EVIDENCE

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs NUMBER 017 1st SESSION 43rd PARLIAMENT Wednesday, May 13, 2020 Le mercredi 13 mai 2020 Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs CANADA [Recorded by Electronic Apparatus] EVIDENCE May 13, 2020 Committee NUMBER 017 NUMBER 017 NUMÉRO 017 17 13 05 2020 2020/05/13 15:05:00 House Of Commons Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs PROC Chair Ms. Ruby Sahota 1 43

(1505) [ English ]

The Chair (Ms. Ruby Sahota (Brampton North, Lib.)) :

I call this meeting to order. Welcome to meeting number 17 of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Today is Wednesday, May 13, at 3 p.m. I know that during this pandemic some of us are losing track of our days and dates, so it's always good to have a reminder. Today we're going to continue going through the draft report and hopefully adopting the recommendations.

This is our last meeting, so we should be through all the recommendations by the end of today's meeting and have a final report that will then have any dissenting or supplementary opinions submitted by tomorrow, Thursday, at 5 p.m., with the translated version. I want to remind members to make sure to unmute their mikes when they are about to speak. Obviously we are going to have an informal meeting in order to have some discussion around adopting the report. Basically I'm in your hands as to how you'd like this to work.

I would suggest that we look at each recommendation separately and adopt it, reject it or rework it with a view to adopting it. Then we'll move on to the next recommendation and so on until we've considered each recommendation in the report. I hope this will allow members to debate and decide on the recommendations in an orderly and systematic fashion. We obviously have no witnesses at today's meeting; however, I want to just let you know that we have received two letters from the Speaker as of late.

We received one on May 11, which was brought up in yesterday's meeting, and we received one as of this morning, May 13. The letter was written to the House leader, Mr. Rodriguez , with the committee copied on the letter. There was an attachment to this letter—four key procedural issues to consider and Standing Orders to consider—so I just want to make sure that everyone has had a chance to maybe look at that letter. You may wish to reference it today in making any suggestions or amendments to the recommendations. I want to alert you to that off the bat.

Basically in the correspondence there is a limited number of possible amendments to the current Standing Orders. The Speaker is trying to provide a workable approach when addressing the issue of changing the Standing Orders, given the current circumstances, of course. We're going to start where we left off yesterday, and that was in the discussion portion of our draft report. I know the clerk also informed us all earlier today that the edits, suggestions and comments that were provided yesterday have all been reworked by our analyst, Andre.

They have been incorporated, but they're in translation currently so we don't have that current copy. We're going to be working off of the copy we had yesterday. The version two copy we had yesterday is what we'll be working off of. It has been recirculated today in case anybody needs to reprint it. We're going to start on page 26.

Ms. Rachel Blaney (North Island—Powell River, NDP) :

Madam Chair, can I ask a quick question?

The Chair :

Absolutely. This is the best time for that.

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Okay. We did receive a copy of the Speaker 's virtual chamber report. I just want to be really clear, though. It says on there that it is confidential, so I've definitely reviewed the document but I have not spoken about it because it is confidential. I am assuming that it's not part of this report. I just need clarity on that.

The Chair :

Yes, I am assuming that has been written on there just because it was also on our draft report as well at first. I believe the Speaker has submitted it to us so that we can incorporate the suggestions, but we can hear from the clerk on how to move forward or what the right thing is to do in that circumstance. Justin, there is a question about the letter from the Speaker being confidential.

The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Justin Vaive) :

Yes, hello, Ms. Blaney. My understanding is that the Speaker and the Clerk's office wanted to share that material with the committee so that committee members would be aware of the contents of the letter as they begin to look at the recommendations for their own PROC report. Some of the content from the Speaker 's letter may be relevant to some of the recommendations that the various members of this committee have put forward, and it might be something to keep in mind as you are considering the draft recommendations today.

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Sorry to be a stickler, but I'm going to be because I think what we're talking about really is important. When I look at that report, one of the things that is said in it is that the administration consulted with more than 30 parliamentarians and collaborated closely with several who share similar requirements, co-testing solutions and so on. Are those parliamentarians Canadian parliamentarians? Are they international? I wasn't clear on that. If they are Canadian parliamentarians, what I understand, at least from the NDP, is that none of our members were included in this process.

One of the things I think is very important as we talk about a virtual Parliament is that working collaboratively together and respecting all the parties is even more important, because we're not in the same area or able to see what everyone is up to. I think it's important that we respect that and that our report reflects that quite honestly, so I need clarity on this as well. I think one of my challenges right now is that we're getting information at the very last minute, and that makes it harder to get the report done. It puts a lot of stress on the analyst as well. I really agree with Mr. Turnbull.

He brought this up yesterday, and I know it was a little bit of a discussion. I was on the other side of that, but it is a little bit hard to be discussing the future of our democracy in this sort of set-up and feel that I don't have all of the information to propose the best solutions.

(1510) [ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin (Saint-Jean, BQ) :

I would like to clarify the following point. The French version talks about a consultation with 30 parliaments and not with 30 parliamentarians. What are we really talking about? Is it parliaments or parliamentarians?

[ English ]

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

I think you're right now that I read that, but still, it just says 30. I guess what I'm trying to say at the core of this—and thank you so much, Ms. Normandin, for that clarification—is that we don't know which 30 parliaments. I get this report, and what I really want to do is sit down with the Clerk and with the Speaker and ask more questions. I think it's really important, and I want to make sure that's on the record.

The Chair :

Ms. Blaney, I know there's a lot coming at us every day. There are some great recommendations that all of the parties have made. The NDP have made some great recommendations, which I was just suggesting to the clerk are very much in line with letting the House of Commons, the Speaker and their staff decide what Standing Orders we need to take a look at.

I know there are also many recommendations to continue the study after this report is submitted so that, into the future, the future of our democracy, we can take some real time to study them in depth and perhaps give the recommendations that we're able to give, knowing the evidence we have had before us so far in order to make some temporary solutions for this pandemic. I'm going to put my participant list up on the side so I can see everybody. I'm sorry if I have overlooked anybody. Mr. Alghabra, go ahead.

Hon. Omar Alghabra (Mississauga Centre, Lib.) :

Madam Chair, to Ms. Blaney's point, may I propose that we accept the fact, given how late this report has arrived, that we do not take it into account as evidence, at least for this report? The reality is that all of our work is done examining evidence, and while I'm sure the Speaker and his team have done tremendous work—and I think it would have been helpful had we received it earlier—we should accept and come to terms with the fact that it arrived on our desks a bit too late.

Maybe we should mention in the report that we haven't had a chance to review the recommendations and that this report is on a parallel track, but accept the fact that we were not able to incorporate it into this report.

The Chair :

Your suggestion is well taken. Next is Mr. Richards, please.

Mr. Blake Richards (Banff—Airdrie, CPC) :

Thank you. I think Ms. Blaney actually raises a very good point, notwithstanding the fact that Mr. Alghabra just indicated that we wouldn't include anything in terms of quotes from other things like that in the report. I think she raises a really good point, and I think she was far too polite about it. Without knowing who these members are, how are we to know that it wasn't just entirely or mostly the cabinet, for example? Maybe this is something that's being imposed upon the Speaker and is, therefore, something that we, as a committee, are being asked, essentially....

Whether we include anything in the report, we could be being pushed to recommend what the government wants, and by the government, I mean the cabinet. As a committee, we're being expected to rubber-stamp that, which would be completely and utterly inappropriate. I certainly hope that as we go through the course of today I'll be proven wrong about that, but I now have some suspicions. When we start to talk about these letters, I can't even.... This goes back to one of the problems that we had previously.

We also received another piece of correspondence from the Speaker not that long ago that was marked “confidential”. I

now, therefore, can't even talk about the contents of that letter, but it was also of importance. Here we are in public, and we can't reveal anything about that letter, so we can't even discuss that. We're being asked to discuss selective portions. Why was this one not confidential? Why was that one confidential? It raises a lot of questions, and I hope the answers aren't what they appear to be. Those are my thoughts on that. I will also make the suggestion, Madam Chair, that maybe a wise way.... You talk about trying to go through these recommendations from the perspective of finding ways to adopt them.

The problem is that they're on various different places on the map. A good starting point might be for each of us, whether it be as individual members or as one person from each of the parties, to give some indication of where we're hoping to end up at the end of the day. That might actually help us get some sense of how to deal with these various recommendations, rather than just shooting all over the map on things. It might be better for each party or each individual to give some sense of where they're hoping to end up at the end of the day. That would probably be a very good starting point.

(1515) The Chair :

I definitely hear you. Both you and Ms. Blaney raised good points about the suggestions that have come from the Speaker . I think Mr. Alghabra also raised a good point: that the committee could decide to not look at that since most of our recommendations are already written and have been submitted since the weekend. We had a clear understanding—at least before any of these letters really got to us.... We had already created our recommendations from what we had heard from the witnesses.

This was before the first letter that the Speaker sent and the second letter in which we were asked to submit our recommendations to the clerk so that they could be incorporated into the draft report. We could just work off that, really. What I intend to do today is to work from that. I'm sure the committee members will probably start getting a better idea of where people want to be. I may be understanding this incorrectly, but I think the recommendations are slotted in a systematic way in the appropriate sections. For some, we can debate which

section they should be in. I think, from being able to read through myself.... When I read through the Bloc, the NDP, the Liberal and the CPC recommendations, it gave me a better idea of where the different parties were—just by doing that alone. I may not be understanding you, Mr. Richards, as to why there is no understanding of what the wishes of the different parties and the different members are.

Mr. Blake Richards :

You may view it somewhat differently than I do. I've looked through the recommendations. I think I have a reasonable sense, maybe, of the other opposition parties and where they might be. I'm not as clear on where the government is, per se. A lot of the recommendations that I'm seeing from the government side are more along the lines of what we would do going forward and those kinds of things. We're not really here to talk about that. I'm really quite unclear on where the government hopes to end up. It would be really good to get some clarity on that, because it would help us determine how we might be able to work together on common ground. If we don't know that, then it's hard to do that.

The Chair :

That's fair. I'm going to take just the hands that are raised at this point, and then we will start with the recommendations. As we go through the recommendations, I think that clarification can be provided by whomever is speaking about the recommendation. They can let you know. I'm sure there are going to be some amendments along the way, in order to make sure we are talking about what is at hand and that it's clear in each recommendation what we want to look at in the future and what we want to adopt now. Mr. Brassard, you're next, and then Ms. Petitpas Taylor and Mr. Turnbull. After that, we'll begin on the recommendations.

(1520) Mr. John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil, CPC) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. As I look at these recommendations, and I think I expressed this concern yesterday, the generalized sense of what these recommendations look like is that many of them are forward looking, perhaps beyond what the mandate of the committee is with respect to this study. I went through it again and I want to make this clear. It is important that we all get a sense of what we would like to see in this, and those recommendations are disjointed, in my view. I go back to the original motion that was put before the House, the House order on April 11. It is:

(

m) the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, including the temporary modification of certain procedures, sittings in alternate locations and technological solutions including a virtual Parliament, provided that (

i) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the provisions applying to committees enumerated in paragraph (

l) shall also apply to the committee, however, the committee may consider motions related to the adoption of a draft report in relation to this topic, (ii) the committee be instructed to present a report no later than May 15, 2020, (iii) any report which is adopted pursuant to subparagraph (ii) may be deposited electronically with the Clerk of the House, and shall be deemed to have been duly presented to the House on that date;

The rest of the motion talks about receiving evidence. From my standpoint right now, we need to look at this on a macro level. Many of these recommendations look beyond what our mandate is. Given the time to study this properly, we can push this off to study further a little later on. What we're dealing with right now are recommendations on the current crisis. Of course, we've seen evidence, even when we first started this study on April 16, that things are starting to change significantly right across the country. There are legislatures, as we know, that are opening up. Businesses have been opened.

There are several more businesses that are opening. People are working. I think that, at a minimum, what we need to do today, as we go forward with these recommendations, is to set and be the example of what is happening and what is reflective across this country. It doesn't necessarily mean the fact that all 338 of us are going to come back, but I think the basis of our recommendations needs to reflect how Parliament is going to function, function as we're used to, whether or not that's a hybrid model of Parliament.

We have to get back to some sense of normalcy where there is a level of accountability that occurs. The place to make that happen is in the House of Commons, but there are options available to us. As we narrow down these recommendations, we really need to focus on how we're going to function properly. As the House sits now, it's adjourned, but obviously, May 25 is coming up, when the House is expected to reconvene. That should be our sole focus. Any talk about the future of Parliament, changing the Standing Orders and all of that stuff, we can deal with at a later date.

The basis of this motion is in relation to the COVID-19 crisis. I think all of us can agree that has evolved greatly over the course of the last couple of months. We're in a position right now where we, as leaders in this country, should be making recommendations to Parliament that we get back to a sense of normalcy. I'm not talking about full normalcy in terms of Parliament, but some sense of normalcy to show that leadership and to make sure that Parliament is functioning and that it's functioning well, and that there is a level of accountability that exists. I think that is well within our mandate.

Looking beyond to the future, as many of these recommendations do, we can do later.

(1525) Right now, let's stick to what we are mandated to do and make sure that we come out of this with recommendations to Parliament that will allow us to function.

The Chair :

Thank you for that. Madam Petitpas Taylor.

Hon. Ginette Petitpas Taylor (Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be very brief as well. I simply want to make a point of clarification for the record. Mr. Richards indicated in his statement that the letter that was provided by the Speaker indicated that the administration had consulted with 30 members of Parliament or cabinet per se. I want to quote the paragraph in that letter. It states:

The Administration consulted with more than 30 parliaments and collaborated closely with several who share similar requirements....

Then it continues on from there. It's very important, for the record, for Canadians to know that the consultation was done with international parliaments as opposed to parliamentarians here in Canada.

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull (Whitby, Lib.) :

Thank you, Madam Chair. As just a brief comment here, I appreciated Ms. Blaney's comments stressing the importance of collaboration. I really think if we have this broader discussion, as Mr. Brassard and Mr. Richards are suggesting we have, we'll get hung up in a broader debate rather than focusing specifically on the task at hand, which is clearly to finish this report. All the parties have put forward their best foot in terms of providing specific recommendations based on the testimony, and I see a lot of alignment in most of those recommendations. They're specific.

From my perspective, most of them are actually focused on what we were tasked to do. They're forward looking, of course, as I think it would be not as useful to only look backwards at this time. We're really talking about how Parliament can continue to function at a time such as this, which is forward looking. Therefore, we need to push forward and really focus on what we're here to do, which is to find a way forward on finalizing these recommendations.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Ms. Normandin, go ahead.

Ms. Christine Normandin :

I will also be brief. I don't think it is pointless to make a few projections, especially since testimony has come from other parliaments that already had certain rules established to make it possible to hold a virtual vote or a virtual Parliament. Had our procedural rules included those kinds of provisions, we would have proceeded more quickly. Considering that we have indirectly discussed amending our procedural rules to make it possible for Parliament to operate virtually, I don't think it would be pointless to make recommendations, so that we could later adopt a parallel set of procedural rules.

I think that is indirectly part of our mandate. We would have been more prepared to operate had our procedural rules provided for the holding of a virtual Parliament.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. I think this was good. It was a good discussion to get us started, and it probably gives us all a frame of thought in which to discuss these recommendations. Therefore, I'm hoping that the members will be able to provide clarity when we go through the recommendations so that it satisfies some of these concerns that have been mentioned. We're going to start with “LIB 1”. I want to get a bit of feedback. I'm going to see if we have consensus on this, and then we might have to move to a vote if I can't get a clear picture of whether the committee would like to adopt this recommendation. Is there any discussion on LIB 1? Ms. Blaney.

(1530) Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Thank you. I personally think LIB 1, BQ 10 and NDP 2 should be somehow put together. Also, the better spot for this would actually be in

section B, on page 47 of the document I'm working from, about future work. One of the things that I feel is very important from the NDP recommendation is the agreement of all recognized parties. That's an important part for me.

The Chair :

In the last committee meeting, we started on this. You're absolutely right. I had mentioned that LIB 1, BQ 10 and NDP 2 have a lot of similarities and could be grouped together. The analyst has also included all of these recommendations on page 48, where you have suggested they might be better placed. It's up to the committee to decide. Obviously, they're already slotted in there. We could remove them from the front. If, first, I could get some discussion on perhaps combining these recommendations, then we can decide on where the recommendations should go. Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I completely agree with Ms. Blaney. I really see the merits in the three recommendations she mentioned. I think they could be combined. I have some suggested rewording for that. I thought about this in advance and thought maybe the committee would be amenable to a combined recommendation. Can I put that forward now, Madam Chair?

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Turnbull. Could you read the recommendation?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I would suggest the wording be “That the House establish an alternative set of standing orders which enables the implementation of a virtual Parliament so that the House can continue with its business in the event of a crisis or exceptional circumstance such as those arising from the current pandemic.” Then I would add a sentence: “The committee further recommends these modified standing orders only come into force and be rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties.” This includes the NDP's...the strength, I think, of Ms. Blaney's comment that “the agreement of all recognized parties” be included.

It includes elements of the wording from the Bloc's recommendation, which I found very compelling, and it also stays true to, I think, the spirit of the LIB 1 recommendation, which I think there's a large degree of agreement on, based on their wording. That's what I would suggest. Thanks.

The Chair :

Okay. There is an order here, but I was wondering, Ms. Blaney, if you wanted to.... You have your hand up as well, so I will call on you, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, my hand was originally up to comment on the main recommendation, but also on the related one, too, which has already been identified as very similar. I made some similar comments last meeting, but I'll just refresh folks' memories. I think the new suggestion, amendment, or however you want to term it, that Mr. Turnbull just made actually runs even more contrary to the concerns that I had previously. I won't dig it out and read it myself, although I do have it here somewhere. Mr.

Brassard, just minutes ago, read to the entire committee the terms of reference that we were given in the order of reference from the House. It was quite clear that what we were to study was this current situation and how the House of Commons can function and continue to serve the people while the House stands adjourned. It does not anywhere in there indicate that we are to look at the future and what might be done in future situations like this one. There's probably a very good reason for that.

I can't speak to the thought process that was in mind, but I can imagine what it would be, and I would certainly share that thought process. It's that you don't look at what you can learn from a situation while you're right in the middle of it. You deal with the situation that you have at hand. You do your best to function through it and continue on in the best way that you can. Then, in hindsight, following the end of a crisis, that's when you typically look back and ask, “What did we do right? What did we do wrong?

What could we do differently if we have another instance of something like this?” Then you make those kinds of recommendations. We're still in the middle of this. We don't know how this is all going to play out. We're doing the best we can to try to function through it. That is the focus that we've been given, and I think it's the wise focus for us right now: to focus on the current situation at hand.

Then, following that, if we choose as a committee to study what we might do in the future—and I think it might be a good idea that we do that—it would be something that we would do fully informed, having seen how this all played out, what circumstances arose and what unintended consequences there might have been from the actions we've taken. Therefore, it would be not only contrary to what we've been told to do by the House, but also ill advised and a mistake to make these kinds of recommendations at this point.

I, therefore, would be strongly opposed to the idea that we make these kinds of recommendations now. lt's not necessarily that they might not be good recommendations in the future, but this is not our focus now and it should not be.

(1535) The Chair :

Your opposition is noted, but I'm a bit confused because we were asked to study how to create a virtual Parliament so that members could continue to do their work.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, I was not going to raise this today. I was maybe going to have a private conversation with you at another date, but I think maybe it is necessary because it might be helpful for us to move forward today in a timely and orderly fashion. I really think that, in your role as chair, you are participating and engaging in debate far too much. I think that you should examine what your role should be as a chair and consider whether it is helpful for debate. Your role is to facilitate debate, not to participate in it. I say this with the best intentions. I really think you should consider that, Madam Chair.

The Chair :

Okay. I can see where you're coming from, absolutely. I have felt a need to interject at some points. I will try to do that less. At the beginning of each meeting, I generally used to go through the motion, the order of reference that we were given by the House of Commons. In today's meeting and in the last meeting, I chose not to do so because we didn't have any witnesses or, necessarily, any new members. However, I'm trying to point back to the statement that I would have made at the beginning of the meeting, reminding us of what we were tasked to do, and virtual Parliament was one of the prongs listed.

There is a recommendation that, going through the report later on, we might want to bring this up again. It talks about future studies and visions. A virtual Parliament is part of the order of reference. I agree with some of your other points, for sure. Let's hear from the other committee members as to where they stand on it. Mr. Brassard.

Mr. John Brassard :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I have a question with regard to Mr. Turnbull's recommendation. I expressed yesterday, and I think earlier, the concern around what defines “extraordinary circumstances”. We're in the height of a COVID-19 pandemic. Parliament and the House leaders have deemed that to be an extraordinary circumstance. That's why the House is adjourned. I have a couple of questions, through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Turnbull, because LIB 1 does mention “a fully functioning virtual Parliament”. What would be Mr. Turnbull's idea of “a fully functioning virtual Parliament”? That would be my first question, Madam Chair, to Mr. Turnbull.

(1540) The Chair :

Mr. Turnbull, would you like to answer that before we move on to Mr. Duncan?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Yes, I'd be happy to. What we've heard in testimony is that many of the deliberative functions of Parliament have been replicated in a virtual setting so far. What we heard from the Speaker 's testimony, and others' testimony, was that there were decision-making functions of Parliament that were not completely happening at the moment. In the recommendation it implies that a virtual Parliament would try to replicate as many of the functions of Parliament...which is what we've been asked to study, how Parliament can continue to function and parliamentarians can continue to fulfill their roles and duties.

I think what we've heard in testimony is that an alternative set of standing orders is actually something that's been recommended by several witnesses. I don't think this is reaching in any way. The other thing about exceptional circumstances that I will say is that I think there are extraordinary, exceptional and emergency circumstances. There's a little difference in language but I think the spirit in all is referring to the same thing.

Part of the job of creating an alternative set of standing orders in the future would also be to create the criteria of those exceptional circumstances, define what that means and define how this set of standing orders would be triggered by parties through some sort of majority vote. I think that is largely what was recommended by at least one witness, as I remember, and it seems to me it is a perfectly reasonable way to move forward. I don't think we have to have a be-all and end-all definition right now of “extraordinary circumstances”, or even the criteria at the moment.

We know a pandemic is included, but there may be quite a number of other emergencies—second waves of a pandemic, third waves, etc.—that could be included as extraordinary circumstances. Thank you.

Mr. John Brassard :

I appreciate that clarification, Mr. Turnbull. Through you, Madam Chair, again to Mr. Turnbull, currently under the committee structure that we've been using, we've now been seeing virtual sittings on Tuesday and Thursday, and we've also seen an in-person sitting on Wednesday. Is that the idea of what would constitute a virtual Parliament in this situation or...? Again, the challenge that I have is that there's really not a clear definition of “virtual Parliament”.

Our paradigm of what it is is what exists today, but we've also heard and seen evidence around the world, particularly in the Westminster system, where a hybrid Parliament can replicate more so the type of virtual Parliament.... Perhaps if it's good enough for Westminster then it's good enough for us. I'm just trying to find out the paradigm of what a virtual Parliament should look like in the context of this recommendation, and I say that through you, Madam Chair, to Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

The way I would answer that is based on the witness testimony and Samara report, which I think includes the acknowledgement that there's a continuum that most parliaments seem to be on, nationally speaking. They seem to be moving from very limited functions. The easiest to replicate virtually seems to be committee meetings, because they're smaller and they're easier to replicate in a virtual setting, so I think that has been the natural place that most have started.

It seems that they're moving along a continuum to more special scrutiny sessions, or I think that's what they've been called, similar to the special committee sessions we've had on Tuesdays and Thursdays, which are two-hour “question period” sorts of sessions, but they're not formal proceedings of the House.

Moving along that continuum, we'd see more fulsome debates such as what we would see in the House of Commons in the physical setting being replicated virtually, with the opportunity for electronic and remote voting that could also be implemented and included in an incremental way, which is what we've seen in the U.K.

(1545) Mr. John Brassard :

Thank you. Madam Chair, I have one more question, through you to Mr. Turnbull again. The recommendation you're proposing requires that all parties would have to agree that a crisis is over. This is why I need clarification from you, and if I'm wrong, correct me, please. There could be a scenario where the governing party doesn't agree that a crisis is over, and they might not want to return for whatever reason.

I'm certainly not suggesting this in the current government, but this could be problematic in moving forward if in fact public health agencies determine that a crisis is over and the World Health Organization decides that, but we have a political party that decides that the crisis is not over for parliamentary purposes. How do you suggest we resolve that potential conflict?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

It's a good question—

The Chair :

I'll let you finish, but I just want to point out, in case nobody is looking at the speakers list, that Ms. Blaney is up next to speak as well. I think the wording was from NDP 2, so she might have some more insight too.

Mr. John Brassard :

Madam Chair, these are legitimate questions that need to be asked, which we would be asking in a normal committee setting. I just want to make that clear. These are serious concerns that I have.

The Chair :

I think these issues have been brought up even in our questioning, so this is a good conversation. Mr. Turnbull, did you still want to reply to that?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Sure. I can think of a whole host of ways to solve that problem. Being a solutions-oriented person, I'm asking, how we could use more data in terms of those decision-making processes and have those required as part of the decisions that were made. In terms of the wording I suggested, I was repurposing and trying to come to a collaborative solution, based on wording from the various parties. The issue you raise is a good one. Maybe there should be a majority vote instead of agreement of all recognized parties.

That might help, or in lieu of that, maybe looking at how the definition of an extraordinary or exceptional circumstance could also include clauses or criteria for how those standing orders could be rescinded, or how the opposite of triggering, going back to normal House proceedings, could integrate scientific evidence.

Mr. John Brassard :

Thank you.

The Chair :

Ms. Blaney.

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

I think this debate and discussion is very important. We are talking about something very fundamental as we go through this process. First of all, I did my best to write down everything Mr. Turnbull said. If you have any wording, I would love to see it. The only part that I want to make sure is very clear.... I agree that the extraordinary circumstances could be clarified in the modified standing orders. I'm sure there are ways we can do that.

The reason why I think it's important that we have all parties participate in this is that, if we look at what's happened in Canada and in other countries, COVID-19 came very quickly. We had to make decisions very rapidly. We've done that with the four recognized parties working through their House officers to make decisions. It gives everybody a little bit of power to make those decisions. I think Canadians appreciate that level of collaboration and accountability. I think that's important.

I certainly recognize that if there are concerns about the governing party perhaps extending that, we can have some discussions about how to address that. I think every party understands that we are accountable to Canadians. If we're doing something untoward, that's going to be something that's in the public record pretty quickly. I know that, as an opposition party member, I'm certainly not shy about mentioning when I feel the governing party is stepping out of line. For me, one of the things that are important about this is, like I said earlier, that we stepped out.

We were doing the best that we could with the information that we had, but there was no structure. I think that moving forward it would be good to have some sort of structure so that if anything like this happens again, parliamentarians have something to look at.

(1550) The Chair :

Okay. Madam Normandin.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Perhaps I am the only one who feels that the debate is somewhat futile, as, according to my understanding, in order for us to hold a virtual Parliament, the procedural rules need to be changed, and that requires unanimous consent from the parties. Whether we like it or not, we will have a new set of procedural rules. When it's time to apply them, we will either agree now in saying that it will require the consent of all the parties, or we will later amend the procedural rules unanimously to do that. I think the work is already done, in a way. I feel like we are sort of going in circles in this debate.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Thank you. Mr. Alghabra.

Hon. Omar Alghabra :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I think the best way is for the House to adopt extraordinary measures and for the House to adopt a decision to declare that the extraordinary circumstances have passed. There's nothing more transparent than a public vote. I understand where Ms. Blaney is coming from, and I really want to see us achieve all-party agreement, but I think all-party agreement could imply agreements behind the scenes.

A public vote will hold every member of Parliament accountable to their constituents on how they voted to adopt those extraordinary measures or how they voted against the adoption of extraordinary measures. It empowers the House of Commons. It empowers all MPs to vote for it, instead of the leadership of the parties.

The Chair :

Is that a proposal for further amendment to the amendment that was proposed? I guess that would be.... After this, we'll hear from Mr. Duncan. Ryan, would you be able to read out your amalgamated recommendation that comes from the ideas in LIB 1, BQ 10 and NDP 2? Then, I don't know if you consider this to be a friendly addition to that or a modification to it.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I do. Yes, I would. Maybe after we hear from Mr. Duncan.... I'm interested to hear what he has to say, as always.

The Chair :

Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Eric Duncan (Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, CPC) :

Thank you very much, Mr. Turnbull and Madam Chair. I hate to belabour the point. This is me as a newbie rookie here, and I apologize. This is an observation. I know Mr. Richards and Mr. Brassard were talking about the high-level discussion. We're talking about the Standing Orders right now, but for me, reading this over, with our wanting to get the collaboration and get as much consensus as we can, I'm having some concerns or some questions about virtual Parliament. What is it exactly? It is 100% virtual. Is there a hybrid?

I think there is some merit in having a discussion of how we can go back and forth on that a little. I think it's a good compromise. Just as we're going through, we don't deal with the hybrid model until later at the end. I know we're trying to get done by six o'clock, and I'll wrap this up. I just think there are some things where, to me, changing the Standing Orders, knowing that's the direction we're going in, there is some balance to that. There are some safety measures, of course, that are in that. I think it balances the members, like Ms. Blaney and Ms.

Petitpas Taylor, who very appropriately talk about their struggles in the current context of being able to get back to Ottawa. For those in a small number, whatever is deemed safe by the appropriate health and safety part of the House administration.... I just think these high-level conversations might actually expedite a conclusion to a lot of these things. If that's a no-go and that's an area where the majority don't want to go, okay, but I really think that could actually help make our report better, give some recommendations and build on them.

I have several reasons as to why I think in the short term and in the long term a hybrid option is good to getting us back safely, at some point down the road, to our regular times, whenever that may be. I'll just leave it at that. As we go through that bit by bit, we're going to have this trouble, I think. I'm struggling with it, frankly. Thank you.

(1555) The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Alghabra.

Hon. Omar Alghabra :

I want to comment on Mr. Duncan's point. I'm not going to quibble with the order of recommendations because that may make sense if we start. The intent here is to recommend that the House of Commons prepare itself to be able to conduct its business fully virtually under emergency circumstances, and then it recommends that in the meantime it does the hybrid model. It doesn't necessarily mean that maybe we will never use a fully virtual Parliament, but what it means is that if we one day come to that point, we need the House of Commons to be prepared. It doesn't recommend when we must use it fully virtually.

It doesn't say today or tomorrow. It just recommends that today, in the meantime, another recommendation is the hybrid model. It says we ask the administration to prepare itself for being fully virtual one day when the House decides we need to go fully virtual.

The Chair :

I think you're referencing LIB 2 there, so the difference between the first section.... Yes, we can decide to put this at the end, on page 48 or 49, where the analyst also has it and Ms. Blaney has suggested. Mr. Turnbull, are you able to package this all up, everything that's been discussed, in one recommendation?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

To Ms. Alghabra's point, and in response to Mr. Duncan, I really do feel that the hybrid model is a great interim solution, but developing capacity for a fully virtual Parliament is what most of us want to recommend. I've reworded the initial suggestion that I put forward. I think there is a friendly amendment here that's emerging, and I appreciate all the input and all the really good questions. Do you want me to read that out now so we can get that on the record?

The Chair :

Yes. Could you read it very slowly?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Will do. One thing I wanted to also mention before I read it out is that the Standing Orders don't necessarily require unanimous consent, I believe. I think it's a majority vote that can change the Standing Orders. I just want to put that in context. Here is what I would propose: “That the House establish an alternative set of standing orders which enables the implementation of a virtual Parliament so that the House can continue with its business in the event of a crisis or exceptional circumstance such as those arising from the current pandemic. The committee further recommends these modified standing orders only come into force and be rescinded by a majority vote in the House of Commons.”

The Chair :

Some hands have gone up, but I was going to say, perhaps now we could get a sense of who is in support of this recommendation. It would be one of the recommendations either in this

section or at the end, and we have a couple more to go through, CPC 2 and NDP 1, which weren't amalgamated into this. Mr. Alghabra, did you put your hand up again? Okay, it was from before. We'll go to Mr. Duncan, and then Mr. Richards.

(1600) Mr. Eric Duncan :

Madam Chair, I've been a head of council and mayor before and I feel as though I'm one of those really annoying councillors who goes off topic when there is an amendment, so in good faith I will hold and just continue the conversation on the virtual Parliament. We'll deal with the amendment specifically and then maybe have that conversation about the theme of the report, which I have some comments on in terms of a constructive way forward. I'll stop there. We'll deal with this, and I'll put my hand back up when this one is dealt with.

The Chair :

We'll all be interested to hear it. Any advice can be helpful. Mr. Richards.

Mr. Blake Richards :

I wouldn't go so far as to say I have “grave concerns” about this amendment, but as I've already indicated, I'm not a fan of the recommendation to begin with. Mainly I'm not a fan of the recommendation because I still strongly feel that it's outside the scope of our report. When you are looking at future situations, it should not be done in the context of dealing with the current situation. I won't belabour that. I won't reiterate all of it any more than to say that. The amendment is a very dangerous place to be going. I can understand and appreciate from Mr.

Turnbull's perspective why he might not share those concerns, but I will just lay it out. The way it works, right now, we are in a minority Parliament. I've had the benefit, if you want to call it that, of having served in all four different ways you can serve in Parliament. I've served in a government minority. I've served in a government that was a majority. I've served in an opposition that was opposed to a majority, and I'm now serving in a minority Parliament as an opposition member. Therefore, I've seen all the different ways that a parliament can function.

One can understand in a minority Parliament, which is obviously the only experience Mr. Turnbull has had, why potentially there isn't as much concern about the type of motion he just made in terms of this amendment, but I've served on both sides of a majority, and a majority that was certainly accused by members of Mr. Turnbull's party and others, and I know if he spoke to some of his members who served during that time period, they would probably say they would have been horrified to imagine the government having the power to do this.

I had the benefit or the experience of serving in opposition to the current Prime Minister and saw a number of things that I was quite concerned about in terms of the behaviours of the Prime Minister looking to gain extra powers for himself to avoid accountability. For that reason, I would be horrified to imagine his having the powers of a majority vote, if he had a majority government once again, to invoke something such as this.

We should all consider, wherever we sit right now, whether we are government or opposition, or what type of experience we've had as members of Parliament, that this type of thing can be incredibly dangerous. I don't want to risk seeming like a conspiracy theorist in any way, but these kinds of things, these kinds of powers to declare these kinds of situations without having to have other parties in agreement, are what lead to democracies being eroded to the point where they are no longer democracies. I won't get into grand examples of that happening in the past, but certainly there are examples.

We should all be incredibly cautious and incredibly reluctant to go down this very dangerous road. I expressed my opposition to the initial recommendation that was being made here on the fly. However, should the majority of the committee want to go there, that's obviously what we will do. This one is so incredibly dangerous that, let's put it this way, I would be prepared to speak in opposition to this for as long as I have to, to convince others that this is a very dangerous road, if that's what is required. It is incredibly dangerous.

On the main recommendation itself without this amendment, I am still opposed because I think it's a mistake. However, I would not feel the need to go down that path in order to prevent it. It is so important that we protect our democracy that I would be prepared to go to any length to prevent this from happening.

(1605) The Chair :

You definitely have a lot of experience, Mr. Richards. Even though we've had our tiffs, it has been an honour to serve alongside you, at least in two Parliaments so far. At the end, you said—and I'm just trying to clarify before we move on to Ms. Blaney, who I think could help out here—you are still opposed to the original, the original being LIB 1, I'm assuming. However, you are not as opposed to that. This, you think, is a lot more problematic, the new version.

Mr. Blake Richards :

To clarify, what I was referring to is the motion that we're debating now, I guess, that was made on the floor by Mr. Turnbull. Then he, of course, made a suggestion to amend his own motion, and the amendment is to allow something to be done by a majority vote, rather than by all parties being in agreement on [ Technical difficulty—Editor ] measure. That is what I was referring to as being incredibly dangerous. I still disagree with his main motion, but although my objections are there, the main motion is not one that I would go to any length to protect democracy from.

If that's the will of the committee and I just happen to be in opposition to the majority of the committee, that's where dissenting reports are an option. On something fundamental that could actually lead to the very erosion of our democracy, like what Mr. Turnbull has suggested now with this amendment, I will go to any lengths to prevent that from happening.

The Chair :

Sorry. I think I added more time on there. I'm trying to get through this. I think if we—

Mr. Blake Richards :

I am too. I just wanted to point out that this is how strongly I feel about this one.

The Chair :

Yes, and I wanted clarity as to what you had said so that we all understand. Ms. Blaney, you are next.

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

Thank you, Madam Chair. Just to be absolutely clear, I do not agree with the vote. I want to see all parties working together. I think this is absolutely imperative, and we've demonstrated the capacity to do that over the last couple of months. I agree with Mr. Richards. If you're in a majority government, it really gives away all the power to the governing party, and it does not acknowledge the members of our country who have voted for other parties. Also, I just want to reiterate that I still think this should be moved further along in the report under “B. Future work”.

I'm just offering that as another moment of consideration as it could move it a little further down and allow us to take some time to contemplate it and work on some of the other recommendations.

The Chair :

My understanding of that was that this was probably not going to be as contentious an issue, and that after having adopted, rejected or amended them, we could have the analyst just move them further along. I think we've made a lot of headway here. I'd hate to now pass by this without either going to a vote or getting an understanding of where we all are on this. I think we're too far in now to really leave it. That's just my feeling right now. I'd hate all this to go for...and then we forget later on what we discussed. To clarify, the original amendment that Mr.

Turnbull made with regard to all-party agreement, would you be in support of that, Ms. Blaney, that amalgamated suggestion? Is it just the majority vote that you're opposed to?

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

The majority vote I am very against. As for the rest of it, I think I would support it. I still don't have all of the language. I tried to write it down. I know that other people are faster writers than I, so I did my best. I think that I support it, and the intention of it I support 100%, but I want to see the exact wording.

The Chair :

That's excellent. That gives us a better understanding. Mr. Alghabra, can you help with that? I was going to go to Mr. Turnbull to see if.... I want to get a sense of whether there was a friendly amendment made to the new recommendation, whether you're willing to go back to the amalgamated recommendation that was made, or whether you want to keep it at a majority vote. Then, also, if we could get the clear language for Ms. Blaney again....

(1610) Hon. Omar Alghabra :

I think there is a reasonable amount of confusion about what we're discussing now, given the various versions of the recommendations that we've discussed. I just want to comment on the issue of threat to democracy in majority government. Majority governments or any other Parliament conduct their business always with a vote. The state of emergency in the province of Ontario, my province, was adopted by a vote. It did not require all recognized and unrecognized parties to talk behind the scenes to agree about their opinions.

In my opinion, a state of a emergency is much more invasive and it suspends democracy a lot more than what a standing order does and doesn't do. We can pass in various provinces, and maybe perhaps the same way at the federal level, the declaration of a state of emergency through a vote of the various legislatures. Therefore, I'm confused as to how that is much less invasive or a risk to democracy than adopting a set of standing orders that enables Parliament to do its job in various approaches.

I want to remind everybody that we're talking here about extraordinary circumstances, just like a circumstance in which provinces have decided to use a state of emergency. We don't see provinces, day in and day out, declare a state of emergency and use their majority to abuse their power. That's not what happens. In fact, Parliament and MPs, MLAs and MNAs are held accountable to their constituents. They know they couldn't do something unreasonable such as that, and we all work in that context. I'm just confused by all this hyperbole I'm hearing.

The Chair :

At this point, Mr. Brassard has a comment too. I'll see if Mr. Brassard gives me permission to move it in this direction, but I was hoping we could get the final wording one more time, perhaps move to a vote on this recommendation, and then move past what the first recommendation would be.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, on a point of order, there is a speakers list on this item.

The Chair :

I'm going to move on to the speakers list. That is what I was saying. I just want to throw the thought out there that, after dealing with the speakers, I would like to move in this direction if possible, if allowed by the members of the committee. That's the statement I'm making right now. If you allow me to, if Mr. Brassard, who is next on the speakers list, allows me to move in this direction, I will then ask Mr. Turnbull to read out the amended recommendation. This will be the first recommendation of the report, and then we'll move to that.

Mr. Blake Richards :

On that, I'll make it really clear right now. Don't have any plans for a vote if Mr. Turnbull refuses to pull this amendment, the second amendment that he has made, in terms of the majority vote. Don't make any plans for a vote. Buckle up, because we won't be having any vote today. I will not allow this to go forward if it looks in any way as though it's going to pass.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Brassard.

Mr. John Brassard :

I'm really concerned about Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment with respect to the majority vote. I will tell you why. Effectively the problem with what he is proposing, and I want all the members to consider this, is that if in fact, under these extraordinary circumstances, a movement to a fully functioning virtual Parliament occurs, in the event of a majority government, whether it's Liberal, Conservative, NDP or Bloc, the majority government could by vote move Parliament into a chat room. You think about that. You think about the impact that might have. I know Mr.

Alghabra is laughing right now, but that's effectively what Mr. Turnbull's motion is proposing. That's not the way it should work. There has to be consensus. The reverse of that is the concern I expressed before. Listen, if there's any reason that needs to be determined as to why, when we're under the gun like this with a deadline of six o'clock today to come through this, when we're talking about things that should be talked about in future studies, this is a perfect example of it.

With amendments on the fly and the impact that some of what's being proposed has on Parliament, on our democracy going forward, this is a perfect example of why the May 15 deadline, and certainly the six o'clock deadline tonight, are problematic. I suggest as well that on the reverse of that, as I mentioned earlier, if one party agrees that we are not going to come out of this crisis and resume Parliament, that puts us in almost an equal position as we are in right now, where a majority government can propose that we end up moving into a virtual chat room. I don't know how we're going to resolve this.

Certainly Mr. Turnbull's proposed amendment on this doesn't address what I think is a very valid concern of the potential abuse of Parliament by a majority government to move us into a virtual setting. Quite frankly, I don't understand why, with respect to this recommendation, we would even be discussing it in the context of the current crisis. This is something that needs to be addressed and discussed later on in further studies. Like Mr.

Richards, who I know has a lot more experience around here than I do in terms of the way Parliament functions, I am frankly concerned about this amendment and the impact, as I said, for a majority government to simply put us into a chat room. That should be concerning to all members of Parliament, especially those on the committee here, on a going-forward basis.

(1615) The Chair :

Would you rather the recommendation not refer to how to rescind at all, or rescinding should be done by a majority, but implementing the virtual Parliament should be done by all parties? I'm just trying to understand whether we can approve things, to try to get more consensus, or at least not as much opposition to it. Is that what I'm hearing, that it's the rescind part that is also problematic, so maybe the rescinding could be removed?

Mr. John Brassard :

I don't know how, frankly, we're going to land on an agreement given the fact that we're under the gun here on what constitutes an agreement, whether it's an all-party agreement or whether it's a majority vote. I don't know how we're going to land there in the context of what we're studying today. Maybe we need to move this particular part of the recommendation forward for a future study and then deal with it in the context of the COVID-19 crisis that we're dealing with today, Madam Chair. I think we're almost putting the cart before the horse with respect to what a future Parliament might look like.

We've talked about virtual Parliament before. What does a virtual Parliament look like? Well, we have a virtual Parliament as it exists today, but maybe a hybrid model or something to that effect is something that we should be talking about as opposed to.... Maybe that should be our recommendation.

We're going to recommend to Parliament that we move to a hybrid model as opposed to dealing with a fully functioning virtual Parliament with extraordinary circumstances and trying to define that with our backs up against the wall, with a six o'clock deadline—an hour and forty minutes from now—with many relevant questions that need to be answered on this. My concern is that we put forward a set of recommendations that really are not reflective of what we should be doing as this committee. That's where I'm at.

I have a problem with many of these recommendations in that they're almost too forward-looking, given the context of what we were mandated to study right now.

(1620) The Chair :

This is causing me to want to be even more forward-looking and maybe take Ms. Blaney's suggestion to move past this. I don't know where we would be, because I feel as though if I turn the page, we're probably going to get stuck again on the first recommendation in the next section. We will hear from Mr. Richards and then Madame Normandin.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, I'll start by saying that I think what we're experiencing right now is further proof that going down this path of trying to recommend things for future crises in the middle of a crisis, when our direction has simply been to figure out how to get through this current situation, with the short window of time we've been given to do it and, as Mr. Brassard says, when we are under the gun essentially, at this point, is a great mistake. I think that's why these recommendations are a great mistake.

Here we are, with an hour and forty minutes to try to finish recommendations about how to deal with the current situation and we're fighting over what we're going to do in some future situation that might arise instead of dealing with what we're supposed to be dealing with. I'm going to tell you that we could be here a long time, because I will never allow our democracy to be given away this way. That's what we're talking about here with this amendment Mr. Turnbull is proposing to his own recommendation.

The bottom line here is that if all the other committee members, or at least all the other parties, feel that's where we're going to go, I guess that's where we're going to go, but I will not, I will never, allow our democracy to be taken away in such a fashion. That amendment is something that I cannot accept. I may have a suggestion on that. I don't want to cede the floor because we may need to be here a while if there isn't going to be any resolution possible here. Can I start with two things? Is it possible to ask a question of a couple of other members?

I would just like to, if I could, through you Madam Chair, while holding the floor, allow some time to Ms. Normandin—

The Chair :

It's the Simms protocol that we used to use. I think it is. I think I would allow it in this circumstance because we seem to be stuck and it might move us forward.

Mr. Blake Richards :

I'm doing it in a way that strives to get us through this. Again, I think it's ill-advised to be going down this path but I sense that I'm in the minority on that, so I want to arrive at a way that we can move on to some of the things we need to be doing and the things we should be talking about. Can I start by asking Madam Normandin what her feelings are on the proposal that a majority vote of Parliament would be enough to invoke emergency measures? Can I get her sense on whether she agrees or disagrees with that, first of all?

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin :

Thank you, Madam Chair. The point of my remarks is exactly to discuss that. For starters, we tend to slightly lose sight of the fact that we are discussing a set of procedural rules that will enable members to continue to do their work during a crisis. I liked the parallel Mr. Alghabra established with emergency measures because I was going to do the same. This could be adopted by a majority government, and there is a political price to pay for doing it needlessly. In Quebec, oddly enough, we still remember this 50 years later.

Similarly, if we must operate unanimously, there is a political price to pay for creating obstacles to prevent a Parliament from being able to operate virtually during a crisis. Be it by a majority vote or unanimously, I am comfortable with the two proposals, as long as work is done to draft procedural rules for the future. In any case, that is what we will do indirectly for the time being.

[ English ]

Mr. Blake Richards :

Given that, I don't sense that there is enough opposition to defeat this necessarily. There may or may not be. There doesn't appear to be evidently that. I feel strongly enough about this, and I know there are others who feel this way as well. I just can't allow this to happen. I couldn't, in good conscience, go home and sleep tonight knowing that I may have given away our very democracy. We'll be here a while, until the end of the meeting—I'll probably hold the floor—barring a successful conclusion to this. Let me maybe turn to Mr. Turnbull with a question.

First of all, could I just get him to read the last part, the second portion of his recommendation as he would have it be, both the initial version and his amended version? It's the part that goes “That the committee further recommends”. Can he read the original version of that and the amendment he's proposing? I ask him that because I may have a suggestion.

(1625) The Chair :

That's what I was going to ask because—

Mr. Blake Richards :

If he could read that first, then I would then make a suggestion to him. I'll see if I can get some agreement that he would be willing to consider it a friendly amendment. Then we can figure out where we're at.

The Chair :

Absolutely. I think that could help. I'm not going to allow the Simms protocol throughout the whole session because we are limited on time. However, if this can help and can maybe perhaps move us forward, then go ahead. Mr. Turnbull, would you like to answer that?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Sure. I'm more than happy to. I'll read the last sentence as it originally was proposed, and then I will read the friendly amendment. It said, “The committee further recommends these modified standing orders only come into force and be rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties.” Then the friendly amendment replaces that last bit, so “at the agreement of all recognized parties” would be replaced with “by majority vote in the House of Commons.”

Mr. Blake Richards :

Thank you for that. I just needed to get the wording so I could try to figure out a way that I might be able to suggest something as a way out of this. I've made my concerns quite clear. I don't believe that a majority vote of Parliament should be enough to create these kinds of emergency provisions. I know there were some other concerns that I hadn't considered myself, but I think they are valid concerns.

They're about the possibility that, once these are in place, a governing party, or anyone else who felt they had enough ability to utilize these for their own benefit, could choose to keep them in place by not giving their agreement. That is the weird situation we're in. I think there may be a way out of it. I'm trying to figure out how to word it, but first I'll explain what I'm trying to do so that I can get a sense if there's agreement. If there is, maybe we can come up with some wording.

Essentially, what I would be looking to do is to make a suggestion that we return to the initial suggestion that the modified standing orders could only come into force at the agreement of all recognized parties. I think what we would then be looking to do is to try to make it so that if one of those parties were to withdraw their consent at any point, or their agreement, then they would be rescinded through that. Therefore, when all parties are in agreement, the measures could be put in place, and they would stay in place only as long as all parties agree.

That would remove the ability for a majority in the House of Commons, or one party in the House of Commons that happened to have a majority, to either put these in place or refuse to remove them. First, I hope that's clear. If it's clear, can I get some sense from people? I don't know if we can do a straw poll or something to get a sense of whether there is some agreement on the principle. I think I could probably come up with some wording if there is.

The idea would be simply that only through all parties agreeing could these be put in place, and they would remain in place until one or more of the parties removes its agreement.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin :

Madam Chair, may I ask a question?

[ English ]

The Chair :

Yes. You know, I think we're making some progress—baby steps—so that might help. Mr. Richards, would you be able to cede the floor so that Madam Normandin could ask you a question?

(1630) Mr. Blake Richards :

I won't cede the floor, but I will allow her to use some of my time.

The Chair :

Thank you.

[ Translation ]

Ms. Christine Normandin :

I think the most important consideration is to vote on drafting a set of procedural rules. I know that this proposal can be taken into consideration separately from that relative to the method of applying that set of rules. I was very comfortable with Ms. Blaney's proposal, but I would not want to be prevented from debating the drafting of a set of procedural rules. I was wondering whether it would be possible to first vote on the equivalent of what is proposed in LIB 1 and BQ 10—in other words, preparing a set of procedural rules and then voting on Ms. Blaney's proposal.

I propose that this be done by unanimous consent and that, if the proposal is rejected, we be able to vote on using majority consent instead.

[ English ]

The Chair :

Mr. Richards, would you be okay with that suggestion?

Mr. Blake Richards :

Maybe we can just have her repeat that. I'm not sure I completely understood it.

[ Translation ]

The Chair :

Ms. Normandin, go ahead.

Ms. Christine Normandin :

I suggest that the vote be held in three stages. That would be representative of our current debates. We could hold a first vote on creating parallel regulations for emergency measures, a second vote on the requirement for unanimous consent in order to trigger the implementation of those procedures and, if that proposal was rejected, a vote on the fact that majority consent would then be required. Ms. Blaney's proposal on unanimity was actually the first one presented for discussion.

[ English ]

Mr. Blake Richards :

Okay, I'll respond to that in three parts as well. On the first part, I'm opposed to the idea of our looking at ways we would trigger these kinds of things in the future. At this point, I think what we've been directed to do by the House of Commons—and what we should do, as well, at this time—is to deal with what we're doing in the current circumstances. When things return to somewhat normal, we as a committee should then study what we would do in future circumstances. At that point—I would be completely in agreement with you—we should be doing exactly what you've suggested in the first part of your suggestion.

I just don't think that now is the time for that. Having said that, I also recognize that I appear to be in the minority on that. I'm not going to hold up or prevent that from being decided today, if we remove this aspect that I have the most concern about—and that's the second part of your query—this idea that somehow this could be triggered through a majority, or rescinded or not rescinded in that way. That's where I have a real problem, because I see that as a threat to democracy—a very dangerous threat to democracy. I would never allow....

As long as I felt there were enough votes for that to pass, I would never allow it to come to a vote. I'd do everything in my power to ensure that didn't happen, and I think there are other members who feel as strongly as I do about that. We won't be getting anywhere if that's the path we're going down. I don't do that lightly. I only do it because I think this is such a threat to democracy that I couldn't live with myself if I didn't do everything I could possibly do to oppose it.

Then, to your third question, obviously we wouldn't even get to that point, because as long as I feel there's enough support to have a vote that would allow this to be done by a majority, I'll go to the wall on that one. That is how important it is that we protect our democracy from that kind of a threat. I hope that clarifies where we're at. If we were to somehow divorce these two things, the first one may be able to come to a vote.

However, as long as I feel there's any possibility that there's enough support for it to pass, there's no way I will allow the potential for our democracy to be removed from us in that way. Does that clarify the questions? I guess the floor is still mine, or—

(1635) The Chair :

Yes, it is. Can I just clarify one thing? You stated at the end that your opposition overall is to looking at any future emergencies, but the sticking point seems to be what triggers it and what triggers it for us to come out of the virtual setting. Correct me if I'm wrong. You said it should be agreement of all parties that triggers going into a virtual Parliament, but the opposition of even one party would undo the virtual Parliament and bring us back to the regular Standing Orders. Is that correct?

Mr. Blake Richards :

Correct. That would be the intention. I could come up with the wording. The idea is to try to satisfy the concerns that some had, and I think they were legit concerns. They just weren't concerns that I had considered previously. There could be a very legitimate situation where all parties would agree—and I think this would have been a circumstance of that—to the idea of going into these emergency standing orders or whatever you would want to call them, which could potentially give, not knowing what they are, because we haven't even come up with what those are....

Again, just on a sidebar here, that speaks to why we shouldn't be considering the future now. We haven't even come up with what those are, and we certainly haven't done anywhere near enough study to come up with what those are. We haven't given ourselves the benefit of looking at the current context and what we've done, and what other countries and other legislatures have done. We would be making a huge mistake, I think, to go down that road, but my sense is that others want to do that. I think it's a mistake, a huge mistake, but it's a mistake that others appear to be prepared to go with.

The problem is that without even knowing what those are, we're suggesting that we would allow these things to be put in place through this amendment by a majority vote. Even if we were to stick with the idea of its being unanimous—by all the recognized parties—to go into these situations, the circumstance that has been raised here by Mr. Brassard and maybe one other is the idea that, if this is to be rescinded by a unanimous vote, it could allow one party—and the most likely circumstance you could imagine is that it would be a governing party—to prevent the rescinding of these emergency measures.

They would be doing that because, one would assume, they find that they're liking the idea of the extra power—or the lesser accountability—it gives them. That is also a concern. It's just one that I hadn't had, so I was trying to find a way.... Although it isn't perfect, and I think we should be taking more time to consider this, if we're being forced to go down this path, which appears to be where we're at, I'm just trying to find a way to make it so that our democracy is protected in the best way that it can be.

The idea would be that all parties would have to agree to go in, and that as soon as one party felt it was no longer appropriate, we would come out of it. That prevents, on either end of it, a government either taking that kind of power for themselves without other parties agreeing that it's necessary or keeping that power for themselves although other parties don't feel it's necessary.

I don't think one has to think real hard to find circumstances where there are governments in power in countries that have gone from a democratic situation to something that's less than democratic, and where this would have been a real easy way for one of those individuals to take that kind of power. That's why I have that concern. I hope that clarifies things. I guess what I'll do at this point is indicate that for me these concerns are grave enough that I don't intend to allow a vote until I get some indication that others have rethought the lack of concern they have here. If at any time, whether it be Mr.

Turnbull, who feels the willingness to pull this amendment, or if others who have previously expressed support for it.... I'm only assuming the support of the other government members, because I haven't heard anything from them to the contrary. Well, most of the other government members.... I guess Mr. Alghabra has sort of indicated his feelings, and he is supporting it.

At the end of the day, if one or two members, or others, feel that they can see clearly that we're not getting anywhere here, or they have a change of heart and realize the threat this causes to democracy—and I'll speak and make the points I need to make to try to convince others of this situation—just simply put your hand up, do a point of order and indicate that you feel that way, and I can stop talking to try to convince people.

(1640) Until then, I will try to do everything to convince them that there is no way we should be going down this dangerous road of allowing our democracy to be threatened in such a way.

The Chair :

If I may just interject for 30 seconds, how about Madame Normandin's suggestion that we not talk about the contentious issue yet and perhaps move to the first recommendation as is, rather than getting into what does or does not trigger it? Could we call for a vote on the first recommendation as it is in the draft report?

Mr. Blake Richards :

I suppose that's a possibility. You know where my thoughts are on it. What you're suggesting, Madam Chair, is a vote on LIB 1, or what are we suggesting?

The Chair :

Yes, we have LIB 1, then CPC 2, and then BQ 10. This was brought about only because it seemed as though some suggestions were similar, so we were trying to combine them, but we don't have to, necessarily.

Mr. Blake Richards :

This is something I might have raised as a point of order, but since we're having a back-and-forth exchange anyway, I'll just ask the question. How do we reconcile this? We deal with LIB 1, and maybe the clerk will have to give you some advice on this, Madam Chair, because there are such similarities between LIB 1, BQ 10, and NDP 2. I will also point out that NDP 2 also includes the way these would be put into force and rescinded, which I favour of the three. I don't like any of them, but I favour it of the three because of that. If there were to be a vote on LIB 1, what would then happen to BQ 10 and NDP 2?

Would they no longer be voted on because they are similar? What would become the status of those? That's important for members to know if we are to go to a vote on this, because maybe the Bloc, the NDP, Conservative members, or even some Liberal members might prefer one of those suggestions, and if we vote for LIB 1 and those are thrown out as a result, we could be going down a road that maybe people didn't intend to go down. We need to get some clarity. Where we have these similar recommendations, what happens then when we vote on LIB 1? Does BQ 10 get thrown out? Does NDP 2 get thrown out?

If that isn't the case and we then vote on BQ 10, does that take precedence over LIB 1 and it gets thrown out? We need some clarity as to what actually happens here with the votes.

The Chair :

Absolutely. I think some of those technical decisions are made when we're looking at legislation, but let's have the clerk weigh in on this one, and you can still have the floor, Mr. Richards.

The Clerk :

Mr. Richards, the chair is correct. Those tend to be the types of considerations that come into play. For example, during a clause-by-clause meeting when the committee is considering various amendments, occasionally when an amendment gets adopted, it has the effect or the impact of knocking out other ones. There's a lot more latitude when it comes to a draft report. It's really up to the committee to determine what the recommendations are. Procedurally, if the committee wanted to adopt multiple similar types of recommendations for the report, it could do that.

There might be issues of consistency or inconsistency because of that, but procedurally speaking, there wouldn't be anything stopping it. It wouldn't be, as the chair indicated, the same situation in which, if the committee were considering amendments in clause-by-clause to a bill, there would be an automatic impact if some amendments were adopted and others would need to be dropped. Essentially, it would be in the committee's hands to determine if any other recommendations needed to be adopted, even if there were some, or quite a lot, of overlap in them.

(1645) The Chair :

It wouldn't have that effect, and we could carry on into the others. What I was saying the other day was that the purpose is to have a report that makes sense stylistically, so that we're not repeating ourselves over and over in the report, but essentially we could continue down and not make the amalgamation.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Okay, I understand the clarification we just received. However, I will point out that although it's possible to have three recommendations that say something similar or the same, it's quite awkward, to say the least. I would suggest that members might want to consider that problem before voting. I'm not sure how to even deal with that situation.

If you wanted to do a straw poll and get a sense of which one of the three recommendations has the most support, and then maybe deal with it first, rather than going in order like that...because I don't really know where others are at in terms of whether they would prefer LIB 1, BQ 10, or NDP 2. Maybe we need to get a straw poll to give us some sense of that, and then proceed with the motion on it, if that's what we are going to do.

The Chair :

Mr. Richards, can we get an idea as to which one you prefer out of LIB 1, BQ 10, and NPD 2? I think that might move us along.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Certainly, from my perspective, NDP 2 is the preferable one. It's only preferable because.... I disagree with the other idea, that we have a modified set of standing orders for future situations. I think that's something we should analyze later, in a second report. If we're going to go down this path, I want to ensure there are some rules around how those standing orders would be put into force and rescinded. In my mind, there still would need to be an amendment to the NDP one to make the change about how they would be rescinded, possibly.

However, I think the principle that the NDP is trying to accomplish on that part of it is still.... I would be interested to hear Ms. Blaney's thoughts on the proposal I've made, in terms of whether she would agree with that idea. I hadn't even considered the possibility, and maybe she hadn't either, of a majority government deciding to hold those emergency powers by being the one party that doesn't agree to rescind. I would love to hear Ms. Blaney's thoughts on that, if we could. She's saying “the agreement of all recognized parties” for it to come into force.

Would she agree, then, that it would only remain in force as long as all recognized parties agreed? In other words, if one party decides to pull its agreement on it.... I would assume that the only way a party could pull its agreement would be through some kind of a motion. The bottom line is, would she agree on that principle, that it would come into force and stay in force only as long as all parties agree? I want to get her thoughts on that, if I can, Madam Chair, and then I might be able to make some decision on that.

The Chair :

Ms. Blaney.

Mr. James Maloney (Etobicoke—Lakeshore, Lib.) :

On a point of order, Madam Chair, we've been listening to Mr. Richards for some time now. I think we know where he stands. He's interested in hearing where other members of this committee stand. I think, in fairness, if he wants answers to those questions, he is going to have to yield the floor and let them share their views, as we have been generous enough to do with his time. Mr. Richards has been speaking for some time now, and we have a motion before us. He has presented—I've lost count—at least four suggestions on how it might be amended or improved in his opinion. He's now asking for other people's input.

Procedurally, the only way he can do that correctly is if he yields the floor to let other people speak.

(1650) Mr. Blake Richards :

I can respond to that point of order.

The Chair :

It's a point of order for me, and so—

Mr. Blake Richards :

Yes, but other members have had an opportunity to respond to a point of order and give their input, so I would like to do that.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Blake Richards: I will point out to the member—and I think he must be a new member; I don't recognize him—that he's probably not aware that members have the right to speak in committee, and to speak at length if necessary. I am simply doing what I'm doing—and you're allowing that, Madam Chair—in the interest of trying to move forward with something. My reasons for doing what I'm doing, asking the questions of other members, are to get some sense.... I don't want to yield the floor, and there's a very obvious reason for why I don't want to do that.

I don't want to see this principle that's been introduced through the amendment to the amendment come to a vote, because I'm quite concerned about the threat it causes to democracy. I'm trying to get a sense of where we're at with other members without yielding the floor. I'm doing that out of the best interests of the committee. If Mr. Maloney does not want to allow that, then he should be prepared to listen to my voice for some time to come.

The Chair :

I'm going to answer as to the procedural issue, since I've heard from both members. What I was in essence trying to do was make some progress here. In the previous Parliament, and in our last report—not that we have to comply with it; it's not procedural, really—we had a way of operating in the past where we would allow for short and small answers or interjections if there was consensus by the committee to carry on that way. If I'm seeing now that the committee does not entertain it or does not allow me to use that flexibility, then I might not do that anymore. I was doing it also, Mr.

Richards, just as you were saying, in order to maybe find a compromise or a solution to this, because I do understand and I do recognize that you have the floor and that you could carry on if you like. But if things are not moving forward, then maybe the Simms protocol is no longer of value at this moment. That is up to the committee, really. Usually, it was just latitude that we had given in the past when all members seemed to be in agreement that it would help. If the committee members don't feel that this is helping to move us forward, then it really is up to the committee, I guess, and it's up to you, Mr.

Richards.

Mr. John Brassard :

Madam Chair, can I make a point of order as well?

The Chair :

Yes, Mr. Brassard.

Mr. John Brassard :

I'm going to make a suggestion. Clearly, we're at a standoff here. I think Mr. Turnbull has heard the significant concerns on the recommendation that he put on the floor. I think there are others who may share those. I think we need a reset here, right now. In order for us to get to that point, I would ask if Mr. Turnbull would consider withdrawing his recommendation. Perhaps we need unanimous consent through you, Madam Chair, to do that. That is something that I think would allow us to get to a point where we could reset, because clearly there is a concern there.

The other thing I would suggest to the members of the committee, if Mr. Turnbull is amenable to removing his recommendation, is that perhaps we can look at and maybe put our minds to a situation that's similar to what we have now, whereby any agreement to adopt any emergency measures should be with all parties. It should include a time frame that's agreed upon and that can only be extended by further agreement. Maybe that is.... What we have now is a simple solution to this. Madam Chair, I think Mr. Richards was really trying to go in that direction, with an understanding, given the concerns that Mr.

Turnbull's amendment or recommendation has. If he's willing to withdraw that, I think we need to step back, reset and then look at where we need to go, and I think where we need to go is similar to what we have now. Thank you, Madam Chair.

(1655) The Chair :

Thank you, Mr. Brassard. For clarification—and I did previously ask Mr. Richards this, too—if we were to see whether Mr. Turnbull would be willing to take back the recommendation or the amendment to the recommendation, how would we reset? Would we reset by starting with the first recommendation as it's seen in our report, or would we start by having a general conversation about where we need to go? That's something you said at the onset. Where would that reset take us? That's what I'm trying to ask.

Mr. John Brassard :

Well, unfortunately, I think it would take us back to the first recommendation that we're dealing with. I say “unfortunately” because we're still on it. I'm not going to repeat it. We've expressed our concerns with the issue of “extraordinary circumstances” and “fully functioning”, but I think that if we incorporate something similar to what is in place right now, this may help us get beyond the point that we're in. As I said earlier, what we have in place right now is agreement from the parties, time limits and all of this stuff.

Again, I go back to my earlier point—and I hate to repeat it—but I still think this is forward thinking. This doesn't encapsulate what the context is for what our report is supposed to look like. We could be looking at these things later on, Standing Orders, etc., but I think we need to step back. If Mr. Turnbull is willing to do that, then we go back to LIB 1 and try to find a solution to that, Madam Chair. Thank you.

The Chair :

Mr. Richards has the floor right now, so we'll continue with that, and when Mr. Richards is done, we can ask Mr. Turnbull if he would like to do that, after Mr. Richards has finished having the floor.

Mr. Blake Richards :

I will gladly, if this Mr. Maloney will decide to remove his lack of consent for the Simms protocol, give Mr. Turnbull an opportunity to indicate—

An hon. member: I will not—

Mr. Mark Gerretsen (Kingston and the Islands, Lib.) :

On a point of order, Madam Chair, I take exception to the fact that Mr. Richards is referring to Mr. Maloney in such a way, as “this” Mr. Maloney, as though he's not an appropriate member of the committee. He's been a member of Parliament, despite the fact that Mr. Richards might not be aware of it, by beating a Conservative in 2015, and was re-elected in 2019, so he's certainly been around long enough not to be referred to as “this” member of Parliament. I would appreciate a little more respect from members as they sit around this table.

The Chair :

I think that's a valid point. I kind of missed you saying that, and it's not appropriate for any of us to refer to each other that way. Mr. Maloney has joined us to substitute for another member. I believe he also chairs a committee of the House of Commons as well, so we all have our own experiences. I think this committee is full of members with tons of good experience and backgrounds. Mr. Richards.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, just to be clear, I was simply trying to give Mr. Maloney an opportunity to rescind his previous lack of consent. If it was phrased in such a way—and there was no intention of that—that offended anyone's sensibilities, I do apologize for that. There was no intention to offend anybody. It was simply to point out the situation we're in.

Mr. James Maloney :

This member was not offended, but I will not rescind.

The Chair :

Okay. Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Corey Tochor (Saskatoon—University, CPC) :

On a point of order, Madam Chair, my Internet was cutting in and out, and I couldn't hear or see. Maybe this has been determined already. Did Mr. Turnbull rescind his proposed amendment or not? I couldn't follow the debate. Did he indicate he would rescind it?

(1700) The Chair :

Sorry, Mr. Richards still has the floor. You have your hand up to have the floor next, I believe, and after that will be Mr. Duncan.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

No, no, I had a point of order. I couldn't hear Ryan's—

The Chair :

Oh, okay, so all along your hand was up for a point of order. I was thinking you were next up after Mr. Richards.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

No, I would like to be on the speaking order, but I did have a point of order that my Internet was cutting in and out and I didn't have audio. I had video, though. I just want to confirm where the debate is. Right now we can't move forward unless the proposed amendment is removed by Mr. Turnbull. Is that correct?

The Chair :

Perhaps it's correct. We're not quite clear or sure we would still be able to move forward. That hasn't really been indicated completely. The desire to have it removed has been indicated, but whether any of these would be adopted really is beyond me. We have yet to see. Mr. Richards has the floor, and then you have the floor, Mr. Tochor, and then Mr. Duncan. Then, if Mr. Turnbull would like to have the floor after that, he would have the floor. He hasn't raised his hand yet.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll just point out to Mr. Turnbull, for his information, that despite his colleague's lack of willingness to rescind his lack of consent for the Simms protocol, he's more than able to grab the floor with a point of order anytime and indicate that he's willing to rescind if he'd like to do that. In the meantime, I hope I don't bore everybody too much. This principle is that important. It is really unfortunate, and I don't want to be in this position in any way, Madam Chair. I want to make that really clear. This is not my preference. This is not what I came here to do today.

I'm shocked that we're in this position. I was shocked and frankly horrified by the suggestion that was made. It kind of came out of nowhere. I'm not sure if there was an intention all along on the part of the Liberals, the governing party, to do this, and this was just a way of doing it as a sneak attack, or whether this was something that was just conceived in Mr. Turnbull's mind as something that he thought might be a good idea, and he is maybe just too proud to admit that maybe it was a mistake, or maybe he feels this strongly that it's not a mistake.

I don't know where he is, and I guess unless he chooses to make a point of order or his colleague chooses to reconsider his ill-advised lack of consent for the Simms protocol, we won't know this, so we'll continue to speculate on what the motivations are here and what the reasons are. That's unfortunate, because I don't want to be speculating on those, and I don't want to be speaking for any length of time to this either. It's unfortunate that we're in this position. As I said, I do disagree with the idea of going down the road that we're going down and making recommendations for future sittings.

I'm just going to read the motion again to remind members, because, even though Mr. Brassard read a portion of it earlier, it seems as though there was still some confusion amongst members. I heard in some of the comments that were made by a few members that there still seems to be some confusion on what we're actually here to do. I'll read from the motion that was passed by the House. It starts with “notwithstanding any standing order, special order or usual practice of the House”, of course, and there's a series of clauses. I'll read a few that are relevant to us. I won't read the whole thing at this point.

Clause (

l) states this:

(

l) during the period the House stands adjourned pursuant to this order, the Standing Committee on Health, the Standing Committee on Finance, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, and the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology may hold meetings for the sole purpose of receiving evidence related to the COVID-19 pandemic, provided that, at such meetings, (

i) committee members shall attend and witnesses shall participate via either videoconference or teleconference, (ii) committee members attending by videoconference or teleconference shall be counted for the purposes of quorum, (iii) proceedings shall be made available to the public via the House of Commons website, (iv) notices of membership substitutions pursuant to Standing Order 114(2) may be filed with the clerk of each committee by email, and further provided that these committees (

v) shall each meet at least once per week, unless the whips of all recognized parties agree not to hold a meeting, (vi) may each receive evidence which may otherwise exceed the committee’s mandate under Standing Order 108, (vii) shall meet within 48 hours of the receipt by email, by the clerk of the committee, of a request signed by any four members of the committee;

Then it goes on, in clause (m), to talk about our committee. This next

part is very important. It's on what we're here to study: “the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to study ways in which members can fulfill their parliamentary duties while the House stands adjourned on account of public health concerns caused by the COVID-19 pandemic”.

(1705) I'll stop there and just give some parenthetical statements. What you didn't notice in that was anything about direction regarding what we would do in future circumstances that might arise and be similar to this or other emergency-type situations. That's important for the purposes of what we're discussing right now, because what we're talking about in these three motions.... I'm just going to read them quickly as well, before I get back to reading from the Standing Orders.

Recommendation LIB 1 is “We should establish an alternative set of Standing Orders to be used in extraordinary circumstances to enable a fully functioning virtual Parliament.” That is not talking about the current circumstance, that we need to have revised standing orders, an alternative set of standing orders. It's talking about “extraordinary circumstances”, which could mean the current circumstances, one would assume, I guess. Again, I'm not completely clear on that.

There hasn't been a lot of indication by government members on exactly the rationale behind this, and that's unfortunate, but one would have to assume that it would also pertain to future circumstances. That's where I have an issue with it, because I really think this is a mistake. When you're in the middle of a crisis.... I've been through this and maybe I'll come back to it in a minute, but I'll just touch on it briefly. In my riding, in 2013, we faced very significant floods. I'm sure some members will remember them. They were in southern Alberta, and they originated in my riding.

They affected a number of constituencies, but mine was certainly one of the affected areas. I know that many of those communities, after the fact, of course reviewed their procedures and their protocols around how they dealt with the situation. They looked at ways they could shore up their communities, with better armour along the banks, for example, things they could do to be better prepared if this situation were to arise in the future. But what they didn't do during the crisis, while they were trying to deal with the crisis and everything that went with that....

They set up emergency operations centres, and in those operations centres—

The Chair :

Mr. Richards, I'm just asking for your permission. I was just clarifying something with the clerk to try to get a better understanding of the procedure here, and I have been told that if I were to interject and ask Mr. Turnbull a question, it would be possible. The Simms protocol means you having a conversation with Mr. Turnbull, but if I were to ask for a point of clarification from Mr. Turnbull, you would still have the floor. It wouldn't be using the Simms protocol.

We wouldn't really be going into that without everybody agreeing to that friendly protocol, but it would provide some clarification for me, I think, as to where we're headed, since it's 5:09 now on the clock. Mr. Turnbull, would you be able to provide me with some clarification on the amendment you proposed? It was proposed with a friendly amendment attached to it. What are your thoughts and what are you thinking on that?

(1710) Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I've heard the many concerns that have been raised. I still think the amendment was intentionally proposed to address some of the comments that were made by my colleagues, in particular Mr. Brassard. I can see that maybe it didn't have the intended effect. I think the recommendation is a solid recommendation. It comes from an amalgamation of three parties' recommendations that are very, very similar, but I'd be open to suggestions if anybody has a suggestion on how we might move forward.

The Chair :

My question would be about the friendly amendment. I believe Mr. Alghabra mentioned adding language about a “majority vote”. Are you still considering putting that version of the recommendation forward, that ends with “a majority vote”, or the one that ends with the NDP 2 ending, which calls for the agreement of all parties?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I'm still unconvinced as to which version is better. I see the intentions of my colleagues, but I'd like to understand whether we could get some agreement on this and move forward, even if we were to go with the original version.

The Chair :

Thank you. That clarifies things. Mr. Richards.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Before I get back to the comments I was making—and you may want to go further with this—I may be able to help with a suggestion. First of all, I want to make it really clear that although, as I've outlined, I am opposed to the idea of looking at future situations, I'm not trying to hold up a report from the committee. I recognize that I'm in a minority in that viewpoint. I believe in democracy, and I can clearly see I'm in a minority in this situation. I might disagree, and I would certainly vote against anything, but I want to make it clear to Mr.

Turnbull and others that I'm not trying to hold anything up and filibuster or anything of that nature. Where I have a concern is on the second amendment he made, which was the idea of having a majority vote. That's where I feel there is a real threat to democracy. A couple of other members, from two parties at least, have expressed similar concerns. I'm not sure their concerns are as grave as mine, but they've certainly had concerns.

Clearly, there are members here today, representing parties that hold somewhere in the neighbourhood of almost half the seats in the House of Commons, who have these concerns, so I think it's something that should be taken seriously. I will say two things. First, if you want to return to Mr. Turnbull, Madam Chair—

The Chair :

Yes, I do.

Mr. Blake Richards :

—what I've said might give him better clarity as to my concerns and may give him some comfort in what he would suggest we do. Second, I suggest to you, Madam Chair, that you might want to use the powers that you have. I had said to Ms. Blaney that maybe it would be good to hear her perspective on my suggested amendment to NDP 2, for example, which would enable what she was suggesting, and then have one of the parties able to pull their.... Canvass her on that one, because I think there are two things we have to figure out here. First, we have to figure out—

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

I have a point of order, if that would be appropriate at this moment.

The Chair :

Absolutely. I was going to move on to you, Ms. Blaney. What I will say, as Mr. Turnbull has said, is that the original amendment may not be completely accurate, but it is a fair combination of three different recommendations. Would you be willing, Ms. Blaney, to consider the first version of the recommendation that was amalgamated?

(1715) Ms. Rachel Blaney :

First of all, let me thank Mr. Richards for talking earlier about what a kind, gentle person I am. I appreciate that, and I want to let him know that I certainly know when it's time to fight. I thank him for recognizing that friendly British Columbia spirit. The first recommendation that Mr. Turnbull put forward, which combined the three motions and included the part that of course I stand by very steadfastly, about making sure that all the parties have power in this, is important to me. I want to clarify that I do not want to see those sections of the motion separated. I don't think they belong....

I can't vote for the first one without the part added to it, which says that all recognized parties will have the power to work. I think it's important to reiterate that this is what we have seen. It has not always been perfect, but what we've seen is that over this period of time, all recognized parties have found ways to work together. I would like to see that continue. I think it is absolutely essential for democracy.

The Chair :

Thank you, Ms. Blaney. Mr. Turnbull, it looks like Mr. Richards and Ms. Blaney are saying that the original amendment you proposed is least offensive, at least in one case.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, on the point of order, could I comment quickly before Mr. Turnbull, if that's okay?

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Blake Richards: The only reason I want to do this is that I'm still not clear on where Ms. Blaney is in terms of the rescinding. I feel like we might be close to having something the committee could pass, even though I wouldn't support it. Ms. Blaney has made it quite clear that she wouldn't support anything that doesn't have some indication of how they would come into force and how they would be rescinded. There might be some agreement there, if Mr. Turnbull chooses to go back to his original, but I still suggest that my concern about—

The Chair :

Let's ask Ms. Blaney—

Mr. Blake Richards :

I'm sorry, but can I first just make sure that it's clear what I'm asking?

The Chair: It is.

Mr. Blake Richards: What I would be asking her is, how does she feel about the principle of rescinding it? Does she feel that a majority vote would be okay to rescind it? Does she feel that it needs all parties to rescind it? That would obviously bring into question the concern Mr. Brassard raised about one party holding on, a governing party deciding to hold on to those powers, even though all the other parties feel that those powers need to be rescinded at that point. How does she feel about the amendment saying that in that circumstance one party withdrawing its agreement would then be the requirement, rather than a majority vote or all parties on the rescinding side?

The Chair :

Ms. Blaney, do you agree to the modification to your original ending? Your original ending was consistent with how to invoke and how to rescind.

Ms. Rachel Blaney :

I thank the member for that question, and I actually can answer it. My concern would be.... I think the pressure is pretty strong from Canadians about that level of collaboration, but I do understand the concern of one party holding the power. We've actually seen some demonstration of that in the last few months as well, where if a party doesn't agree, it means everything returns and it means calling in all parliamentarians. I think that's something I would be willing to debate. I don't quite feel that there's the thoughtfulness required for me to amend it at this point.

The Chair :

Okay. I think at this point we could go back to the original proposal of the amalgamated three of Ms. Blaney's suggestion originally, Ms. Normandin's recommendation, and then Mr. Turnbull's recommendation, all combined together. Could we go to a vote on that recommendation as being the first recommendation of this report?

Mr. Blake Richards :

No, Madam Chair.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I'll just clarify, if I may, Madam Chair, that—

The Chair :

Yes, I guess that was a question for you, as to whether you would be willing to go to a vote on that, with the original without the friendly amendment.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I thought so, and yes, I would be amenable to that. I think it would be fine to go back to the original. I can read it out again, if necessary, but I think you have it. The ending is “rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties”. It includes—

(1720) Mr. Corey Tochor :

Point of order.

The Chair :

Mr. Tochor.

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Is there a way that we could get an emailed copy of this? I'm not having the best audio and video today. Could we take a break and have someone from the clerk's office, maybe, email us the actual motion and amended motions? I can't follow along with all the amendments that have been made.

The Chair :

I don't know. Justin, could you...?

The Clerk :

Hello, Mr. Tochor. One of the issues that we would have for me as the clerk to distribute it is, of course, that one of our routine motions for the committee requires that I can only distribute material to the committee if it is in both official languages. It creates an impediment for me to be able to distribute it in an official capacity. I imagine that the wording of the recommendation that Mr. Turnbull has is not in French, so that would obviously have to be translated for that purpose.

The Chair :

We could have it read in again. From what I'm gathering from everybody, I think that nobody wants to hold this committee up anymore or hold this report up, and I think we're now back to the original, without the major— Mr. Richards.

Mr. Blake Richards :

I'm not certain that's correct.

The Chair :

I thought that's what I had gathered from you.

Mr. Blake Richards :

I still have the floor, and I'm not yet clear—and obviously Mr. Tochor is unclear, because he's not able to hear things and it can't be sent to him. This is a real problem. First of all, before we get to that part of it, I'm still not clear on what we're talking about returning to.

The Chair :

We'll have it read out several times. I think that's the best we can do, since we do have the simultaneous

interpretation. We can have it read very slowly. We can have it read a few times, until everyone has heard the recommendation. I would suggest that we try to write it down as much as possible. A lot of the wording is on page 26, from the three different recommendations. It really is, from listening to it, kind of a cut-and-paste of a whole bunch of the parts of the three recommendations, but if you could follow along and write them down, that will maybe help us through that issue. I appreciate everyone wanting to move this forward. Mr. Turnbull.

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

I'll read it very slowly: “That the House establish an alternative set of Standing Orders, which enables....” Do you want me to start again, Mr. Brassard? Okay, I'll go back: “That the House establish an alternative set of Standing Orders, which enables the implementation of a virtual Parliament, so that the House can continue with its business in the event of a crisis or exceptional circumstance”—

Mr. Corey Tochor :

Could you go back to right after “continue”?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Yes, it says, “continue with its business in the event of a crisis or exceptional circumstance, such as those arising from the current pandemic.” The second sentence is “The committee further recommends these modified Standing Orders only come into force and be rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties.” I hope everyone got that. If I need to read it again, I'm happy to do that.

(1725) Mr. John Brassard :

In the second part of that, “The committee further recommends” is the only

part I got, Ryan. Could you start after “recommends”?

The Chair :

Can you read the last sentence?

Mr. Ryan Turnbull :

Sure. It says, “The committee further recommends these modified Standing Orders only come into force and be rescinded at the agreement of all recognized parties.”

The Chair :

Okay. As I think we've debated this recommendation for two and half hours now, I'd like to see if we can call a vote on this recommendation.

Mr. Blake Richards :

Madam Chair, I have the floor, and I don't agree to that.

The Chair :

I thought you said you would agree to move things forward.

Mr. Blake Richards :

I still have a problem, and I'll explain why.

The Chair :

But you could vote against it.

Mr. Blake Richards :

No, that's not good enough, Madam Chair. The reason it's not good enough, and I'll explain it if you allow me, is that we're still in a situation where, although it solves the problem of putting in place these emergency standing orders where all parties must agree, it doesn't solve the problem that Mr. Brassard raised, where one party can continue to hold those powers because they refuse to agree. The problem we have there is that we basically come around to a situation where the very thing we're trying to prevent is done another way through a back door.

In other words, if we have a legitimate crisis and all parties agree, then we'll put in place these emergency standing orders. But then, when the crisis is averted, or most people believe it's averted, the one party—that would likely happen to be the governing party, obviously, one would assume—chooses not to allow it to be rescinded. That's what this allows. One party could prevent it from being rescinded. It essentially allows the government to do by the back door what we're trying to prevent them from doing by the front door.

The Chair :

Could I propose something? Perhaps we leave—

Mr. Blake Richards :

That's why I'm suggesting we allow that amendment to the way it could be rescinded, so that a party can't do by the back door what we don't want it to do by the front door. If we can come up with an amendment there, then I'd be comfortable. Until then, I think our democracy is still at risk here.

The Chair :

Could the language of how it's rescinded be completely taken out? At this point, the parties have come to an agreement on how to move in this type of situation already. Perhaps they themselves can decide at that point as well how to do so. We would leave it at how to enter into the agreement: “The committee further recomme