HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 20, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. We have a quorum for hearing evidence.

Colleagues, we're here today with the deputy clerk and the principal clerk for House proceedings of the House of Commons.

• 1105

Today we are looking at the issue of possible electronic voting for the House of Commons. Colleagues, you've had delivered to you and possibly in front of you a paper prepared by Mr. Robertson, which attempts to synthesize previous studies and set forth some of the issues associated with an electronic voting system. You've had the benefit of that and you will have the benefit of that document as we go through today's meeting. Hopefully it will allow us to walk through some of the issues. Near the end of the meeting we'll want to talk about where we go from here.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): Mr. Chair, if you're referring to this report, which is the historical report of where we've been, is it that the numbering system of the report is inaccurate, or in fact do we have all of that report? It goes page one, page three, page five.

The Chair: I wasn't referring to that document itself. I was referring to the other document, dated February 5, 2001, “Electronic Voting and the House of Commons—Issues and Options”.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Then my point would be raised with respect to the document dated February 16.

The Chair: Yes, thank you. The clerk and Mr. Robertson advise me that a corrected version is being distributed now.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Thank you.

The Chair: We have with us, colleagues, our very expert House support. I understand that the clerk, Mr. Corbett, is under the weather today and not able to attend, notwithstanding—I understand—a real desire to be here. It just wasn't in the cards. So I'll allow our deputy clerk, Audrey O'Brien, to perhaps open up, and we have the principal clerk as well, Ms. Lajoie.

Let's begin with perhaps an opening statement by our deputy clerk.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr Chairman.

I bring the apologies of my colleague, the Clerk of the House, Bill Corbett, who is, as you say, under the weather. He's been stricken by a particularly bad flu, and despite his best efforts has not been able to teeter in here today. So I'm here in his stead, and I've asked

[Translation]

Marie-André Lajoie, Principal Clerk, House Proceedings and Parliamentary Exchanges, to join us.

If you do not mind, I would like to say a few words about the whole electronic voting issue to set the stage for our first appearance before this committee, this Parliament.

[English]

Needless to say, in preparation for this meeting and in anticipation of the question being raised, the clerk and I have reviewed the long history of the issue, both in the last Parliament and in earlier incarnations. We've come to certain conclusions, I suppose showing our natural bias for all that is procedural. It's clear to us that the discussions have been very animated and there has been very vigorous debate over the question of electronic voting.

One of the things we have found quite interesting is the fact that the discussion has tended to focus on the technologies available for executing the wish to have electronic voting, rather than on the political and procedural questions that in our mind—again, as biased proceduralists—are the central questions that surround the issues.

Our view, at the risk of seeming like a technophobe myself—and I take it I'm not speaking for the clerk in this respect, as I'm the resident English major technophobe—is that the technologies can be adapted and can be found now that things have evolved so far from the 1960s, when this issue first came to the table at the House of Commons, when it was first raised in various guises, either at the Board of Internal Economy or the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

• 1110

For our purposes in looking at this, it seems to us that it would be very helpful if, in a first instance, there were some discussion on the premises on which the House wanted to proceed or the committee wanted to proceed in its recommendations for building this kind of an application. The premises we looked at were really very straightforward.

In the first instance, I think one of the things we have to take into consideration is the fact that we have an integrated information system here at the House of Commons. There's been a huge investment in infrastructure, and any system that we establish for electronic voting must eventually be compatible with that. That's not to say that the system.... I understand there was discussion at some point of coming up with an extremely sophisticated system when last the predecessor to Mr. Corbett, Robert Marleau, testified before the committee. There was some discussion of an option there that had laptops at every desk in the chamber, fully connected to the network and so forth, and there were very serious reservations about that kind of an application.

When I talk about the integrated system, I don't mean to say that we have to go that far. What I do mean to say is that whatever option eventually is considered has to take into consideration that it should, if there's to be coherence in the spending of resources and in the eventual outcomes, be compatible with the infrastructure that already exists, and it should be able to be gradually developed as the needs and the requirements of the House develop over time.

One of the things we've discovered in the research in other jurisdictions is that virtually as soon as one system has been implemented there has been a press for changes—for things being faster, for things being slightly different, for some sort of tweaking. So that kind of flexibility is absolutely, to our mind, essential. If that's the kind of thing that is likely to happen here—and evidence would seem to suggest from other jurisdictions that it would be likely to happen—then the whole first approach should be compatibility with the integrated information system and flexibility of growth.

The second premise that we are obviously concerned with is the whole question of heritage considerations. One of the things that has attracted our attention in the study in other jurisdictions, notably in Washington, is the fact that for instance the display panels and so forth that are used in Washington would be, to our view, inappropriate in a heritage setting like the chamber.

There may be some ways of getting around that, but one would suspect not without considerable expense and considerable architectural imagination. Obviously the architects would be the people you would need to consult on that, were you to decide that such an option had to be explored. But obviously heritage considerations will have to be taken into account, as indeed they were. There were lengthy discussions for something as straightforward, we thought initially, as the installation of the computers at the clerks' table, for example. That was the subject of long consultations with the heritage folks.

[Translation]

Last, renovations to the Parliament buildings, particularly Centre Block, are somewhat behind schedule. According to the latest forecasts, Centre Block renovations should start again in 2012.

[English]

And experience will tell us that if they say 2012 they mean somewhat later than that. So we don't want to think too far ahead, but the renovations nonetheless are planned. So any kind of system, because it would be a very costly enterprise, would need.... In terms of the testimony that I've read, people would be interested in having that be portable to a chamber that might be moved to the West Block, for example, while the renovations were being done here in the Centre Block, and that any renovations that were done early in the Centre Block, in order to accommodate this before 2012, would nonetheless then have to be part of what would ultimately be the renovations.

• 1115

I think here, for example, of the audio system in the House of Commons. The audio system is already on its—well, I shouldn't alarm people by saying last legs, but it has enjoyed a considerable lifespan and is a fairly senior system, as we now think of it, and it will have to be changed. “Geriatric” would be the word I'm clutching for. So that would have to be changed at some point.

What one could conceivably do in terms of the access under the floor of the House of Commons that would be required in order to change that audio system is we could then piggyback on the same thing, which would mean we would save money because you would accomplish two projects while only taking up the floor and having the heritage consultations done once.

All of that being said, then, basically what our conclusion has been is that in one sense—and, again, I speak with a proceduralist bias—the technological aspects are perhaps the least problematic so long as a flexible and gradualist system is set up.

I think the political and procedural questions are potentially very much more far-reaching. The question I think we are still left with and that's not clear to us, having read all of this testimony, is how fundamental a change in its voting procedures is the House prepared to entertain? If that answer is forthcoming, then I think quite cogent options can be prepared with costs attached and advantages and disadvantages so that members can then look to the implementation. But I would like to suggest that in an earlier part of the discussion these procedural questions might need to be addressed.

As I say,

[Translation]

that is where my interest lies.

[English]

But I was struck by the document Mr. Robertson has prepared. In the synthesis of the discussions to date, the emphasis he has found as well is very much on the technologies and the application itself, whereas the related procedural issues are on page 5 under some bullet points. I was comforted to see that, because it reflects what we found in the review of the documentation.

[Translation]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much for that opening statement.

Colleagues, although each of us is free to tackle this issue whatever way we wish, I was hoping we could get on the record some articulation of the potential advantages of an electronic voting system. There will be perhaps some disadvantages as well. But I was hoping for some focus on that as we begin addressing it. I suppose if we found no advantages, we wouldn't bother to do it. So that is a focus I was hoping to see. But we're all free, of course, to ask whatever questions we believe are relevant.

I'll start with the official opposition. Both Mr. Reynolds and Mr. Strahl had indicated they wish to speak. I'll let the party members decide which one goes first. Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): The first question I'd like to ask is based on the fact that we're part of the Commonwealth. My understanding is that India was the only parliament in the Commonwealth that was using electronic voting, but I saw the government House leader quoted in the media as saying that Australia had a new system we should be taking a look at. I wonder if you've looked at any of the other Commonwealth countries, specifically Australia, since he mentioned that one, and India to find out how it's working in those areas.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: My understanding is that it is only India that has electronic voting, that in Australia neither the Senate nor the House of Representatives has electronic voting.

Mr. John Reynolds: Have you talked to anybody in the Indian Parliament to find out how they like it compared with the way they used to do it?

• 1120

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I confess that I haven't. We have a request in to them. They have 535 members. That includes the speaker and the two nominated members. There don't seem to be any complaints about that.

In terms of reviewing the literature, I was interested to see that the German parliament, which had electronic voting, decided to remove it when they built the new parliament buildings.

Mr. John Reynolds: That was my next question. If the Germans had it in and were using it and then when they built a new parliament building they decided to go back to the old system, what were their main reasons for doing that? Why did they throw out the electronic voting?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Again there I've made the inquiry, but I haven't received the answer. As soon as the answer comes in, I'll make sure that the clerk has it and that it's distributed to members, or if we come back before the committee, we can review that.

Mr. John Reynolds: I think, Mr. Chairman, it's very important to find out about a country that has used it and then got rid of it. As much as I've often thought it's a good idea, you just wonder....

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I confess that came as a surprise to me. I didn't realize that had been done. It was relative news to us, so we've made inquiries of our German counterparts.

Mr. John Reynolds: In your looking at it from a clerk's point of view, is there any evidence that it really will save us any time now that we're using applied votes just about all the time? For instance, we had votes last week where we had one stand-up vote and then two or three applied votes, and we were out of there very quickly. Looking at the American system, where they have to have a few minutes for each vote, I think we can get four votes through quicker here than they can in the U.S. with the way their system works.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I don't know that there's any time to be saved, really, if there's a single vote. In the matter of applied votes, you still have the situation where that depends on unanimous consent, so potentially a single member could hold up the House on the application of votes. Were the application of votes to be codified, as was discussed in the previous Parliament, then that might address some of those concerns.

Mr. John Reynolds: What about the actual costs? Has much work been done in the Speaker's office on the actual cost of installing the system and the ongoing costs as to what that would mean to us?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: We updated the figures that had originally been prepared. We're now looking at it as a full-blown and networked solution with some display capability, and we estimate that at $4 million to $6 million. The low end of the voting system, a yes-or-no button kind of thing, would cost about $2.5 million. If we were going to do the wiring for that and we did the new portable audio system—now, one must remember that a new portable audio system would be an investment in the long term that has to be made anyway—that would cost another $2 million to $3 million.

Mr. John Reynolds: So it's going to be $5 million no matter which way you do it. At the low end it may be $7 million or $8 million.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I would think so.

Mr. John Reynolds: What would the ongoing costs be versus what there is now? We have to have you clerks there, and if we're doing a whole bunch of votes, more than one to keep on changing. Would the cost be lowered if we were pressing buttons?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: The ongoing cost depends on which technological option you choose. If you choose a fully networked option, then obviously the potential problems are higher and the amount of backup staff and the redundancy of equipment and what not would be higher. So I can't really answer that question with any certainty at this point.

Mr. John Reynolds: So none of the studies we've done can actually give us a breakdown of the initial cost and the ongoing costs.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I think the studies that were done by ISD have some estimates on different options, and that again is something I can make available to the clerk. But I'd be uncomfortable making a guess at that at this point because we haven't updated them. And as I say, it depends on how sophisticated an option you go for.

Mr. John Reynolds: Fine. Thank you.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Reynolds. Next is Mr. Strahl, then Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Canadian Alliance): As is John, I'm concerned about the cost-benefit of it. We did go down and look at the one in the state legislature in Boston and also in the House of Representatives in the States. The one in Boston is a very simple system. I think one laptop runs the whole thing. It's just an on-off switch. It's very straightforward. There's just a display board. They have just enough to keep a record of it. So it's really a very simple system.

• 1125

I'm very surprised that it cost $2 million. It just seems very high for that system. The panels would be the most expensive part of the whole thing, because there is a fair chunk of light bulbs up there. But the computer is just one laptop. Also, there might be savings because somebody doesn't have to transcribe all the votes. I'm not sure how big a deal that really is. In the evening it goes to Hansard, and they transcribe all the votes, and I'm not sure if—

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: There's certainly a saving to be had there. As I say, the cost figures on this have been prepared by the chief information officer and his officials. He's out of the country at the moment, but he would be available to speak to that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I think that one of the cautionary notes we've learned to strike with seeing other applications is that in certain instances they look cheaper than they are. On the business of one computer handling things with 301 members, certainly we could pursue that to see....

Mr. Chuck Strahl: You're going to dig that up, and when we get that, it will be useful information for us.

Our system often has multiple votes. We pool our votes already. The whips have the ability to postpone votes to a further date, and then by unanimous consent we often postpone them even further. There's quite an effort to put the votes together, which means we often have multiple votes.

If you follow the example of the U.S. House, they always give a time lapse between each vote. If people didn't want to vote on the first one or whatever, they give them five minutes to come in and vote or whatever. It seems to me that in multiple voting we may actually make the thing longer. My concern really is that if we get eight or ten votes in an evening and we give that break as they do down in the States, you could end up with six or eight votes, as John described the other night, taking an hour when they normally took fifteen or twenty minutes. It's a step backward, as far as I'm concerned. It may look nice to have the electronic system, but I'm worried that the multiple voting could actually take longer.

When we study this, Mr. Chairman, I think we just have to assure ourselves that this is actually a time saver. I think the suggestion by the clerk that we may want to codify the current rule of allowing whips to apply votes may in fact be faster and cheaper. That's one concern. We'll get some of those statistics from you.

The other thing—and this is an answer the clerk can't really give to us, but just for the committee's benefit—is that I ask them to consider, too, that sometimes voting is one of the few times when we have access to the ministers. It applies on both sides of the House. I realize it looks like a big milling around of cattle in the middle of the room there, but it's sometimes the only chance you get to buttonhole a minister and put something to him or her about a case you're working on or a concern you have or even in a social context where in a non-adversarial way we get to go over and.... Even with the Prime Minister, I can go over and say “Hope you had a nice trip, Mr. Prime Minister. It's nice to see you back.” It's a social thing for maybe five or ten minutes that we never get otherwise. I think we should be careful that we don't give all of that away.

If you allow a system like they have in the States where you just come in, vote, and you're gone, because you don't have to stay for the announcement of the vote, I would have a concern that ministers would come in, vote, and go. Then we'd be sitting there saying “I have to talk to that fisheries guy. Where's the fisheries guy?” But he would not be available. So there's another caution there. The clerk can't answer this, I don't think, but I just urge that when we make a recommendation, we think of that, because on both sides of the House, when we have access to ministers in a less formal and sometimes even an almost friendly way, believe it or not, we actually can get a lot of work done in that few minutes. I just don't want to lose that. In whatever system we put together, I'm concerned that may happen.

Those are my two cautions.

The Chair: Thank you. I guess that would come under the category of “other miscellaneous”—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It would be “other matters”.

The Chair: —but nonetheless real.

Next is Mr. Jordan and then Mr. Borotsik.

• 1130

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): I'd like to pick up on what Chuck was saying because that also was my line of thinking.

I absolutely agree with you, Ms. O'Brien, that we need to start off by looking at this issue independent of technology. It's very easy and exciting to start talking about the Vulcan mind-meld approach to this, but I think what we have to take a look at first is whether the introduction of this is going to affect the way we do our jobs or the way we make decisions. I think that's the fundamental question we have to answer. We don't want to get bogged down arguing about various technologies. I think we have to make the first decision before the second decision even enters the realm of possibility, and I don't think we've made that first decision yet.

I think there potentially could be a number of unintended consequences of making this change. Chuck points out a very legitimate one. So I think it's important that we talk to people who had the German experience to find out why they decided to dump it and maybe talk to other parliaments that are using it. I'm not entirely sure what problem we're trying to solve, and I'm not sure this is going to solve it anyway once we identify it.

The time it takes to vote is a legitimate tool the opposition uses periodically. They're going to find a way to do that anyway. Half of them forget their little insertion docking stations or stand up to question whether their vote was.... If they want to delay, they can delay. I don't think we can legitimately take that option from them. It's a tool they've used rather effectively.

I think, Mr. Chair, we should stay on the issue of whether making this move is going to fundamentally change what it is we do here. It might be entertaining to talk about various technologies that are out there, but I think we have to get over that hurdle and be comfortable that we're representing the views of the rest of the members. Otherwise, we're just going to take a trip down some sort of technological lane, and I don't know if we're going to be any farther ahead with it. So I'm agreeing with your introduction.

I was struck by the fact that there seemed to have been a lot of discussion about technology. The last report was issued in 1997. You might as well toss that out because things have changed dramatically. But I think fundamentally we have to go back to asking, is this going to change the dynamics of what we do here? Is this going to change the various informal bits of power and access we have? I think that until we answer those questions, we're kind of foolish to go down the road any further. Hopefully, we can figure out a way to have that discussion, Mr. Chair, before we get into the technology, because I think we're confusing two issues.

The Chair: Next is Mr. Borotsik, followed by Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, my suggestion would be that we vote by mail. What's this electronic voting? If we could send it in by mail, we could solve a lot of problems.

To Ms. O'Brien, you said right at the onset that you were certainly a “biased proceduralist”, which is the term you used. What I'm asking for is a clarification of “biased proceduralist”. I understand “proceduralist”, but does that also mean traditionalist? Does that mean you have a bias toward the tradition we've had in this House for 130-some years?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I don't know how to answer that without getting myself in trouble.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Don't sweat the small things.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I used to be a vote-caller, so I suppose that, as one who wore that shield proudly, there's a certain amount of affection for that weird capability. It's not so much the tradition of carrying on the vote in a particular way as.... I think the best way of describing it is that I see the very real ways in which our work at the table has been changed by the introduction of computers.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Is it for the better or for the worse?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: There are divided opinions on that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: You should have been a politician.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I think there has been an important cultural change, and I think it would be unfortunate to go down a route without realizing that was going to be an outcome.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: That's the reason I asked the question.

Procedure is one thing, and one changes procedure for the better, hopefully, in order to get things to operate. A couple of the questions Mr. Jordan had were whether we are changing procedure because of a time constraint, a timeline, and whether we are doing this because we can do things better than we've done in the past? Fair ball.

Tradition, however, is a whole different thing. In this place—and, by the way, don't take this wrong—there seems to have been 130-some years of tradition unimpeded by progress in a lot of areas. And I can give you a number of examples about that unimpeded progress—there is none.

• 1135

I see technology as being with us every day. First of all, I think we should embrace technology, and I think if we can have an electronic voting system, we should seriously look at the potential that's available to us.

By the way, technology changes on a daily basis. Perhaps tomorrow we'll be doing wireless voting, as opposed to having the need for fibre optics underneath our benches and our seats.

That leads me to two questions. You said the audio will in fact have to be changed in the not-too-distant future.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: That's right. Yes.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: So we're looking at something that's a fact. If we're going to put audio underneath the floors, as you've suggested, from an infrastructure perspective do you not think it would be wise to put fibre optics in at the same time? Technology is so phenomenal that we're going to need that fibre optics at some point in time.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: The chief information officer would pale at the notion I'm speaking for him, but no doubt that's the intention. The intention would be to prepare so that you could have whatever infrastructure might be needed down the road without necessarily going to the applications until such time as the House declared itself wanting to have that.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: We're dealing with two issues. One is the technology, the fibre optics, that is going to be there within a very few years. We've agreed to that.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: That's likely.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: The other one is the political will and the tradition. That's where we have to decide whether we're prepared to throw some of that tradition away and use the political will to go forward.

In your opinion, is the real issue on electronic voting more of a time component, or is it that it would become more effective and more—well, I don't think we make a lot of mistakes, because we have wonderful people like you who make sure we don't make mistakes—more efficient to have electronic voting than what we have currently? Forget tradition, which is hard to do, because you are a traditionalist. Is it just time? Is that what we're talking about here?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Frankly, I'm not sure what you're talking about.

First of all, I wouldn't want you to think that the opening remarks were some kind of blind adherence to tradition. That wasn't my intention. But I think the voting procedures that are set up in a certain way have a certain effect, and if you change those, that's fine. But if you change them, they will be different, and they will have a different effect. It won't be simply a matter of how you vote.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Different is not necessarily all that bad.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: No, so long as you understand it's different. But if you want to get to Spain and you end up in Tanzania, you might be surprised and maybe not so happily.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Maybe it's better than Spain.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Well, there you go.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Next on my list is Mr. Blaikie, followed by Mr. Guimond.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, I have not so much a question as a comment on the ongoing discussion about this, which has been ongoing for some time.

I think we need to be careful not to characterize this as a conflict between tradition and progress. I think the best of conservative thinking would call on us to ask about British traditions, not just whether they are traditions in the pejorative sense of the word but whether they are sound practices that have been established for good reason, and not only to be abandoned if other good reasons can be established.

I think that's what we have to do when we're thinking about whether or not to adopt electronic voting. The reasons for adopting electronic voting have changed over the years, depending on the political context in the House. It seems to me that the latest stimulus for this debate has been all the time it has taken to vote in these marathon voting sessions we've had at report stage with regard to the Nisga'a bill, the clarity bill, etc. I think—at least, that's the way I feel—it's sometimes coming not so much from the government collectively but from the government House leader and others who have mentioned this. I think Mr. Strahl was on to something there when he suggested that actually, if you're going to have multiple voting, the electronic voting is not going to solve that problem. That problem has to be solved in some other way.

• 1140

It would be a mistake, a profound analytical mistake as well as a political mistake, for us to try to solve that problem by moving to electronic voting. That is a political problem, and it needs to be solved by some give and take on the part of both the government and the opposition to come up with a better way of organizing how we do that particular item of business and what other things might be changed in return for some relinquishing of the power to obstruct in that particular way.

I haven't been to Boston, but I did have an opportunity once.... I hesitate for Mr. Strahl's sake to mention the McGrath committee. We did study it at that time, and one of the things that struck me at that time was that they do allow a certain period of time. In fact, they have to allow a certain period of time. It would be irresponsible not to allow a certain period of time. Of course, because they don't have anything like the kind of party or bloc voting that we have here, every individual has to have the time to consider what is on the board, how they're going to vote, and take time to confirm their vote, etc.

So this would not solve our multiple votes problem in terms of time at all, and I think we should dispense with that illusion as quickly as possible.

The original, if I might say—not that nothing ever happened before the McGrath committee; I'm not sure if it was ever considered before that, but the original rationale for recommending electronic voting is something that hasn't come up in this debate at all, and that is that it was part and parcel of a report that wanted to see more free voting in the House of Commons. It was felt that electronic voting was more anonymous and that electronic voting would create a context in which people would be less inclined to vote with their party, if they didn't want to vote with their party, because they would not have to stand up in front of all of their colleagues and vote against their caucus and be subjected to what now happens—unfortunately, I think, but nevertheless people on the other side of the House clap and make a big deal out of the fact that they voted differently.

So what was behind this recommendation in 1985 was that electronic voting...it wasn't a question of efficiency or anything like that; it was trying to change the culture of the House to make voting more anonymous. I think people should be aware of that.

I went along with that; it was part of a package. I didn't like it particularly at the time. That was a part of the report I wasn't crazy about, but you've all written such reports. My attitude since then has been to resist electronic voting for a variety of other reasons. I like that element of the rationale for electronic voting.

It's not going to solve our multiple voting thing, and I don't think we should consider doing it. We could have studies on it and that sort of thing, but I don't think we should consider doing it before this place is renovated. It just doesn't make any sense to try to spend all this money and then have to move it to a temporary chamber, etc. I think it is actually for a future Parliament when we know, okay, the building is empty; the Centre Block is empty, it's being renovated, and now is the time, based on homework that is done between now and then, whether or not we want to build an electronic voting system into that new infrastructure. I don't think there is any compelling reason for us to do it now. There are a lot of compelling fallacies that give us more reason to think this would be a good idea than is actually the case.

I'll leave it there for the moment.

The Chair: I want to thank Mr. Blaikie for raising that one important point about the original intent of the McGrath committee recommendations. I personally would have taken more time later to walk us through that had you not done such a good job at this point in time. But I will add to that, as we're dealing with these intangibles surrounding voting, colleagues, that in the efforts of trying to achieve more efficiency and speed with our voting, we have now allowed our whips to appear to be brokers of our votes. If we are doing more than applying votes, even if we're just applying, if we're actually going beyond a simple application and actually having the whip vote the votes of the members, it is the view of this one simple member that that particular process not only appears to be but is insidious of the member's own privilege of voting.

• 1145

If it's tough to break with party ranks when you're doing a roll call vote and standing up one by one, think of how doubly difficult it is to break ranks and stand up and depart from the position your whip has publicly taken in the House, having already taken your darn vote and attempted to vote it, with the consent of the House, of course.

So I wanted to add that issue to the one presented by Mr. Blaikie. It all has to do with the ability of members to vote their vote as was originally intended when democracies developed.

I'll go now to Mr. Guimond, followed by Mr. Fontana.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de- Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Ms. O'Brien, I just want to make sure I understood you properly, even if you did say it in French. Did you actually say that renovations to the House were scheduled for 2012? Is that so? There must be a new schedule, because I had seen a much earlier date.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Yes, I did say 2012. I checked again this morning, because I knew the renovations issue would probably come up and wanted to confirm the date. I am now told it is 2012.

Mr. Michel Guimond: What is the schedule for construction of the temporary House of Commons?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: That should be done first, but I am not exactly sure when West Block will be ready to accommodate the temporary House of Commons. Maybe in 2009.

Mr. Michel Guimond: Okay. On page 4 of the French version of Mr. Robertson's report, which is very good, it says that another factor or component to be considered is additional staff. Do you know if that is the case? If so, how many new employees are anticipated?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I cannot give you an exact number at this point. But I think Mr. Robertson was probably referring to additional staff to run the equipment in the House. Depending on the complexity of the equipment, we may not need more staff, but more sophisticated staff, if, say, it was all part of the parliamentary network. If it is not part of the network, then I am told it is easier to run the equipment and to maintain it.

Mr. Michel Guimond: So you do not anticipate more staff.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: No.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have one last question, Mr. Chairman. On page 6 of the same document—and maybe the question should be for Mr. Robertson—the last point on the timetable reads "establish in advance when votes are to take place."

I do not quite follow. Would electronic voting change the 15-minute bell? I assume there would still be a 15- or 30-minute bell.

• 1150

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I think there would still be a bell. It would be up to the House to decide or to the committee to make recommendations. In my opinion, members would gather in the House or lobbies in order for the vote to take place, according to the chosen method, there would have to be a bell in order to give members time to come together.

It would remain to be decided how long the bells should ring: 15 minutes or 30 minutes. Since that works now, I do not think there would be any need to change it. However, I think one suggestion was to let members vote while the bells were ringing. So if the bells rang for 15 minutes, instead of waiting for the whips to arrive, as is current practice, people could vote right away. If you are wondering whether this would save time or not, you have to realize that people would vote right away on the first question, but then would have to wait until everyone had voted before moving on to the second question. So you see why it is hard to say whether or not this would save time.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I would like you to tell me how voting time will be set in advance. For instance, leaders could agree that a given vote will be held on Tuesday at 6:30 p.m. Electronic voting would not change this procedure. It would not necessarily be an improvement.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: No. What we could do, for instance, as the simplest solution, would be to announce that we will proceed with an electronic vote rather than a recorded division, as is done now, and everything else would remain exactly the same.

For instance, voting devices, with buttons or other things, could not be turned on before the whips arrive, as is already the case. This could be specified. We could keep all the current conditions, except for voting electronically. We could also change conditions, but there is nothing to say that conditions should change because we are voting electronically.

Mr. Michel Guimond: I have a final comment to make, Mr. Chairman.

Regarding the answer given by Ms. O'Brien to Mr. Reynolds regarding the Australian system, I was a part of the parliamentary delegation that went to Canberra in January 2000. It is a new Parliament, two or three years old at the most, and they do, in fact, still have a traditional voting system. On the other hand, at the Sofia National Assembly in Bulgaria, even though the average annual income in that country is perhaps 2,000 Canadian dollars, they have an electronic voting system.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Fontana and Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think this is the tenth year that I'll be talking about electronic voting before this committee and this Parliament. There were the same questions ten years ago as there are today.

Let me put it in this context. Everyone around this table knows that our job as members of Parliament is changing dramatically, and that of the administration. We can discuss the hows, the whens, and wheres, taking into account that you want to keep as much of our good traditions but put them in a modern context. I agree that the House of Commons essentially is sometimes a little bit more, and should be more, than a debating House. In fact it is an opportunity for members to work with one another, to talk, to socialize, to essentially do what politicians do best. But I think the basic question is, why would we want to do it? It comes down to having to bridge...and becoming a little bit modern.

I don't know about you, but it would seem to me—and I want you to think about the broader vision about what that House of Commons should be. In my opinion, it's appalling. I think a lot of us who have travelled around the world.... I think Canada is probably in the lower one-third of countries, even modern countries, that doesn't have some sort of electronic voting. The question is, why did all those other countries do it and we didn't?

If one wanted to get down to the assessment and the audit, the value-for-money audit, I can tell you it saves a heck of an awful lot of money, even though that shouldn't be the overriding concern. And yes, we're doing an awful lot of unique things. Having the whips vote for me by standing up, and that's becoming very efficient.... I think the chairman has raised an important issue. Joe Fontana may want to push the button or express his opinion and not have the whips say we're all voting this way on this particular motion. But each and every time we have a roll call, it takes eight minutes—you can't do it any faster—as opposed to a system that will take 12 seconds to do the same thing.

• 1155

I don't want to get into time, but it would seem to me that if there has to be a recorded vote...and people will ask if there is any time to be saved. Of course. It's eight minutes as opposed to 15 seconds, so everybody can register their vote. That's a time saving. I don't think I have to tell you anymore that time should be very important to us. I don't know about you, but.... Let's use the example where we had to sit around for 24 hours, at great peril to some people's health, I might add. We shouldn't be apologetic, but listen, we went through heck, and for some of our members it is extremely stressful.

If we want to do a good job for our constituents...and it took 24 hours to vote on a whole bunch of amendments. That's democracy. It should occur. Instead of 24 hours, we could have taken all those amendments and done them in six hours. Look at how much it costs, having to keep the administration going, everything burning, the lights on and so on, including our time, our staff time. Pool all that together. That's a tremendous amount of money, taxpayers' money, that is being paid when in fact we could have used technology to express our democratic right in a much more efficient way. That's what it comes down to.

We should keep the traditions of being in our seats, of being there, not changing it, and perhaps in second reading stand up as we do now. But when there are 100, 200, or 300 amendments, let's face it, I think we can do that but I think we can do it that much more efficiently. Hopefully the study we will do will cover all of those things.

The other thing I want to ask is why. It would seem to me that while we're sitting there...what can you do in the House of Commons? You can read newspapers, you can do correspondence, you can do a whole bunch of other things, but if our time is valuable to us—and I don't know about you, but our constituency office and citizens who contact us expect us to be in contact with them, to do some of the good work. It would seem to me that if we didn't have to sit around for six or eight hours—and yes, it's important to do the socializing and so on with ministers and everybody else, and we can do that. Just imagine if we got some of the work done in a much more efficient way, there could be some of that. But let's face it, time is very precious to us. I know I could use it much better by working on constituency correspondence or working for my constituents if I didn't have to sit there for 8 or 10 or 15 hours on some occasions. Let's talk about the value of our time to the equation of having to sit there and go through this exercise. If we can do it in a technological way that will do exactly the same thing but will save us some time, why not?

The other thing, too, that I find appalling—and some of the members will attest to this—is if you wanted to do some work in the House of Commons now.... We were talking about having to build infrastructure. First of all, let's not wait until 2012. Every schoolroom in the country is going to be connected to the Internet in the next two years. Do you mean to tell me that the Parliament of Canada can't be connected? It's taken us an awful long time—and I've been here for 12 years—for us to even get some modern equipment in our offices so that we can do a better job, so that we can do some very good work. Surely to God, we're not talking about waiting until 2012 for a new House of Commons before we put some wires in the floor so that we get better audio. Let's face it, some members want to bring their computers to the House of Commons now. How can you do your work on a computer with the facilities we have, or don't have, in the House of Commons now? You have to ask for a long extension cord to get to the nearest plug so that you can sit there for two or three hours to work on your computer, or you'd have to save it and transfer the disc to your office upstairs, as opposed to having a simple little connection at one's desk that you can plug in at least and do some very good work. Surely we've come to the age where we need to become modernized too.

So I would hope the study talks a little bit about being a little creative and innovative as to how we can do our jobs in a much better way. That's not to get rid of traditions. That's not to diminish the role of the House of Commons and each member's.... But if we can take the opportunity of modernizing ourselves to the point that, yes, each and every vote should count, but we can do it using technology on a much more efficient basis, that's what I would suggest.

• 1200

Mr. Chairman, I know we're talking about further study and the political will and why we should do this, but perhaps even more important is the how, when, and where. We need to have the answers to the how, when, and where so that we can deal with the why, and the political will that may or may not exist.

I'm sorry, I might have missed something, but I know over the past ten years there's been a heck of an awful lot of paperwork, more than just the 12 here. Am I missing something, or has somebody just not distributed all of the studies and all of the work that has been done over the past four or five years, where we just about came to a decision on costing, on answering some of these questions? Have I missed something, or is this just a...?

The Chair: I think the answer lies in the fact that we have about 20 years of various studies, and Mr. Robertson made an attempt to synthesize things, make it simpler for us. I don't think he left out anything.

Would you like to comment on that, Mr. Robertson?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): I think the only document that was not circulated was the business case that was prepared in January of 1998. The components of that are summarized in the briefing note, which is available if members wish.

Mr. Joe Fontana: In that discussion, I know that we went from a very simplified system where you can vote yes, no, or abstain and having the boards done very nicely so that they fit within the architecture of the building to a much more sophisticated system where in fact you would have a computer screen at each and every desk. So the cost went from a low of $1.5 million.... I can tell you that there are not very many people in the software business in terms of electronic voting; if you look around the world, there are two or three that have supplied most of the world in terms of electronic voting. So it went from $1.5 million or $2 million all the way up to $5 million or $6 million, if in fact you were going to provide each and every member with a nice computer at their desk or a computerized desk version that could allow for voting as well as Internet connection and so on and so forth.

Again, the study—

The Chair: Did you want to put a question?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes. I'm sorry.

Just in terms of those costings, I know that the clerk or deputy clerk talked about $5 million you would need anyway. I'm sorry, but every time we start talking about that, that scares people all to hell that we would be spending $5 million of taxpayers' money, when we've probably blown $20 million in extra costs somewhere else.

I wonder if the clerk could put that in the context of what the infrastructure would cost. Hopefully, if we get a study we would invite an RFP. We would have a request for proposals from those people who are in the business of doing this for other countries and other institutions. They could provide us with some real tangible information as to what the true cost would be—the capital expenditure, the operating expenditures, and also we would do the cost analysis of how much money we would save by implementing such a thing.

I wonder if you could clarify that, Audrey, for me.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, the information I have here is basically an update to the costs that were originally put forward in 1998, which obviously, as you realize, would have gone up. The low end of the electronic voting proposal that was in that document, which had then been talked about at one point as $1.5 million to $2 million, would now be roughly $2.5 million.

The full-blown network stations that you're talking about, where people could be accessing the Internet and what have you, assuming all of those questions had been resolved, would be about $4.6 million.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Could I ask, why has that $1.5 million now gone to $2.5 million? Is there something that's happened in the past? Is that just inflation, or...?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: That's, as far as I know, just inflation basically. It was $1.5 million to $2 million, and to be on the safe side, I guess we're doing $2 million to $2.5 million.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay, so that's just estimates.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Oh yes, yes, absolutely, because there's been no.... They're informed estimates, certainly better informed than I might be, inasmuch as they're prepared by the information technology officials.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Tirabassi, and then Ms. Catterall.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Certainly in my short tenure and not having had the opportunity yet to visit other systems and see it hands on, nor even had the opportunity to digest some of the previous reports on this issue, which I'm sure would be readily available, I'd like to make my initial comments based on the two reports I have in front of me.

• 1205

This of course doesn't speak to tradition, because that's perhaps a whole other intangible, but when you're looking at a change of this magnitude, and one has to admit that it is quite a significant change, I'm looking for what the benefits are going to be.

When I look at the report from Mr. Robertson and the first four bullets under the first page, he speaks to advantages. I want to make sure that there's a distinction made, because I don't think it is in the report.

The first bullet speaks to the fact that the installation of an electronic voting system would result in significant time savings, from roughly eight minutes on a roll-call vote, down to about two minutes per recorded vote. I don't know if that's an advantage. I know it's a feature of a new system, but of what benefit would that feature be? Certainly if those types of votes are taken very infrequently there would be a time savings, but to what benefit and what advantage could that time be used elsewhere? How does that translate into dollars saved in the House? That's quantitative. So that's the first point I'd like to make on that.

The second bullet speaks to an electronic voting system having the advantage of providing complete results immediately and accurately. Again, I don't know if that's an advantage or a benefit. I know it's a feature of a new system, but of what benefit is it, compared to how we do things now? That you can really get your hands on—what is the benefit?

The third bullet is that electronic recording of voting could facilitate statistical and other analysis of voting records. Great. To me that isn't an advantage, that's a feature. What is the benefit, compared to how we do things now?

We have to put all these measurements up against what we've been doing and then the price that this is eventually going to take us to. Again, this does not speak to the intangibles.

The next bullet states that with an electronic voting system the question or other matter before the House could be displayed on an electronic display panel or otherwise be made available to members and viewers. This comes under the heading “advantage”. I see that as a feature. What is the benefit, and as a result of it, is there an advantage? I don't know if you follow me, but there's a clear distinction to be made there, and often the confusion is between features and benefits.

Those are going to be some of the criteria I use as we go along here. I'm going to want to see some actual savings that you can put up against the costs of this whole system. Certainly it's going to be up to me to take into account.... I hope that future reports speak to that a little more, because that's what I'm going to be looking for.

Those are all the comments I have for now, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Tirabassi.

I'll just bootleg on this issue of financial benefit.

Predecessor committees have attempted to quantify the value of a member's time in dollars. It's a very imprecise science. I did discuss this briefly with Ms. O'Brien before the meeting. I'd like to ask the clerk to take a stab at putting a dollar value on an MP's hourly time, just so we have something, even if it's a range, to work with. We know MPs draw a salary, and we know there are office expenses. If there are any accountants around the table, there just has to be some ability to quantify the value of our time.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just don't pay me what I'm worth, because I can't survive on that.

The Chair: Mr. Strahl may want to opt out on the final number.

Could I ask the clerk, as tough as it is—I know there have been attempts to do it before—to give us some idea of a raw-dollar cost if it could be connected to a dollar cost.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, as we discussed yesterday, it's a very dangerous prospect to find oneself putting a dollar figure to MPs' time. If you want us to come up with some species of formula, then we can try to do that. Certainly what we can try to do is to come up with a cost figure for an hour of the House sitting with all attendant services and recording and so forth. Then people perhaps can feature into it....

• 1210

It seems to me that the value of your time in the House in one sense is invaluable. On the other hand, it gets weighed against where you would be if you weren't there voting.

The Chair: In the hope that we don't have to reinvent the wheel, I know that the compensation commissions that reappear after every election have made an attempt to quantify—

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: We will certainly look at that.

The Chair: —a member of Parliament. Then you have the members' office expenses, which should be rolled into that, or at least their office budgets. And then, as I also mentioned to you yesterday, there's also this issue of quantifying what it costs to run the House of Commons. It may be difficult to come up with a figure on that, but I know at some point in the past someone has made a stab at trying to figure out what it costs to run the House of Commons per hour.

Any figure that can be related to real costs might help some members do the cost-benefit. You can put all the provisos you want on the stab that you make, on the guestimate you make; it doesn't matter, as long as there's something we can use as a rule of thumb.

I'll move to Ms. Catterall and then Mr. McNally.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): I have a couple of comments on points that have been made.

Mr. Blaikie said we can always have studies, even if we're not looking forward to doing anything. I have a real problem. I see absolutely no point in spending money on studies that are going to become irrelevant, unless you plan to implement the results fairly soon, because they simply have to be redone when you get to the time when you do want to implement. We only have to ask how many studies, at what cost, have been done over the years about the restoration of the buildings based on a much earlier schedule for renovation than we now actually have in front of us.

So you do the studies when you're ready to move, and not because you think that at some time down the line you might. Especially in the field of information technology, you don't do studies in advance of need, because even while you're doing the study the possibilities are going to change.

Mr. Fontana referred to a value-for-money audit that's been done of systems like this. I wonder if in fact we have that kind of information. Has there been any such study done?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: There was the 1998 study that I think was presented to the committee that had cost comparisons in two different options. On the one hand, the low end—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Just a minute. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about a value-for-money audit.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: No.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Not a cost....

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Not to my knowledge. I'll look into it, but not to my knowledge.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. The second issue that's come up from several members was the issue of time. It may take twelve seconds to vote, but what's important to us is not how long it takes to vote but what's the lapse time between one vote and the next vote. Do we have any information on that?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: The information we have is that this is in fact discretionary in terms of the system you set up. If there isn't a series of votes, at least the way I read the information we've gathered, there isn't a perceptible gaining of time. It's true that the individual member will not have to wait until all of the votes have to proceed—or rather if there is a single vote the member will perhaps be able to vote in the twelve seconds available—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But in terms of the time of the House.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: In terms of the time of the House, you're still going to have to have the time for everybody to vote. You're going to have to have the time for people who are having difficulties voting for whatever reason. Then you have to have the next question put, and so forth. So ultimately, I don't know that this is an efficiency. There may be some gains in time.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Okay. From the time one vote is called until the time the result is announced, do we have any comparisons we can do between our current method and electronic voting?

• 1215

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Right now it takes between eight and ten minutes to do a recorded division. If after one recorded division those votes are applied, I would say that it would take a shorter amount of time than electronic voting would.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In most places where they have electronic voting, how long does it take on average from the time the vote is called to the time it's actually completed?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: It depends on the kinds of safety nets they have in place for changing the votes, for the whips to realize what votes have been cast and to conceivably argue with the casters of those votes, and so forth.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So the whip doesn't disappear with the use of electronic voting—

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: No, arguably, the whip becomes a fisher.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The chair mentioned this is an insidious process that we've developed of applying votes. I have heard nothing from members of Parliament on either side of the House with regard to applying votes except great anticipation and eagerness, frankly. If people are feeling they're being deprived of something, that's not what they're expressing to me or, I think, to each other. I happen to think it's a pretty good invention.

If we're going to go further with this, I'd appreciate having some concrete information. What would be the comparison in time if we were doing votes in the House the way we're doing them now and if we had electronic voting? Saving time seems to be the main driving force behind considering this.

I did have a—

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. I want to follow up—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Can I finish and then you can follow up, Joe?

Mr. Joe Fontana: No, it was on the same question. This needs to be answered, because it's causing all kinds of confusion, and I think some misinformation is causing all kinds of problems.

Could we just stick to the question of timing? If I could, Marlene, you said that as the system works now, the Speaker gets up and says we are voting on motions 15, 16, and 17. There needs to be a recorded division, which takes eight to ten minutes, and it is then tabulated or announced. The Speaker then asks—because we're all going to be in our seats, nothing changes—for the next vote, which may very well be applied or recorded. It all is based on the goodwill of the minimum of one member, and there has to be unanimous consent. But while we're sitting there talking about one particular bill or even other bills, there's no time between one vote and another. The Speaker gets up and says now we will be voting on—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If I may, Mr. Chair, I think this is my time. If Joe wants to add something afterwards, he can.

The point is that I would like to know what in fact the practical experience is in other jurisdictions. I don't think it's that quick, that you suddenly go into another vote without another time lapse. I don't think that is in fact what happens. If there is some information on real experience, that's what I would be interested in having.

I was very interested—and I don't think we can get into this now—in the discussion about what difference the technology makes in how Parliament functions. I don't know if there's any documentation or research on that, but that's an area I would be very interested in knowing more about.

My other question is, why do you need a display board? How that would impact on the heritage of the chamber seems to be one of the major hang-ups. I don't particularly like neon display boards, except in arenas. Why are they needed? Who's it for?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: That would be a question for the committee to answer. Right now there is no means of informing everybody except for the fact that they see people rise and they know people have risen and voted. Then they have the announcement of the vote. So there's no tangible evidence, if you will, of who has voted, except for their own observation. It would be—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: If we had a monitor at each desk, would we need the display boards?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: You could have a monitor at each desk or monitors—

Ms. Marlene Catterall: In the lobby, for instance.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Yes.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Unless it's for some other purpose, I don't know why it's necessary.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: You could decide to handle the business of monitors in different ways. You could have them for the whips and in the lobbies for party members if you didn't want to go to the point of having monitors for everyone.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So it's not a necessary component of the system. Okay. Thank you.

The Chair: Next is Mr. McNally, followed by Mr. Saada.

• 1220

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Thanks, Mr. Chair.

Just to enter into this debate a bit, I think Mr. Jordan was right when he said we can deal later with all the technical questions. First of all, we have to answer the question, do we do this? There possibly could be time saving, possibly not. That's a debatable item, too. I think the bigger point, which was mentioned by the chair and Mr. Blaikie, is the parliamentary reform aspect of it, that it changes the dynamics of what we as members are doing in the House.

I'd just like to refer quickly to the paper Mr. Robertson put together that summarized the reasons against going to electronic voting. The second bullet says that there would be a loss of more visible stand-up votes and less air time on TV for members. How many people are actually watching us do that? I don't know if that's a very strong argument.

The third bullet says that there could be a possible misunderstanding or confusion about what's being voted on. I would hope that would inspire members to be more informed about exactly what they're doing, that we're doing the nation's business here and that we had better know what we're voting on and be very clear about it before we even enter the chamber.

That goes to the last point, which I think is also a poor argument against electronic voting, that whether the question is fully understood by all members of the party creates more work for the whip. Again, it puts the onus on the member to be responsible for what they're doing and to be informed about what this decision is all about. I would say that one of the big reasons we need to move to electronic voting is for that very point, that it changes the dynamics of the voting process.

I think it has benefits for the government side as well. Obviously, there are going to be members of the government who might be more inclined to vote against particular motions or bills, but in the same way it would encourage the government to seek out support from opposition members, because there are going to be opposition members who are not going to support their own party's position on that. It's going to force a new dynamic of non-partisanship in the House in such a way that I think we've never seen before. I think that's perhaps the biggest reason for making this move. It's going to encourage us to look at the issues and then be more accountable to our constituents as well in terms of what we're voting on.

The excuse of “I was voting the party line” is pretty much out the window if we move to this new dynamic where we need to be informed and to know what's going on. It creates an opportunity for more non-partisan working together, and it increases the role and function of the individual MP.

It also signals, I think, to Canadians that we're willing to move out of the 1867 voting modes the founders of our nation were using and that we're operating under. It's going to signal to Canadians that as parliamentarians we are looking to move ahead and to do business in a different way.

The Chair: Ms. O'Brien.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Mr. Chairman, I think the point raised by Mr. McNally is a very good illustration of what I was rather confusedly trying to explain in terms of procedural concerns: the notion that the question that is before the House at any given point is clear and is clearly understood is something that is incumbent right now upon the chair.

One of the things that will have to be carefully examined in any move to a different system of voting is to ensure that if there are seriatim votes, let's say, the question on which a given vote is being taken is very clear, whether that be in display monitors with coloured bands coming down on a given notice paper of deferred votes or that kind of thing. So those are the sorts of very practical concerns I meant. I just thought I'd piggyback on Mr. McNally's very lucid comments to explain what practical procedural concerns we have.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. McNally and Ms. O'Brien.

Now we go to Mr. Saada and Mr. Dubé. We'll wrap up there.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): My comments will be quite brief. This is the year 2001. So, I would spontaneously be attracted to electronic voting, which would be a more modern way of doing things.

That being said, I understand that it has its advantages and drawbacks. This is why we will have to discuss this more in depth before going any further. However, some things that were said raise questions in my mind. For instance, when one vote is applied to the following vote, it is faster than voting, even if we vote electronically. But we know very well that one of the means for democratic expression in the House is the private member's bill.

• 1225

There is no vote for private members' bills. When we have three private members' bills, we must vote three times. Thus, it would be interesting to know the statistics on this, regarding how many times we voted on private bills, so as to know how many times the vote was applied. We must take this into account in calculating how long it takes in real time.

The second element is personal contact. I think that Mr. Strahl was the first to raise the issue of personal contact. It is quite conceivable that electronic voting will not change the basic conditions of voting. We could very well preserve the conditions in the House where people can talk to one another before the vote. Thus, I am not convinced that this is an argument against electronic voting. It is just another constraint to be taken into account.

On the other hand, I believe that voting during the bells would eliminate some of the flexibility that the current Standing Orders allow. As soon as the bell rings, the whip can, in certain cases, intervene to request that the vote be delayed. Obviously, if we vote during the bells, there's no way of delaying the vote. This is a technical problem.

Mr. McNally is quite right regarding the myth of the visibility of voting. When my son is watching television during a vote, we have a code between us: when I take off my glasses, it means that I am saying hello to him. But apart from this, not many people watch television while we are voting. They are very very few indeed.

I do not remember who raised this matter, but there is certainly a contradiction, because on the one hand, there is more visibility when you stand up to vote, but on the other hand, we are very happy whenever we can apply the results of one vote to another vote. There is a basic contradiction. Do we want to be seen or not? Thus, the issue is not clear.

I think that we absolutely must preserve traditions, because without traditions, the institution no longer exists. This is very clear.

As for maintaining informal contacts, I do believe that we must maintain them. After all, before being politicians, we are human beings and we need to communicate. But at the same time, I do not want to lightly discard the possibility of electronic voting under the pretext that it could lead to extreme complications, high costs, etc. I want to keep an open mind and see how things develop.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Saada.

Mr. Dubé.

[Translation]

Mr. Antoine Dubé (Lévis-et-Chutes-de-la-Chaudière, BQ): There are four points I wish to raise. As I am replacing somebody, I will express my opinion and not that of the party. I want to say that right off.

I went to Brazil once, with a parliamentary delegation. They have electronic voting. So, I wondered why and to what advantage. Now the main reason is that in the Brazilian parliament, there is not enough space for desks for new members. Thus, they adopted an electronic system because some backbenchers without assigned seats have to share desks. This allowed them to vote. So, it was mainly for reasons of space management.

Personally, I agreed with Mr. Fontana's arguments about a member's use of time. I think that we should also consider the staff's time. While you were speaking, I was thinking about this. I thought that we should really have access, in the House, to a computer, a communications system, and basically everything that we have in our office. We should be able to do that.

For instance, most of the time, voting takes place on Tuesday evening. Now eight minutes does seem like very little time, but we barely need 15 seconds to rise and sit down, and the rest of the time...

I am not forgetting the aspect of an informal context and all that. Besides, this applies to all the time we spend in the House, whether we are on House duty or otherwise. We could access information rather than turn on our computers.

During voting time, for instance, we could communicate with our office. We would have time to write a brief message to our assistants in our offices to remind them of something or to ask them to remind us of something. We could also receive messages. While watching the House at work, I see that some members use the pages to pass short notes back and forth. I was imagining a situation like that.

• 1230

Therefore, electronic communications is a part of the issue, but it is not necessarily linked to electronic voting. We don't need electronic voting to acquire those tools. I think that these are two distinct topics and that all your arguments are correct and even if we kept the traditional way of voting, members could make better use of their time during these periods where, let's face it, all of us, myself included can sometimes get bored. We have to stay in our seats and we can only speak to our neighbours.

If we could only spend our time better in this way, it would be an improvement!

As for the third point, I think that Mr. McNally touched on it. Debate must resume within caucuses. The whips, leaders or the people here at this table may have opinions, but we must go back to the caucuses. Often, a backbencher may, in his caucus, hear a different opinion than that of the leader, the whip or the deputy whip. That is often where people go after their vote, but it would be interesting to hear other opinions on the issue.

I would like to state that each party should go to its caucus, to get the opinions of all the members. We might be surprised to see that the opinions are different from those expressed here today. I think that they might be different.

The basic issue, which Mr. McNally raised before I did, is the party line. Whether we vote electronically or not, if the party line remains the same, the results will not change. Time is another issue. We should raise this matter at another time.

Another thing that has to be said is that there are advantages for the party in power. The traditional method also has advantages for opposition parties even though we could delegate our vote to the whip, and this, in fact, would take little time. But we know that this is another issue.

On the other hand, in certain cases this argument does not hold, in my opinion, because if a party wants to spend more time negotiating a given amendment, it has other ways to go about it. If each member of each party takes his speaking time in the House while a bill or a motion is being debated, the result will almost be the same.

I am a diabetic and I remember that several times, we sat all night, for 24 consecutive hours. Not everyone is in excellent health and diabetics must go out to inject insulin and eat according to a regular schedule. I only speak for myself. My illness does not stop me from functioning, but circumstances like those do create certain problems for me. I am aware of this issue, but I have enough experience—and I think that you do also—to understand that there is the whole issue of parliamentary party strategy that is not necessarily being raised here, but that does, to my mind, influence various members' opinions.

Mr. Jacques Saada: He is not doing too badly, for a substitute.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Colleagues, we've reached the end of our window, and everyone who wanted to ask questions or have input has. We have actually covered, from my point of view, all of the field. There are not many issues we've left unaddressed.

With your permission, I will work with Mr. Robertson to create a follow-up document in point form—he doesn't know this yet—something that will attempt to frame the pros and cons we've touched on here today.

I want to ask the deputy clerk and the clerk to make an attempt to do the two calculations I've asked about, as difficult as it is. That would be a valuation of House time in peacetime and a valuation of an MP's time in peacetime, normal conditions. Anything will do.

Ms. O'Brien, you mentioned that.... I've forgotten the title of the individual who was preparing financial information.

• 1235

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I mentioned the chief information officer.

We've been taking notes of various information that I promised to provide: why Germany has abandoned the electronic voting system and so forth, as well as the updates of the cost information provided by the chief information officer and his officials in the 1998 document, and we'll have a stab at your formulas.

The Chair: If it becomes impossible, for whatever reason, let me know.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: You promised me it wouldn't be a career-terminating move.

The Chair: That's right. Colleagues, I'm sure, will understand.

In terms of how we will pursue this, I understand our third day coming up will be pre-empted by a special event in the chamber.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: The joint address of Prime Minister Blair.

The Chair: So it would flip over till next Tuesday. So there is roughly a week for you to make those preparations.

Barring any unforeseen events, we'll come back to our next meeting next Tuesday and continue discussion on this.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: We're at your disposal.

The Chair: Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.