:
I call this meeting to order. Good morning, everyone.
Welcome to meeting number eight of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
Today is November 5, 2020. I'd like to start the meeting by providing you with information following the motion that was adopted in the House on Wednesday, September 23.
The committee is now sitting in a hybrid format, meaning that members can participate either in person or by video conference. Witnesses must appear by video conference. All members, regardless of their method of participation, will be counted for the purposes of quorum. The committee's power to sit, however, is limited by the priority use of House resources, which is determined by the whips. In committee business today, I think we're going to have a couple of hurdles because of this issue, which we can discuss.
All questions must be decided by a recorded vote, unless the committee disposes of them with unanimous consent or on division. Finally, the committee may deliberate in camera, provided that it takes into account the potential risks to confidentiality inherent in such deliberations with remote participants.
Today's proceedings will be made available via the House of Commons website. I remind you that the webcast will always show the person speaking, rather than the entirety of the committee.
To ensure an orderly meeting, I'd like to outline a few rules to follow.
For those participating virtually, members and witnesses may speak in the official language of their choice. Interpretation services are available for this meeting. You have the choice, at the bottom of your screen, of floor, English or French. Please make sure you select your choice at this time, so there are no delays once you start speaking. Before speaking, click on the microphone icon to activate your mike. When you are done speaking, please put your mike on mute to minimize any interference.
I remind you that all comments by members and witnesses should be addressed through the chair. Should members need to request the floor outside of their designated time for questions, they should activate their mike and say that they have a point of order. If a member wishes to intervene on a point of order that has been raised by another member, they should use the “raise hand” function at the bottom of their screen. This will signal their interest to speak.
When speaking, please speak slowly and clearly. Unless there are exceptional circumstances, the use of headsets with a boom mike is mandatory. Should any technical challenges arise, please advise the chair. Please note that we may need to suspend for a few minutes to ensure that all members can participate fully.
For those participating in person, proceed as you usually would when the whole committee is meeting in person in the committee room. Should you wish to get my attention, just signal me with a hand gesture on the screen, or you can call for the chair. Should you wish to raise a point of order, wait until the appropriate time to indicate that clearly, and raise your point of order.
The clerk and I will maintain a consolidated speaking order. However, the speaking order for the purposes of the formal portion of today's meeting has already been given to me in advance, so if you want any changes to that, let me or the clerk know, or you can just speak up at the time I call out your name.
Let's get started with today's meeting. We're pleased to have, from the Government of Saskatchewan, Dr. Saqib Shahab, chief medical officer for the ministry of health; and Dr. Denise Werker, deputy chief medical health officer for the ministry of health. From the Government of New Brunswick, we have Dr. Jennifer Russell, chief medical officer for the ministry of health.
Welcome to all of you. We're honoured to have you. I know we have members from your provinces who may have gotten to know you or at the very least we have gotten to know you through our television screens, because we see you so often delivering updates for your various provinces. We really appreciate the hard work you've been doing throughout this pandemic. It has been a marathon and I can't imagine how tiring it must be for everyone working within the ministry of health federally and provincially.
Dr. Shahab, we'll start with your five-minute opening remarks.
Please let me know if I'm pronouncing anyone's name a little off.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair. Your pronunciation was perfect.
Good morning, Madam Chair and honourable members. Thank you for this invitation and opportunity.
I am here with my colleague Dr. Denise Werker, who was the deputy chief medical health officer until August 2019, but thankfully agreed to come back from retirement and join us in the office of the chief medical health officer as a public health consultant. We will be speaking on behalf of Saskatchewan. I'll be making some opening remarks, and then we'll both be available for questions.
As per the written statement that we shared earlier, Dr. Michael Boda, the chief electoral officer at Elections Saskatchewan, approached me in February 2020 to ask about public health advice to support the planning and implementation of the provincial elections during the COVID-19 pandemic. It was in this spirit that the provincial elections would be held in October 2020, and the CEO of Elections Saskatchewan built a relationship with us and the office of the chief medical health officer to address prior issues related to communicable disease control during earlier elections and by-elections, so we already had that working relationship.
It was my view and the view of my office that the provincial election could be held in such a way as to minimize the risk of transmission of SARS-CoV-2, despite all the uncertainties about how the pandemic would unfold. The initial advice from my office to Elections Saskatchewan was to optimize voting by mail; to reduce crowding by increasing the number of hours of advance polling and the number of polling locations; to organize the flow of voters and the processes of voting at polling locations to minimize COVID transmission risk; to implement additional transmission mitigation measures at polling locations, including hand hygiene; to increase cleaning and disinfection; to establish measures to promote two-metre physical distancing to further minimize COVID transmission risk; and to apply additional precautions for voting occurring in long-term care facilities and personal care homes.
It was also recommended that Elections Saskatchewan independently contract an infection prevention and control specialist to provide direct support to Elections Saskatchewan on many of these mitigation details. We also agreed to plan for a worst-case scenario in which an election would remain feasible.
In addition to the medical health officers at the ministry of health, environmental public health consultants were also available to provide input through a structured process to Elections Saskatchewan on opportunities to mitigate transmission risk during the planning and implementation of the elections. The public health consultants and the medical health officers provided guidance and proposed mitigation measures. We also facilitated operational connections within the ministry of health and the Saskatchewan Health Authority as needed and were available to provide input to ad hoc issues throughout the planning and conduct of the elections.
As chief medical health officer, I participated in regular meetings with the CEO of Elections Saskatchewan and also had an opportunity to visit a mock-up of a polling location before actual voting was held. As the chief medical health officer, along with the House leaders of the two main political parties, I was a member of the electoral advisory group that was established by the CEO of Elections Saskatchewan. This electoral advisory group convened monthly from June to September to review the state of the COVID-19 pandemic in Saskatchewan.
Thank you. Both I and Dr. Werker will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Here in New Brunswick, the provincial election was held on September 7, and the writ dropped on August 17, so that was a 28-day election period.
Our role at Public Health New Brunswick was not to endorse whether an election should proceed; rather, we reviewed the operational plan that was put forward by Elections New Brunswick and provided feedback to ensure agreement with public health guidance. WorkSafeNB also reviewed and approved the operational plan.
Public Health New Brunswick provided guidance to all the parties on how to safely host public gatherings. In terms of other activities commonly conducted during elections—for example, door-to-door canvassing—public health provided feedback on individual party plans submitted by parties, but it never provided direction on what types of activities could or could not occur.
Elections New Brunswick followed public health guidelines to make visiting polling stations and returning offices safe for electors and election workers. Electors were asked to apply hand sanitizer as they entered the building. Frequent cleaning of high-contact areas was conducted at all voting locations. Election workers were required to wear masks or face shields during their interactions with each elector. As much as possible, two-metre physical distancing was practised during an elector's visit, and electors wore a non-medical mask at polling stations when physical distancing could not be maintained. The number of electors allowed in a voting location was limited.
We also had the option to vote by mail. All New Brunswick electors could apply to receive a mail-in ballot, and the Department of Social Development worked with long-term care facilities to ensure that ballots were provided and that there was no unnecessary election-related visitation to these vulnerable settings. We also had advance polling stations.
There are municipalities in New Brunswick. Municipal elections will be held in May 2021, and all the best practices from the September provincial election will be built upon to provide advice for those elections. It is hoped that the favourable conditions in New Brunswick during the past summer months recur in the spring for these elections.
What is known is that New Brunswick is in a good position to contemplate its participation in a federal election, but there are aspects that remain unknown.
New Brunswick has alert-level phases that dictate varying degrees of societal limitations, ranging from yellow to orange to red phases. New Brunswick's red phase is as close as we come to returning to a lockdown.
It's difficult to contemplate a region of New Brunswick being in an orange or a red phase, with public health dictating that contacts be limited to those within a household, while simultaneously gathering for an election. However, I did look up what the New Brunswick Public Health Act says around this type of thing, and I believe that, based on the authority that public health has, limiting a democratic right would be something quite out of the range of the actions we would be taking.
Obviously, it would have to be quite a serious situation for us to ever interfere with the democratic process, so, again, stopping an election probably wouldn't be in the scope or the range of the things we would do. In this particular election that we just had, we were in the yellow phase throughout the province. There were no active outbreaks, and we were fortunate that nothing like that happened during the election period.
:
Thank you to all three of our witnesses.
We'll start with our first six-minute round.
I just want to remind everyone, once again, that there are so many questions with this pandemic, but our focus should remain within the scope of how they advised the running of a safe election within their provinces and what advice they may have for running a federal election.
We'll start with Mrs. Vecchio for six minutes, please.
:
We are following that very closely. The in-person voting ended over the last two weeks.
So far, we have not seen any specific signals of concern. We have had one instance where someone who had been at the voting site was identified as COVID-positive, but the way the protocols were set up was such that there was no one else identified as a close contact. I think that's an important lesson for us.
In terms of the way we planned it, if for some reason we had someone who may have been infectious, either going in to work or volunteer, the protocols were such that there shouldn't really be any situation where someone would be considered as a close contact or exposed, and that's what we saw in just one situation. Apart from that, we have not seen any signal of concern related to elections. Because of the way the polling was done, we would not expect to see that either.
Thank you.
:
Thanks very much, Saqib.
Michael Boda worked directly with the Saskatchewan Health Authority, as well as the ministry of health branch that licenses personal care homes. Under The Election Act, they have a requirement to enfranchise people in personal care facilities. That's under their legislation, but Michael Boda had to translate that to our legislation and how our facilities are licensed.
The election officials and administrators were considered critical workers, which meant that they could enter those facilities in the same way that other essential services could enter those facilities. What Elections Saskatchewan arranged was to have a central polling location, if that was feasible, within the facility, or they arranged for what was called door-to-door voting. In that circumstance, the election official would stand at the door, and the health care professional, in full PPE, would administer the ballot under the observation of the election officials.
There was also guidance that the infection prevention and control program for the Saskatchewan Health Authority, developed for both hospitals and long-term care facilities, be generalized to the personal care homes, although the Saskatchewan Health Authority is not responsible for the policies in the personal care homes.
:
Excellent. Thank you so much.
The reason I ask specifically about this is that here, in the province of Ontario, whether you are working in that facility or whether you are visiting, there is mandatory testing for some of these locations. I wanted to see where you're at.
Dr. Russell, I had read somewhere about how in New Brunswick, because of COVID, they were trying not to do the door-to-door in long-term care facilities. I read this...it was a place dealing with long-term care homes.
I want to ask you the same question I asked Dr. Werker. What was the role, when it came to medical health officers, with testing anyone coming in who was working for the polls or anything of that sort? What were the restrictions put into the long-term care homes? As I brought up, Dr. Werker indicated door-to-door. Was that allowed in New Brunswick?
:
Thank you so much, Madam Chair.
I also want to take a moment to thank Dr. Russell, Dr. Werker and Dr. Shahab for the tremendous work they have done over the years.
Specifically this year, I would think, Canadians have a greater appreciation for the work that public health officials have done. I can only speak for my province, Dr. Russell. I've watched your daily briefings, and you've certainly done an exceptional job of informing our New Brunswickers, educating us and also reassuring us. Thank you to each and every one of you for the work you continue to do.
I'm going to focus a bit on Dr. Russell, because I am from New Brunswick. I have a few questions.
First and foremost, what is your relationship with the chief electoral officer in the province of New Brunswick?
:
I don't have any official relationship with the chief electoral officer.
Again, we provided input from a public health perspective around how to safely have an election. It was very, very basic advice, from the perspective of all the engagement sessions we had early on in the pandemic when we were going through our phases around what businesses or other establishments could do in different sectors of industry.
In terms of having templates all ready to go, in terms of WorkSafe's involvement, it was very straightforward. For any types of activities, whether it was business or otherwise, that were happening in the provinces, it was how to do them as safely as possible, depending on what the situation was with respect to the phase we were in.
:
I don't think there was anything specific. Again, it would be the same type of guidance that would exist for any operating business or establishment.
With respect to changing response phases because of an outbreak, the most recent outbreaks affected only one zone at a time. We did happen to have two separate outbreaks concurrently in two different zones, but the orange phase of response meant that certain businesses could not operate. We are revising that now. The only other changes were around how many people could gather with respect to close contacts and household members.
Technically speaking, that wouldn't necessarily impact all of the protocols that are in place for an election to take place—again, with the physical distancing and spacing, etc. As you may or may not know, during the last outbreak in the northern part of the province, in zone 5, we did have, as we have had on other occasions, mass testing. The physical distancing is in place. The masking is in place. The hand sanitizing is in place, and so on.
There was nothing specific around that, again, because the protocols that would be in place already—which are set out in our advice, recommendations and requirements for the orange phase should there be an outbreak—technically would not impact all the things in the protocols and plans for an election.
I think that's a really important point, because when we first started having discussions with Elections Saskatchewan.... We had a relationship with Elections Saskatchewan in previous elections. We would always work with them. For example, elections frequently happened during the influenza season, so there would be outbreaks in long-term care facilities, and we would work with Elections Saskatchewan to make sure that voting occurred in a safe way, as described by Dr. Werker, for long-term care facilities where you have more vulnerable clients.
With our electoral advisory group, which had membership from the political parties, we met monthly from June to September. We would look at our rates, which were generally low. We would look at the rates in the rest of Canada, which were also generally low. We would look at rates in other parts of the world. We would say, “If we had rising rates, what would we do?”
Our advice from Public Health was to have protocols that would ensure safe voting, so that even if rates were high, we would be confident that people could go and vote safely. The question, of course, was what the public confidence would be in terms of turnout, and what the confidence of staff would be in terms of working for Elections Saskatchewan. Elections Saskatchewan was very much aware of that. My understanding is that they did a lot of work to encourage staff to understand the protocols, such as masking and infection control, so that everyone felt safe—the staff and volunteers, as well as the people coming to vote.
I want to ask you the same question that I asked your chief electoral officer colleagues.
Would it have been useful to collect the contact information of the voters who came to vote, a bit like what some provinces have recommended that restaurants do? When we went to a restaurant, we had to write down our names and telephone numbers. That way, we could be reached in case a person at the restaurant at the same time as us subsequently tested positive for COVID-19 and was potentially contagious.
Is the contact between voters negligible enough to justify not keeping a record? I'm not talking about contact between a voter and an election worker, but about contact between voters.
:
Maybe I can make some quick comments, and Dr. Werker can then add to them.
Our premise was that elections.... We know much more now about COVID than we knew in March. We know that people are most infectious in the two days before symptoms and the two days after symptoms, and many young people can have very mild symptoms. We know that testing and symptoms alone are not sufficient to promote safety during voting or any other activities in the public sphere that are essential, such as grocery shopping or going to school.
We were working, along with Elections Saskatchewan, to make sure that processes were such that even if someone was infectious, the risk of transmission would be minimal. My understanding was that each polling location would have a record of the staff who worked there on specific days and would be able to either communicate through a public service announcement, if there was a need to contact people who had voted there in person, or have a record of who voted at a particular location.
I'll see whether Dr. Werker has further information on this, or whether Elections Saskatchewan can confirm. I would like to reiterate that the way it was done, even if they needed to do a public service announcement and reach out, the expectation would be that the process works in such a way that there would be minimal infection of others, based on physical distancing, mask use, hand hygiene and other measures—the layers of protection already in place.
Thank you.
:
Thank you for that question.
We worked very closely with Elections Saskatchewan. From our side, the emphasis was that the processes should be such that everyone, even if they were from an older demographic with underlying risk factors, would feel very safe going to vote in person. That is essential.
Of course, Elections Saskatchewan always ensures that access to polling locations is available to everyone. Beyond that, we recognized that many people would feel more comfortable voting by mail. I understand that although voter turnout was strong in Saskatchewan, there was a much greater proportion of people who voted by mail. Also, there were more polling locations numerically and more pre-polling opportunities. All of that contributed to thinning out any sense of crowding. The protocols were such that there shouldn't really be any crowding; there was good separation.
I think the perception of that was very important, that individuals would feel comfortable voting, either by mail—and there were lots of opportunities to do that; as early as August, I think, the opportunity was there to register to vote by mail—or by going to more polling locations than normal, either before or on election day.
Thank you.
:
To our witnesses, thank you, everybody, for attending today. More importantly, thank you for your public service during these trying times.
My first question is for Dr. Russell.
You talked about the different colour phases in Saskatchewan, and we don't have colour phases per se on there. It's interesting, though, that early on in the year you were talking about how it was evolving and we were trying to figure out what we were facing. I believe it was a red phase that your province was in. Just to clarify, it's during that phase that you wouldn't recommend.... As much as I know you don't have power over federal elections, provincially your recommendations would hold a fair bit of weight with the election officials.
Would your advice then be not to have an election? Am I hearing you correctly?
Dr. Shahab, thank you again for being here today, and for all the work you're doing in our province.
There was consideration and public conversation about a spring election. With the leadership of Premier Moe, it was decided it wasn't worth the risk to hold a snap election for somewhat partisan reasons. What happened was that we followed the election law in Saskatchewan, and the election took place at the scheduled time.
Dr. Shahab, were you relieved when that statement came out in the spring?
If I may add, in Canada generally, although we've had increasing cases throughout Canada, we have been fortunate so far not to have seen the cases that parts of Europe and the U.S. have seen, which are 10 to 20 times higher. It's difficult to visualize whether our recommendations would be the same if we had cases 10 to 20 times higher.
Certainly, I think that the way you go to vote is still safe even when you have very high cases, but the public confidence may not be that high, and the confidence of volunteers and staff may not be that high. That's the only thing I would say in terms of thinking about holding an election with much higher rates, which we in Canada fortunately have not seen so far.
Thank you.
:
Again, I would say that.... In Canada, we have generally been using thresholds of 500,000, which for Saskatchewan is 60. I would really start getting concerned in terms of a general increase that was 10 per 100,000, which would be 120 cases.
The threshold where these specific measures have to be taken has generally been, in Canada and other parts of the world, at much higher levels. Initially, they were more on slowdowns and lockdowns, but as we learn more, I think we can be more confident that a lot of activity, whether it's business or pleasure, can happen as long as specific guidelines are followed. The real risk is where interactions are not controlled, whether that's in leisure time or in workplaces, where there is crowding and lack of attention to physical distancing and mask use.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I want to welcome our witnesses. Dr. Shahab, Dr. Russell and Dr. Werker, thank you for being here, and thank you for sharing your insight with the committee. As a committee, we are looking at offering recommendations to Elections Canada in preparation for a potential election during the pandemic.
Let me start by asking, where is the highest risk during an election period? Is it the entire writ period, or is it the actual days when people are gathering to vote?
Dr. Shahab, you can go ahead.
:
I echo what Dr. Shahab says. That is very true.
The only other thing.... This is an evolving situation. We do keep learning new things and we do keep having newer technologies available to us. We've recently started to do testing for essential workers every several days. If we were looking to add anything to consider, we could perhaps add testing the next time we have an election, depending on how things have evolved with that.
Again, because the risks keep changing and the evidence, research and technology keep changing, we'll take advantage of these to make things as safe as possible.
First, let me say to all of the doctors present, thank you so much, on behalf of all Canadians, for the work you've been doing. It's been extraordinary in these very trying times.
Dr. Shahab and Dr. Werker, as a Saskatchewanian, I'm very proud every time I see you on the screen talking to Saskatchewan residents about the health protocols that you are encouraging them to follow. It's been extremely helpful and extremely necessary. Once again, thank you.
My questions will be primarily for Dr. Shahab and Dr. Werker.
Dr. Shahab, you talked about the liaison committee that was established, which met monthly starting in June. The committee consisted of Dr. Boda from Elections Saskatchewan, you, Dr. Werker and the House leaders of the two main political parties. During those meetings, I suppose you offered advice as to health protocols that you would encourage the two main political parties to adhere to during the upcoming campaign.
I'm curious as to why some of the other Saskatchewan political parties were not involved. I understand that the call of Dr. Boda was the one that everyone listened to. In other words, he was the one who formalized this committee and invited representatives from the two major political parties. But there were five political parties campaigning in Saskatchewan, including the Greens, the Liberals and the new Buffalo Party. In fact, the Buffalo Party, which is an extension of the Wexit Party—now called the Maverick Party, a western separation political entity—actually finished second in four of the Saskatchewan ridings.
I am curious, Dr. Shahab, to know whether you felt confident that the advice you were giving to the two main political parties was being transmitted to some of the other, lesser-known political entities in Saskatchewan.
:
Thank you, Madam Chair.
At the risk of repeating myself, I also want to thank you. I certainly watched all of you operate in your own provinces. Even though I'm from Ontario, it's in all of our interests to see all Canadians do well and succeed and be healthy.
I'm interested in the governance and how the relationship with Elections New Brunswick.... Perhaps I could start with you, Dr. Russell. I know the writ was dropped on August 17. That's just the fact. I'm wondering whether Elections New Brunswick reached out to you prior to the writ being dropped, or whether they reached out to you on the 17th and said, “Oops, now that we have an election coming, how do we prepare to make sure we can have safe elections?”
:
I think because I represent public health.... Again, I can't put words in the premier's mouth. Certainly, any time that I was asked what my role was in the election and decisions around it, I said that the only input I really had was how to do it safely.
Obviously, if you're going to try to reduce the risk to zero, that's impossible. No matter what the outbreak situation is and no matter how many daily cases you have, it does change the risks and we can't ever make them zero.
In our Atlantic bubble, we've been successful at keeping our case numbers low and keeping our outbreaks small and short. We have the luxury of having a low-risk setting to have an election. Our experience is going to be very different from what the federal experience will be, in the sense that it's hard to predict where the second wave is going or when it's going to peak.
The projected numbers right now are that by mid- to late November, the cases in Canada are going to go up to 8,000 per day. With the global risks increasing and lockdowns happening in Europe and England, it's hard to say when things are going to change in terms of the risk setting—the backdrop in which you'll have to make those decisions.
Certainly, we would never say whether to have an election or not. We would just say, this is how to make it as safe as possible, knowing that the risk will never be zero in a global pandemic.
At the point that British Columbia's snap election was called, I looked at the rate numbers, and British Columbia's incidence of COVID at that point was six times higher than New Brunswick's.
This might be more of a political question, but I'd like to ask both Dr. Shahab and Dr. Russell. Do you think the fact that New Brunswick went first, with a very low COVID rate, led to any misperceptions in other jurisdictions that it's relatively easy or safe to hold an election in a pandemic?
:
Communications are a really big part of what happens in any crisis management. Evidence-based, transparent, up-to-date information around risks and what behaviours people have to do to keep themselves and their communities safe is very important.
Here in New Brunswick, we have the luxury of having a low number of cases due to a lot of hard work and a lot of protocols that are placed around our borders and the Atlantic bubble. I don't think people have a false sense of security—I hope they don't—around what it means to have an election during a pandemic.
All we can do is make the risks as low as we possibly can, knowing that, again, the risks will never be zero. I think that if it's framed properly from a communications perspective, people will understand that.
The democratic process probably does take precedence over all other issues at this time, but again, I think with proper communication, the understanding and framing of those risks can be done properly.
:
I know. They're hard for us in politics as well. We like to elaborate.
Okay, for committee business, I want to go over the plan that was proposed by the subcommittee. I need to have it approved by the full committee. There was a report that was put out listing about 11 different decisions that were made by the subcommittee. First, I want to let you know that some of those suggestions may not be possible at this time, but most are.
The very first one that we have is.... Actually, let me jump to suggestion number four. We suggested that we have an evening meeting on November 18. That is no longer possible, because of the resources that are being used. We're not going to be able to have a meeting in between the meetings. We were originally thinking it would be between our meetings of November 17 and November 19, which are already scheduled for main estimates. We were going to have an evening meeting on November 18. That was decided by the subcommittee, but the clerk has informed me that this is no longer possible, because the whips have all decided that they are going to allow the other committees to have two meetings each a week. Because of that new allowance, we're not going to be able to take that time slot. The other committees are going to have it.
I think we can still get quite a lot done. We will be able to still do the meeting next week, during our constituency week.
The rest of it remains pretty much the same, other than two more things. A whole bunch of members—Mr. Doherty, mainly—said that they'd prefer the 10:00 to 1:00 time slot. That is also not possible. It can only be 11:00 to 2:00. I think we're just going to have to deal with that and have our meeting from 11:00 to 2:00 whenever we need to have a three-hour meeting. If you need to get a substitute for that last hour, it will be on you to find a substitute for that one hour that you might not be able to make it.
There were a couple of meetings that we had established that we needed the three-hour time period for. One, in particular, is the one where we're going to have the House administration, the Parliamentary Protective Service and the Speaker. That's going to have to be a three-hour meeting. There are some other witness meetings that are going to have to be three hours so that we can get three panels of sixty minutes in. Whenever those occur, they will be from 11:00 to 2:00.
Justin, I want to let you know that I did get an email after this meeting had started. Apparently, the availability of , for the Privy Council, is for November 17. He said that he could make himself available for November 17. I am wondering if the committee would have a problem with flip-flopping the two days: having the meeting of November 17 with the President of the Queen's Privy Council, and then having the meeting of November 19 with the and House administration. We're just flipping the two days; that's all that would be done there.
Would that be okay with you, Justin, first?
:
The subcommittee decided on that as well. I believe you will find it under number 11 of the subcommittee report:
That the committee, upon completion of its study on the conduct of a federal election during the COVID-19 pandemic, initiate a study on the document tabled in the House, pursuant to Standing Order 32(7), and referred to the committee, on the Government's reasons for proroguing parliament in August 2020.
It was decided there that once we complete this study—and from what we have slotted into the calendar, it looks as though we will be able to complete the study some time in early January—we would carry on into the prorogation study right after.
The interim report was originally due by the committee's self-imposed deadline of December 1. It was decided by the subcommittee, as shown in bullet 7 of its report, that the deadline would now be changed to December 11 instead of December 1. We would be able to get in the main estimates and we'd be able to get in the bulk of the witnesses needed. Testimony would get cut off for the interim report, at what was going to be the meeting of the 18th, I believe, but we won't have that meeting anymore.
I know this is very confusing to everyone else, but your colleagues who sit on the subcommittee have hopefully filled you in a little bit about what was decided.
Then the rest of the witness testimony would continue—
I want to add a couple of things. One thing I'm aware of, which just came in, is that we will be having on the 17th now, and there was talk about others. If we're switching things, with the House of Commons staff on the 19th.... There may be estimates on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy on the 19th. I think we need to look at what their availability is. We may have to switch a couple of other things, just not that. Perhaps we can give Ruby the opportunity to switch as she needs to.
Another question I have is specifically on witnesses. I think we have put in the majority of the witnesses we wanted to see. I see that Dr. Tam is listed here; that is still another person outstanding.
When we're talking about the time frame, what our expectations are and what we want to get out of this study.... We've had some excellent people come here as witnesses, but what is it that we're trying to get from this study, and what is the date by which we want to drop a full report? Or is it the interim report that is going to be the speaking...?
I think we really need to see how many more witnesses we are expecting and, going back to the motion, what our guiding principles are for getting a report out as well.
Thank you.
:
The clerk is working on inviting other groups that have some vulnerabilities throughout this pandemic, so we are lining up panels. We agreed in the subcommittee that one of our next witness-heavy meetings would be with a panel of indigenous witnesses, seniors and, I believe, long-term care people. We're trying to slot in most of those witnesses.
My goal—I don't know whether this is a direct answer—is really to try to get in all of our witnesses before the winter break, or as many as possible. Then, what we discussed at the subcommittee was that, at that point, we'll see where there might be a few gaps left and, if there are a few more witnesses we need to hear from, we'll hear from them quickly at the beginning, after the winter break, and then work on our draft report and basically have it tabled as soon as possible after the break.
That's the conversation that happened at subcommittee, and that is why in this report you'll see that we've asked New Zealand and the parties to just submit written submissions, so that we can decrease the amount of time it will take to have physical witnesses before the committee.
We have quite a good list to fit in the groups that face challenges. I think it can be done. We have lost one meeting time slot, but I still think we can get it done.
:
Thanks, Madam Chair. I appreciate the conversation. I have some thoughts to share on both points.
With regard to the current study, based on the witness testimony we've heard, I really feel that there is a large amount of importance being placed by public health professionals and elections officers on mail-in voting. I know that many constituents—
The Chair: Could you please put your headset on, Ryan?
Mr. Ryan Turnbull: Oh, I'm so sorry.
How's that?
The Chair: That's great. Could you repeat that? Thank you.
Mr. Ryan Turnbull: My apologies to everyone.
So, I just have a few thoughts to share on both points here. With regard to our current study, on having elections in a pandemic and doing so safely, I think we've heard quite a bit of testimony that has placed importance on mail-in ballots and that process. I've heard from quite a few stakeholders in my riding that this process can be quite clunky and present challenges for people.
From my perspective, it would be great to have some more witnesses who can speak to how we might streamline that process. I think it would be very useful for this study, so I think there are additional witnesses I certainly would like to hear from. I also have other colleagues who may have other witnesses in mind for other topics that are relevant to the current study.
In terms of the timing.... I obviously wasn't at the subcommittee meeting, but I did look at the report. With regard to the prorogation report that has been tabled and referred to us, I suggest that we set a definitive end date for our current study. As I understand it, we've only set a date for the interim report, but not for the end of the study itself. Perhaps if that's some time in January, then the prorogation report could begin after that. That would be my thought on it, so we can get what I think is extremely.... I mean, all things are important, but I think the elections report and the recommendations that members of Parliament on this committee will make are pretty important to get out there. So that's two thoughts.
The third one is just in terms of the Standing Orders and what PROC's role is in terms of a prorogation report. I would find it helpful to hear, perhaps from the clerk, as to what we are required to do. My understanding, based on my reading of the Standing Orders, is that we're not required to do a study on a prorogation report; it's just that we have the opportunity to review it. I just wonder what we are actually required to do, and if there is a requirement there, what specifically it is. That would be helpful for all of us.
:
We have a speaking order, still. We have Mr. Blaikie and Mr. Alghabra. I think we're running low on time, so if I could quickly hear from them, I think we could sum this up.
I think we have consensus on almost everything in terms of what's required. We could probably talk about that at whatever time slot we pick in the next committee business portion of our meeting to talk about prorogation. We could hear from the clerk and get into what would be required, what the committee could do and whom we would hear from.
In terms of the first issue that Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Doherty brought up, if you trust to leave it with me, I will slot in a time that I think would work in the coming days where I think that we only have, like today, about 90 minutes of witness testimony and therefore we can have 30 minutes of committee business on that day.
:
Yes, it is on your witness list. You're correct.
In terms of Mr. Blaikie's suggestion, maybe I could see hands. We have two options: One is to invite every party registered with Elections Canada, and the other is to invite registered parties that have at least one representative in the House.
Who is in favour of every registered party?
Who is in favour of every registered party that has at least one member represented in the House?
I see it is the latter, and we have made note of that. I think that resolves that.
At the next meeting, I will let you know which meeting will have committee time set out in which we can discuss the prorogation issue.
We've made some amendments to the subcommittee report. We're switching around prong one and two in the committee report. Prong four would no longer exist, because we don't have that time slot, but the rest of the report seems to be accurate.
Does the committee approve of the report with those minor changes?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
The Chair: Seeing as there's no opposition, the clerk and I will get working on scheduling those meetings and getting the witnesses we need briefings from to the committee. Thank you.
Goodbye, everyone. Have a great day.