Procedure and House Affairs Committee on July 6th, 2020

[Stéphan Aubé]

Thank you, Mr. Speaker.

The Speaker answered the first part of the question.

The question of the difference between using Zoom and using an app is really about enabling more mobility for the member. That's one part.

The second part is efficiencies. We believe that through a voting app, you could generate more efficiencies to accelerate the members' votes. When they are doing votes, if there are multiple motions members are voting on, during the bells the app could accelerate that for them and make it easier than having to stand in the meeting and say yea or nay on each of the motions. It's flexibility that you can give yourself, if you choose to do so.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Thank you. That completes two rounds of questions.

I want to know whether members have any more questions. If so, we could start off at the top of the five-minute round. If not, we could briefly, for a couple of minutes, discuss a few things I want to put on notice for tomorrow's meeting. It's really up to you. Is there a desire to continue with questions?

Mr. Tochor, do you have one question?

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

It's a rant and a small question, if that's acceptable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Do we want to go back to the five-minute round or just allow Mr. Tochor to have his question?

Go ahead, Mr. Tochor.

[Corey Tochor, Conservative, Saskatoon—University, SK]

Thank you very much, Madam Chair.

The comments I'd like to put on the record are around cost again. It's no surprise that I am allergic to spending taxpayers' dollars when we don't need to. The idea that Ottawa is working or improving things in Canada is, I don't think, held widely in my province or across Canada. I think there is ample waste going on with our federal government that we don't need to find new creative ways to waste taxpayers' dollars on an app.

Don't mind the partisanship of this, but right now we have really serious questions with the Ethics Commissioner about sole-source contracts and runaway boondoggles. This is going to be another example of government thinking that they can do things better than previous governments.

I think this is another example where, in generations to come, my kids will be paying for this debt, and it irritates the people I represent that we are talking about plans A, B and C with no hard cost. We're going with seemingly the most expensive and the most elaborate solution to a simple project that could be done with proxy voting tomorrow.

When my kids ask me 20 years from now what I did when I was an MP to stop the trillion-plus dollars in debt that is being racked up, I hope to tell them that it was only a couple million bucks, but nickels and dimes make dollars, and we were able to stop excessive spending in Ottawa a little bit. I hope that I could tell them in 20 years' time that my role in this was that maybe their income tax rate, instead of being 54%, will be 53%, but it's going in the right direction.

I am very frustrated that we are going with the most expensive option out there, while off-the-shelf—not even off-the-shelf—we have the ability to do proxy voting today.

That's my only comment. I hope that we can find a solution with consensus across all parties that doesn't cost another dime of the taxpayers' money. I'm kind of frustrated that we're not considering that road, not as plan C but as plan A.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Gerretsen.

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

Mr. Aubé, I just want to go back to the answer that you gave to Ms. Petitpas Taylor. I heard you say that this system would be built by House of Commons employees. Is that correct?

[Stéphan Aubé]

It is the case, sir.

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

So, if an app-based voting system was done, it would be built by House of Commons employees, and you said that you would just be reprioritizing what those employees do, so they're the same employees who were going to be paid the same amount of money, no matter what. Is that correct?

[Stéphan Aubé]

It is the case right now, sir.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Mr. Duncan.

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

Thank you, Madam Chair.

I have a question on another note regarding testing, if I could, to Mr. Aubé and even to the Speaker.

As we look at recommendations, I think we've asked several witnesses about testing, and I know Madam Normandin just asked some other questions on it. You mentioned having a small group of MPs test the system before going to a larger group. Would that be PROC? How would you pick members? Would PROC be a natural spot?

I was thinking of maybe getting that on the record perhaps for some of our recommendations, trying to make ourselves as useful as possible here in our committee. Would it be a natural selection for our PROC committee members to be the guinea pigs, for lack of better words?

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

I can start off, and I'll let Mr. Aubé finish.

Based on experience, what we did, even with the hybrid system that we have for the COVID-19 committee, was that it started off as a concept, then it became implemented.

We got a bunch of staff—some of them in the chamber, some of them outside the chamber, some of them from their homes—who all came on board and tested it. Then we got a number of MPs to test it out to see if it would work across the country.

I'll pass it on to Mr. Aubé, who will give you more of a technical background on it. There is testing that happens, and it's amazing how quickly it all came about.

Again, I'm very proud of the staff and all the MPs who participated. It really was something that the world looked at with admiration and something that we can all be proud of.

Monsieur Aubé.

[Stéphan Aubé]

Mr. Speaker just described the exact approach that we would like to take, if we're being asked. I am certain Mr. Duncan wouldn't want to remove that decision from the whips. As you know, this is part of their responsibilities, so I would leave that to them, but it would certainly be a great recommendation for the people who have participated and listened to all these witnesses. Participating in the development and testing would be a great asset to us at the House of Commons.

[Anthony Rota, Liberal, Nipissing—Timiskaming, ON]

If I could just add one more thing on that, Mr. Duncan, the PROC committee is very useful and helpful. I admire and appreciate all the work that it is doing right now. Whatever it decides to do, I'm sure it will be an even better process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Great save, Mr. Speaker.

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

There's no pressure on our part now.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

Before adjourning, we need a time frame to get all the submissions in for our recommendations. We had this discussion in the past, but we were unable to set a deadline, because we were waiting for this meeting to occur, as well as the response from the Speaker to the opposition House leader's letter. Now that all of this has happened, could we hear from the analyst in terms of when we would need all the recommendations finalized, so that the interpreters and the production teams have enough time to meet our deadline?

Mr. Barnes, can you help us with a fixed date or some guidance?

[Andre Barnes, Committee Researcher]

Unfortunately, I won't be able to give a very helpful answer. I'm at the committee's disposal. I'm not entirely sure when members are going to feel comfortable about making recommendations. I'll do whatever I can, once the recommendations come in, to add them to the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

We have some committee business scheduled for tomorrow's meeting, and the majority of the meeting will be dealing with the consideration of the draft report. Last time, we got through the draft report. The version we will be using tomorrow is the most recent version sent out on July 3. That version has a track-changes copy and a clean copy attached. Is there any preference as to which copy you would like to work from tomorrow? I know that was brought up last time.

Mr. Richards.

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

Madam Chair, on that note, I have a thought, and you'll see what other members think. I was thinking a bit about tomorrow's meeting. Obviously, there may be some changes required to the report, I would assume, based on quite a bit of information and many questions that were answered today, which will be helpful.

Through you, Madam Chair, could our analyst give us some sense as to how many changes would potentially be required to the report? I have some thoughts, but I want to hear what our analyst's take would be on how many changes would be required to the report based on today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Ruby Sahota]

That's a great question. We do have two meetings remaining this week, and we have three for next week.

Mr. Barnes, in terms of additions from today's meeting, would you have anything to add?

[Andre Barnes]

If Mr. Richards is wondering about the volume, it might be about an extra page that would be added from today's meeting.