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

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

Thank you for that.

I think we're hearing really clearly from most people that there should be some sort of criteria for why people could be away and participate virtually. I think of testimony several days ago from one of the MPs who talked about being pregnant and not being allowed to travel toward the end of her pregnancy, and what a difference it made for her to be able to continue to participate virtually, even though her health concerns made it impossible for her to be here.

I'm wondering if either of you have any thoughts on how this tool could be used to create a more inclusive environment, so that people who might be limited in their participation can participate.

Our voice in Parliament is a reflection of the people we serve. Making sure that voice is heard...we have to find the ways to do that. When we hit the pandemic, of course, one of the most important parts was how we could hold the government to account and how we could make sure our constituents' voices were heard.

I'm wondering, within the work you do, if you could share your thoughts on this. I'll start again with Speaker Bennett.

[Derek Bennett]

Thank you very much.

Right now, as I said earlier, we do it as a collective group. There is no ability right now within our Standing Orders for members to choose to be virtual because of health reasons or family reasons. However, it's something that has been considered, and we will be reviewing it again over the coming weeks and months to see how we can be, I guess, more inclusive and make sure that every member of the House of Assembly is able to represent the people of their districts.

We put a revision in our Standing Orders so that we allow children—infants—into the House of Assembly, should there be a parent who needs to care for a child. Since we implemented that, we've had two infants in our House of Assembly, which were definitely a welcome joy to the House.

However, as of right now, our Standing Orders do not allow for one-off types of requests.

[Ted Arnott]

The situation is similar in Ontario, but it's also been exciting for all of us as members to see some of the members who have recently become parents bringing their infant children into the chamber. We've had that on a number of occasions, and it's been welcomed by members on all sides of the House.

However, I think, again, that the issue is still participation and the ability of members to represent their constituents and participate fully. This is a discussion that all of us in our respective Parliaments need to have.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you very much.

Go ahead, Monsieur Berthold.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I thank the two witnesses, who are speakers in a legislative assembly, for being here.

Mr. Bennett, can you hear me okay?

[Derek Bennett]

I can hear translation. It's very low, though.

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

Okay, I'll speak slowly.

Mr. Bennett and Mr. Arnott, I have an important question for you.

The committee is preparing to make a recommendation on the future of the parliamentary system. In other words, we'll try to determine whether we should keep the hybrid format or if we must have in-person meetings only.

You are experienced parliamentarians, so I'd like to hear your thoughts.

Must consent be obtained from all parties sitting in the House of Commons or a legislative assembly for this type of change to be applied, or can it be imposed by a government majority or by a simple vote?

I think it's a question we have to ask and that merits further consideration.

We'll begin with you, Mr. Arnott.

[Ted Arnott]

Again, I'm not really in a position to provide direction to the House of Commons or the Senate on this question. I think the members need to—

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

Answer just for your assembly. Could that kind of change have been made by consensus or by imposing the majority of the government?

[Ted Arnott]

I think every Speaker would want to see discussions taking place involving all members, ideally, or their representatives through their House leaders and whips. Ideally, there would be a consensus determined based on honest discussion, the public interest and the interest of Parliament as a whole, with no government or opposition party trying to seek short-term partisan advantage in the discussions or the final decision that would be made.

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

Thank you.

I'll let you answer, Mr. Bennett.

[Derek Bennett]

Thank you.

Very similarly, at the Newfoundland and Labrador legislature, we had a very in-depth discussion on this. However, as I alluded to in my opening notes, it was the recommendation of the select committee that it be preferred that all members be present when we were sitting in the House of Assembly.

As for the committee meetings, they worked quite well, but we have a smaller legislation with 40 members.

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

Mr. Bennett, in your remarks, you mentioned that the hybrid formula could hinder the flow of debates. Can you explain in more detail how that could negatively affect the flow of debates in an assembly or parliament?

[Derek Bennett]

It is very challenging as a Speaker to monitor a virtual hybrid setting. We looked at various scenarios if we did move to that model. We did consult heavily with the House leaders and also the unaffiliated members.

We felt that we would have to move to much more structured proceedings where everything was scripted. We would know who would be speaking, which order they would be speaking in and also the full proceedings of the day. It wouldn't allow for members to rise to speak without our having previous notice.

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

Mr. Arnott, can you tell me why the Legislative Assembly of Ontario was so hesitant about the idea of a hybrid system?

Your assembly ultimately decided to continue sitting in person. Why did Ontario MPPs decide that?

[Ted Arnott]

I think it was the decision of the House to continue to sit in person. There would be individual members who might have strongly favoured continuing to sit in person and perhaps others who would have preferred to have given greater consideration to a hybrid model. In the final analysis, its final decision was to continue.

I think it's fair to say that as the Speaker of the legislature, as well as the staff of the assembly, we were prepared to look at various alternatives if the House determined that it was necessary. In the end, the House decided to carry on in person with fewer members and with public health advice brought into the building, hopefully in a way that ensured that members and staff would be safe.

Unfortunately, it restricted access to the general public much of the time. All of that is now evolving. Now that we're into the fall, we're allowing more people back in the building.

I see that the chair is wanting to cut me off.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I was just so overwhelmed with everything being shared.

I know that Mrs. Romanado wanted to get to her five minutes of questioning.

Thank you.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Through you, I'd like to welcome our two witnesses.

I'm going to be sharing my time with Mr. Gerretsen, so I'll be quick.

I would be remiss not to mention that this morning history was made in Quebec when two MNAs were sworn in by video conference to the new National Assembly. One MNA is expecting very shortly and her husband, who is also an MNA, was sworn in as well. I'd like to say that provincial legislatures are making accommodations to include the one-offs.

In that regard, we currently have hybrid Parliament provisions until the end of June 2023. As you can see, every member of this committee is physically in the room. The option to participate in a hybrid way or virtually is there, but as you can see, most of us choose to be here.

I understand that both provincial legislatures do not have that provision right now—both Newfoundland-Labrador and Ontario. In a case where you had an elected official who could not physically go to the legislature, would that not be a breach of their parliamentary privilege? If so, what accommodations could you make for them to be able to, should they have a case of illness or if they had COVID and didn't want to infect their colleagues?

Either Speaker can comment.

[Ted Arnott]

I can go first.

The Legislative Assembly of Ontario does not currently empower the Speaker to give that authorization to members. The Speaker doesn't have that authority.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Speaker Bennett.

[Derek Bennett]

Likewise, in Newfoundland and Labrador, the Speaker doesn't have the authority to do that. It would have to come from the House Assembly.

[Sherry Romanado, Liberal, Longueuil—Charles-LeMoyne, QC]

Thank you.

I'll cede the rest of my time to Mr. Gerretsen.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Ms. Romanado.

Mr. Arnott, my question would be for you. I understand that you spent a long time in the Ontario legislature, dating back to 1990. You've seen a lot of people come and go since then, including somebody who shares the same last name I do, whom you probably got to know over the years. You've had an opportunity obviously to build camaraderie with individuals from across the way as well as with individuals within your own party.

We had some testimony prior to the two of you joining us to the effect that we would run the risk of not being able to create and build that camaraderie if we were to all suddenly engage in hybrid ways of communicating like this in which we wouldn't have the opportunity to mix and mingle, to sit down for lunch together and to talk amongst ourselves off-line so to speak. I'm curious, given your extensive time serving in the provincial legislature, as to whether you see that as a risk and, if you do, whether you provide any ways to try to mitigate that and to ensure it doesn't happen.

[Ted Arnott]

Thank you for the question. Yes, I would agree that the participation of members in the legislature is enhanced by their opportunities to speak to each other face to face. Camaraderie is one word; perhaps we could use collegiality. I think if individual people get to know each other across party lines, it can only add to the decorum within Parliament and also to the ability perhaps of the residents who are watching to see meaningful debate as opposed to debate degenerating into insults. There is a huge advantage in my opinion.

We've had to go through this in the last two and a half or almost three years in our society. It's not just in Parliament or in legislatures. Communication using virtual approaches is a big challenge. I do think we've done the best we could, but I would agree that when people get together face to face, that allows them to get to know each other better and allows for, I think, more discussion and dialogue.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

To that end, if I may follow up on that, would you agree then that the general use of a hybrid Parliament, if it were to function on a permanent basis, should be reserved for the exception? Should it be reserved for when people are sick and cannot come, and should not be the default that people use but should be reserved and utilized for the exceptions, for when people need to use it for various different reasons, personal or professional?