The hybrid model of Parliament is once again under the microscope. Is it here to stay?

This is an excerpt from Minority Report, a weekly newsletter on federal politics. If you haven’t subscribed yet, you can do that by clicking here.

Just over two years after the House of Commons began regularly sitting in a formal hybrid format, MPs are once again debating whether that model — which allows for both in-person and remote attendance in Parliament — should be extended, scrapped or even made permanent.

The procedure and House affairs committee held two meetings this week to study the model, which includes the option for virtual participation as well as an app for voting.

The meetings on whether to continue with hybrid sittings provide a glimpse into how MPs view the Commons as an institution and how they weigh the need to balance or prioritize at-times competing values, such as accessibility, representation, accountability and convenience.

Speaker of the House Anthony Rota, who appeared before the committee on Tuesday, painted a picture of the hybrid format as broadly successful in its most basic task: allowing parliamentary duties to continue securely and reliably during the COVID-19 pandemic, which began in early 2020.

But he said the hybrid model faces some significant challenges, including co-ordinating across multiple time zones, the health and well-being of interpreters, and technical challenges, such as connectivity.

Nearing the end of his third year as Speaker, Rota also said he personally believed it was advantageous for MPs to be in Ottawa in person so they can meet casually and get to know one another better outside of the formal, often more combative structures in the House and committees.

Rota, who is responsible for keeping what can be a rowdy House of Commons in check, did say he thought decorum improved with fewer people in the House.

Hybrid system helped MP after transplant

For many MPs elected for the first time in either 2019 or 2021, the hybrid system has been the rule rather than the exception.

Parm Bains, a Liberal MP from British Columbia, told the committee how essential the hybrid system had been in allowing him to deal with dialysis treatment and a kidney transplant.

“If it were not for the hybrid Parliament provisions, I could not have safeguarded my health and kept my commitment to represent my constituents in Parliament,” he said.

New Democrat MP Laurel Collins said the hybrid format can be a crucial tool in making the life and work of a politician more accessible and attractive for Canadians who might otherwise face barriers.

“If you want more young women to enter politics, if you want more women to stay in politics, make Parliament more family friendly. Hybrid Parliament is a tangible way to do that,” the B.C. member said.

The challenge of interpretation was also a focus of the two meetings, with MPs exploring ways to solve challenges posed by the hybrid format. Throughout the period of virtual or hybrid sittings, injuries among interpreters have been high, resulting in significant staffing shortages.

André Picotte, acting president of the Canadian Association of Professional Employees, the union representing interpreters, argued that ideally, parliamentarians would sit only in-person, though he said he understood that “hybrid sessions are here to stay.”

Interpreters have to adapt to the needs of Parliament, he said, and Parliament has to adapt to the needs of interpreters.

System could stunt informal connections

Conservative MPs generally expressed their opposition to the idea of maintaining the hybrid provisions, highlighting difficulties with prioritizing resources and ensuring that committees and other parliamentary functions run smoothly and securely.

Conservative MP Blaine Calkins, much in the same vein as Rota, argued that the ability of MPs to talk informally when not in the House of Commons or committee meetings was crucial in creating a cordial and productive atmosphere.

“This is supposed to be a place where people get together and the good ideas bubble to the top for the benefit of all. My concern is if we’re not here, or at least not enough of us are here on an ongoing basis, then we’re not going to get the best decision,” the Alberta MP said.

The committee heard from experts on its second day of study. Kathy Brock, a professor of political science at Queen’s University in Kingston, Ont., argued that hybrid provisions should be removed, saying they were damaging both to the consultative and accountability processes that create better policy.

“When the prime minister and members of cabinet are not forced to stand up and face the opposition, you lose something,” she said.

Melanee Thomas, an associate professor at the University of Calgary, said that carefully crafted hybrid provisions could help with both representation and accessibility, and that the bar for deciding to remove hybrid options should be high.

Support for the hybrid model has largely broken down along partisan lines throughout the pandemic and has intensified in the last year. Where the Liberals and NDP are generally supportive, the Conservatives oppose the idea.

In a statement to CBC News, Liberal House Leader Mark Holland said the hybrid format has been an “incredible success” and that he looked forward to the committee’s study.

His NDP counterpart, Peter Julian, strongly supported the hybrid system in a statement, saying it helped with accessibility and inclusion, and gave MPs flexibility if they were sick or occupied by a situation in their constituencies. The Conservative did not provide an updated comment on their position.