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

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you very much, MP Blaney.

First of all, much of what I had there has been raised by my colleagues. I, too, unfortunately, have lost a child.

During COVID-19 I lost my brother, so I know how important it was for me to have access to hybrid Parliament so I could be with my family and with his kids at that time as well. I really felt if that option wasn't there for me, my privileges as an MP would have been compromised as well, because it gave me that added opportunity to still be able to participate in Parliament and to support my family, and to have them support me at a time when I needed it.

I'm also a cancer survivor. I went through cancer in politics and I went through other major surgical procedures—as I heard Carol talk about. A number of our colleagues have. I listened to Jean this morning. It's absolutely heartbreaking to hear her story.

One thing that I think hybrid allows us to do is to continue to participate and have input, even if it's at a distance. It might not be the preferred option. Like you, I love being with my colleagues. I love being in the House of Commons, being in person for committees, but realistically we have lives that sometimes do not allow us to do the things we really want to do, but we can still participate. Hybrid allows us the opportunity.

I really believe the question for the committee should be how we incorporate a hybrid model going forward. When does it come into play? How does it support MPs? I don't think it should be a question of whether we use it or whether we don't use it. I think the question is how we use it to strengthen Parliament.

The largest corporations in the world today are being run with people's boxes on the screen. I'm not suggesting everything we do as lawmakers in Canada can be done over a computer screen, but if we can run a corporation that way, surely we can accommodate a member of Parliament who has had a child, who has family issues, who is suffering through disease and medical treatments or who has lost a loved one in their lives. Surely we can accommodate them through temporary circumstances where they require that support. That is something we can all do without compromising our responsibility as legislators or our responsibility to our constituents. I think the question needs to change to start with.

Other than that, as parliamentarians we have an opportunity to lead a new standard of how Parliament works in Canada, using new technologies and using the tools we have available to us. We're not the only Parliament in the world that is going to be looking at models like this, but we've tested a model. It seems to have worked. How do we take what we've done and incorporate it going forward as a new practice?

I think we can set a standard just by what we've been through in two years to show the rest of the world how parliaments can be diversified. In doing so, we're going to attract better people to politics. I believe there's nothing wrong with the people we have now, but we all know how hard it is to get someone to run for office these days. That's a serious point. We're all—

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

I'm sorry. I only have a little bit of time so I just wanted to give the last minute to Carol.

You talked about the amount of foot surgery and you don't always know when it's going to happen. I know that's a challenge too.

Could you talk a little bit about how this opens up the opportunity for you to participate as an MP?

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

Again, as I've mentioned, every party has used it and continues to use it. I don't know, again, their circumstances.

During COVID-19 I also was taking care of my grandsons, because both my daughter and my son-in-law are essential workers. She's a respiratory therapist and he's a correctional worker, so I do know what it's like to have young kids and having to balance. I understand what Madame Larouche is referring to.

We need better resources here on the Hill for child care, but when those kids start going to school—and if we have single parents as well—it's very challenging.

I firmly believe there is a role to continue with hybrid. Again, I think there needs to be specific guidelines as to who authorizes MPs to be away from Ottawa.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Now we have Mr. Cooper for up to five minutes. Welcome to PROC.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. It's great to be here.

I'm going direct my questions to Tom.

One of the recurring themes we've heard about the hybrid model is that it provides an opportunity for members to participate when it's impossible or very difficult for them to be here, oftentimes due to health issues. Ms. Blaney mentioned voting, but she went on to say that it's more than voting. She said that a hybrid Parliament ensures that those members' voices are not “silenced”.

I'd be interested in your comments, because I think you have a bit of a different perspective.

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

It's definitely different.

I believe a hybrid Parliament will nullify that distinction between a constituency week and a sessional week, which is when you're supposed to be here doing the work of a parliamentarian. There's really one thing that a parliamentarian can do that nobody else can do from their riding, and that's cast a vote. If you want to participate in public debate, then you can go on to Twitter or Facebook. Many members do participate in Twitter debates, and I know that.

You can always participate in a public debate from the comfort of your home, if you so choose, but voting, up until hybrid Parliament, was the only thing you couldn't do. Voting is the key. It's the central role of what a parliamentarian does, which is why many of my comments are based around it.

On our work-life balance expectation, during the pandemic I chaired our meetings on Wednesdays, when two of my kids were doing hybrid school. I could see their screens diagonally from mine at the back of the room. I'd have one child in the kitchen on a stool with their computer and with their headset on, and another one in front, so that I could see what was happening on their screens. They couldn't switch their screens and start playing a video game when they were supposed to be in school. We also held back our younger child from kindergarten so that he wouldn't have to go and wear a mask in kindergarten, which I thought was pointless, so I would also have to make sure that he was not turning on the TV.

That is not work-life balance. I'm trying to parent three kids at the same time they're supposed to be in school. I'm sitting behind them trying to chair a meeting of 150 people that at any moment could go off the rails because we are Conservatives with strong opinions. The kids might not have appreciated the hard parenting.

There's another thing it will do, in my view. We all get this from our constituents. I have the second-largest riding in Canada by population size. I get invited to a lot of events and a lot of homes for dinners, and participate in community events. If I'm then told that I also have to do Zoom Parliament and participate in that, that distinction is broken. Many people will say, “I know you are busy. I know you have to travel a lot. I know you are away.” Whenever possible, then, we arrange those for constituency weeks, but why do we have constituency weeks if we're going to have a hybrid Parliament model? Why don't we then sit longer? There is no distinction between the two things.

If I can do a Zoom meeting on a Sunday just to keep doing my work, that takes away the Sunday as a family day, essentially. If can do it from a lounge at an airport, or if I can do it from a vehicle while driving.... Many members have started to do that as well. They participate in Parliament from their vehicles. You can see that someone is driving them or that they themselves are driving, their phone perched precariously somewhere in their vehicle.

There is no work-life balance possible, I don't believe, in a hybrid Parliament setting.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Right.

With respect to voting, do you support a continuation of the app?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I would like to see us do away with the app and move toward pairing, where the member is empowered to pair their vote.

Madam Chair, on why I love pairing, I've sent a letter, as I said, to the previous PROC chair. This is what I believe on voting. It will force members to get to know each other across party lines. I've tried that to get to know members from other political parties and to get to know them to the level where I trust them: If I make a handshake agreement with them on committee business or about any other business of the House, I can trust them on the matter.

There are a few of those, I think, across all parties. I have cosponsored motions and private member's bills from members of the NDP and the Liberal Party as well. Those relationships are built over time, person to person and face to face. It's very difficult to do that in a hybrid setting, especially when you're asking me to build relationships with members of other provinces. This is a very large country. There is a huge distinction between a Conservative on the west coast and a Conservative on the east coast. The same applies to the New Democrats, the Liberal Party, the Green Party and all of us. We're very different from coast to coast.

[Michael Cooper, Conservative, St. Albert—Edmonton, AB]

Thank you.

What are your thoughts on proxy voting?

[Tom Kmiec, Conservative, Calgary Shepard, AB]

I'd be open to doing a system of proxy voting. The reason I go back to pairing is that pairing already exists in the Standing Orders. You don't need to create a new standing order to create proxy voting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Cooper.

Mr. Fergus, you have up to five minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to congratulate and thank my colleagues for their testimonies. One thing I noticed in each of their stories is that, basically, they're human. The situations we experience as parliamentarians are complex. We've heard very heart-rending testimonies from Ms. Yip and Mr. Kmiec concerning their family situations, and we heard Ms. Hughes, Ms. Jones and Ms. Larouche talk about their respective challenges.

I truly enjoyed Mr. Kmiec's response to the question from my colleague Ms. Sahota, who asked him if he felt that proxy voting was a good solution. He replied that it depended. I'd actually say that that response applies to everything else as well: It depends.

We've experienced something remarkable over the last two or even three years. For health reasons, we've had to keep a distance from others. We recognize that some Canadians had jobs that required that they work in person, but many were able to work remotely. As a result, we all worked from somewhere else for a while.

In the current situation, although hybrid meetings are still possible, I see that very few members choose to not attend meetings in person. The vast majority attend in person. That's also the case around this table: all the members on this committee are here in person, and we've noticed that they have been since September.

So, to reiterate what Ms. Jones said, I feel we should use this tool in exceptional situations, in the event of something serious. It may also be something happening in our constituency. In our role as MPs, it's important for us to be here to vote and maintain fellowship, but it's also important to be there with our fellow Canadians to show our solidarity with our communities.

Ms. Jones, you explained that it was hard for you to get to Ottawa, particularly since the pandemic, because a lot fewer flights are available. Can you tell us a bit about that? It's easy for me. My constituency is on the other side of the river, so I take the 41 bus in the morning to get here. What about you?

[Yvonne Jones, Liberal, Labrador, NL]

Thank you, MP Fergus. I appreciate the question.

When you live in a northern riding like I do—and Rachel and some of the others at the table, and many in the House of Commons—when we sign up to be a parliamentarian, we know the distances. What happens is that there are factors that change that impact our work. That's what's happening in my case, right now, with the shift in airlines and the lack of transportation capacity to get between there and Ottawa.

When I look at my schedule, other than the constituency weeks, I don't get to go to my riding on the weekends. In order to do my parliamentary duties here, I can't be in my constituency on the weekends. It's physically impossible, based on the airline schedules and how I have to travel to get there and get back. I need that extra day in order to be able to do that. Is that an extenuating circumstance? I don't know. However, if there were a hybrid option, I could at least opt for that option one or two days out of a month, so that I would get that weekend to go back to my riding.

I see hybrid as an option for MPs who are really going through challenging and difficult circumstances. We're all human beings. We're all going to face those things in our lives, cases and stories like those everyone heard here today.

You go all over the country. Employers today are looking at how they can make a better workplace environment for their employees, how they can make a better situation for them and their families, and get good productivity out of them on the job. We need to be doing the same as a Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for that exchange.

Ms. Gaudreau, please ask a brief question.

[Marie-Hélène Gaudreau, Bloc, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay, Madam Chair.

Earlier, I asked a question about parliamentary responsibility and accountability. In her testimony, Ms. Larouche said that it was hard to enforce these two concepts in a hybrid Parliament. I'd like Ms. Larouche to give us a couple of examples of how the government could shirk its responsibilities in a hybrid proceedings situation.

[Andréanne Larouche, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I'd like to point out two things.

As I said, we've seen that a hybrid Parliament created a clearer separation between the duties of Prime Minister, minister and MP. When ministers are asked about a thorny issue, they're not accountable in the same way when they are on a screen. There's the work we do during Question Period, obviously, but a MP's work doesn't end there. I'll give you an example. When I began as a MP, I had a delicate matter to handle with a department. I had to follow up on a request for a program. I was able to just walk across the House of Commons and speak directly with the minister. The lines were much more blurred as to the duties of a minister and an MP. When we work using a hybrid model, I can't have that type of discussion with a minister. However, we also play a key role as MP.

To sum up, attending sittings in person ensures that accountability, those hallway discussions and those informal meetings with members we see on Parliament Hill, for example. When we're in our constituency, we can listen to the people, but they also expect us to present their case and be their voice in Parliament.

That's the first thing I wanted to clarify.

I'd also like to take this opportunity to talk about the dual role that women are forced to take on by pitting their roles as mother and MP against each other. As I said, it's important for me to separate my private life from my work life. That's not easy with all the Zoom meetings we attend from home. It often has a negative impact on how we see our duties. When we hold hybrid meetings, there's less of a separation between work and the quality time we spend with our children. Psychologists have demonstrated that. There's a reason why so many studies have shown the disproportionate effects of the pandemic on women. Adding on more responsibilities has increased the mental burden on women. That's true for mothers, but also for some fathers, I must say. It's been hard for them to distinguish between their roles.

I'd also like to offer my condolences to my colleagues who have lost a loved one and told their stories.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We thank Ms. Hughes, Ms. Larouche, Mr. Kmiec and Ms. Jones for spending time with us this morning and we wish them a good day.

We'll suspend for a moment before continuing with our second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I would like to welcome members back for this second panel on our study of hybrid proceedings.

Please welcome the Hon. Ted Arnott, MMP and Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, and the Hon. Derek Bennett, MHA and Speaker of the Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly.

Mr. Arnott, we'll begin with you.

Welcome.

[Ted Arnott, Speaker, Legislative Assembly of Ontario]

Thank you very much, Chair Chagger.

Good afternoon. I'm Ted Arnott. I'm the member of provincial Parliament for Wellington—Halton Hills and the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

I'm glad to have this opportunity to address the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in discussing our parliamentary proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic and how we responded here at Queen's Park.

Like all Canadians who were asked to begin working from home in March of 2020, the Ontario legislature similarly adjourned its business until such time that the government House leader indicated to me, as Speaker, that it was in the public interest for members to reconvene.

When they did so, on May 12, 2020, the House adopted a motion that allowed committees to use electronic means of communication when they were authorized to resume meetings. The motion specified that committee members, witnesses and/or staff would not be required to be in the same physical place. This allowed for remote committee participation by members and staff without the need to be physically present in a committee room at Queen's Park, which was unprecedented at the time at the Legislative Assembly of Ontario.

While committees were authorized to meet virtually, the chamber proceedings remained in person throughout, with some modifications to the voting procedures and the number of members present in the chamber, in line with the public health advice we were receiving from Ontario's chief medical officer of health. Therefore, the bulk of this presentation will focus on committees, as they did have some hybrid components.

In total, the nine standing committees and one select committee conducted 328 meetings in the hybrid virtual format before returning to exclusively in-person meetings as of March 1, 2022, this year.

Hybrid committee meetings were still anchored in a committee room in the Legislative Building with the chair, acting chair and a committee clerk required to be physically present. Zoom was selected as the hosting platform for these hybrid committee meetings. An assembly staff from different branches worked together to conduct exhaustive testing in preparation for the change. Security, connectivity, user experience and ease were all tested at various times.

Guideline documents, manuals and tip sheets were developed for members, staff and witnesses in order to ease the transition to the new format. Each committee room was fitted with four TVs and extra cameras so that all participants in the room could view all the remote participants. In keeping with physical distancing best practices, members and staff present in the committee rooms were encouraged to sit apart from one another. Furthermore, each committee agreed that the members of the public attending as witnesses should appear virtually.

Each committee held a pre-meeting of 15 minutes before their scheduled start time for the chair to confirm the attendance of all members participating by Zoom and work out any technical difficulties that might have arisen.

All Zoom participants, excluding MPPs, were required to join an administrative confirmation meeting hosted on a separate Zoom call by a procedural services assistant. The assistant confirmed the participants' identification, conducted a technical audio and video quality check and then provided the main committee Zoom link to join the meeting. This ensured that only registered participants had access to the committee's Zoom meeting link, and it enhanced the security of the meeting.

Over time, as the use of Zoom became the norm, the role of the administrative clerk was no longer needed. However, the practice of conducting an administrative confirmation meeting for all external participants was maintained, as it had been effective in ensuring secure meetings.

Committees also began using their SharePoint site to securely distribute all relevant committee documents to members. This included written submissions, notices, agendas and even confidential committee documents. The site prompted members to log in with their personal assembly credentials to access the documents to which they would have “view only” access.

The order of the House that allowed for hybrid committee meetings provided that the chair would ensure that the Standing Orders and regular committee practices were observed to the greatest extent possible, making adjustments to committee procedures only where necessary to facilitate the physical distancing and electronic participation of members, witnesses and staff.

Adjusted committee procedures included the confirmation of identity and presence in Ontario. The chair was required, by order of the House, to verify the identity of members participating remotely and confirm they were physically present in Ontario, in order for them to be considered to be in attendance and part of the quorum. This was largely done during the pre-meeting, but it was also done during committee proceedings, as necessary.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Speaker Arnott.

We look forward to hearing more from you in the question-and-answer round.

I'll now go to Speaker Bennett.

[Derek Bennett, Speaker, Newfoundland and Labrador House of Assembly]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Speaker Arnott and other committee members.

As said, my name is Derek Bennett. I'm Speaker of the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador, and I'm also the member for the district of Lewisporte-Twillingate.

Before discussing the Newfoundland and Labrador assembly's approach to virtual proceedings, I would like to thank the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for the invitation to speak today. I certainly welcome the opportunity to speak about the provisions and accommodations put in place by our legislature during the COVID-19 pandemic.

Following the initial lockdown in Newfoundland and Labrador over COVID-19, the House met twice in person—once in March and once in May—for one-day sittings to deal with urgent legislation matters related to the pandemic. For both of these sittings, the House met with a quorum of just 10 members, along with necessary table officers and the sergeant-at-arms. We did not have any pages present. The galleries were closed to visitors, and the press gallery was restricted to half its normal capacity.

When the House met in person on May 5, 2020, it passed a motion appointing a select committee to govern virtual proceedings, which was tasked with determining the manner in which the House may conduct virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. The resolution provided authority for the select committee to meet virtually, in order to determine the manner in which virtual proceedings of the House may be held. It also provided that the measures recommended by the select committee and adopted by the House would apply, as appropriate, to meetings of other committees and the House of Assembly Management Commission. Prior to this, there was no authority for any virtual proceedings.

The select committee included the members of the standing orders committee, the House leaders, and one unaffiliated member. The order of reference adopted by the House provided that the select committee's report be tabled no later than July 1, 2020. Once tabled, it was deemed to have been presented to and adopted by the House of Assembly on that date.

The select committee's report included nine recommendations to provide for virtual proceedings in addition to procedural guidance on the following matters: participation; dress code and attire; background and virtual set-up; quorum; place of speaking; audio and visual functions; recognition of speakers; sitting times; points of order and privilege; admission of strangers; discipline; and voting. These provisions were in place until December 2020. However, in September 2020, the Standing Orders were changed to provide for virtual proceedings as circumstances warranted. The decision to proceed virtually is made by the Speaker in consultation with the House leaders.

Following [Technical difficulty—Editor] to ensure readiness from a technological, procedural and logistical perspective and that virtual proceedings could be successfully supported and facilitated, should they be required. Much of the testing focused on the integration of virtual participants with members attending in person in the chamber, as well as integration with our broadcast.

While the capabilities and authority exist for general assemblies to meet in a virtual hybrid configuration, they have never been used. However, they were used extensively by committees of the House and the management commission. The daily proceedings of the House have a fluid nature to them. As an example, oral question period is allocated in blocks of time, and the caucuses determine rotation of questions within their block. In a virtual proceeding, this fluidity is not possible.

In particular, I note the first statement in recommendation number one of the select committee's report states, “It is preferred that sittings of the House be conducted with all Members physically present.”

Since June 2020, favourable epidemiology, combined with sufficient physical space in the chamber, has allowed the Newfoundland and Labrador assembly to meet in person and all members to be accommodated. The configuration to accommodate appropriate physical distancing, in accordance with health guidelines, resulted in various versions of the seating arrangements in the House of Assembly.

Other measures to facilitate safe in-person sittings included requiring members to speak from a seated position and wear a mask when not speaking; suspending page services; adopting a resolution requiring members to be vaccinated; closing the visitors' gallery to the public; and reducing capacity in the press gallery. Further, a provisional standing order was adopted to provide for deferred voting. To date, that provision has not been used.

As we have all experienced, the COVID-19 pandemic presented challenges that required significant work and planning to enable the continued functioning of the legislature, often under tight timelines, with various unknown factors and rapidly changing circumstances.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Speaker Bennett, for your great words. We look forward to having an exchange with you during the question-and-answer period.

[Derek Bennett]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

We will now call on Mr. Calkins.

You have up to six minutes.

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

It's Mr. Nater.