The global COVID-19 pandemic affected Canadian democratic institutions in complex and unprecedented ways. Throughout the pandemic, all levels of government addressed immense challenges in overseeing public health measures and making institutional changes to limit the size of in-person gatherings and to introduce new workplace public health protocols. To support elected officials and staff while adhering to these protocols, many jurisdictions across Canada adopted digital technologies that permitted them to continue exercising core functions of legislating, examining public expenses and policy issues, scrutinizing governments, and representing constituents.1 While legislative bodies have largely shifted the focus of legislative efforts from pandemic-related concerns, the practices adopted during the pandemic remain important due to various considerations. In some cases, legislative institutions chose to adopt virtual proceedings permanently to make parliament more accessible for Members and to support institutional business continuity. This article provides an overview of such changes and outlines the modifications that, to date, remain permanent features in some legislatures. This early 2025 scan covers a snapshot of 11 provincial and territorial legislatures, the House of Commons, and the Senate of Canada. The Legislative Assembly of Nunavut and the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan did not implement virtual practices and are thereby not included in the jurisdictional scan.

Key Themes and Preliminary Discussion

Legislative institutions implemented virtual practices through diverse means, including legislation, sessional orders, and permanent amendments to Standing Orders. While jurisdictions have varying degrees of virtual proceedings, all jurisdictions that implemented these changes did so in a manner affording any Member participating remotely the same rights and privileges as if they were physically present in the Legislative Chambers. There is an expectation that Members joining virtually will participate from within their respective area of legislative jurisdiction whether that be their respective province or territory, or Canada. Such requirements are prudent to ensure that the parliamentary proceeding and those Members participating in it align with the constitutional and legal authorities of the jurisdiction.

To understand the differing approaches to virtual proceedings across jurisdictions, it is helpful to understand these differences as answers to a set of questions. First, should remote participation be available to Members for any reason or under specific circumstances? Also, if practices for remote
participation are provided, should they apply differently in the Chamber and Committee? Another consideration across jurisdictions emerges in response to which entity or position holds the authority to make decisions related to initiating, facilitating or overseeing virtual proceedings. For example, some jurisdictions mandated that the Speaker approve how or when a Member could join a proceeding virtually. Others required a Government House Leader or a Caucus Whip to play a determining role or some combination of agreement between recognized parties. This last question promotes subsequent questions about how legislative bodies may decide which crucial activities are maintained during a public health crisis and how these decisions should be authorized.

Northwest Territories

Parliamentary committees of the Northwest Territories’ Legislative Assembly have been able to meet via video and phone conferences under the “Committees’ Policy on Attendance and Participation by Video and Phone Conference” since November 22, 2019.2 However, following the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic, procedural changes in the Northwest Territories were initiated by legislation passed on June 10, 2020. An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act permitted the Legislative Assembly to conduct all or a portion of a session via teleconference or videoconference.3 During the debate on the proposed amendment, substantial questions about the new practices arose, including the circumstances under which conducting a sitting via videoconference is warranted. The questions raised during the debate were addressed in the Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures’ Report on Remote Sittings. On November 5, 2020, the House adopted each of the 16 recommendations of the committee’s report.

The nature of these procedural changes, elaborated upon by the committee’s report, considers not only the circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic but other potential scenarios, including severe weather, the loss of use or access to the Assembly building, and declared states of emergency. Instead of creating an exhaustive list of such scenarios, the Standing Orders provide that the Speaker, in consultation with the Executive Council and Members, may decide when the house will be summoned virtually if the health, safety or well-being of Members would be at risk by meeting in person. Additionally, the Speaker may allow a Member to attend remotely upon request. However, the committee’s report recommended that a Member should only be able to attend remotely on reasonable grounds, such as a state of emergency in the Member’s home community that prevented travel. The Standing Committee on Rules and Procedures recommended that whenever a Member attends a session remotely, all votes on Readings of Bills or any motion requiring notice are conducted as a recorded vote instead of a visual count.

Yukon

Yukon has a longstanding practice of permitting committee Members to participate by teleconferencing, with videoconferencing being a recent addition. On October 1, 2020, the Yukon Legislative Assembly adopted three sessional orders related to COVID-19 that were in effect for the duration of the sitting. These motions, among other items, empowered the Government House Leader to request that the Legislative Assembly meet virtually, with all the Members of the Legislative Assembly being able to participate remotely if the Assembly stood adjourned for an indefinite period. Similar sessional orders to permit participation by teleconference due to public health reasons were passed in 2021, 2022, and 2023.

On March 7, 2024, the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections, and Privileges presented its report containing a proposed new chapter for the Standing Orders of the Yukon Legislative Assembly to create permanent provisions for remote participation in sittings. The proposed additional chapter was added to the Standing Orders on March 11, 2024.This new chapter includes guidelines for Members’ participation in video conferences and other guidelines for interpreting Standing Orders in a virtual context.4 These new rules allow the Speaker to direct that sitting days occur remotely when a state of emergency has been declared, if unusual circumstances make it unsafe or unfeasible for the Assembly to meet at its regular location, or when the health and safety of Members would be at risk by meeting in person.

British Columbia

Though teleconference committee proceedings had been used from time to time, British Columbia parliamentary committees began meeting fully virtually on Zoom as of 2020, the first of these meetings being of the Select Standing Committee on Public Accounts on March 30, 2020. Following a short period of adjournment in spring 2020, on June 17, 2020, the Speaker and House Leaders signed a written agreement providing Zoom videoconferencing technology for Members to participate remotely in proceedings. The House reconvened on June 22, 2020, and the agreement was tabled in the Legislative Assembly. Two sessional orders allowing for remote proceedings were subsequently adopted. A similar sessional order was reintroduced for the final time on February 20, 2024, as the Standing Orders were amended to implement hybrid practices permanently on March 13, 2024.

These new additions to the Standing Orders acknowledge that the Speaker is authorized to intervene on any matter of decorum related to virtual sittings, such as muting a Member’s microphone and excluding a Member from sitting in the House in cases of serious misconduct. In consultation with the House Leaders or the Whips, the Speaker may also use discretion to interpret any provision of the Standing Orders that may require leniency to allow a Member to exercise their duties fully while participating virtually. One unique aspect of the Standing Orders related to virtual sittings can be seen in Standing Order 8(1), which notes that the expectation of in-person attendance is higher for Members of the Executive Council, particularly during Question Period, and when a Minister is to answer questions on any assigned votes within the Estimates in the Committee of Supply, or answer questions on a Bill in a Committee of the Whole House.

Alberta

Since 1983, the Legislative Assembly of Alberta, through a provision of its Legislative Assembly Act, has provided for participation in committee meetings by “telephone or other communication facilities.” However, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, individual committees adopted motions explicitly permitting videoconference participation in committee proceedings. On May 25, 2021, Government Motion 79 allowed for remote voting for divisions. The virtual rules expired after the 2021 Spring Sitting, Second Session of the 30th Legislature, on June 16, 2021.

The virtual proceedings in Alberta were only permitted for recorded division votes and cto clarify committee process. The first hybrid committee meeting occurred on April 27, 2020, with the Standing Committee on Public Accounts meeting using Skype for Business videoconferencing. When the virtual division votes were in place in Alberta, participating Members were required to join a Microsoft Teams meeting via a link sent out to all Members before each sitting of the Assembly. When a division is called, the Journals unit of the Legislative Assembly Office will send out an e-mail to all Members indicating a division has been called, the subject matter of the division, and the time at which the division is to take place.

Manitoba

The Manitoba Legislative Assembly first adopted provisions to enable virtual proceedings in October 2020. Since the initial addition of virtual participation options, Manitoba has worked to implement virtual infrastructure into the operations of the Legislature, consistently renewing the sessional order with occasional modifications to make virtual practices more expansive. The Legislative Assembly of Manitoba adopted several further changes to its Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings in May 2024 to take effect at the commencement of the 2nd Session of the 43rd Legislature. Most of these changes involved codifying the provisions of the Sessional Order passed in October 2020 that first enabled Members to participate virtually in sittings of the House and Committees.

One unique aspect of the newest addition to the Manitoba rule book was highlighting that the election of the Speaker is explicitly exempt from virtual proceedings. However, in the case of an emergency requiring Members to participate virtually, the Clerk will be authorized by the House Leaders to develop unique guidance to conduct the secret ballot election of the Speaker via virtual means as provided by Standing Order 8(2).

Ontario

On May 12, 2020, the Legislative Assembly of Ontario adopted a motion authorizing committees to resume meetings electronically, with Zoom as the hosting platform. This motion contained many requirements, including that the committee chair and Clerk attend in person and that Members participating virtually must indicate they are participating from a location in Ontario. On September 14, 2020, the House passed another motion continuing the practice, adding that it would expire at the end of the 42nd Parliament or until a date to be indicated by the Government House Leader. These provisions were officially rescinded on March 1, 2022.

Since the beginning of the 43rd Parliament in 2022, Members have no longer been able to participate in committees via electronic means, and they must be present in person to participate in committee proceedings. Witnesses may still participate remotely, reflecting pre-pandemic practices. Throughout the pandemic, Chamber proceedings continued in person with modifications to voting procedures and the number of Members present.

Quebec

The National Assembly of Quebec’s Chamber proceedings remained in person throughout the pandemic, with modifications ensuring physical distancing between Members. However, during the pandemic, practice alterations were made to support the work of committees. On March 17, 2020, the four parliamentary caucuses and the independent Members agreed that the National Assembly’s work should be adjourned until April 21 to comply with public health instructions to permit Members to be present in their respective constituencies. From April 24 to May 22, 2020, 12 virtual hearings were held by parliamentary committees. Currently, the Committee on Public Administration proceedings may proceed to meet virtually, by decision of its steering committee. For all other committees that may meet outside the sessional periods formally defined by Standing Order 19, members may participate in committee hearings by video conference at the leave of the committee; however, the chair and committee secretariat staff must be present in person.

New Brunswick

Hybrid proceedings at the New Brunswick Legislative Assembly began on December 4, 2020. Members could participate virtually in House proceedings in emergencies after Motion 60 was passed on May 11, 2021. The Special Order expired on July 30, 2021, and was renewed that November but was not subsequently renewed after the emergency period ended.

The use of virtual proceedings in New Brunswick was focused on temporary changes to the practice of responding to the immediate nature of the COVID-19 pandemic. Under Motion 60, Members could participate in proceedings using the Zoom platform in specific emergencies or extraordinary circumstances, at the discretion of the Speaker, following consultation with the Chief Medical Officer of Health and with the agreement of all House Leaders. Similar to practices in other jurisdictions, Members participating virtually could take part in recorded divisions by roll call, and the Speaker or Chair could exercise discretion to make any necessary alteration to allow all Members to participate fully.

Nova Scotia

On March 22, 2020, the Province of Nova Scotia declared a state of emergency to contain the spread of COVID-19, and the Nova Scotia Legislature did not sit during the state of emergency. While the Nova Scotia Legislature no longer permits virtual House participation, temporary rule amendments were adopted for all or part of the sittings thorughout spring 2021, fall 2021, and spring 2022. The hybrid format was implemented during the spring of 2021; Members agreed to meet in this format to allow for physical distancing inside the Legislative Chamber. According to the plan, the maximum capacity for in-person attendance inside the Legislative Chamber was 12 Members, proportional to party representation in the House; the remaining 39 Members could join the sittings virtually via Zoom. During a brief summer 2022 sitting, virtual participation was authorized for a specific Member as an accommodation. Additionally, by fall 2020, all Standing Committees were enabled to meet virtually, though these practices have now been discontinued.

Newfoundland and Labrador

On May 5, 2020, the House of Assembly of Newfoundland and Labrador passed a resolution to establish a Select Committee of Rules and Procedures Governing Virtual Proceedings of the House of Assembly. The Committee was tasked with
determining how the House may conduct virtual proceedings during the COVID-19 pandemic. Provisions have been in place since July 2020 to allow for virtual proceedings. However, they have never been used by the whole House to meet either entirely virtually or in a hybrid form. The Standing Orders continue to provide the option for the House to meet in a hybrid of virtual and in-person proceedings, per Standing Order 9.1. The Standing Order also empowers the Speaker to determine whether the House should meet virtually, following consultation with the appropriate officials and House Leaders. Should the House be required to meet in a hybrid of in-person and virtual proceedings following the Standing Orders, voting provisions would be considered and determined at that time. Committee chairs may consult with Committee Clerks to determine if a committee may meet virtually or in a hybrid format. Uniquely, Webex is the approved technology platform for the House of Assembly and its Committees, including the Management Commission.

Prince Edward Island

In spring 2020, in response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island directed its Standing Committee on Rules, Regulations, Private Bills and Privileges to consider and recommend rule changes necessary to facilitate virtual proceedings. The committee reported on November 13, 2020, and subsequently proposed adapting various rules and procedures to enable virtual proceedings and suggesting Zoom as the preferred platform. The rule changes took effect on January 1, 2021, and the new chapter of the standing orders is to be updated annually by the committee.

The new additions to the standing orders in Chapter 22, “Virtual Proceedings,” address matters such as participating remotely and quorum, tabling documents electronically, making changes to Committee of the Whole, and practices for recorded divisions. In urgent or extraordinary circumstances, the Speaker may invoke the requirements for a virtual or hybrid proceeding for the House or for Committee meetings. Recorded divisions shall take place by roll call, commencing with Members participating in person in the usual manner, followed by a roll call for Members participating by videoconference, in alphabetical order by district.5 Additionally, Members participating by videoconference are required to have their video and audio functions on for the recorded division.

House of Commons (Canada)

Following the outbreak of COVID-19 in Canada, on March 24, 2020, the House of Commons recalled and authorized the Standing Committee on Health and the Standing Committee on Finance to meet by teleconference or videoconference.6 On April 11, 2020, the House empowered four additional committees to hold meetings virtually. On July 8, 2020, the House held its first hybrid sitting. Subsequent motions to extend the temporary measures related to hybrid sittings and committee meetings were adopted on September 23, 2020, January 25, 2021, November 25, 2021, and June 23, 2022. On January 25, 2021, the House of Commons adopted a motion to use an electronic voting application. The application was first used for a recorded division on March 8, 2021, concurrently with in-person voting. On June 15, 2023, following consideration of the continuation of hybrid proceedings by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, permanent amendments to the Standing Orders were adopted by the House of Commons.

Through these changes, Members may still participate in proceedings in person or by videoconference and be counted for quorum, provided that Members participating remotely are in Canada. The electronic voting application requires Members to confirm their identity using facial recognition technology. A live vote web page, accessible to the public, allows the electronic vote results to be displayed in real time.

Senate of Canada

Following the return from the March 2020 adjournment in response to the pandemic, on April 14, 2020, the Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration (CIBA), convened virtually. It was the first committee to do so. A sessional order authorizing all standing committees to meet in a virtual or hybrid fashion was adopted on November 17, 2020, and extended several times thereafter. The Senate adopted a motion to allow hybrid sittings on October 27, 2020, with the first hybrid sitting taking place on November 3, 2020. Hybrid sitting provisions were renewed or extended several times, with the last general order expiring on June 30, 2022. The Audit and Oversight Committee and the Ethics and Conflict of Interest for Senators Committee were authorized to hold hybrid or virtual meetings until the end of the 1st session of the 44th Parliament. The Senate also authorized standing joint committees with the House of Commons to hold hybrid or virtual meetings until the end of the session.

While there were attempts in the Senate to extend hybrid settings and make permanent changes, the hybrid provisions no longer remain in effect. Some previous requirements included that Senators use a desktop or laptop computer and a headset with an integrated microphone provided by the Senate for videoconferences, have their video on, broadcast their image at all times except when the bells are ringing for a vote, and leave the videoconference if they leave their seat.

Final Discussion and Conclusion

Recent changes to introduce hybrid or virtual proceedings in Canadian parliamentary institutions highlight both practical and philosophical considerations regarding the evolving nature of procedure, parliamentary practices, and representation. On the one hand, virtual practices allowed Members to fulfill their parliamentary duties during times of a public health crisis, including times when Members themselves may have been unwell or unable to travel. New virtual and hybrid practices provided increased access and flexibility for Members’ participation in proceedings, thereby sustaining parliamentary operations and aligning with efforts to make parliament “family-friendly” for those elected officials who may also carry caregiver or childcare responsibilities. Before the COVID-19 pandemic, parliamentary and policy research bodies called for institutional reforms of this kind, arguing that flexible models of parliamentary business could encourage more women, racialized minorities, and individuals from rural, remote and Northern regions to consider candidacy for elected office. When implemented in a vast country and geographically diverse like Canada, hybrid options can also sustain parliamentary operations through various emergencies, including extreme weather incidents or natural disasters, enabling individuals to continue working even when faced with unexpected circumstances .

On the other hand, there have been concerns that remote or hybrid proceedings may have negative effects on executive accountability and inter-party collegiality among members. The House of Commons report “The Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons” highlighted important considerations with respect to the physical presence of Cabinet Ministers to support effective parliamentary proceedings and government accountability. Recent changes to the Standing Orders of British Columbia also outline higher expectations for in-person attendance of Cabinet Ministers, which is one way to address such situations. Moreover, in an increasingly polarized political environment, a growing dependence on virtual proceedings could detract from the interpersonal dynamics of a healthy parliamentary environment. Indeed, it would be regrettable if the practice of Members connecting virtually led to heightened antagonism and polarization within legislative bodies.

Despite where Members from different jurisdictions may land on this debate, all parliamentarians can reflect on the unique considerations around the continuation of virtual parliament in a post-pandemic era. As always, it is essential that such discussions include consideration of whether these practices strengthen or impede parliamentary effectiveness, functionality, and democratic accountability.

Most jurisdictions across Canada significantly changed their practices and proceedings in recent years, with some of the resulting changes remaining in place permanently. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the proceedings of legislative bodies is comparable to other technical advances within parliaments decades ago, such as the gradual addition of televised proceedings. When the House of Commons of Canada began televising proceedings in 1977, there were significant concerns about how it would change the way Parliament operates, encouraging performative behaviour by Members and making “TV drama” out of serious debate. As this practice became more widespread, arguments that broadcast trivialized Parliament were largely swept away, and Members realized the benefits of making their work accessible to a broader and more immediate audience outweighed the tendency to play to the camera. Just as the pandemic provided urgency for some legislative institutions to develop new ways of continuing critical parliamentary functions, future circumstances may encourage unforeseen adaptions.

Notes

1 McCallum, Martin. “Digital Parliament: Canada in Context.” Library of Parliament HillStudies, Publication No. 2021-30-E, April 11, 2022. https://lop.parl.ca/sites/PublicWebsite/default/en_CA/ResearchPublications/202130E.

2 “Committees’ Policy on Attendance and Participation by Video and Phone Conference.” Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, November 22, 2019. https://www.ntlegislativeassembly.ca/committee-reports/committees-policy-attendance-and-participation-video-and-phone-conference.

3 “Bill 6, An Act to Amend the Legislative Assembly and Executive Council Act.” Northwest Territories Legislative Assembly, May 2020. https://www.ntassembly.ca/sites/assembly/files/bill_6_-_legislative_assembly_and_executive_council_act_a.pdf.

4 “Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Rules, Elections and Privileges: Remote Participation.” Yukon Legislative Assembly, March 7, 2024. https://yukonassembly.ca/sites/default/files/2024-03/screp-35-report10.pdf.

5 “Guidelines for Virtual Hybrid Proceedings.” Legislative Assembly of Prince Edward Island, November 12, 2020. https://www.assembly.pe.ca/sites/test.assembly.pe.ca/files/Guidelines%20for%20virtual%20hybrid%20proceedings%20-%20winter%202022.pdf.

6 “Future of Hybrid Proceedings in the House of Commons: Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs” House of Commons of Canada, January 2023. https://www.ourcommons.ca/content/Committee/441/PROC/Reports/RP12177996/441_PROC_Rpt20_PDF/441_PROC_Rpt20-e.pdf.