Thank you, Madam Chair, and thank you to colleagues for allowing me to weigh in as a non-member of the committee and take my virtual place at the virtual table.
I think there are three categories of inquiry for the committee.
The first, of course, is one of those things that are essential for parliamentary functioning. It is that we are, by our rules, required to do things in person, and to change the rules to allow us to do things remotely.
The second category of inquiry is with regard to the technology and whether we currently have the bandwidth to take it all on. I know that the existing resources of the teleconferencing functions of the Government of Canada are stretched. That's why the unanimous consent motion restricted us to only six committees that could be meeting in the fashion that we are now meeting in. However, there are many other committees that have urgent business, and it would be good to be able to find a way for those to meet as well.
The last set of inquiries is to look at what's going on internationally. The U.K. is in about the same boat we are in. I'd also flag that it seems that South America's parliaments and legislatures, such as those in Argentina, Brazil, Chile and Ecuador, are doing far more. There are countries around the world, such as Poland, that have taken the steps to be able to allow remote voting. They have moved a little bit further and faster. I know the parliamentary analysts and the Library of Parliament people will be able to do better research than I've been able to do by googling at home, but it does seem that some countries around the world have addressed the real crunch, which is the ability to vote remotely.
In the reports from other countries, people are very specific as to the platforms they're using, whether it's Zoom or another virtual method of pulling people together in the same space. Those should be examined by tech experts. I also think we need to turn our eyes to security questions around the security implications of having a lot going on over specific private sector platforms.
I should have mentioned the European Parliament. They're allowing remote voting, but they are also meeting with social distance.
I just want to put on the record that even with the small number of people we had in Parliament on Saturday, the opposition lobby did not have adequate social distancing. I didn't go in because it wasn't possible to walk through it to the door to the chamber and practise social distancing at the same time, so if we're going to be moving to more sessions with 30 to 40 people, there will have to be physical changes made to the layout of the opposition lobby in order to keep social distance.
Personally, I agree with Dr. Duncan's comment that we should be paying attention to public health officials and not having a physical session just for the sake of having it. We should expand our technological limits and we should enter the 21st century. Maybe we can make some innovations that will last beyond the pandemic, such that people who are bedridden and in hospital are able to vote in Parliament without physically getting up from their deathbeds to go to vote. I've seen too much of that and I think it's time that....
The argument for taking it beyond the pandemic might actually be making it harder, but I think we should explore remote voting, teleconferencing and a virtual Parliament, and hear from witnesses of the countries that are actually doing it.