Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2020

[Greg Power]

I think that's the risk, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Next up we have Mr. Turnbull, please, for six minutes.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thanks to the panellists for being here today. It's really great to hear from you.

Ms. Cuevas, I'm going to ask you some questions. Our committee is tasked with looking at how to do remote and virtual voting. I think we all recognize that many members, due to travel restrictions, can't fully exercise their rights and privileges as members of Parliament right now due to this pandemic. We want to get on with business and participate fully in the legislative process, and we're not able to do so. As you mentioned, many other parliaments were suspended; I think you said it affected two billion people.

Can you give us some examples of how other parliaments have conquered this and what remote voting solutions they have considered and/or implemented? I know it's a big question.

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

There are very different examples, a huge variety. If you allow me, I would like to link your question, Mr. Turnbull, to the previous discussion.

This pandemic is forcing all of us to improve technologies, connectivity and also our rules and practices. We have some successful examples. For example, the Senate of Paraguay has been able to conduct plenaries virtually.

For example, just yesterday, I think it was—I'm sorry. I'm not sure what day I am living now, and seeing your faces I think I am not the only one—they changed their directive board and elected a new president of the Senate completely virtually, so there are some parliaments that are very good examples.

Some others are selecting some members from each party to make up a mini-plenary, but I am not a strong advocate of those practices. I don't like that kind of practice because I believe that independent voices are being left aside. If the head of the party or the Speaker is entitled to choose those members, they are going to select the most loyal. I don't like that because I do believe that each voice is important.

Some other countries are using very interesting measures by cleaning everything and adopting the basic recommendations that we are hearing. For example, when it comes to physical distancing in parliaments, some parliaments are meeting either with physical distancing, virtually, or a mix of both. This includes Argentina, Brazil, Bhutan, Croatia, France and New Zealand, among others. As virtual meetings become the new normal, there are several other parliaments that are meeting in person as well while applying social distancing and sanitation guidelines.

I think some of them, because they are also big territories—not as big as Canada, but they are also big—need some kind of transportation.

In Azerbaijan, MPs and staff members are using masks, gloves and hand sanitizers. Members of the Milli Majlis age 65 and above are not attending sessions. Similar sanitation measures have been adopted in Croatia, Italy, Paraguay and Cambodia. Also, in the Parliament of Cambodia, staff and visitors are required to wear masks, and their temperatures are checked at the entrance to the building, as they are in DRC, Malaysia and Serbia.

The Serbian constitution or its rules and procedures do not allow for remote meetings, so they adopted practices to comply with hygiene and safety recommendations, but if I am not mistaken, they also reduced the number of parliamentarians.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Ms. Cuevas, thank you for that really great answer.

I'm a little short on time and I want to just ask you a couple of other questions.

Do you know how many of the IPU members are undertaking some form of electronic or remote voting?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

We don't have the statistics. I can ask, but I don't have them now.

I am waiting for IPU reports. We sent a questionnaire to parliaments, and we are waiting for their answers.

I think that the common practice is going to be to meet again, but with all these measures—face masks, gloves, and everything.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Would you say it's a promising practice on that spectrum of ensuring that all individual members can participate fully? Is having a solution for remote and electronic voting a promising, or maybe, best practice for parliaments?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

I would say not now, but eventually. I think we are learning the lessons; we are improving, and we are learning every day.

Allow me to use my own parliament as an example. We have 500 members in the Mexican Parliament and 128 senators. That makes it almost impossible to have speaking rights and business as usual, if we go virtual. I think that eventually we are going to develop those technologies, but also the rules to allow us to make whatever efforts we are making become the real mandate, for example, for voting or something.

I believe that's a new trend and we must learn about that. We also need to learn the lesson in terms of using technology until we get closer to our constituencies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

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

Next is Madame Normandin.

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

Thank you very much.

I'd like to ask Mr. Power some questions. I just want to point out that we all agree we'd rather not be dealing with a pandemic right now and that we'd like Parliament to be doing its usual legislative work with all 338 members here, but that's not possible.

So let's operate on the assumption that we can't function as though the pandemic weren't happening.

You said that, because of the pandemic, we probably won't accomplish as much as usual or follow the legislative agenda as closely or question the government as much. I'd like to know if the possibility of a hybrid parliament is to blame for that or if it's the fault of the government, which might use the pandemic as a justification and an excuse.

Whose fault would it be? Is it because of the virtual way of doing things or just because of the crisis?

[Greg Power]

What I might do is ask Sue, my colleague, to come in on part of this as well, if that's okay.

My sense is that it is quite simply a product of the fact that you cannot get through as much business. The sittings have been shortened, for practical reasons as much as anything else. However, there are obviously political implications to those practical problems.

I think the issue for most parliaments is how you resolve those practical problems in a way that doesn't alter the politics.

I don't believe it's necessarily as easy as saying it's just down to the government. There are all sorts of issues that have been caused by the pandemic, which have changed the way that politics is done. One of those is the move to a sort of virtual hybrid parliament, which has necessitated reducing the amount of business that politicians can get through.

Sue, I don't know if you want to add to that.

[Sue Griffiths, Executive Director, Global Partners Governance]

I would just add that I think that in all spheres of life, in business or in social life, we're not doing the same number of things that we were doing prior to the crisis, and that's inevitable really.

What we found when we were looking at the different parliamentary responses was that initially most parliaments did have a scaled-down version of what it was they were doing before. They did start off perhaps not with the mechanism to vote, but with just sitting on fewer days or with fewer members.

The decision of how you scale that down is a political decision. In the end, what should you keep? What are the most important things out of all the various things that parliaments do? I think we must not forget as well that members are very busy in their constituencies at the moment and there's a big demand there.

How much time do you require them to be attending meetings virtually or physically compared to that?

As the crisis goes on, more and more services are being added back in. I think that's why a lot of parliaments are now coming to this online voting as a big issue, because a parliament can only go on for so long without voting before it really needs to have that ability.

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

Thank you, Ms. Griffiths.

I'd like to take that even further. Right now, there are no opposition days, we can't debate bills, and we can't move motions. Would it be unfair to blame the creation of a virtual Parliament? Does it have more to do with politics? Is it actually the government's fault for using the crisis as an excuse?

We're discussing how we can establish a virtual parliament and set up a virtual voting mechanism. I'm afraid people may try to kill the idea of virtual voting on false pretenses, and I'd like to hear your views on that.

[Greg Power]

Again, I'll sort of answer the second half of this question, and hopefully I won't take up too much time.

I think this was the blog that was mentioned earlier, which has characterized an awful lot of our work internationally and my previous role in the British government and the British Parliament. It's very rare that a government will make life more difficult for itself.

My experience is of being in the British government and also in the odd position of being an adviser to the leader of the House of Commons. That minister was simultaneously in the cabinet and was the minister for Parliament, while also being Parliament's representative in government with a desire to reform Parliament.

The challenge is that if there is an opportunity for governments to make their life easier, they generally take it. This is not necessarily a deliberate attempt to undermine Parliament, but if the opportunity is there, if you have to reduce business anyway, people will say, “Well, let's get rid of this bit.” An opposition day doesn't look like a priority in the middle of a pandemic anyway. I think that's the challenge.

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

Unfortunately, I don't have much time left, Mr. Power.

Wouldn't this be a great opportunity to come up with rules for the future and create a hybrid virtual Parliament with a good system of checks and balances, thereby ensuring that the government can't take advantage of the situation?

[Sue Griffiths]

Somebody once said, “Never let a good crisis go to waste.” I think there are a lot of innovations and experimentations that previously people would have said were too difficult or impossible, but it has been proven that, suddenly, they're actually not so difficult and can be done. I do think that will change the attitudes of people in the future, but how that happens in different parliaments is not really for me to say.

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

Thank you, Ms. Griffiths.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Next up we have Madam Blaney, please.

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

I thank all of you for being here with us today. I appreciate the thoughtfulness of the testimony.

I think all parliaments across this planet have to be very considered in thinking about this process and what the outcomes could be in the long term.

I'm from the western part of British Columbia, and there are aspects that I really miss about being in the House. One of the things that I've found very helpful during this period, when I'm not seeing people that I work with as often, are the relationships that I've built with members across parties. I think that one of the parts that would be missing in a virtual Parliament is the inability to build those relationships, to get to know one another.

When I speak in the House, I know that if there are other parliamentarians who experience the same thing in their riding or hear similar stories from their constituents, it leads to conversations that could mean collaboration and working on issues together. I think that is fundamental to democracy and a big challenge in a virtual setting.

Maybe I could start with Ms. Griffiths on this. I'm just wondering how other parliaments are addressing these issues. I know there was a discussion about having sunset clauses—and I think an incremental approach makes sense—and also the ability of all recognized parties to have a voice in what change has happened, so that we can see a balance of power.

[Sue Griffiths]

Well, I think that this has been a very interesting piece of work that we've done in looking at the different responses from other parliaments. I would say as well that the website of the Inter-Parliamentary Union, IPU, is an excellent resource, which they are constantly updating, to see what the different parliaments are doing. It is a moving picture, and there are new innovations all the time.

In one way, you can see complete diversity, but in another way, you can see certain trends emerging. Parliaments generally are starting with what they have already and the processes that they have already, and then building from there. For example, with block voting, where the leader of your party might vote on all the members' behalf, certain parliaments think that is the normal way of proceeding, and therefore it's not strange for them to use that mechanism when there's a crisis. Other parliaments, I think, perhaps Westminster included, would find that quite unconventional, or it wouldn't be part of the culture and the way that they work. It's important that each member be able to record their vote individually in ways that they would like to.

Greg mentioned earlier this concept of delegating powers to a committee, a bureau or a smaller set of members. There's been some interesting evidence emerging about levels of representation when that happens, particularly in terms of gender: Are women the ones who miss out when people are nominated to smaller committees? It's not quite clear yet, but more and more evidence is coming in as more and more parliaments experiment with those kinds of procedures.

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

Thank you so much.

Ms. Cuevas, I am curious. You're obviously doing amazing work, watching what other parliaments are doing. I think you're right; a lot of innovation will come out of this for further discussion.

Could you tell us about how different parties within parliaments are keeping a balance of power? One of the concerns is that the governing body will say this is the way it's going to be, and then there is frustration and concern.

Do you have any examples of other parliaments that are keeping that level of accountability high during this time?

[Gabriela Cuevas Barron]

Thank you very much, Ms. Blaney.

I will be absolutely honest, transparent and politically incorrect.

We receive the reports that the national parliaments want us to receive. We receive beautiful news from most parliaments.

The IPU study has a bias, to be honest. If I review the notes I have received, some very authoritarian countries are saying they have lovely parliaments, and we all know that is not true.

First, the measures that governments are taking must be based on their constitution.

Second, those measures must be proportional to the emergency because emergencies are not the same in all countries.

The measures must be temporary. We cannot think that this state of emergency is going to be there forever and some parliaments are facing that authoritarian temptation.

For example, there seems to be another challenge that I think we must legislate urgently because authoritarian regimes are never going to legislate [Editor—Inaudible], but democratic governments are apparently afraid of legislating about technology.

Let me go to an example. There was a very good article by Yuval Noah Harari of the Financial Times about two months ago when he was explaining how technology and the technology about COVID monitoring can also be used for monitoring our feelings when we are listening to, for example, a politician's speech.

For authoritarian regimes, it's going to be very easy to use our cellphones to see if we love or hate the politicians when they make their speeches.

We need to prevent those situations. Canada has a very strong democracy. I am not saying this because of Canada, but clearly there are countries that are using the people's fears to restrict liberties and freedoms, and of course restricting parliaments.

Again, I can tell you about a lot of different experiences, but those cases are the reports we receive from the same actors. We don't have an independent study at the IPU.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Ms. Cuevas.

Next we have Mr. Brassard.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

First, I have a comment to Mr. Power.

A lot of the examples Mr. Richards gave you—and he cited five or six—are examples from Canada and some of the things the current government has tried to impose or implement during this crisis. I'll remind you we're in a Westminster parliamentary system, similar to Great Britain, and we are in a minority situation.

Perhaps a suggestion, Mr. Power, is that Canada would be a great case study for your next blog on how governments try to impose their will on a parliamentary democracy.

My question to you pivots to the issue of Standing Orders. One of the things we heard in the last panel, including the chair of the British PROC system, is the changes to the Standing Orders, and the fact that now at the height of a pandemic is not the time to look at any permanent changes with respect to the COVID-19 crisis as it relates to changing the Standing Orders in Parliament. Perhaps under normal circumstances that would be the time.

Would that be your assessment, Mr. Power?

[Greg Power]

I had worked out as the questions went on that this was an allusion to what was going on in Canada.

In response to Mr. Richards' questions, I'd make the same point again, which is that I think any change to standing orders that takes place now has to be regarded carefully because of the long-term implications of this. As I was saying, the risk for most parliaments—and I include the British Parliament and indeed the vast majority of democratic parliaments in this—is the slow erosion of parliamentary accountability, because each time the rules change, whether it's temporary or permanent, politicians will learn how to interpret the rules.

We work a lot with parliaments right around the world, mostly parliaments in the early stages of their formation. There is a process that all political institutions or parliaments go through. The first phase is agreeing what the rules are and trying to establish the basis from which you can run the institution. The second phase, which is an ongoing phase that takes decades if not centuries, is working out what the rules actually mean.

It's one thing to establish the rules of the game; it's another to establish the games within the rules, how politics actually functions. I think the risk here is that those games within the rules shift as well and change the balance of power in the process. Sorry, it's a long answer to a short question. By making changes to the Standing Orders in a period now, which are permanent, I think there is inevitably a risk to this.