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

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

I'm sorry. I'm attempting to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I'm going to pause the time here.

We all know I like to have the meeting run through the chair. You have all asked that you be able to speak among colleagues and so forth. We've just had a conversation about interpreters and their being able to do their work. When we ask a question, we should provide some opportunity for the answer. This is not a courtroom; this is a committee having a very important conversation.

Either let's start going through the chair or let's be able to take our turns and have the dialogue we need to have.

I'll start the clock—

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Through you—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

No. To finish the answer, we'll go to Minister Holland.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I want to say to Gérard Deltell, Peter Julian and Alain Therrien, who were the House leaders at that time, that we were, in a remarkably short period of time, able to come to a consensus on a hybrid model.

What I said was that during a pandemic, we needed to be able to have a hybrid model so that we could do our business, and at the conclusion of that, there needed to be a study by PROC on the use and utility, or lack thereof, of those hybrid provisions. That is what this committee is about today. That is the decision that this committee will make, and I look forward to its continued deliberations.

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

Through you, Madam Chair, the decision to extend the hybrid setting.... Several times, you referenced the potential of a new variant as your reason and rationale for extending that, and having some certainty in September.

What did you base that on? What scientific evidence or health-related evidence did you base that on, given the circumstances that we're in today? We're not seeing an increase in variants, yet here we are in a hybrid Parliament.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

If you recall, as we headed into the session last year in September, a year ago, I indicated that there was the possibility of variants and that Parliament needed to remain flexible in the wake of that possibility. Very unfortunately, we got hit by omicron, and omicron shut down Parliament again. It forced us once again, not only in this Parliament but across the country, to return to a state of lockdown in our homes. In fact, most of us spent last Christmas—and I certainly hope it's not the case this Christmas—having to celebrate outside and meeting relatives outside.

That was the state of the world at that point in time. I sincerely hope that we don't face that again. I think we're using these provisions responsibly now.

I am not clairvoyant. I can't tell you whether there will or won't be another variant. It's my sincere hope there will not be, but these provisions are important to maintain flexibility in the event of another public health crisis.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Go ahead, Mr. Fillmore.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thank you, Chair. Thank you, Minister.

You spoke plainly and beautifully about the challenges that you have faced and that all of us face at some point during our time here.

I think you had more to say, so if you would like to take some time to add to what you've told us already, I would very much welcome that.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you, through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Fillmore.

I think the only thing that I'll add, because I tried to get my comments in at the beginning—and I thank the indulgence of the chair for that—is this notion of pairing. Perhaps I could address that directly.

I don't know how I'm going to meet the end of my life. I don't know when I'm going to meet the end of my life. This is an example. Let's take the most extreme example.

This committee heard testimony from Dona Cadman. This committee heard testimony from Jean Yip. In that testimony, you heard about people who weren't interested in neglecting the responsibility they had to their communities or to the battle they fought their entire lives. I know that each person, as I look at you across the table, is coming here because you're trying to make the community better, the country better, and you're giving with all of your heart. As you face an end-of-life circumstance, the idea that you would pair and give away that last chance to have a voice is not reflective of the people I've seen in that position.

I also would take it one step further, which is that in any state of malady—and you've heard from some members on this—be it a mental health concern, or be it, frankly, not even a malady but a circumstance where.... As I mentioned very directly, there were different moments in time when I should have made a different decision, frankly, about being home when I was told that no, I wasn't allowed to.

Being able to be home in critical moments in your family's life, being able to be there when it really counts for them, and being able to still do your duty that you were elected to do and to be given a little bit of flexibility....

I think of what you've seen as this pandemic has eased. I very much hope that we're facing the end of the kind of circumstances we saw over the previous two years, but I think the learning was that we can afford a little more empathy and compassion for each other's circumstances, that we can afford a little more time. I think we've been able to demonstrate over the last couple of months in the House the appropriate and effective use of these provisions without undermining accountability, and I think that in the process we've been more human. Hopefully, we'll attract other people here, because I think one of the things that we have to think of, regardless of what you think of me or of any parliamentarian, is that we have to care about the future of this place.

We have to care about who walks in these doors, and we need to attract the brightest and the best. Those people need to be able to take a look at those families and say, “I'm going to be able to be there in really critical moments. When times are really tough, you're going to be able to count on me to be there.”

In this period over the last couple of months, we've attempted to take very seriously that balance of giving respect and room to members while also adhering to the responsibility we have as a government to remain accountable and present and for members to be able to fully and completely participate in our processes.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

You talked about the importance of the happiness of the people who work here, about being fulfilled, about their being able to fulfill their family obligations, and all of those things would make them stronger members, less corruptible members, etc. Can you make the connection between that and what the hybrid session offered for members?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Absolutely, and, through you, Madam Chair, thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Every poor decision I've made in life came from a place of depletion. It came from a place of not having met my needs and not being full as a person. That's where I've made some of the dumbest mistakes of my life, frankly.

I do not think that we want the people who are serving this nation and making decisions for this country to be in a state of depletion. I think that somebody who is well supported by a strong family and friends, somebody who has a good work-life balance, walks in with a different energy. They are people who are ready to make sacrifices and lift and do hard things.

I would submit that we are facing the most difficult challenges the planet has faced, certainly since the Second World War, and that we need people who are in a position to serve and are ready to serve. Those people need to be in a position where their lives and their needs are attended to, such that they can do the hard work of serving their communities.

[Andy Fillmore, Liberal, Halifax, NS]

Thanks very much.

Let me say this: Sometimes doing the right thing is the hardest thing.

Your role in the context of all the parties' roles in navigating the pandemic and the creation of the hybrid reality that we continue to enjoy was a very hard thing to do. I just want to say that you did it extremely well, and I thank you.

I'll leave it there, Chair. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Fillmore.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have six minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

At the outset, I commend the testimony that has been given, I welcome the openness and frankness that we have been afforded.

I would also like to point out that I have heard everyone's great desire to be reasonable and to put aside partisan pressure. It is a fact that we are all affected by a decision that the government will have to make after June. I hope that all the testimony we have heard will indeed be heard by all parliamentarians, especially by the leaders of each party. I know that the analysts are going to do an extraordinary job, and I would hope that this testimony will be well taken into account.

I say this because I have no doubt whatsoever about the basis of this proposal, about everyone's full awareness of wanting to do the right things and to do them differently.

In reality, my fellow citizens tell me that, even if I spend time in committee and there will be a report, everything is going to be decided in advance, it is going to be organized in advance. I would like to show them that we are capable of reacting quickly, as we have already done when something serious has happened.

I participated the first time, with my colleague,Gabriel Ste‑Marie, in the hybrid mode sessions of the Standing Committee on Finance, and we showed people that we could pivot quickly. This is one of my first appearances on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I would hope that this will not be shelved and that when a vote is taken, everything will not already have been decided. We have a lot of steps ahead of us if we are to succeed in finding a winning solution.

I must tell you that last year I used the hybrid mode out of concern for my daughter. I stayed with my daughter, who was a prisoner, because she needed special care. I was with her for a week. I had to be in Parliament, but the Zoom application was a perfect tool as it allowed me to work in virtual mode.

Do you know what my daughter said to me? She said, “Mom, this is good, you can work and be with me. I'm suffering now, but I don't feel you're there”. If there had not been a hybrid Parliament, I would not have been able to be at my child's bedside during one of the 26 weeks of parliamentary work. I was able to be at her bedside and today I am grateful for that.

That being said, I don't want to live with regrets. I tell myself that we are capable of finding a solution with respectable and suitable means for the 26 weeks of parliamentary sittings. I would hope that we will become aware of the availability of our resources.

I think we should agree on the three questions we need to ask ourselves. Do we have enough interpreters? Is the quality of our tools sufficient to avoid incidents and accidents? Do all parliamentarians have proper connectivity in their constituencies?

If we don't have these three elements, obviously it's not possible to participate in the sessions in hybrid mode. The Bloc Québécois is not looking for power; it is looking for a solution.

I have just one minute left, but can I hope that there might be a winning solution?

I'd like to hear what you have to say about this.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you very much for your question and your obvious passion in this regard.

Firstly, it is absolutely essential that we find a solution for the interpretation service. It is essential that the evidence from every meeting here in Parliament be available in both official languages. The Board of Internal Economy has made a lot of progress in this regard, particularly with Mr. Alain Therrien, who is an easy person to work with. He is a very reasonable person. He always tries to find non-partisan solutions. I am very grateful to him for that.

Secondly, on the matter of connectivity and technical issues, one has to remember that at every meeting there are witnesses who are present virtually. Even if we did not have a hybrid system, the technical problems of interpreting virtual sessions would exist. This is also a widespread problem in this environment.

I need to find a solution to this problem. I am here with you to find a solution. You are right. There's no doubt about it.

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

Since I have some time left, Madam Chair, I will add a comment.

What I understand is that we could look separately at some of the things that affect the House of Commons. For example, we know that the presence of every elected official, including ministers, is important for accountability.

Also, we could look at the elements that affect committees. I was not here before, but I know that it was already possible to participate by videoconference. So the technology had already changed and, yes, some witnesses could appear in person.

So, I would hope that these considerations would be compartmentalized in order to make a win-win decision.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

You are absolutely right.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

That's a good answer, thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor for six minutes.

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

Thank you.

Through you, Madam Chair, I thank the witness for his testimony today. It was very personal, and I appreciate and honour that.

I know that all of us around this table probably have stories of times when we would have really liked to be close to our family to support them through very hard moments. I want to recognize that and hope that you're not offended that you are asked questions as a House leader rather than as a serving MP.

We did hear testimony earlier today from the Welsh Parliament that talked about their interpretation. They made it very clear that not only are they seeing the workers really feeling positive about the work they're doing, but that they had just done a well-being survey and, in fact, the interpreters were one of the highest-scoring ones. We know that if we did a similar survey of workers across the board in this place, the interpreters would definitely not have that kind of outcome.

What steps are being taken to address this issue in a more profound way? Interpreters are really struggling. We heard last week that an interpreter was sent to the hospital because of acoustic shock. That is seriously concerning to me. I'm not clear if what the House provides is different from what the Senate provides, but I do recognize that the interpreters work in both places.

I'm just wondering if you could speak to that challenge we're facing.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

To Madam Blaney, thank you.

At the outset, there's absolutely no need to apologize. That's why I'm here. I gave a personal story, not because it's particularly remarkable but just because I think that we all have to share with each other some of the challenges in doing the work that we do.

I don't even speak here just of MPs. I'm speaking of the people who support the House. I'm speaking of folks like interpreters and, frankly, anybody who is in the business of trying to make our democracy function.

Let me speak directly to the question of interpreters. One thing that's important to remember is that there's a shortage of interpreters, and that is a significant challenge. We have interpreters who are in many different parts of the country. That solution, with or without hybrid, will mean that we need to allow those people to work virtually. The only way that we're going to have interpreters is to allow them to stay in their homes. We have a lot of people who are perfectly good as interpreters, but they're saying, “I'm not uprooting my family. I'm not leaving to go to Ottawa.” That's fair, and they should have the right to do that.

These issues are going to have to be fixed anyway, because remote interpretation is our future. If remote interpretation is our future, and we don't fix it, then the problems that you're talking about in terms of injury or problems for interpreters are going to continue with or without hybrid. Frankly, I would say that they need to be fixed irrespective of that. I think it's a very poor argument to not proceed.

All that I will say is that I too am very seized with that. The efforts that we're attempting to make at the Board of Internal Economy are very positive. I think there is co-operation that's taking place among parties to find solutions and seek collaboratively to ensure that every member of Parliament has access to interpretation in all of our meetings. It's essential.

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

Thank you. I hope that the priority is the health and well-being of the people who work for us. As a person who only speaks one language, I could not do this job without them. I just want to recognize that and continue to work towards having them report back to this place that they are very happy and healthy in their work, and we're not there yet.

I want to come back to this idea that you talked about that I do quite agree with.

It's really an MP's right to represent their riding and the voices of their constituents. There are times when you're limited in that capacity. I think back to some of the testimony that we heard, particularly about pregnancy, about people who are pregnant who are not allowed to travel for various health reasons but are still doing quite well. This really opens up the door.

I think we've also had discussions about persons living with disabilities and persons who have different challenges, such as a family crisis that keeps them at home when they are still capable of doing their jobs. Even if you have a serious health issue yourself, you still want to bring your voice forward for your constituents.

I'm just wondering if you could speak to the ability to have choice during some of the hardest physical times of your life, but when you still have energy to expend for your constituents. I think that members have that responsibility. How does a hybrid Parliament make room for that?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, thank you for the question, Madam Blaney.

I think it's a very important point. I spent three years as whip and I think the overarching lesson I learned in that period of time was that life is hard and that people go through extraordinarily difficult things. When we pass people in hallways, we have no idea what's happening behind those eyes—the inner world that people are challenged with.

I talk to people who are immunocompromised who say, “I have to represent my constituents. I'm coming in. I don't care that it's putting my health at risk,” or I talk to people and I'm not sure their state of mental health makes them quite ready to return, as they have faced either a major trauma or a life event or a health issue, but they want to represent their constituents, so they come in. As was just indicated by our honourable Bloc colleague, perhaps someone has a family member who's in a state of crisis and who needs them to be home for a particular period of time to be with them to make sure that they get strong, and then they can still do their job.

I think we need tools to be able to address that and I think we've been able to demonstrate that we can use those tools responsibly, as we've demonstrated over the last two months.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

I now give the floor to Mr. Berthold for five minutes. He will be followed by Mr. Turnbull.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I remember when you occupied Mr. Holland's position in the House of Commons, Madam Chair.

Mr. Holland, I have several questions for you and I would like you to answer them fairly quickly. This is an important question.

Last week, I had the opportunity to ask three experts about the health of interpreters: should Parliament continue to maintain hybrid sessions at this time, given that we know that every hybrid session causes problems or injuries to interpreters?

The first expert replied as follows:

In my line of work, if it's a matter of convenience versus harm, I always pick no harm with a little bit of extra inconvenience.

The second expert said he agreed with his colleague and that there was a duty of care.

The third replied that the answer was clear enough from an ethical perspective.

Who makes the decision to let interpreters continue to do this work, when we know very well that interpreting hybrid sessions is harmful to their health?