Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2020

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

I can probably provide some help.

I don't have it in front of me, but I don't believe the motion was strictly limited to dealing with virtual voting. We were to look at all aspects of the virtual hybrid sittings. That is my understanding.

Obviously, we heard some significant concerns from the interpreters in our previous study. I felt, as others did obviously, that it would probably be pretty wise of us to get an update from them to see how things are going. Are there new challenges that have arisen? Are there challenges that they've been able to mitigate? That was the idea behind it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Justin, is there a way that we could get the answer to that question and maybe just have them submit something? That's only if that would be okay with the committee members. Would it be possible to get an update as to how things are going?

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Justin Vaive]

Madam Chair, to answer your question, yes, the committee could ask the three witnesses we've invited merely to submit a brief.

That covers some of the elements that were mentioned by Mr. Richards, if that is the will of the committee.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We have started a speakers list. It's Mr. Gerretsen, Mr. Turnbull, Mr. Richards and then Ms. Blaney.

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

Madam Chair, I concur with Ms. Normandin's comments with respect to the need. I think that all the information—and I think it's extremely valuable information—we received in our last study would probably benefit this study. In particular, as we look at the Standing Orders, which is the other component of this study other than just virtual voting, we should consider that testimony as it relates to the technical requirements for members using the technology to be in the best of circumstances or the best types of technology for the interpretation team.

I suggest we ask them for an update, as you had indicated, but then also take that testimony we had in the previous study and adopt it into this one, so we can use it in setting the necessary requirements for the technology as it relates to the Standing Orders.

I think this would suffice in what we require.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Okay.

Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

Madam Chair, I wanted to make a brief comment about the question you posed to the committee. For me, given the fact that it seems the original motion directs us to look at the Standing Orders and how to enact remote voting—I've read it over and over again and those are the two elements of this study that I think we're undertaking—it would be beneficial to have a couple more of those international examples.

I feel we focused a lot today on the U.K., which is important and yielded some good information, but it would be great to have a couple more examples specific to national parliaments with international examples that are implementing some form of remote or electronic voting. We really haven't heard... I know we had the Inter-Parliamentary Union and Ms. Cuevas today but I didn't feel we had enough time with her to get into details about specific examples. I think we could use a bit more time to do that next.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perhaps we can ask the clerk who has shown interest and whom we potentially would be able to accommodate.

[The Clerk]

Hello, Mr. Turnbull and Madam Chair.

Some of the international witnesses we approached indicated a scheduling conflict, as the chair indicated a little earlier. Among them was one of the other ones from the United Kingdom, Charles Walker, who was the chair of the House of Commons administration committee. We can endeavour to get back to him to see if he is available. However, the problem right now is that the committee has not yet identified a meeting slot as to when we can invite these witnesses to come back.

There are some others. For example, Lord McFall, the chair of the procedure committee in the House of Lords, declined.

With Ms. Harriet Harman it was also a scheduling conflict, although she did indicate a willingness to return. However, as we know, she is also from the British Parliament.

As for the president of the European Parliament, many attempts were made to contact them to elicit their interest in appearing. Right now we have zero response from them, so obviously that remains a question mark.

Finally, the president of the Congress of People's Deputies of the Kingdom of Spain has also indicated a conflict.

Obviously, depending on what meeting we could schedule them for and, again, depending on the availability, they may be open to appear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That doesn't give us a whole lot of...other than the EU Parliament. They haven't responded, so we don't know if they're interested. Other than the U.K., only Spain has been interested. That's one other perspective.

I don't know what you think but most of our panellists today were from the U.K., and we've got quite a lot of understanding from that area. Others would be interesting, but we can check back with Spain if we want to set up another meeting for witnesses. Maybe the clerk and I can try to schedule a time for Friday, if it's possible.

Mr. Richards, do you have your hand up to provide feedback on this?

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

I'm still trying to understand what the rush is. Obviously, there's been an indication here that there are witnesses who can't be slotted in, and it sounds to me like it's mostly just because we're trying to rush this. Parliament isn't scheduled to sit again until mid-September or whatever the date is.

There's obviously going to be a huge potential change in where things are by that point. I'm just struggling to understand the rush here, based on that. If there's time needed to study this further, why wouldn't we do that, or why wouldn't we have the ability to have the knowledge of what happens over the course of the next little while as well, as provinces are starting to relaunch and things like that?

I would hope that someone on the government side could give us some indication as to what the big rush is. I'd love to hear feedback from the other opposition parties as well, as to what their thoughts are on this. I know there is a requirement to report back by June 23, I believe it is. There's nothing that would prevent us from writing a report today that simply says we think that this should be given more time. That could be done as an interim report. It could be done in 10 seconds. It would fulfill that requirement. Then we would have the benefit of the time that's needed to properly look at this and see how things play out as we get closer to the time that Parliament would be scheduled to return.

As we all know, things are incredibly different now from what they were a couple of months ago. In the middle of March, things were incredibly different from what they had been a couple of weeks prior to that. They can change quite considerably over the next few months as well. I'm just struggling to understand what the rush is and why we don't look at doing that. Then we have the time to properly study and hear from those we need to hear from.

We'd love to hear comments from the government members as to why the rush, and we'd love to hear some thoughts from the other opposition parties on what they think on this point.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Perfect.

Next up we have Ms. Blaney.

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

One of the questions that I do have is around the extra dates. Maybe I missed that; I was pulled away from my desk a few moments ago. However, we did discuss having a few extra dates to do some of this work.

I agree that I want to get as much work done as possible. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm certainly being invited out to a lot more constituency events. Things are changing here in B.C. Some of the events are virtual, but some of them are in person, although there is a lot of amazing work being done by community organizations around appropriate distancing and whatnot. I want to make sure that I have all the time I can have for my constituents during this very important time in our country.

I certainly do not want to do another eight-hour session. I thought that was very disruptive. The other thing that I will say is that I would like time with the report when I'm writing whatever I'm writing to add to that. This last cycle that we went through, of course, was very fast. We were writing reports and were not even able to look at the finished products, which I did have some serious concerns about.

I think we need to continue this, but for me, one of the questions is this: Do we have the space for those extra meeting times? I know that the House will be shutting down between June 24 and July 3 to do some important technological work that has to be put in place, so that's something we need to be mindful of.

I think the other part is this: I appreciate what Mr. Richards is saying about not rushing, but what I'm not getting clarity on is how long we are thinking this study should go. Is there any guidance on that? It's sort of wide open.

One of the things that I'm definitely looking forward to watching is what happens in the B.C. legislature when it starts to open toward the end of the month. It might be best to have a recommendation that encourages us to come back maybe right before Parliament starts again to look at the work that has been done and review it with our committee. However, I don't know that we should be going through the whole summer doing this study.

I would like some clarity on those two issues.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Those are fair and good questions.

Next is Mr. Turnbull.

[Ryan Turnbull, Liberal, Whitby, ON]

I wanted to share some thoughts related to this. I don't think there's a rush. I think the intention is maybe not to delay.

I know that members on this committee have expressed concerns about wanting to test, demonstrate and adequately develop a solution very carefully, cautiously and incrementally. That's part of the motion. I think that in order to implement this, the committee sticks to its original timelines, and that leaves July and August for the House administration to actually work out the kinks in a system and take all of the rounds of feedback that would be necessary in order to have a gradual implementation of an electronic voting solution.

To my mind, that just seems smart, given that I think there's going to be a push to move forward with a legislative agenda in September. In my mind, that makes a lot of sense, given that parliaments generally take a bit of a hiatus in the summertime, even though we're all still dealing with an unprecedented amount of constituency work at this time.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

Mr. Alghabra.

[Omar Alghabra, Liberal, Mississauga Centre, ON]

Madam Chair, I do want to say that I am sympathetic to what Ms. Blaney said.

First, I think we should, in good faith, try to meet the deadline. If we realize that we need an extra week or two because of the report writing or witnesses that couldn't accommodate our schedule, we can discuss that. My concern with what Mr. Richards is proposing is exactly what Ms. Blaney has mentioned. I don't know what he's suggesting the timeline would be. As Mr. Turnbull has said, first of all, the House mandated us by a motion passed by the House to meet the deadline.

Second, I think the administration wants to hear from us so they can start preparing the technical infrastructure for what direction we take. From my point of view, I don't know if the Conservatives are hoping that maybe by September when the House resumes we won't need any of this and that we'll go back to normal, so why risk putting out some recommendations if they're not going to be implemented. I would love nothing better than that. I would love to know that by September we're going to go back to normal and we won't need any of these restrictions. However, we would be irresponsible if we did not prepare a plan in case that's not the case. If that does not happen, if by September the House of Commons still cannot fully function with 338 MPs on site, what is the House going to do?

I agree with the Conservatives that we want the House of Commons to be fully functional. We need to give the administration the tools and the advice they're asking us for so they can prepare the work for that. If September comes along and public health lifts their advisory and says that there are no more restrictions because COVID is under control, then we don't need to use any of these measures, and we don't need to pass any of those tools. But it's important that we do our homework and do our due diligence and that we be thoughtful and responsible in doing so.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you, Mr. Alghabra.

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Mr. Turnbull and Mr. Alghabra have said a lot of what I was going to say.

The only other thing I would add is that Mr. Richards said he'd like to hear from the government members and the opposition members as to what they thought about all of this. The government members do not come from a government that has a majority in Parliament. For some reason, it's only the Conservatives who haven't figured out how to play nice with other parties, in my opinion. What's important to recognize is that a motion was brought forward to the House and it passed with government members and two opposition party members. The only party that voted against it was the Conservative Party. All parties have agreed to this deadline of June 23.

I would agree with what Mr. Alghabra said, which is that we need to try to meet that date. Then, if we just don't have enough time, we can indicate in our report that we need another couple of weeks. I think that we aim for it, and if we don't make it, then we deal with that at that time. I don't think there's a rush. I'd just like to get through this just as much as everybody else would.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Ms. Petitpas Taylor.

[Ginette Petitpas Taylor, Liberal, Moncton—Riverview—Dieppe, NB]

Madam Chair, most of the comments have been said. I can appreciate that Mr. Richards certainly doesn't want to rush through this study. I don't think anyone does, but I'm just going to use my example here in New Brunswick. I really hope, as do most of you, that in September we can all meet back in Ottawa because I certainly miss seeing all of you personally.

I am looking at New Brunswick right now, and two weeks ago the House started physically sitting in the province of New Brunswick for a few days, and because we had a provincial outbreak, they have all been sent back home. Now they are struggling to see what the plan is going to be.

I think, just to be safe and to be responsible, we need to make sure we have a plan in place, and that's what this study is all about. Let's hope that we don't have to use that plan, but let's be leaders and make sure that all of our i's are dotted and our t's are crossed and that whatever infrastructure is going to be needed is in place.

I have to say, at this point in time with our study, I feel we have a lot of really good information on how to proceed. I'm even struggling a bit sometimes to ask questions because I feel we are hearing the same feedback over and over again.

I'm very comfortable that we truly have enough time to proceed with making some solid recommendations. Let's hope we don't have to use this, but if we do, we'll have a plan in place.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Duncan.

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

Madam Chair, I have to say to my friend Mr. Gerretsen working nights with others.... I had to chuckle at what the common denominators in some of the yelling matches have been, but anyway, I digress.

I will just say on the timeline and in good faith that we have heard from witnesses. I agree with what Ms. Petitpas Taylor said on the witness perspective. What we're hearing this week and next week will give us a good idea and a foundation.

On the point of not rushing it, one of things a couple of us alluded to today is that we're making recommendations based on what the situation will be in September. We're hearing from the witnesses. Hearing the background is good now. I'm in favour of having a report back to Parliament and wrapping this up as a committee. Perhaps we could look at something where we hear from the witnesses, then come back later in the summer. We would not meet all summer. I think we would all not favour meeting in the summer, and we wouldn't favour another eight-hour meeting to go over everything again. We could look at what the lay of the land may be, say, in mid-August and see what the situation is and give a report back in a reasonable time so that when we come back on September 21 we have the most recent lay of the land.

I also think one of the things that is important with this—and I say this as a new member—is that our committee is a great committee, but we are a limited number of 338 members. I think the caucus consultation going back and forth.... I just know some of my colleagues, and I think all parties, would want to see what the situation is like in September when we get a bit closer to September.

I would propose continuing hearing from some witnesses for maybe a couple of weeks. We could wrap up with a meeting at a high level of where we're all at, but come back in a good amount of time, say mid-August, have a few weeks to finish the report and then give the House administration, whatever the decision may be, a few weeks to figure things out. That could be a fair compromise. Make sure we get something, and make sure that we can accurately see what the lay of the land is for recommendations.

Thanks for the chance to speak.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you.

We'll hear from Madam Normandin, and then we can try to end for today. I'll give you some options from the different things I am hearing.

Mr. Alghabra, you have your hand up.

We will hear briefly from the two of you, then we're going to have to start clearing the room.

I could schedule another committee business meeting. I'll talk about that in the conclusion.

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

I think we need to strike a balance between the time we have to write the report and the time the House should get to implement the recommendations. We are planning to hear from other witnesses on Thursday. We may have about a week to write the report and make recommendations. I think that's a bit rushed. It would give the House two and a half months to act on our recommendations.

I wouldn't want to take any more time to write the report than we actually need, but I think we will have to extend the deadline past June 23. That way, we can put those dates in our planners if we already know we'll be meeting to draft the report.

I don't think we'd need until the end of August, but I think a week to write the report, which is all we'll have left, isn't enough. I'm not worried about the contents of the report. I actually think we've heard from all the witnesses we needed to hear from. However, since it took us almost three meetings last time in addition to the meetings we had beforehand to draft the report, I think we might run into the same problem this time.

That's why I think we need to give ourselves a little time. We may not need a month, but I'm pretty sure we're going to need longer than June 23.