Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 25th, 2022

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

Very good.

My next question is for Mr. Cooper, whom I met last summer. I don't know if he remembers me.

I would like to congratulate your assembly, which not only maintained in‑person participation, but increased it.

Are you proud of this? What are you most proud of in having maintained in‑person participation?

I think we have 30 seconds left.

[Nathan Cooper]

The thing I'm most proud about is that people—Albertans—I believe had the best access to our democracy as a result of those sittings.

I think the question that we need to ask ourselves isn't just whether virtual sittings are possible, but what the best opportunity is to expose Albertans to our democracy. We have all agreed that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That is an excellent question, Mr. Cooper. We look forward to hearing more information, and others are also pondering it, but I have to move on to Ms. Blaney for six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you to all the witnesses, of course, for being here today and for your testimony.

I'm going to go first to Ms. Davies.

First I want to thank you so much for sending us the information about the translation services. It has been a large concern for us in Canada. I think that figuring out the best practices is so important to protect the workers. Thank you so much for sending that to us.

My question for you is really around criteria. We have been having a lot of testimony during the last few weeks on the study of a hybrid parliament and the next steps that we should take. What we're hearing is a general theme of the need for some sort of criteria for who should be able to participate remotely and when.

Can you talk to us about any systems put in place around having specific criteria? Is there any particular role in your House that oversees the criteria? If you can give us some thoughts on that, it would be helpful.

[Siwan Davies]

In relation to our chamber, there are no criteria. It's a matter for an individual member as to whether to participate in a physical or virtual form. The expectation is that they're treated equitably regardless of whether they're in the chamber physically or coming in electronically.

In relation to committees, it's a matter for the individual committee to determine collectively how it wishes to conduct its business. For example, if the committee is taking evidence from witnesses who might be in different parts of the country, they may choose to do so virtually. If they're doing a legislative scrutiny, they may choose to come together physically, as it's easier to do so in the room together.

In the main, when committees undertake scrutiny of ministers and accounting officers, they want to do that physically. They impose the criterion of what is best for getting our business done.

In committees, I think individuals will have different views, but as a collective, the chairs are very much of the view that it's for them to determine and not for the Senedd or anybody else to impose upon them, within the broad framework of guidance issued by our presiding officer, which applies both to committees and to the chamber.

I hope that answers your question.

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

It does. That's very helpful.

I guess my follow-up question would be this: Is there any method whereby that information is tracked and put out publicly? What I mean is that when you look at our records, for example, you can see how I voted on everything that I did. Is there any tracking methodology that's made available for the public to know if a member is participating remotely or on site in the House?

[Siwan Davies]

Currently, no. It would just show that a member has participated, spoken and voted. With committees there would be a record to show in what medium the committee was meeting, so they'd be tagged as in person, virtual or hybrid, but it would be very transparent to anybody who was watching the broadcast or watching our Senedd TV to see the medium by which the member was participating.

Something that did come up in the review that the business committee undertook was some unhappiness about voting electronically if one had not been present in a debate at all, but then the counter to that was that this can happen anyway with physical participation. It seemed that some of the arguments being put in favour or against virtual participation equally apply to physical participation. That was something we worked through in terms of members just being cognizant of their responsibilities to be present for a debate if they were going to vote in a debate, or to be present for the entirety of a committee session, for example. That wasn't particular to the virtual or the hybrid.

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

Thank you for that.

Perhaps I can come now to Mr. McGill.

I understand also that there are no set criteria. Obviously it sounds as though you do have some general ideas of what those might be, but there isn't anything specific.

I know you are doing your 12-month pilot project. Are there plans at the other end of that pilot project to look at these particular things, such as criteria?

Then, of course, I'll add on the question I just asked about. Is there any method within your system of tracking if people are participating one way or another?

[David McGill]

Thank you.

I should just be quite clear that the 12-month pilot is solely in relation to proxy voting. It's not about hybrid proceedings.

In relation to criteria, yes, you're correct. There are no criteria at the moment, and I don't envisage that ever becoming the case from where we are now; but it can't be ruled out, because the committee has suggested that the overall impact of operating in a hybrid way in the longer term be kept under review. It may be that if there is growing concern that the ability to connect remotely from local areas is somehow being abused, a different view might be taken at some time in the future, but there's no clock ticking on that at the moment.

Sorry; can you remind me about the last part of your question?

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

Of course. Is there any way of tracking if people participate remotely or on site?

[David McGill]

There isn't, no. The one exception to that would be in relation to whether the presiding officer chooses to say something in calling a member. Sometimes you'll find a presiding officer calling a member and saying, “and the member joins us remotely”, so that would be there on the record; but there's no other way of tracking whether a contribution is a remote one or a physical one.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I really appreciate the time that you have all taken. We have four witnesses on this panel, and all four are participating within the virtual capacity, which I understand is different from having fewer witnesses. It matters where the translation is happening. This has demonstrated to us....

Mr. Hamlyn, I want to apologize to you for the inconvenience. I really appreciate that you stayed with us to hear what members had to say, and we look forward to receiving some comments back from you in writing, but I offer you my sincere apologies.

To Ms. Davies, I'm going to be asking the interpreters, through the clerk, if the sound quality that they heard from you is different from others, because you have the hybrid capability and you're saying there haven't been many negative instances. I'm going to ask that question of the interpreters.

When they heard Mrs. Davies speaking, was the sound clearer than they heard from others? I can ask a quick question.

I also want to thank Speaker Cooper as well as Mr. McGill for their time. If you want to send anything in writing, please do. We appreciate it.

We'll suspend quickly, and then we will have the second panel.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

We will resume the meeting.

I welcome the witness for the second panel, the Honourable Mark Holland, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

Mr. Holland, you have the floor.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

Today I am testifying as an individual. However, I am prepared to answer questions as minister.

What I am about to say is very personal, and that is why I will speak in English.

I'm going to have to do this in two parts. I'll wait for the opportunity to say the second part.

I think there's a very important conversation that needs to take place, not just about hybrid but about politics and our business in general.

I don't know why I wanted to enter politics. Each of you will your own individual story. It started for me when I was six in a sandbox. It might have had to with my grandfather. My grandfather told me from a very young age that if you wanted to make a difference, you had to know somebody in politics. That's how you got things done. I know that he respected politicians a lot—this was my mom's dad—so I wanted to be somebody my grandfather respected.

Maybe as well it was the very poor relationship I had with my father. My dad was obsessed with becoming big, huge—whatever that meant—and I struggled to get his attention or feel that he saw me.

Maybe it was the fact that I struggled in a household where there was a lot of abuse, that the by-product of that was problems with a sense of worthiness, and that validation could come from seeking public office.

Maybe was part of it, but in the rubble of what I found there was purpose. I have to say that politics for me was a calling that I took extremely seriously. I threw myself into it with everything I had. I listened to my whip when I came in federally. I listened to my party. I went to every event I could go to. I tried to be the best member I could be.

In the process, I failed my family. In the process, I was not the father I should have been. I did not maintain my personal relationships in the way I should have. That's something that I can't take back. When I lost in 2011....

We're going through a very difficult time. When you pass people in the hallways, you see in their eyes the challenges of what they're facing. I see a lot of me, frankly, and how I was struggling in 2010 and 2011.

When I lost, because I had my thrown my entire universe into this enterprise at the expense of, unfortunately, a lot of other things that I should have taken better care of, I was in a really desperate spot. I was told that I was toxic. The Conservatives hated me. No organization would want to hire me. My marriage failed. As I mentioned, my space with my children was not in a good place. Most particularly, my career, my passion, the thing that I had believed so ardently in that was the purpose of my life, was in ashes at my feet.

I'm not proud to say that I made an attempt on my life at that moment in time. That was the genesis for me starting to see my life very, very differently and reframing the choices that I have in my life. I had to reflect in that moment on my own mom, through the course of the abuse that she faced, and her own attempt on her life, and the impact that had on me as a child.

Why do I say all of that? It's because it took a lot in that moment to I guess understand the parable of the spoon, to understand how I had to reframe what I did and to understand the mistakes I had made. I came back to attempt to do things differently, and as whip over a period of three years to see in staff and in MPs the suffering they held and the price they paid to try to serve and to fight for the cause that they believed in.

Look, I'm sure that Hitler worked very, very hard. I'm sure he woke up every morning and he went to every event, and I'm sure that he was in every place that his party told him to be, but at the end of the day, I do not think that our values should stem from that. I think we have to ask a fundamental question, which is when an employee shows up, if they have the opportunity to have their needs met, if they have a good relationship with their family, these people are going to be fundamentally more productive, more creative, more resilient and less corruptible. They'll be in a much better place to serve their community.

I'll finish on this, because you've been generous with your time, Madam Chair.

In Arnold's last speech—Arnold Chan was one of my best friends—he gave a speech about having more compassion for one another and seeing the burden that each of us is trying to carry, seeing that each of us is looking into the darkness of the unknown and attempting on behalf of the communities that we serve and the families that we come from to find answers and to lift people up. If we create a place where people who give more than they take, people who take more responsibility than they give blame, people who....

I'm finishing here. If we're going to create that place that people can come to, this place needs to be more human. It needs to be more compassionate. Hybrid isn't an answer, but I submit that it's a start.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Minister Holland.

What a time to be talking about being humane, and then I'm just saying, “Sorry; thank you for sharing your words”, but I will have to chair this meeting, which I take very seriously as well, and go to our first round.

Mr. Brassard, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you to Mr. Holland, was it your choice to become a member of Parliament?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Absolutely.

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

See, it was my choice, too, Mr. Holland, and I made the choice knowing that the seat of power in Ottawa was where I needed to be, and that's a choice that my family made. While I sympathize and empathize with the story that you told, back in May, I wrote you a letter, which you did not have the courtesy to respond to, suggesting that there were options available to Parliament that would deal with situations when we needed to be more empathetic and compassionate.

I'll bring you back to a situation. Shortly after you were elevated into your position, you pledged to Joan Bryden, formerly of the Canadian Press, that you would be “irrationally reasonable and logical” and that your job is to find areas of common ground. One of the things that we tried to find was common ground and consensus on how Parliament would work going forward, and in that letter I suggested several things to you, to which you did not respond. One of them was the ability for us to use the Standing Orders to pair, to be able to be empathetic and sympathetic. I'm wondering what your comments are on that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

I thank you for the opportunity to work with you in your time as House leader.

I did make a choice to be here. I tried to give a bit of a colour of where that choice came from and I've tried to comport myself differently over the last seven years. What I seek to do is to encourage others to firmly shape those boundaries in their own world, in their own lives.

You're right: I do, as a guiding principle, try to be irrationally reasonable, so I'll talk for a second about pairing and my friend Arnold Chan.

Before he gave his last speech, it was incredibly painful to see Arnold in the state that he was in, and I do believe, actually, that he would have come to Ottawa despite the fact that he was in the stage that he was in. One of the things that I know about Arnold and that anybody would know about him was that as he was spending his last days on this earth, his duty to the job that he loved and the people whom he served meant that he wanted to be able to do that, so he dragged himself in. I don't know if people remember seeing him in the lobby huddled in a ball trying to sip water to find the strength to drag himself into the chamber—

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

He did.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

He didn't want to give his duty to somebody else. He didn't want somebody else to represent him in his last days, sir; he wanted to represent himself in the last days he had on this earth, and he did so with dignity.

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

Under the Standing Orders at the time, Mr. Holland, the pairing option was available to him. Had we agreed and had consensus at that time.... You talk about consensus and the importance of consensus, yet there was no consensus that was made to extend the hybrid session of Parliament for another year. You did an end-around on the official opposition and you did an end-around on the Bloc Québécois and you negotiated a deal with the NDP to ram the hybrid Parliament through Parliament.

You'll have to excuse me on actually believing that there was consensus in this regard; you rammed it through Parliament.

My question to you is this: When did you make the deal with the NDP to have a hybrid session and have that voted on in June? When was that deal made?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Brassard.

In March of 2020, when the pandemic descended upon all of us, we had a meeting at the Board of Internal Economy. I understand you were not the House leader at that time. When we asked how we were going to continue conducting the business of the nation, notwithstanding the fact that we were facing a global—

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

In June of 2022—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I'm talking about this—