Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2020

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

Based on what you said earlier, Kevin, about all the work you've done internationally, I'm wondering if you have any examples of a time where they were maybe moving too fast, or an example of an unintended consequence.

[Kevin Deveaux]

I'll give you one example. I've seen many parliaments that have moved to electronic voting. They're very excited about what they call “e-parliaments” and the ability to.... Every MP has a little card that they put in and they can vote.

I've also seen circumstances where those cards are being held by leaders in the party. You have one or two people who go around within the chamber, literally walking from seat to seat, and just pushing a button and holding a card. I don't think that's good for democracy and I don't think that's good for Parliament.

My concern with the virtual voting is partly how that will play out in the long run. However, I understand there's a need to do something during the pandemic and a national emergency, and that is where the proxy voting is of value.

I'm not sure whether proxy voting is allowed now. I see that the U.K. is allowing it. It announced yesterday that it was going to allow it during the emergency for people who are immunocompromised or otherwise at high risk of being infected. Proxy voting has been used in Australia, for maternity leave purposes for women MPs who want to take time off. That's why I sort of settle on proxy as an alternative in those circumstances.

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

You also talked a bit about the business committee. For this period of time, we need more structure on how we're going to work together, because we don't have the processes we would have when we are traditionally in the House.

How would you see that working in this time?

[Kevin Deveaux]

I foresee that being much like I talked about earlier. You'd pull off the shelf a set of standing orders or certain changes that happen when triggered by a national emergency of some sort. Within those circumstances, you would be able to establish this business committee specifically for that purpose. As I said, it's chaired by the Speaker; it's an opportunity for the leadership of all the parties to come together.

In New Zealand, it's actually required that members have to work on the basis of consensus and almost unanimity, if not near unanimity. It encourages that dialogue, and as a result, you end up getting better decision-making. I understand that we have those customs in place. But you're right that during these circumstances, it's much more difficult to have those “usual channels”, as they call them in the United Kingdom. There's a need to have a more formal structure, and I think that's one option.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you so much. That's all the time we have.

Next for questions is Mr. Nater, for five minutes.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Again, thank you to our witnesses today. I think there have been some great insights so far.

I'm going to start with a very brief comment. I know that Mr. Smith mentioned, in the context of the Senate, the kind of institutional knowledge that comes with that. I think that's something we need to bear in mind as we go forward with this study. There are many in the current government, the vast majority, who've never served in opposition. In the same way, there are many in the opposition who have never served in government.

Bearing in mind the context of government versus opposition, it's great to have institutional memory on this panel today with people like Mr. Blaikie, who served in the House for many years. Also, of course, we have Mr. Bosc, who I believe started in 1986 with the House of Commons and literally wrote the book on procedure. It's great to have that context.

Mr. Bosc, I know that many of us in the House have appreciated your wise counsel over the years. Certainly, you are missed around the precinct, so we appreciate you being with us today. I will start with a question for you.

There's been a suggestion that perhaps there should be a standing order change that would be a catch-all, a “Standing Order 1.2” that would give the Speaker the ability to adjust procedures in the House of Commons in the context of an emergency or a pandemic.

I want to get your thoughts on whether it should be done as a single standing order change, which gives a blank cheque, for lack of a better word, or whether it should be articulated as a series of changes that would apply in the context of a pandemic or a national emergency. Could give us your thoughts on that?

[Marc Bosc]

Thanks, Mr. Nater, for your kind words.

On that point, I fail to see how the committee or even the House would agree to give the Speaker such broad powers. I mean, it's possible, but in the wake of October 22, the attack on Parliament on that day, former speaker Scheer and I agreed that it was necessary for the Speaker to have at least the power, as is found in New Zealand, to change the time of the meeting of the House. A letter was sent to the procedure committee. No action was taken. With former speaker Regan, we again sent a similar letter to the committee, and the committee was unable to reach a consensus on the point.

That was a very small example of the Speaker maybe needing some kind of authority to go so much further, to give the Speaker the authority and the power to change how the House works, top to bottom. I fail to see how the committee, or even the House, would agree to that kind of a change.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you for that, Mr. Bosc.

I'd like to follow up on that, and I'll open this up to Mr. Blaikie and the other witnesses as well.

There is an idea of unanimous consent among the recognized parties for these types of changes. We are talking about fundamental changes to the way the House of Commons operates, though I think there was a consensus on this panel that this is very clearly for temporary situations. For any of these changes where we fundamentally alter how we operate as a House, how important do you think it is that there is that consent among recognized parties to make those changes, even on a temporary basis?

[Bill Blaikie]

I'm not sure who should speak first on this.

You used the phrase, “unanimous consent among the recognized parties”, and I would just say for the record that, having been in Parliament from 1993 to 1997, I didn't belong to a party that was recognized by the House of Commons, although I did belong to a party that was recognized by very many Canadians.

If unanimous consent is to be the bar, and I'm not sure that it need be, regarding that as consent arrived at only between recognized parties leaves members out on occasion, as it did in 1993 to 1997 with nine members of the NDP. Often, when unanimous consent was sought and there hadn't been consultation with those of us without party status, unanimous consent was not reached because not all members of Parliament had been consulted.

I would just urge that when you're talking about unanimous consent—and whether the committee wants to recommend that or not is another matter—independents and members of Parliament who belong to non-recognized parties, if there are such in the House today, should be taken into consideration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you very much.

Next up is Dr. Duncan.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I would like to thank all our witnesses for being here.

I am going to start with Mr. Bosc, and I too would like to say thank you. Thank you for your over 30 years of service.

On April 23, Mr. Bosc, you said the following:

A hybrid approach has the benefit of retaining for members and the House the flexibility and agility afforded by in-person meetings, while respecting public health guidelines by supplementing such sittings with virtual participation that has the added benefit of safely ensuring cross-country representation.

I'm looking for a yes-or-no answer. Do you still maintain this position?

[Marc Bosc]

Yes.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

That's fine. Thank you so much.

With respect to the hybrid Parliament, do you agree with the Speaker that MPs are able to participate from all across the country? Again, I'd like a yes-or-no answer.

[Marc Bosc]

Yes, so far.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you. I appreciate this.

With respect to a hybrid Parliament, do you agree with the Speaker that French and English translation is available?

[Marc Bosc]

First of all, it's a committee, right? It's not the Parliament, the House sitting, but a committee sitting.

With regard to the committee, yes, of course translation is important.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to the hybrid sitting as we have it, do you accept that the chair knows which minister will have the floor during the virtual questioning?

[Marc Bosc]

I can't really comment on that. I have not been watching the committee in action.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to this hybrid sitting, do you agree with the Speaker that proceedings are fully accessible?

[Marc Bosc]

It's my understanding that there are a couple of members who are having trouble with that, unless by “accessible” you mean the hearing-impaired and so on. I'm not sure about the hearing-impaired on that point.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

On April 23 you said, with respect to voting:

On the other hand, if the purely technological solution is preferred, I am sure that House procedural and technical staff could advise the committee on how to devise a method of remote voting for virtual participants.

Do you believe that to be true, yes or no?

[Marc Bosc]

Yes, of course.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

Do you believe that the staff have devised such a method, yes or no?

[Marc Bosc]

I'm not familiar with what staff have or have not done, but I'm confident that they can implement whatever the committee decides.

[Kirsty Duncan, Liberal, Etobicoke North, ON]

Thank you.

With respect to virtual voting, do you have comments on how this could be implemented?