Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2020

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Does anyone else have comments on that particular question?

[Bill Blaikie]

I think it would be up to the committee, really. The committee has to accept that they are dealing with rules for a temporary situation. They have to make that clear in their report and integral to any other recommendations they make.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Smith or Mr. Bosc, do you have any comments?

[Marc Bosc]

I totally agree with Mr. Blaikie. These are temporary measures you're looking at.

Any longer-term application of rule changes, in my mind, requires a more in-depth committee study, either by your committee or by a special committee, as in the cases that Mr. Blaikie referred to, McGrath as well as Lefebvre, in the early 1980s. These committees were set up specifically to look at long-term changes to the Standing Orders, at reforms and improvements—

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Bosc.

[Marc Bosc]

There we are.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's all the time we have.

Next up, for six minutes, is Mr. Gerretsen.

Mr. Gerretsen, you are still on mute.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

For the record, I started off very well with the “unmute” thing, but it's gone downhill. I apologize, Madam Chair.

I'm curious, Madam Chair. Do any of our witnesses have any input into the “how”? We seem to have heard a lot about the “if” and the need for this, notwithstanding Mr. Blaikie's comment that we need to be watchful about precedent , and Mr. Bosc commented that there's a need to do that. Yes, we understand that.

This committee has been tasked specifically with the “how”. How do we go about this? The questions from Mr. Richards and the responses seemed to focus more on the “if”.

What we're interested in knowing is the “how”. How do we implement remote voting? I'm curious about whether any of the witnesses have any insight into that.

[Marc Bosc]

I can jump in.

There are many ways. I think you have to look at what you're trying to accomplish. Technologically, anything is possible. I believe the House administration can implement practically anything you decide, but the higher the levels of security and complexity, the lower the efficiency. That's a very important consideration.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you.

[Marc Bosc]

The other aspect of it—and Mr. Blaikie touched on it—is the losses that are incurred by doing things remotely—namely, the transaction of business during an in-person vote. Obviously, this is a temporary measure, so you want to look at alternatives.

To me, proxy voting is an obvious answer, because everyone is familiar with that already. When you apply votes at report stage, you already do that. To me, that's worth exploring as a means—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I'm going to interrupt you right there, Mr. Bosc.

I'll go over to you, Mr. Smith.

You had some interesting comments on the centralization of power. Would you agree with what Mr. Bosc just said, and with Mr. Deveaux, who also indicated that the parties could be voting as a block. Do you agree that this would be in keeping with your concern about the centralization of power?

[Dale Smith]

That would be a concern of mine.

I would also just colour Mr. Deveaux's mention of New Zealand with the fact that they also have proportional representation, so—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You raised a number of good questions, Mr. Smith, about modernization. It seems as though you have some concerns about the modernization of Parliament, generally speaking, but you would have to admit that not all modernization is bad, correct?

[Dale Smith]

Most modernization has wound up being worse than what was before.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Would you include simultaneous translation in that?

[Dale Smith]

Not at all.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

How about the amplification of sound? How about, from a journalist's perspective, letting everything be shown on TV through CPAC? Are all those modernizations considered not good in your opinion?

[Dale Smith]

I would say that there have been unintended consequences from CPAC as well.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Do you think that there is no possibility there could be some positives come out of the modernization of this?

[Dale Smith]

I mean, anything is possible, but—

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Blaikie, I'll go over to you.

You specifically said that you were concerned about setting precedent. Would it be okay to set precedent if it was in relation to future pandemics? Would it make sense for us—you referenced a separate set of standing orders—to have a separate set of standing orders and a separate set of engagement so that, in case we suddenly face this pandemic, let's say five to 10 years from now, we have a precedent and we have a system that has been built in place so that it can be triggered immediately and we can default to it so we're not stumbling through it as we did this time?

In that case, would the precedent be worthwhile?

[Bill Blaikie]

Setting precedents for how we deal with a pandemic is one thing, and setting unintended or perhaps even intended precedents for how we deal with Parliament in normal parliamentary life are two different kinds of precedents.

[Mark Gerretsen, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

And your precedent was specifically—

[Bill Blaikie]

I was making the point that the work of the committee at this time should not unintentionally set precedents for how normal parliamentary life should resume—