add that. When we look at the distances between some communities, it is difficult at times to be able to be here on time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Madam Hughes.

We will now move on to Ms. Jones.

Welcome to the committee. For up to three minutes, the time is yours.

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good morning, committee members. Thank you for making time to hear presentations from MPs this morning.

First of all, there's a little handout that you're going to get. There are four key points that I want to raise as part of my contribution this morning.

First, I think the hybrid Parliament has been a success. It came together rather quickly in a very difficult time. Like most changes you make, there were some growing pains, and while we went through some of those growing pains, I'm sure there are other ways that we can improve upon the system as well.

I want to make sure that it is not lost on people that there has been a shift in this country since 2020. In ridings like mine, it has really been felt in my capacity to do my job. Let me walk you through it.

First of all, you have a map that shows the entirety of my riding. It's a small population of 30,000 people in a geographic area of 300,000 square kilometres. That is not small. If you were to take the island of Newfoundland and the provinces of Prince Edward Island, Nova Scotia and New Brunswick, they would all fit in my riding. That's an area served by 31 MPs; my area is served by one MP, which is me. Populations vary, of course, as you know.

How do I get to my riding? That's what I want to talk about as part of my presentation. You can see see how large it is. It borders on Quebec in two areas and goes way up north towards Nunavut. How do you get there? There are four distinct regions. Forty per cent of my riding is isolated, with fly-in and fly-out communities only. The rest of it I can access by road once I'm on the ground. Road access from one community to the community furthest away that I can drive to is over 12,000 kilometres. It's not a short drive.

To give you an idea, I very rarely leave here on a Friday, because it's impossible for me to get to my riding before Saturday, and then I have to leave on Sunday to come back. The hybrid Parliament was the first opportunity I had to be there on a Friday: to arrive through St. John's on Friday morning, get online, do my House duty and do my votes—whatever the case was—and then have the rest of the day in my riding. I was able to do that sometimes on Monday.

Now, with the flight schedule, we were having a seven-day-a-week schedule from Air Canada, so I could go to Halifax and go into Goose Bay, go to St. John's overnight and the next day go into Goose Bay or go into Blanc-Sablon on the Quebec side to go to that part of my riding. It is very complicated, because it is very spread out and not connected. Then, on the other days, I go to western Labrador on this side of the Quebec border, so I overnight in Montreal, I take an early flight at 5:30 a.m. and I get there by mid-afternoon on Friday.

That's just to give you an example, because there is an argument that says, “You knew what you were signing on for.” Well, when I signed on, there were two airlines seven days a week. Today, I have one—and that's down to three days a week—and a single airline going into most communities, sometimes if at all. That has made it very difficult.

I have four very important points and I'm happy to discuss them later if anyone has questions.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We'll try to get those out in the questions.

Thank you, Ms. Jones.

Mr. Kmiec, welcome back to committee. You have up to three minutes.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Let me give a contrarian view on hybrid Parliament.

I don't think it's much of a secret that I'm opposed to continuing hybrid Parliament in almost all formats. I think it works very well for committees to invite witnesses by teleconference, but it doesn't work very well to build the camaraderie and high morale each caucus requires.

My comments are as the former elected national caucus chair of the Conservative Party, a recognized party on Parliament Hill. I served that role from 2019 until 2021, so it was during the entire length of the pandemic. I believe we were the first caucus to meet online over Zoom, which we selected as the best method of meeting. We met for the first three meetings with no interpretation, because the House of Commons wasn't able to provide it.

I also say this as the father of three living kids. My youngest daughter, Lucy-Rose, passed away on August 13, 2018. I took time off in order to grieve. This was then turned into a private member's bill, based on the experience I had.

I came back too early to Parliament on October 15. I will readily say that. Returning so quickly was not good for my marriage at the time, but my team made it possible for me to participate by making sure I was paired for very important votes in my riding. Those votes happened October 3. I still monitored my email. As you know, everybody grieving for a lost loved one will do this. You find things to distract yourself with, because, otherwise, you will go mad with grief. I was distracting myself by checking my emails every so often while I took care of my grieving kids as well.

On October 3, I became the first member who was not a minister to be paired with another member who was not a minister on our side of the House. The whip was very gracious to pair me up. Pairing is in Standing Order 44.1. I have sent a letter to the committee in the past—committees making up previous Parliaments. We should empower members, not the whips. Let us pair ourselves with gentlemen and ladies in other caucuses with whom we build a relationship over the years. Hybrid Parliament makes it impossible to build those relationships one-to-one—those very intimate interpersonal relationships we need to have, which are based on trust.

I will remind the committee about the reason you're having this study. It's that there's a member on this committee by the name of Greg Fergus, for whom I have a lot of respect and with whom I've built a mutual sense of respect over the years, working on the finance committee. That is the reason why this committee is able to pursue this study, right now. We would not have been able to do that over a hybrid Zoom Parliament setting. You're just boxes to me on the screen.

When I chaired meetings of the Conservative caucus, there were 150-plus boxes on a screen. You can't really build relationships like that. I know some people had fun right before votes. There were people singing and camaraderie, but it's not the same thing as having someone over for a discussion.

The other thing I want to say and put on the record is this: We are not 338 Service Canada ombudsperson offices. Our purpose in life is not to fix Service Canada's problems. That's Service Canada's job. I know many of us find a lot of meaningful work in helping individual constituent case files, but our work is as legislators. Our work is to keep the government accountable, including members of the Liberal government caucus and every other caucus.

Thank you, Madam Chair, for the time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Kmiec.

Next, we have Ms. Larouche.

Welcome to the committee, Ms. Larouche.

You have the floor for three minutes.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I thank the committee members for inviting me today to hear my comments on this important issue of hybrid parliamentary proceedings.

I testify before you today having just spent a week at the 145th Inter-Parliamentary Union Assembly, which focused on creating parliaments that better reflect both sexes and gender diversity. I testified as a mother, a new role I took up this past February 13. Naomie is now eight months old.

Because I was able to do it, I chose to go back to work with my daughter by my side. I returned to Parliament on February 28, with help from my sister first and then from my partner when he got back from a business trip.

In my opinion, it's a democratic issue above all. I studied politics at Université de Sherbrooke, so I'm well aware of it. It's hard to hold government accountable in a hybrid Parliament where ministers can easily cut and run. It's easier to represent our constituents, and we're proud to do it, when all MPs are physically in the parliamentary precinct. The informal meetings and follow-ups we're able to have in person between colleagues on Parliament Hill clearly show that.

I know networking is a challenge for women. They easily become isolated when they have kids, and that hurts their chances of promotion. I studied this when I was working in the community sector and led projects addressing women and poverty.

The lack of resources on Parliament Hill for women MPs with young children can certainly make things harder. I'm talking about resources like daycare with enough spots that can take kids under 18 months old. Family lounges should be larger and more practical. They should include playpens for children, among other things. Parliament should improve its practices.

On my recent mission to Rwanda, I heard about parliaments in other countries that had responded to women's family realities. In some cases, in addition to daycare on site within Parliament, they can even provide nanny services that travel with members out on tour.

Of course, all political parties also have a role to play in helping and supporting women as mothers, whether it's providing access to physical resources such as family lounges, or being more flexible and letting others sit in for them on occasion to meet some of their obligations, including in committee.

Why would my role as a mother, which I have proudly embraced for eight months now, be incompatible with my role as an MP? In promoting a virtual or hybrid parliament, we're saying that the two roles are incompatible. However, we don't want to send out that message. First, we need to prove to the rest of society that a woman can be a mother and perform these duties with dignity, just like everyone else. We need to modernize the institution in which we sit to make room for women and mothers, by offering a more flexible schedule and more physical resources. To do so, Parliament must adopt meaningful inclusion measures, including those I mentioned earlier. Otherwise, we won't be able to recruit more women.

I'd be happy to elaborate during the question period.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Larouche.

Now we'll go to Ms. Jean Yip.

Welcome to committee. You have up to three minutes.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you for inviting me.

This is personally very difficult for me, as it brings up memories that I have put away. It is so important for me to be here, because we have an opportunity to create a path that is both more compassionate and more practical.

My late husband, Arnold Chan, was the previous member of Parliament for Scarborough—Agincourt. He became ill while in office with nasopharyngeal cancer, more commonly known as head and neck cancer. Arnold passed away five years ago.

Exhausting as it was, Arnold travelled back and forth. His cancer treatments were in Toronto, but he felt the need to be in Ottawa to be present for his job, including as the deputy government House leader. He sat on this very committee. Arnold was committed to upholding his parliamentary duties in Ottawa right to the end. This meant he had to be there in person. Even though it compromised his health, Arnold pushed himself. He did not want to let his constituents or his colleagues down.

Arnold spoke at this committee even when he needed constant water because, physically, speaking was so difficult. He absolutely loved what he was doing. As a result, I had to split my time with an increasingly terminally ill husband in Ottawa and my three boys at home. It was the worst time of my life. My children were losing their father, and I was losing my best friend and husband.

Arnold needed to focus his energy on getting through the day instead of travelling back and forth to Ottawa. He was fragile and immunocompromised, but risked further sickness by being physically present in Parliament. My children should have had more time with their father, and Arnold should have been better able to fulfill his commitments as an MP.

Having the virtual option would have helped him manage his health, and given him more time with his family. Time is so precious, and it never can be regained.

Now as the MP, being a single parent makes any job tougher. You have to run twice as fast. In fact, every Sunday I would not sleep for 24 hours in order buy groceries, organize the week's meals, help with homework, laundry, pay the bills and deal with all the necessities of managing a household. Anyone who has every had life happen would have appreciated a hybrid option. I regret that my three boys became independent much earlier than they should have been. It was not easy on them, and I missed some of my children's special moments. Again, the time lost cannot be made up.

Lastly, my testimony here today would not have been possible without hybrid support. I must be in the riding to appear in person for an important hearing. I cannot think of a better use of hybrid than to allow me to participate at this committee and to represent my constituents at the hearing tonight.

I would like to close with a quote from Arnold in his last speech to the House:

We have to listen to each other. In so doing, we will make this place a stronger place.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Ms. Yip.

We will now enter into six-minute rounds. This is just a reminder that comments and questions from everyone should go through the chair.

We will start with Mr. Calkins for six minutes.

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

Madam Chair, if I promise to behave, can I speak directly to our colleagues? Is that okay?

Thank you very much, Carol, for your presentation. I actually found it quite interesting. I want to ask you a few questions first, and then I'll probably move on to one of our other colleagues.

You talked specifically about surgeries and illnesses, and your personal experience with some of your health matters. I don't have a lot of sympathy for flights, honestly, because we choose when we fly. If we choose to leave at the last minute, we end up late at the House of Commons. That's on us, but I do get the fact that you are also in a rural area that's probably quite a ways away, and it's difficult to get here at times. That's sometimes true for guys like me from Alberta as well.

I want to ask you about the whip approval part that you had in your notes.

Do you think there should be a very specific, circumscribed use of hybrid Parliament, and do you think the whips should be the ones involved in approving that?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

At this point in time, I'm not sure about other parties. If I'm going to be away from Ottawa, I have to let my whip's office know and I have to get permission. I would tend to think that, as we move forward, this is probably happening as well. We are required to be here, unless we have permission from the whip to be away for special reasons.

I would agree that there is a role for a virtual hybrid Parliament to continue in some shape or form. It is the responsibility of PROC and the parties themselves to look at who gives the approval for this. I would think it would be the whip's office that would be giving the approval to do this when someone has had surgery and they can't be here, or they've missed their flight.

I know that you also fly. Often, I've had to jump in the car—and I've been lucky to be able to do this, but Ms. Jones wouldn't be able to—and drive here to get here in time.

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

I understand. Yes, flights are not as good as they used to be from Alberta, either. I think it's a problem across the country; there's no doubt about it.

As a member of the speakership, would you say that, as a matter of accountability, if members of Parliament are choosing to use virtual or use hybrid and not attend Parliament—let's say, hypothetically, that there weren't circumscribed rules but that it was up to the MP to decide how they wanted to do that, and let's say they had the whip's approval to be attending virtually from their constituency that week—the House of Commons should be tracking whether somebody is voting remotely, whether they're voting in person, whether they're attending or logging in virtually, or whether they're speaking in person? Do you think that that should be something that should be reported to the public?

[Carol Hughes, NDP, Algoma—Manitoulin—Kapuskasing, ON]

I think that the public is able to see it for themselves.

As far as reporting, again, I think that would be up to PROC and what you decide, as you do your study, as to how you would like to see that. Again, I think, for special circumstances, it is the responsibility of each party to have those prescribed guidelines. I know we currently have it. We had it before virtual Parliament, and we still have it now. If I'm going to be away, I would need to get permission from the whip's office to be away, and I am expected to participate virtually unless I happen to have a doctor's appointment at that time, at question period time or whenever.

Yes, I think there is a huge role for the hybrid Parliament to play. We are in that technology world now, and I don't think that anybody is.... Hopefully, nobody is abusing it. I think that everybody who can be here is here unless they have special circumstances. I know that every party has been using it even though they can be here right now. I don't know what their circumstances are as to why they're not here and are participating virtually. As Ms. Yip says, she has electoral reform hearings tonight. I would assume—

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

I only have a little bit of time, Carol, so I'll let them speak for themselves, if that's okay, but thank you for your answer.

Tom, I have a question for you about your pairing suggestion. It is in the Standing Orders. The interesting comment I heard from you was that you didn't think that the whips should be involved in approving a pairing if you find a colleague from another caucus—for example, you and I, who are on the opposition, we would find a government member—to pair with us. Could you elaborate on that a bit more, please?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

Sure.

In the United Kingdom, they have a system that's based on just the honour code—and it's had problems in the past—but two members can pair and then you can go and inform the whips that you are paired for whatever length of time you need the pairing for.

Pairing has been used routinely in the past, but in the early 1990s, Standing Order 44.1 was changed to include the whips. Since then, the whips have almost exclusively had control of it. However, over the decades as whips change—and you know this, having been a former whip—there's a lot of knowledge that needs to be downloaded from whip to whip to whip as that role changes. I just think that we as members are able to find members who we agree with and who we build a relationship over time with and that, based simply on a handshake agreement, we can inform the clerks and the whips after the fact that we are to be paired for a vote. The way the system works right now, there are all those books and binders on the table in the chamber. Those are not just for decoration; they're actually useful. One of those binders is a pairing binder, and within it, the whips have to sign the names—not the members.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Sahota, you have up to six minutes.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I really wish we had so much more time than we do with all of the witnesses today. The testimony thus far has been really interesting and rich.

I'll start with MP Yip.

MP Yip, I got the chance to serve with Arnold on this very committee, and I miss him very much and the contributions he made. I remember during a lot of those committee hearings a bit of what you referenced about his having to have water or about the fact that he wasn't feeling well on many occasions during committee, yet he still had to sit there. It was very difficult to watch him in the later days, and it was almost even inhumane. I know he wanted to be here and he wanted to participate because this place was so important to him, but you could physically see his health deteriorating. I actually felt like the best place would have been for him to be resting, and perhaps he could have had more time with his sons—I don't know.

I was wondering whether you had any more comments to make as to any proposals that you would like this committee to undertake, given the testimony you gave today.

[Jean Yip, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

Thank you.

I believe, after my personal experience of watching Arnold deteriorate and watching the stress that it placed on our family, that allowing a hybrid Parliament to continue with all its flexibilities would be very helpful, not just for those who have medical issues, but also those—as Ms. Jones testified—who live far away and have a large riding. It can open up more possibilities for those who consider running, bring younger people in as members and support a better work-life balance.

We could have had more time.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

What do you think about the idea of pairing?

Given that type of health circumstance, how long do you think Arnold would have needed at home? Would it have been easy to find another member to pair with, considering pairing always requires two people? It comes to mind that we may not always have doubles in the House, given the same circumstance for the same length of time that might be needed for a member.