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

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you very much for your question.

As I have already explained, this situation is very complicated, because today, even without a hybrid system, witnesses participate in the sessions virtually. Moreover, what is even more important and problematic is that it is very difficult to find interpreters. It is not reasonable to say that interpreters should move to Ottawa.

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

Madam Chair—

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

On the other hand, it's reasonable to decide that they can do remote interpretation. Yet when they do remote interpreting, the problem persists.

That said, I'm sure we can find solutions.

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

Madam Chair, that is not the issue.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

I think this is really important.

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

Madam Chair, we know that, every day, interpreters suffer injuries and that this has consequences for their health. Experts have come to testify to this. Someone in the government decided to maintain the hybrid sessions despite these external opinions.

In terms of what you talked about, Mr. Holland, these are witnesses who were participating in the sessions remotely through broadcast-quality links. These links ensure that they produce good sound. These witnesses had to go to places where there were compressed signals, so there was good sound for interpretation. You're mixing oranges and pears at the moment.

Who in the government made the decision to continue with the hybrid meetings anyway, knowing that interpreters are being injured every day because of this mode of working?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

It's really weird. We are facing a global situation: the pandemic. At the beginning of the pandemic, we had a meeting with every party, including the Chief Whip and the Leader of the Conservative Party. We chose, at that time, to create a hybrid system. It was a unanimous choice. It was not the choice of the government or one party.

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

Madam Chair, at that time we did not have the information we have today.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

It was every party's choice. Then, during the pandemic, together with our administration, we created a very effective system to continue to do our work, which is so important.

The reason the committee is here today is to talk about the future and to decide whether or not to continue with the hybrid system. That is now the choice of the committee. It is your choice, Mr. Berthold.

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

Mr. Holland, the employer also has a responsibility. It is not the responsibility of the MPs, but of their employer, to look after health and safety. As a representative of the government, you have to take that responsibility.

Finally, Madam Chair, I would like to ask one more question.

One thing has bothered me from the beginning. It is often said that the hybrid system is intended to help MPs do their job. Yet under this one, MPs are already very privileged. We do not have to claim EI when we take time off for illness. We do not have to claim maternity leave. The rules have even been improved to allow women to take maternity leave. If we are ill, we can stay at home without worrying about how much we will get paid at the end of the week. When we have a health problem, we don't have to ask for permission to be absent. We just have to tell our whip that we will be staying home.

I'm a little surprised that we're talking about giving even more privileges to people who already have privileges that no other profession in the country has.

That was just a comment. I think we can leave it at that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you, Mr. Berthold. Your comments are always welcome.

I will now give the floor to Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I just want to say thank you, Minister, for your remarks today. As someone who has known you since I got into politics and as your neighbour, I can honestly say that you make this place more humane. I think you have done so today with your testimony, which I found to be exceedingly genuine, raw, truthful, emotional and deeply personal, and I would categorize that in my world as courageous and authentic.

I think that cuts through some of the things that we deal with in this place. It really stands up to the test of time. It will ring true for all of us, and I think it's non-political. I think what you shared today was deeply emotional and personal, and I thank you for that.

I think at the root of what I heard you say was that this place can be more compassionate and empathetic. It has a lot to do with balancing our energy and taking care of ourselves, the idea of self-care, which I think has risen to be an important conversation coming out of COVID-19 and the pandemic, but I think is certainly something that members of Parliament probably shy away from due to their sense of privilege, their sense of duty and the desire to make a difference and serve. I think they shy away from acknowledging that we do have to take care of ourselves.

Could you talk a little bit more about what that really looks like for you?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Turnbull, thank you for your question and your kind comments.

I was the executive director of the Heart and Stroke Foundation of Ontario. When I'm speaking about trying to create better and healthier workplaces, I mean all workplaces. I think every workplace should look at how they can ensure that their employees have what they need to succeed. I attempted to make the argument that treating your employees well and giving them good lives means they are going to be more productive, that they will achieve more, that they are going to get better results.

I can tell you that I spent three terms doing it one way, and now I'm in my third term of doing it a different way. I believe I'm doing a good job. I believe that I'm an effective parliamentarian and an effective minister. I'm able to create those boundaries in my life to ensure that I have the resilience and energy to be effective.

To go back to the question that was asked earlier about our obligation to our interpreters, we have an obligation to all of our employees, to every single person who works here, to make sure that we create a workplace that allows them to thrive.

We're asking people in opposition and government and those who support the House to come here and to transform the country, to soak up all of the anxieties of the country and give them solutions. We're asking them to rise and to give their best. We're asking the best in the country to come and join us here, and if we're not good enough as a government, for better people to come and replace us. For that to happen, we have to create the kind of environment where it's a race to the top and to the best.

With all due respect, I want to stop hearing around this place, after people spend the entire week away from their families, about how you did 14 or 15 events on the weekend. I want to stop hearing about how, in the constituency week, you travelled to every end of the country.

I represent roughly 130,000 people. I was elected for the first time in 1997 and federally in 2004. When I go to town halls and talk to my constituents, they want to know what I delivered and what I got done to make their lives better. They're not interested in whether I went to 17 or 18 events, whether I was or wasn't able to make it home for an important family obligation, or whether, if I was going through a difficult health issue, I had to work virtually at a particular time. They want me to deliver.

What I think they understand, and the relationship I believe I have with my constituents, is that we have mutual trust. Remember that in this place, we are all supposed to see each other as honourable members and use the tools that are given to us honourably. I think we need to show a little trust in one another. We need to show a little compassion and have faith in one another that we will use those tools judiciously.

Folks, we don't have a problem here of people not working hard enough. I'm sorry; if anybody goes to their staff and tells them to get me more hours, work harder, or you're not doing a good enough job, go to hell. The people here in opposition, in government, in House administration—every single one of you—know what you give. You know what you do, and you don't need anybody to tell you that you're not doing enough.

What I find we need to do here is remind people of their personal obligations and to take care of themselves so they don't wind up in the kind of circumstances that I was in a decade ago.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Gaudreau, you have two and a half minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My question will be very simple, but I will preface it first. We are among ourselves. How could we get to the point where in committee it is one thing and in Parliament it is something else? I'd like to hear from the government House leader on that.

I am a businesswoman and I use whatever means necessary to make my businesses successful. For example, when I am on the road and have a board meeting at 11 p.m., I may use hybrid mode or Zoom. Also, I represent 43 municipalities, and while I'm here, I may have a little Zoom meeting with a mayor. Indeed, my riding has 43 municipalities and I am here.

That said, I would like to focus on accountability here in Parliament. We sit for 26 weeks. How would a hybrid Parliament work? Committees are excluded. How do you see that today?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Thank you for your question.

I also thank you for the work you do in your riding and throughout Quebec and Canada.

In the past two months, we have had some flexibility and humanity. However, there has also been accountability and we have been able to do our job, not least because of the efficiency of our system.

All debates continue in the House of Commons. In question period, there are very strong questions and answers and it all works well. It's not perfect, but that's generally how life is. We have a responsibility to improve the quality of our workspaces and to ensure that the next generation of MPs will be very strong and creative and achieve a good work-life balance.

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

If there are not enough interpreters, due to a lack of succession, will we have to consider the difficult choice of putting hybrid sessions in Parliament on hold?

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Witnesses have already explained that there are more interpreters than before. I think there are now more than 30. Since interpreters can work remotely, I believe we can add as many interpreters as are needed to provide a quality of service acceptable to you, to me and to the House of Commons.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Ms. Blaney, you have the floor.

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

Thank you.

My questions will be mostly around criteria. There has been a lot of testimony for the past couple of weeks and a lot of discussion about having set criteria around when people participate remotely and when they are on site.

Interestingly, we just heard from the Welsh and Scottish Parliaments that they continue to have hybrid. They've decided to leave it open without particular criteria. There is definitely a sense, especially from the Scottish Parliament, that there was some sort of general discussion about what that would look like. I know they're talking about having some sort of way—it doesn't sound like they're clear about it yet—or some oversight to check in and see if the system is still working and if accountability measures continue to be there in a meaningful way.

I'm wondering if you have any thoughts on criteria and on how that would be implemented in this case.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

Through you, Madam Chair, thank you to Madam Blaney for that question and comment.

I do think that throughout the course of the pandemic, we did a really great job of checking in with each other and seeing what was working and what wasn't. I would say that for the first year, there was full unanimity on that. In the immediate period before omicron, the Conservatives started saying it wasn't needed and that they didn't believe it was necessary. Then, of course, omicron hit, and it was necessary. We had a situation in which it was actually essential that we were at a distance again.

I think we do regularly have to review our practices toward the goal of creating the most healthy, productive and effective workplace that we can possibly achieve. I think a regular review of our procedures and what is and isn't working is wholly and entirely appropriate.

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

The last question I have at this time is really around connectivity. We know that it continues to be a challenge for some of our rural and remote communities. I come from a riding where, if I drive 20 minutes out of town, there is no connectivity at all, and no phone. That is definitely a challenge.

I'm wondering if you could speak to that challenge specifically for this country.

[Mark Holland, Liberal, Ajax, ON]

We have a vast country over enormous geography. I think it's one of the massive challenges of trying to govern collectively. We're in a minority government, so let's face it: We all have some responsibility for the governance of this nation.

We are taking very important steps to ensure that broadband is available in every inch of this country. That issue is not only important for Parliament; it's an issue that's important for all Canadians. We have a minister who can speak better that I could to that, but I think we're on the precipice of being able to ensure that reality.

[The Chair, Liberal, Bardish Chagger]

Thank you.

Now we will go to Mr. Brassard for four minutes.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair, and through you to Mr. Holland.

From my perspective, I have actually seen what I would consider to be a decline in democracy. We've seen a diminishment in transparency and accountability. I think many Canadians agree with that, notwithstanding your position today.

Mr. Holland, you were a dogged opponent of the Harper government in opposition. What would have been your reaction if Peter Van Loan, Vic Toews or even Stockwell Day had been responding on a computer screen?