Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 13th, 2020

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

A point of order has been raised, so hold your thought right there.

Mr. Brassard.

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

Thank you.

Madam Chair, can Mr. Turnbull confirm whether that letter was actually sent to this committee or to the Speaker of the U.K. Parliament? Is it addressed to this committee?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I believe it was sent to the committee by the clerk.

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

Who was it written to?

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

It says “Mr. Speaker” on it—from the House of Commons.

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

Maybe we can get some clarification from Mr. Vaive.

[The Clerk]

Yes, Mr. Brassard. That information came from the witness we had from Westminster, Mr. Matthew Hamlyn. He committed to provide some follow-up information back to the committee. The piece of correspondence Mr. Turnbull is referring to was one of the pieces of material Mr. Hamlyn sent back to the committee to share with the members of PROC after he appeared.

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

I'm curious. Was it sent to the Speaker of the U.K. House of Commons or to the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons? I think Mr. Turnbull referred to our House of Commons—I could be corrected on that—and that this letter came to our Speaker. In fact, my understanding is it went to the U.K. Speaker.

[The Clerk]

My recollection is that the letter Mr. Turnbull is referring to comes from the chair of the British House of Commons procedure committee and it was written to the Speaker of the British House of Commons, not to our Speaker.

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

I think Mr. Turnbull should have clarified that in his remarks. Thank you, Madam Chair.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thanks, Mr. Brassard. I appreciate that intervention.

I think it was Mr. Richards who had a very long list of supplementary information that your party requested from many of the witnesses and was very adamant about collecting that information, and that is exactly when I received this. It is relevant information to this study, and it outlines the numerous tests that were done and evaluations of those tests. It speaks to many of the security and integrity concerns that are really relevant to addressing some of the concerns that have been brought forward by members of this committee. I believe it's relevant for this study. It should be referenced in the report. I feel strongly that it supports the recommendation in this section, and I want to go a little further here and give you a couple of other quotes.

There's a quote that says, “The integrity of the remote system depends on the care taken by each individual Member over authentication.”

There is another section that says, “Members have a personal responsibility to ensure the integrity of the system. It is highly likely that any action by a Member which led to an unauthorised person casting a vote in a division would constitute a contempt of the House and a breach of the Code of Conduct, and would be likely to be punished accordingly.”

I think this is key. It addresses some of the concerns that have been expressed by committee members.

Furthermore, it talks about mitigating the risks of missing a vote or system failures, which have been brought forward by members of this committee. I think what they have done at the U.K. Parliament is rapidly implement this with testing, so it's an incremental approach. It has been rapid, but it does sort of set a precedence, given the fact that they have 800 years or 900 years of history. We talk about defending our institutions, but if the U.K. Parliament can do this in a matter of weeks, why shouldn't we consider doing the same thing, especially given we are in the same global pandemic? They certainly have addressed some of the same concerns. They haven't gotten into party politics to delay things; they've embraced the change.

There is a strong rationale, and I have quite a bit more information that I've gathered that supports our moving forward on electronic and remote voting. It is consistent with the other recommendations we have already voted on and adopted, which are to move essentially to replicating some of the more formal proceedings of the House in a virtual environment. Obviously, we need to have a way for us to vote.

I'll leave it at that for the moment, but I welcome more discussion on this. I have quite a few more points.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

You're next, Mr. Duncan.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

I'm very glad to hear my friend Mr. Turnbull talk so highly of the U.K. and I couldn't agree with him more that what the United Kingdom is doing is showing fantastic leadership in embracing technology. At the end of the day, they are using a hybrid model of Parliament to implement that and using their chamber for that. I appreciate the comments on how we need to rely very heavily on what the U.K. is doing and watch what they are doing.

I will also note with interest that I keep up on my U.K. politics and I'm just giving you the update. If you check the Hansard from today, the Conservative House leader.... I won't go through this and quote the three pages I printed off, but it looks like they are returning to full form next week. They may have reduced numbers again, but they're getting rid of.... I have the comments from the Labour shadow leader of the House, the government House leader, that they are going to be going back.

I'm not suggesting we do that. Don't get me wrong, but if we're going to talk about the U.K. and talk about all the good things, I think we need to get the fundamental down pat first of having a hybrid, getting that, and as recommendation NDP 3 says, “incremental” change. That should be our priority of the hybrid Parliament, and then we look at adding all these things. We are putting the cart before the horse, or again, we are being selective on what our friends in the U.K. are saying.

I'll leave it at that, and I'll spare you the quotes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you for that. It was a very enthusiastic exchange.

[Eric Duncan, Conservative, Stormont—Dundas—South Glengarry, ON]

As always, with the U.K., I talk U.K. politics.

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

Thank you, Mr. Duncan, for a lot of that information. I certainly appreciate it.

I just have to say, though, I am a little frustrated by this conversation. I don't know how many witnesses said to us repeatedly that we simply have not had enough time in this committee to fully study what we are trying to do.

For me, when I look at some of these, I understand what I've agreed to; I understand the first recommendation that we worked so hard on, but what I see there is a process that needs to unfold, and right now, in my opinion, we are not in a place of being able to say that we're going to do virtual voting. We haven't discussed a whole mess of factors here. I'm concerned that it feels to me as though the committee, or maybe it's more the governing side, really just wants to push this report through and get everything done and tied up in a bow, while I really hope that PROC continues this important work.

This is for the benefit of our democracy. I want to be clear that this is not about a report. For me, this is about having a fundamental discussion about what democracy looks like in the middle of a pandemic. This can't be taken lightly.

We can compare ourselves to the U.K., and I understand why we do that, but it's also important that we remember that this is a Canadian context. There are realities here that we have to address. When we look at this, I feel that we have not done the amount of research that we should. We have not had the number of witnesses that we should.

Mr. Turnbull, I have read all of the material, just as well, with a great deal of interest. There's a lot there, but there are questions arising out of that content for me that I don't have answered. Therefore, I just want to push again that I don't think we're ready for this step. It has to be an incremental approach. I believe that the work of PROC should not be finished tonight, but we should continue on to some next steps.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Blaney, thank you for that.

Next up we have Mr. Brassard, Mr. Turnbull, and Madam Normandin.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I'm really encouraged and buoyed by Ms. Blaney's comments here, because what we've seen today in these various recommendations, and again it's worth repeating, is well outside the scope of what this committee's mandate is throughout this COVID-19 crisis. I'm glad to hear Ms. Blaney speak in the manner in which she has, because my concern is that the governing side is using this crisis, this study, as a way to completely transform Parliament as it exists today. Again, I repeat that we're heading down a dangerous slope.

I want to go back to what Mr. Turnbull was talking about.

Ryan, you can't just cherry-pick things to suit your narrative. You have to look at everything in the context in which it was submitted. I have the letter in front of me here, and it says, “The existing level of assurance as to the identity of Members participating in divisions in person cannot be fully replicated under the remote system without (a) development work which could not be undertaken to the timescale demanded”—which we're under, and Ms. Blaney spoke about the fact that we haven't had the in-depth study that we should have on the remote voting system or the virtual voting system—“and (b) expenditure which cannot be justified by the temporary nature of the system. The integrity of the remote system depends on the care taken by each individual Member over authentication.”

I'll go on before I explain what that means. It continues, “For this reason the system can only be a temporary means to allow Members to cast votes in divisions for as long as the extraordinary conditions which prevent many from coming to the Chamber persist.”

The issue over authentication is an important one, because what he's saying in that letter, at least my interpretation of what he's saying, is that there is no way to authenticate whether in fact it is the member who is voting. Perhaps it's a staff member. Until and unless those situations are resolved, and they have not been at this point, any suggestion that we move forward with this—to Ms. Blaney's concerns, and quite frankly, to my concerns, and I'm sure there are others who share in these—is not the time to be looking at electronic voting in the manner in which it's being proposed.

We have to push this off. To look at this in the context of what we're studying right now under the current pandemic, to suggest that somehow we move forward with this, this is not the time, nor is it the place to do this.

I'm really pleased to see that there are others who are starting to realize what the hell is going on here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

I have a long speakers list. I'll let it be known who's on the list: Mr. Turnbull, Madam Normandin and Mr. Gerretsen. That is the end of my list right now.

Perhaps we can get some comments there and see how we'd like to proceed.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I thank Mr. Brassard for his passionate remarks.

I think this is precisely the time to be doing this. I completely disagree, respectfully, with Mr. Brassard and Ms. Blaney. We're in a global pandemic. We know that many opposition members have been calling for additional scrutiny. They've been calling for more fulsome proceedings of the House and for Parliament essentially to resume in its full functioning, more than just its deliberative aspects but also its decision-making aspects.

What to me is really telling is that other national governments around the world have implemented this very quickly. Why are we resisting this? This is not to say that we have to do electronic voting forevermore. This is saying that we're in a global pandemic, this is an exceptional circumstance, and we need this in order to continue to function, which opposition parties have been consistently calling for. This is actually inconsistent with remarks from your own parties, over and over again, which I've heard for weeks.

I don't understand why people keep pushing back so strongly on this. It's out of some irrational fear that electronic remote voting will somehow change the way we do everything forevermore. It doesn't have to be looked at that way. This is one progressive step—

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

On a point of order, “irrational”...? I just want to encourage the member to not—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Yes, “irrational fear”; that's what I said.

I didn't swear.

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

That's not very respectful language. Let's—

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

That's not disrespectful language.

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

This is from a member who opposes 12 members of a committee from voting on motions at committee. If you want to talk about irrational, let's talk about committees and how the powers of committees have been castrated as a result of—