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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, thank you to Mr. Brassard.

There were two questions there. With respect to the decline in democracy, I think we're all seized with the decline in the quality of discourse and the incredibly aggressive and partisan nature in the way we question each other and interact with one another. For most people watching, it doesn't appear that we're really acting like human beings. We seem to be more interested in our partisan interests rather than being people who are attempting to do our best.

With respect to the specific question, I can tell you that I really wish.... It's one of the reasons I really struggled with the testimony today. I think if somebody had come across the aisle in 2010 and 2011 and had a conversation with me about the way in which I was throwing my entire life and every inch of myself into my career, I would have welcomed that conversation. I would have welcomed a conversation about mental health. I would have welcomed a conversation about alternative ways to work.

I think if that had happened, I don't think I would have gone to the place I went. I would have very much welcomed that conversation.

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

I will ask you a very pointed question, through the chair. I've been watching the testimony that's been going on at this committee, and it very much feels like a box-ticking exercise, which was my experience when I was the opposition House leader. My whip can attest to that at the time.

This really feels like that situation. It feels like the decision has already been made about which direction we are going in.

Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Holland, has an agreement been reached with the NDP to continue with a hybrid Parliament going forward? Have you reached an agreement with them?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

What I can say is that I'm here. From the beginning, I said that it would be a decision of PROC and that it would be a majority decision of the House and the parties to make, but let me say something—

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

I'll take that as a yes.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

If I could, Madam Chair, because it's an important point, let me give credit to Mr. Deltell in the work that he did in compromising on BillC-3 and BillC-4. What a pleasure it was to work with him, with somebody who was able to do something other than obstruct and be partisan.

Let me say that I'm hopeful that with Mr. Scheer right now—

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

That's a personal shot, Madam Chair.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I'm just saying, Mr. Brassard—

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

That's a cheap shot, because we were trying to work together.

That's okay. I have another question—

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

I did not see that as.... I think the point was being made, and I can understand people taking things differently.

Can we let him finish the question so that I can give you your time?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I have a point of order—

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

Yes, we all experience things differently, Madam Chair. Thank you.

I have another question, and it's my last.

There are existing tools within the Standing Orders that we can utilize to help make this place function better. We talked about, and you talked about, consensus building. Are you averse to, or would you consider, proposals made by all standing parties in the House of Commons to deal with the issue of utilizing some of those existing Standing Orders in order to facilitate a better-functioning Parliament?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Always.

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

That's perfect. Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Romanado, you have four minutes.

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

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

I'd like to thank the minister for being with us today and for sharing his story. I really appreciate his honesty.

One thing we've been hearing a lot about is.... It's one extreme or the other. What we're talking about is hybrid Parliament, and hybrid Parliament is a blend of ways to participate. We are currently under hybrid provisions that go until June of 2023, yet here we all are. Every single member of this committee is physically in the room. The option of how we participate is already available to us.

The point we keep hearing is that if we were to adopt a hybrid model, all hell would break loose and everyone would be at home on their sofa. Could you elaborate a bit on what you're seeing in terms of the physical participation, despite the fact that we have a hybrid model in place right now?

If you could elaborate quickly on that, I have a follow-up question.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

It's a bit bizarre to me, because over the last two months we have enjoyed a hybrid model and an eased pandemic situation. We're not totally out of the pandemic, but we're in an eased situation. We've seen how these provisions can work and how accountability continues, but there are two points that are missed.

One is that MPs want to be here. When you talk to MPs, all of them want to be here. The challenge often, as whip, is telling people to stay away because of their health or circumstances in their lives that mean they shouldn't come.

The second point is that I'm very confused by the Conservatives being so hot on this point, because if it were true that people using hybrid were going to do such a terrible job in representing their constituents, would it not make it easier for them to defeat those people, and isn't that their objective? If they thought that these provisions would be so poorly utilized and that people would do such a terrible job representing their communities, wouldn't they be the biggest advocates of us making the “dumb mistake” of using this, so that we could be easy people to beat? They could replace us and then get rid of the system.

I don't fully understand that position.

If I could, I'll finish on the point that I was on earlier, because I understand that Mr. Brassard took offence to what I was saying. I was simply trying to illustrate that whenever possible.... We've had good opportunities to work together, and there were proud moments in Parliament. For me, Bill C-3 and Bill C-4 were really proud moments when we came together as all parties to find solutions and to set aside aside our differences.

As a House leader, whether on this matter or on any matter, I recognize that we're in a minority government, and good ideas should come forward. When those ideas are good and supported by other parties, of course, I would support them.

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

Thank you very much, Minister.

Again, using hybrid is an option; it's not an obligation. I just want to highlight that, because we keep hearing about an “all or nothing”.

Ms. Blaney brought up a really good point a couple of meetings ago regarding under which conditions MPs should be allowed to participate virtually. If we put out prescribed conditions, would that not actually go against the right to privacy? For instance, if it said that it could only be in case of illness, then everyone would know, if I was participating virtually, that something was wrong, that I was ill. If I had a problem, I would be more comfortable to go to my whip and say, “Look, I need to be working virtually today because of X, Y and Z.”

Would you feel that it would actually be hindering people in terms of their right to privacy?

Yes, I understand that if we were to use virtual all the time, it would be up to the electorate to decide whether or not they felt they were represented well come the next election. Would you agree with that?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I get a sense from that buzzer that I have limited time to answer the question.

I would say, through you, Madam Chair, yes. I as whip was aware intimately of many personal details that frankly had no business being out in the world and should have been able to be kept private, and I would be made very challenged under that sort of model.

I would remind members that in our conduct and in the way we set our rules, we believe that all members are honourable and will act honourably. In my experience, they do.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you for those words.

Thank you so much, Minister, for taking the time today to appear and be part of the study. We wish you a really good rest of the day.

Members, we're going to suspend quickly and have a quick in camera conversation about some committee business.

Thank you.

[Proceedings continue in camera]