Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 4th, 2020

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

For normal.

[Bill Blaikie]

—and debate about that should take place in a different context. Setting precedents for how we deal with future pandemics.... Hopefully we don't have any, but if we do, that's fine. Whatever happens now will be a precedent for how we deal with it in future unless, of course, we discover that some of the things we do now didn't work out that well.

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

Thank you.

My last question is to Mr. Deveaux. You said in your closing remarks—and I liked it—that Canada has demonstrated itself as a symbol of one of the leaders in revolutionizing the way that we engage in a short period of time.

What do you think the difference could have been if we'd had a longer period of time? Would we have been even that much better?

[Kevin Deveaux]

That's a good question. I think there is value in learning from others. There are others out there who would have moved ahead more quickly. I think there are already others who have. Some have moved to—

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

But, certainly, your comment that we have been such leaders would suggest that we are capable of making this happen, if anybody could.

[Kevin Deveaux]

Yes, I think that's correct.

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

Thank you.

I think that's my time, Madam Chair. Thanks.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Madame Normandin, please.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

My first question is for Mr. Deveaux. It ties in with Mr. Gerretsen's.

As an alternative to remote voting, you suggested party block voting. You underscored the importance, however, of being physically present in the House for voting, because that's when the dialogue between the parties happens. That's when members have an opportunity to meet with ministers and talk about a variety of subjects.

Doesn't block voting encourage members to stay home and let their House leader provide the number of votes?

[Kevin Deveaux]

You raise a very good point.

Obviously, we need to find alternative means of voting during this pandemic or maybe a future national emergency. In those circumstances, I think the best worst alternative is proxy voting. It's not something I encourage, but I do believe that, in these circumstances, it's better than virtual voting, electronic voting and remote voting.

I wouldn't want this to become a precedent that then allows it to carry on beyond a national emergency like this, but I do think during an emergency it may be the best worst option, if I can put it that way.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I see.

My next question is for Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Blaikie, you talked about the importance of opposition days, when parties have the opportunity to bring up their ideas in the House and encourage meaningful debate. Witnesses have told us that, under the current parliamentary format, it would be technologically possible to hold opposition days. Does the absence of opposition debate right now have more to do with politics? The pandemic and the virtual system are being used as an excuse for everything, because it would be possible to hold opposition days.

To what extent would you say it's more about politics than it is about technology?

[Bill Blaikie]

What I suggested, I suggested in light of knowing that the lack of opposition days or opportunities for the opposition to determine the subject of debate would be part of the discussion subsequent to the report and the adoption of the hybrid Parliament. I simply suggested that these things could be looked at as the hybrid Parliament moves forward and the committee makes its reports.

The committee can make recommendations in that regard if it chooses. It doesn't have to be the return of opposition days as such, which would require voting. There is also a tradition of take-note debates in the House, which don't require voting but which nevertheless give opposition parties the opportunity to compel debate on particular topics.

There are a number of ways to go about this. I simply suggested that if this goes forward for any length of time, Parliament in general and the committee in particular might want to look at ways to incorporate things that were not incorporated into the agreement that was reached, as I said, with a looming deadline. That was what was able to be agreed upon at that point. Other things may be able to be agreed upon later.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Thank you.

My next question is for Mr. Smith.

Mr. Smith, you pointed out that, under the hybrid model, we are seeing more members read statements for 20 minutes. Prior to the pandemic, during take-note debates, however, members had 20 minutes to speak, with 10 minutes allocated for questions and comments. Some members were reading 20-minute statements then, as well.

Is the phenomenon of reading statements attributable to the pandemic and the hybrid format? Is it more about politics? Should members not be allowed to read statements for 20 minutes?

[Dale Smith]

My comment was more.... It's the general rule that when the time limit of 20 minutes on speeches was first implemented, that's what created the impetus for reading 20-minute speeches instead of actually engaging in a back-and-forth debate.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

I gather, then, that your comment wasn't necessarily a criticism of the hybrid Parliament format. It was a general criticism that had nothing to do with the hybrid or virtual model. Is that right?

[Dale Smith]

That's correct, yes.

[Christine Normandin, Bloc, Saint-Jean, QC]

Excellent.

[Bill Blaikie]

Chair, I wonder if I could just intervene on that for a minute.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

If Madame Normandin is okay with that, go ahead.

[Bill Blaikie]

With respect to the reduction of speeches from 40 minutes to 20 minutes, that was a recommendation made by the Lefebvre committee and the McGrath committee back in the eighties. The concern at that time wasn't just the length of speeches, but that there wasn't any back-and-forth, the very kind of thing Mr. Smith wants to see more of. The fact is that the reduction from 40 to 20 minutes was accompanied by the addition of a 10-minute question and comment period after every 20-minute speech, so even though it may still seem inadequate, we actually have more back-and-forth than we did with the 40-minute speeches, because there was no question and comment period whatsoever. Whether the speeches were read or spoken without notes, we just had one 40-minute speech after another with no opportunity for interaction.

So I would come to the defence somewhat of the 20-minute speeches, insofar as they came in a package with the question and comment period, which members have taken advantage of ever since.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Blaikie.

Ms. Blaney, you have six minutes for questions.

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

Thank you.

I'm so grateful to have all of you here today. I think this is such an important subject. Nothing, in my opinion, can replace the in-person process of Parliament. I know that during this time, even for myself, the people I know, the people I've created relationships with.... I've continued to do that work, but there are folks I don't know, and unless I'm in committee, I don't necessarily see my co-MPs from different parties. When we're on the COVID committee, that's not a time when I'm going to have informal discussions with them about my personal life, when I'm talking to up to 338 members of Parliament. I just want to recognize that.

We also know that the reality is that we have anywhere up to two years, they're saying, until a vaccine is created, and as we look at this huge country and the travelling across it for our members, I think that's a significant concern.

I've heard a lot of people talk about proxy voting, whips voting on behalf of their party. I think voting, as Mr. Bosc said earlier, is pivotal in this process. We don't know how long it's going to last.

One of the questions I'd like to ask, and I'll ask Mr. Blaikie first, is about the tools we already have. Right now we're using Zoom. If we had virtual voting where members said yea or nay and their face was on the screen, which is similar to what we're using right now, I am wondering how you would feel about that as a next step after proxy voting.

[Bill Blaikie]

Frankly, I haven't given a lot of thought as to how that exactly would work, but that's certainly an option.

On the other hand, going back to what others have said, particularly Kevin Deveaux, a lot of votes don't necessarily have to be recorded. How would you do the ordinary business of the House without having to have these individualized virtual votes recorded every time you had to make some kind of decision?

That's a balance that I think the committee would have to strike if it were to make that kind of recommendation.

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

Thank you, Bill.

Mr. Deveaux.

[Kevin Deveaux]

If you're asking about the technology, I'm not a IT person, so I don't know whether you can get voice modes within Zoom. If that's possible, great. I guess I foresaw that with the voice votes, which I said was 92% or 93% of the normal voting in the House, you would obviously have a small group in the House—this is a hybrid—and within that small group, you would have each caucus represented.

I was a Deputy Speaker for a while. When you do voice voting, the Speaker has to judge the room. It's not who is the loudest. When you're in a minority, you need to have some sense of where the different parties are standing on a matter.

You can still have voice voting in the chamber, knowing that presumably there have been discussions among the caucuses themselves internally, and you have the role of the House leaders managing that.