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, May 29, 2001

• 1107

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I see a quorum. I'll call the meeting to order. We have about four items on our agenda today. I'm going to call them in not quite the order that's there. I'd like to call item C first and then item B second, item D third, and item A fourth. So that's C, B, D, A, if that's okay. I picked what I think are the easiest, most disposable items first.

The first item is a report from the subcommittee on private members' business on votable items. We have a draft in front of us, as is the usual procedure. Mr. Guimond from the subcommittee is here and he's prepared to move the motion, explain the report, and, if necessary, answer any questions.

I'll recognize Ms. Gallant on a point of order.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): Is this the standing committee on procedure in regard to electronic voting? Is that what you're referring to?

The Chair: No. We're dealing with item C, which is a report from the subcommittee on private members' business selecting votable items.

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business met several times. Today, we are prepared to table a report which includes only one recommendation. Those of us who were already here during the 36th Parliament will recall that an incredible amount of difficulties or problems arose from the 100-signature approach to speed up...

[English]

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Guimond. We actually wanted to deal with the report from the private members' business subcommittee on votable items. Are you going to be moving that?

• 1110

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I want to take back what I already said. The subcommitte recommends that you agree that Mrs. Desjarlais' item, that is Bill C-284, and Mr. Williams' motion M-296, be deemed votable and, consequently, be placed as such on the order of precedence. I so move.

[English]

The Chair: There's the motion. Is there any discussion of that? This procedure is following the usual procedure. Are there any questions about the bills? Problems? Seeing none, I'll go to Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chair, could I beg the indulgence of the committee for an update on exactly what we're about to pass?

The Chair: We're considering a report from the private members' subcommittee on votable items. There are two votable items suggested or proposed. Mr. Guimond has moved the adoption of that report.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: All right.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Colleagues, since this report is always confidential until presented in the House, and since many colleagues are always anxious to know what's happened, I want to canvass the opposition parties if there would be consent to revert to routine proceedings at some point for the purpose of reporting this to the House sometime later today. That would simplify the work of some of us.

Secondly, colleagues, you will be aware that another bill from the Senate, Bill S-14, adopted in the Senate and sent to the House for its consideration as a private members' business item, Bill S-14, involving the creation of a Sir John A. Macdonald and Sir Wilfrid Laurier day, has been referred here to us. This committee would have to make a determination on whether this should be votable or not. We've had discussions earlier about the routine designation of Senate bills as votable. And while it is our convention to do that, I'm suggesting we take up this issue at a future meeting.

The first day of debate on Bill S-14 is coming up soon, so the mover of the bill should be looking for an exchange to delay the first day consideration of that bill. But I think, colleagues, we should be discussing how we handle what appears to be an increasing number of Senate-generated private members' bills, which may or may not have some collaboration with members of the House, who find the House private members' bill procedure a little too cumbersome. So I think we should take that up at another meeting.

If we're all agreed on that, we'll defer this consideration of Bill S-14 to the next or second next meeting. Is that all right?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Thank you.

Now we'll move onto item B. This is the “Membership of a Special Committee on non-medical use of drugs”. This matter has been referred to this committee directly from the House, arising out of an opposition day motion adopted in the House. I'm advised by one or more whips that the whips are still considering the structure of the committee and the membership on it, so it would be premature for us to do this. We have a deadline imposed by the House. I believe it's this Thursday. So I think what I will suggest is that we defer this until Thursday morning, and if we need further disposition to comply with the House's deadline, we'll take it up then. And hopefully the House leaders and whips will have resolved the issue.

Is that okay, then?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

• 1115

The Chair: So we'll defer that until Thursday morning, or to the call of the chair, if it becomes necessary to do something more quickly in consultation with the party whips.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wonder whether we couldn't discuss now what I would think would be the likely need to go back to the House for some more time on this. It seems to me, with the one critical motion that was passed, and that's good, and I'm fully supportive of the idea of having such a committee... But given the fact that the committee will probably not commence its work until the fall, in any event, I think it's unreasonable to expect parties to name people to this committee in June when it could just as easily be done in September. People would have a better lay of the land in terms of their own party's critic areas, allocation of resources, etc., than we can possibly have now. The urgency was in getting the motion passed. It was unanimously passed. It's there; it's not going to go away.

I wonder whether we couldn't even now agree to go back to the House, if that's what is necessary, and say, could the membership of this committee be struck for September 30 or something. Why are we putting it off? Unless there's a great deal of division about it, then obviously we have to put it off. But if that's an obvious thing for most of us, why don't we just do it?

The Chair: The genesis of this committee comes right out of the House, directly to us. It hasn't come from the government, or the House leaders, or from the usual sources, and as a result the committee is not couched in an infrastructure that is ready to go. It's not ready to fly yet.

Mr. Blaikie suggests we ask the House for more time to complete the organization of the committee. I think we should look for another week or two, but Mr. Blaikie thinks we could go longer.

Perhaps the matter could be discussed among House leaders. I suspect it will be this afternoon. We can make a decision Thursday morning.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Let me know what the House leaders decide.

The Chair: So this matter is deferred to Thursday, keeping in mind Mr. Blaikie's suggestions. There seems to be a consensus to delay the finalization of that committee.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, so we can get our heads around this, is it our responsibility as well to define more clearly the mandate and parameters of the committee's authority, and so on?

The Chair: The mandate hopefully is well enough set out in the House motion. If there's some lack of clarity that could cause the committee a problem, then we should seek clarification from the House. I'm not aware if anyone is actually scoping that out yet.

There's been a lot of publicity about the issue generally, but maybe some discussions with Mr. White, the mover of the motion, would help. This does need some more spade work, as Ms. Catterall and Mr. Blaikie point out, and we want to do it right so let's get some more time to do it.

Now can I move to item number 3? This is a consideration of a draft report from the special subcommittee of this committee on the 100-signature rule. Mr. Guimond was a member of that committee and he can now explain the draft report to us.

Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

So, I will repeat the comments I made earlier concerning the other item on the agenda. The subcommittee held several meetings. In addition, we started our analysis of the survey which was circulated to every Member of Parliament and immediately came to the conclusion... Anyway, those of us who were here during the 36th Parliament will recall that the 100-signature process was definitely problematic and that there was a certain consensus in favour of the elimination of that procedure, the object of which was to make it possible to modify the normal rules relating to the consideration of votable items. Therefore, the subcommittee now recommends that you adopt the following amendment, namely that Standing Order 87(6) be rescinded in order to abolish the 100-signature process.

• 1120

As for the lottery and plea processes—I use the term "plea", but those are rather submissions made by members before the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business—which are intended to determine whether items will be votable or not, the subcommittee is pleased to inform you that discussions are still going on and that we are not yet in a position today to report on that issue to the Standing Committee on Procedures and House affairs.

[English]

The Chair: There is the introduction of the report. Mr. Guimond, are you going to move adoption of the report?

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: Indeed, Mr. Chairman, I so move.

The Chair: Thank you.

[English]

Colleagues, you've heard it. Essentially, the subcommittee has studied it and is unanimously proposing that the 100-signature rule be scrapped, as simple as that, without anything to replace it.

We have some time for discussion. Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: The chair of the committee is not here. It would be nice to hear from her before we go ahead with this. It would also be appropriate to give each of the parties time to discuss this matter with their caucus before we go ahead. There's no urgent need to adopt this now. The suspension of the standing order has already been extended. So I would like to table this until further...

The Chair: Do you want to defer a vote on it? I suggest we have some discussion. You're certainly at liberty to move at any point that the matter be tabled, deferred, or whatever. Let's just go around the table now. Are there other comments?

Monsieur Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: For Ms. Gallant's benefit, I want to tell you that the chair of the subcommittee asked me to submit this report in her name because she is currently on an assignment abroad with one of the subcommittee members, Mr. Proulx. I also want to tell our colleague, Ms. Gallant, that all parties were represented and that this report was unanimously concurred in by all parties. Therefore, I think we are in a position to adopt it immediately.

[English]

The Chair: I'll go to Mr. Blaikie because he caught my eye, and then to Mr. Fontana and Ms. Catterall.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would like to speak in favour of doing this now. None of us would presume to speak for the chair of the subcommittee on private members' business. My understanding is that not only was she part of the committee that supported this but also she is in favour of this particular...

I don't know if there's that much to discuss with our caucuses. It seems to me this is a procedure that has not so much fallen into disrepute as people seeing how unworkable it is. Eventually, it evens everything off, and you're right back where you started from except that everybody has gone to a whole lot of work to get 100 signatures. So I think we should proceed to dispose of it as quickly as possible. That would be my dispensation, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Thank you.

Next is Mr. Fontana, followed by Mr. Bryden and Mr. Borotsik.

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

• 1125

I would echo what Mr. Blaikie said. I think this issue has been around for a long time. The fact is it's not workable. It was unanimous in the subcommittee, which essentially means that all parties were represented. When they vote, they should know what their caucuses think about it.

The alternative, obviously, is something that I think this House is in need of. I know there has been a lot of talk in terms of parliamentary reform.

Because an alternative isn't mentioned in this particular report, I was wondering if the committee looked at every member of Parliament within a four- or five-year period having the opportunity to put forward a private member's bill or motion. The lottery should only determine when one gets chosen to put forward that motion or private member's bill. That way, within the four- or five-year mandate of a Parliament, all 300 members of Parliament would have an opportunity to put forward a votable or non-votable motion or a private member's bill. I think at the end of the day that would add value to the individual member of Parliament. I know a lot of members have three or four private members' bills or motions, but in the course of a term everybody would at least have an opportunity to put forward something they firmly believe in. I don't know if the committee looked at that.

We're getting rid of a system that did not work at all. I think the intent was probably very good, but it just wasn't workable.

I was just wondering, Mr. Chair, if the vice-chair could comment on whether or not they are looking at alternatives as to how we might improve the whole private members' business issue.

The Chair: Mr. Guimond.

[Translation]

Mr. Michel Guimond: I am not the vice-chair of the subcommitte, but we are indeed looking at other ways, and Mr. Fontana's comments are currently part of the discussions we have at the subcommittee level.

[English]

The Chair: We'll go next to Mr. Bryden, followed by Mr. Borotsik and Mr. Jordan.

Mr. John Bryden (Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a comment because I probably was most instrumental in introducing this idea in the first place, and I feel kind of funny to be presiding over its demise.

I think the point Mr. Fontana made is very pertinent. I don't think the rule worked as originally envisaged.

But I would like to put on the record that the point of the rule was to empower backbench MPs and to give us an opportunity to initiate meaningful legislation.

I think Mr. Fontana's point is well taken. I hope this committee would agree that if it suspends or eliminates this rule, it only does so with the understanding that in its deliberations the subcommittee on private members' business will come up with one or even two alternatives that may work better and may indeed be experiments in their own way, which we'll have to re-examine two years from now and eliminate.

I think that eventually, Mr. Chairman, we can find a way in which private members' business can be advanced by backbench MPs and not just by chance and only by the government. Thank you.

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

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

Just to make a comment, it was a good attempt, but unfortunately there was a poor result.

But it hasn't stopped there. As a member of that committee, I'd like to say that there are other options we would like to discuss and put forward. Mr. Fontana's is an interesting one. One of the discussions has been about looking at the logistics of having all private members' business being votable. What I would like to say, Mr. Chairman, is that getting rid of the 100-signature rule does not necessarily stop the committee from looking at other options that in fact will do exactly as Mr. Bryden has suggested and that can certainly give members of Parliament an opportunity to deal with votable motions or private members' business in the future. So that's where we're heading.

The Chair: Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Jordan (Leeds—Grenville, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think we should probably dispose of this issue now, because this is, I think, the third all-party committee that has looked at this in detail and come up with the same recommendation. In all fairness to Carolyn, she thought she could work something out, but clearly she came across the same hurdles we had.

• 1130

What you have is a lot more bills than time. How you pare them down is always going to be a subject of debate, but unless you address the time for private members' business, you're not going to solve this problem. I don't think the 100-signature bill... Somebody who was on the subcommittee when this came in and experienced the confusion around it... You're setting a bar that everyone will just meet, and it seems like a pretty worthless exercise.

I think we should adopt the report, but absolutely look at ways of increasing the hours for private members' business, because I think that will drive the whole discussion around how you pick bills at that point.

The Chair: Okay.

Well, that's a good discussion. Clearly, there seems to be a will on the part of the committee to consider a future proposal, whether it's the current private members' business subcommittee or another subcommittee of this committee, to reconstruct a new fast-track mechanism that might be more appropriate to members' needs. That option is open to us, and I guess we'll wait for volunteers.

Having said that, and seeing no further discussion, I'll put Mr. Guimond's motion to adopt the report as drafted. It's Mr. Guimond's motion that the draft report be adopted as the committee's report to the House, that the chair present the report to the House, and that the researcher and clerk be authorized to make such typographical and editorial changes as may be necessary without changing the substance of the report.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you colleagues.

Now we'll proceed to the fourth item, which is our consideration of the reference from the House concerning electronic voting. We've had several meetings, discussions. This committee and its predecessor have, over several years, looked at this. There's been some discussion among members of the committee and among members of caucuses, and depending on the views of members here, it may or may not be time to report back to the House.

Mr. Robertson has drafted a report that attempts to bring together what he believed the major issues were, where there may be a consensus to proceed, and that was distributed just recently. That is in front of us now. We're going to hear from a lot of members, so I'm going to stop talking and let the committee members state their views.

I'll look to the official opposition—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have a point of order.

The Chair: Sorry, there's a point of order.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wonder if the chair could tell us, what is the origin of the draft report? Where are the minutes of the meeting that said, let's have a draft report; let's instruct Mr. Robertson to have a draft report? It seems to me that this is something that was generated ex nihilo from the chair.

The Chair: That's what happened. It's not ex nihilo, but it was certainly generated because I asked Mr. Robertson to put together the salient issues in our discussion—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But generally you have a draft report because some group of MPs decided they'd reached the point where they wanted a draft report to try to reflect whatever consensus they'd arrived at. It beats me, but I'm not sure there was that kind of event.

The Chair: Well, there may not have been—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I wonder if you could tell us when that event occurred.

The Chair: There wasn't that type of event.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So was it an event in the mind of the chair, or—

The Chair: No, it wasn't invented. In any event, you're certainly entitled to speak to the issue.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just think what we have here is the kind of... if not a violation, certainly a departure from conventional procedure, whereby we get draft reports as committees request them, not as the chair decides he's had enough of the issue and he wants to spring a draft report on a committee.

The Chair: Well, it's—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: When you talked to me about it yesterday you said we were going to discuss electronic voting. You didn't say you had a draft report ready to drop on the table.

Mr. Joe Fontana: It's to help you, Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't need any help.

• 1135

I think something a bit on the sneaky side is happening here, and I think people should take notice of that.

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Yes, it's sneaky. That wasn't a point of order. It was a question.

But, further to this, February 27 was the last time that this was discussed. The modernization committee has already turned this down, so why is it coming here now on the eve of recessing for the summer?

The Chair: I'm being asked a lot of questions. You may have a view. You're entitled to express it.

Is that it?

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Is that the answer to the question?

The Chair: Your question is...

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Why is this being raised now? We haven't discussed it since February 27. The modernization committee voted it down, and in the transcripts from the two meetings—

The Chair: Sorry, I don't understand why the modernization committee is relevant to this reference from the House that we have here.

I'm a little unclear as to how you would know what the modernization committee did. I suggest the member ought to be very careful about going public with the deliberations of the modernization committee. If she sits on it, this could be problematic.

The modernization committee operates with unanimity, and they have not reported yet. So you may be on thin ice here, Ms. Gallant, in terms of making reference to another committee's operations.

However, the matter that's in front of us now was referred to this committee by the House.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: There is no reference from the House on this. If you have found one, could you provide it to us?

The Chair: This matter was taken up by the committee under its mandate under Standing Order 108(3). We embarked on a—

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: There is no reference from the House?

The Chair: No, other than the general reference to the committee.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So there was no reference, then. Okay.

The Chair: It's a matter that we have taken up for consideration and study. It's simply on our agenda, like many other matters that we take up from time to time. They are matters that we're currently considering.

Okay. We're keeping a list.

Mr. Bryden.

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I'm just following up on what Mr. Blaikie said.

Some of us feel very, very strongly on this issue, and I'm one of them. I'm against electronic voting. Since this Parliament convened, there has been no debate. There has been no official debate in my caucus, there's been no debate in the House, and now I find that there's been no debate in the committee.

Mr. Chairman, I have been carefully monitoring the minutes of this committee and the agendas of this committee with the express intention of coming here to be part of a debate on electronic voting. When it finally turns up on the agenda, and I do come, I find a fait accompli. We have a report here of the procedure and House affairs committee, but I have never had an opportunity to be a part of the debate.

Mr. Chairman, I don't know how to express this sufficiently strongly, but I really do feel that an issue as essential to the life of this Parliament as the question of how we vote in the House is of major interest to every MP, and it has to have a proper airing.

If this report were to go forward, I would feel that my privileges, if you will, as a backbench MP have been abrogated. I just don't feel that fair process, as far as my very strong views on this issue are concerned, has been dealt with properly if this report goes forward without there having been a debate in committee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1140

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi (Niagara Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I really think, regardless of how the committee goes on this issue, that there is... I'll call it an omission. It's certainly a point that's been raised in previous reports. If there's any further consideration given on this matter, along with the seven points that were made on the report of May 28, I'd like to add the following, and hopefully the committee will concur, Mr. Chairman:

That the approval of all visible monitors, consoles or display panels take into account the traditional and historical significance of the House of Commons and therefore consideration of such equipment at the design and installation stage will be non-intrusive and consistent, so as to maintain the existing architectural integrity.

Again, I wish to put that forward just so that, no matter how this proceeds, it is also very much a part of what is decided or not decided. Thank you.

The Chair: Okay. So you are making suggestions—

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: An addition.

The Chair: —to alter the draft document that's here.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: That's an amendment.

The Chair: Sure. Is there any objection to inclusion of that?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Well, without prejudice as to whether we adopt the whole thing or not.

The Chair: Sure.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: If we were to adopt it, that would be a good idea to have in it, but whether we should adopt it or not—

The Chair: Sure. That's all Mr. Tirabassi is saying. He's read the draft, and he thinks this should be included if we were to adopt it.

Mr. Borotsik and Mr. White.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In fairness, there has been discussion at this committee. We have had witnesses come before this committee. We have had individuals speak to the pros and the cons. There have been discussions with respect to other jurisdictions that have used electronic voting. Some have gotten rid of it, by the way. So, in fairness, there has been some discussion.

In fairness as well, that discussion was never supposed to take it to this end, I believe—to this degree at this time without having it have further debate, not only by this committee but also by caucuses. I agree with Mr. Bryden that I think this should not go forward at this time. It should in fact be tabled, and we should have the opportunity to take the salient points of this, including Mr. Tirabassi's, to our caucus and then come back and see if in fact there is a desire to go forward.

This is a very, very significant change to the way business is handled in this Parliament, and if it's being driven by simply this being seen as parliamentary reform, then get off that issue. That's not what this is. This is not what most people see as parliamentary reform. This is simply a matter of one technical addition to the House.

So what I would suggest as a motion, Mr. Chairman, and I think you would accept... I believe this should be tabled until the fall, whereby all members can take it back to their caucus and come back to this committee for further debate. I will put that motion on the table, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. That's the motion. Normally a motion to table is not debatable; it's simply put. But there may be other members who would want to express their view on some aspect of this. I'm in the hands of members. If we want to be formal about it, the motion is put, and the subject matter would be off our agenda today.

As an example, there are other members who had indicated a desire to speak. So if it's okay with Mr. Borotsik, we'll hear from other members and then put the motion to table. Is that okay?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: How many speakers are there, Mr. Chair?

The Chair: I had some information I wanted to convey to members.

Mr. White, Mr. Fontana. Is there anyone else? Mr. Jordan.

Okay. So we'll see Mr. White, and then Mr. Fontana.

May I just say, colleagues, that in March we had asked the Clerk of the House to try to find out why the house of assembly in the Federal Republic of Germany had gotten rid of their electric voting system in 1973.

• 1145

An hon. member: Was it electric?

The Chair: It was electric, yes. Maybe it was electro-mechanical, we're not sure. But thanks to the clerk and the German embassy we have a reply, a letter, which has been translated and the clerk has copies that are now being distributed.

Mr. White, and then Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, this is exactly what I'm talking about. If this is the kind of information the committee wanted at some point, it's information we should have had before anybody was instructed to write a draft report. It might have changed what you asked the drafter to write.

The Chair: There's a lot of information out there.

Mr. White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

It is only by coincidence that I'm here today and this has been brought up, but Mr. Boudria and I did an extensive study on this about two or three years ago now. We were in Washington looking at their system. I can recall we had the Clerk of the House here. We had the Speaker here on it. We looked at a lot of things that were critical.

I'm a little surprised to see this here today because much of the information we had from this last study was backup really to some of the recommendations that are here today.

It's interesting that some of the recommendations that were before us two years ago are here, and not others, I note. I'd have to go back to my notes to see which ones. At the time we had much information on the issue, and it was decided by the vast majority on the procedure and House affairs committee that this system wouldn't go forward. I know this is another attempt at putting it through. I must say to the members that I was indeed in favour of it and it was still defeated.

That being said, there are some things missing here now that I would just have to see before considering moving forward. One is the cost. Another is the future voting capacity—and that was quite an issue at the time we looked at this in procedure and House affairs. It involved remote voting, the future of voting, how it would work, and that sort of thing. There were some very good questions being asked. My difficulty is that merely tabling this today looks like a bit of a quick fix to get the thing in. I don't think we're doing it justice.

People around this table here are quite capable of making decisions, whether it's for or against the system, but I don't think anybody here can claim that they know enough based on this document here to say yes or no to this system. I would encourage this thing to be tabled, and I would encourage members who haven't gone through this, some of whom have spoken here, to get informed on the issue, because it's a bigger issue than just the two pages here. I would encourage this to be tabled and encourage members to get involved in looking at it more deeply.

Thank you.

The Chair: Mr. Fontana, and then Mr. Jordan.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Let me pick up where Randy left off, to a certain extent, and even Bill and Rick.

If one were to bother to read the report, you would see that this issue has been discussed and debated for over 16 years. It has been recommended on a number of occasions. I've been here 12 years, and for eight years this committee, or committees of the House, and various caucuses have discussed the issue of whether or not we ought to move on this. This is not to be seen as parliamentary reform, but obviously it is a reform of some manner.

At the end of the day, if one looks at the reports, this committee over the past two or three years has called in witnesses. Randy has indicated that the House leaders have discussed it extensively. Trips have been taken to look at various models.

From what I understand, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Chair, and this goes to Randy's point, this report, if adopted, would only in fact be adopted in principle subject to a number of things happening. Obviously this committee, or through the House leadership or the Board of Internal Economy, which would be the trigger mechanism, would have to go to a request for proposal, an expression of interest exactly to find out what is out there. They'd have to find out what kind of a system would be available, what the costing of the system is.

• 1150

I know an extensive amount of time in this committee was spent looking at various models, at whether or not it would be a manual system, at whether it would be a computerized system, and is it in conjunction with the modernization of the House itself? There are a number of factors. So this report to the House, if concurred with in the House, would just set in place a series of other decisions that would have to be made that would probably come back, and should, to this particular committee as to exactly what kind of a system you are going to implement.

There are also the costing models, some of the things that my colleague Tony talked about with regard to how in fact it would fit within the historical significance of Parliament. There are a number of things that will happen. So this really is an adoption in principle of something that has been discussed ad nauseam. At the end of the day, my colleague John will say that he fundamentally has some problems with electronic voting. So be it.

At the end of the day we will all have to vote yes or no, and we'll all have to accept it or not accept it. Just to suggest that you're in the minority—the big minority in our caucus, John—about whether or not we want to have electronic voting, you're entitled to your opinion, but to suggest that there hasn't been process, that there hasn't been debate... I would suggest that you read all of the Hansard issues over the past 16 years to find out that in fact parliamentarians have been discussing this issue ad nauseam for 16 years.

Surely there is something to be said about what was reported to you just recently at your May 15 meeting, when the Sergeant-at-Arms confirmed that the House of Commons chamber is going to be rewired this summer. Actually, they're going to be uprooting all of those desks, tearing out everything, because the audio needs to be replaced.

There are a number of things that have to get done in the place this summer, and I'm suggesting to you that surely it makes an awful lot of sense, if you're talking about taxpayers' money and so on, that when you're going to rip up the House of Commons this summer to do a number of maintenance issues that have to be done, you might add a wire or two just in case you might want to add electronic voting to the system, as opposed to waiting six months or a year after another debate and saying, now we're going to do it, so let's rip up the House again and install the wire. As I said, the cost of including those wires to ensure there is potentially a voting system in place is already included in the cost of doing that this summer.

So why should one take a decision now? It's because it makes a lot of sense, for practical and other reasons.

Thank you.

An hon. member: We don't have to adopt this report to stick an extra wire in.

The Chair: I have Mr. Jordan, then Ms. Catterall.

Mr. Joe Jordan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

They're putting fibre optic in the House, so there's enough bend in fibre optic cable to accommodate this if we decide to go that route. We can maybe check on that, but I think this particular system could easily be accommodated with what they're planning to do.

The second thing, though, is that I don't know how comfortable I am with a report that says we recommend the adoption. I think the parameters that are set out in there reflect the processes that have gone on. And Joe is right. There has been process, but I think there's been a lack of focus in this process. We've had little bits of process spread out over a long time. And the adoption of this report doesn't necessarily guarantee there would be a vote in the House either.

So where does it go from here? I think the committee needs to look at it in some detail.

In terms of the things Mr. White is talking about, the costs and things, if we're going to make decisions, I think we need that information. Then I think we need to stipulate that there should be a debate in the House on this for I don't know how long, and members who want to be engaged in that debate can. Then I think we need a free vote on it.

I'm very uneasy about recommending this, based on my involvement in the process to date, but I think it's something we need to debate in the House. I think it's that significant.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I make one brief comment?

The Chair: Not until you're recognized.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We have discussed this a lot, and I would like to see it come to some kind of conclusion.

• 1155

First, with regard to the comments made earlier, I agree entirely with Mr. Tirabassi that the heritage nature of the chamber has to be a significant criterion for whatever we do. I would even go further and be very specific that display panels in the chamber not be visible except during voting to protect the heritage character of the chamber.

Secondly, I think it's time... we've got a recommendation here that procedural changes and standing order amendments to provide for electronic voting need to be developed. This committee would obviously be responsible for that. In that context, Mr. Chair, I don't know what discussions are taking place now at the reforming committee meetings, but I think it's time for this committee to take the initiative to incorporate in the standing orders a process that I think everybody has found extremely helpful and respectful of our time in the House. That's the process of applied votes and whips voting. I think it's beyond time that we move on with incorporating that in the standing orders and providing safeguards against abuse of anybody's power.

The third point that I would like to make, however, Mr. Chair, is that I am concerned about the rewiring that's taking place this summer, from this point of view. I would not like to see us do a major rewiring job without adequate provision for whatever eventuality we might want. I think we all know that, if we don't provide for future needs when we do work of this kind, we just build up extra expenses if we delay.

I don't know what the plans are right now for the rewiring this summer. I don't know the scope of that project in terms of cost. I don't know what options we need to be considering—if, in fact, we want to provide for the possibility of electronic voting or, for instance, provide for computers at each desk. For instance, computers at each desk or display screens at each desk might be a reasonable alternative to the display panels.

I'm not sure they need to be in the House. We don't have them now. We don't have now a display of how everybody has voted. I know it's normal to have this, and it's probably the best thing to do, but the other option is in fact a display panel at everybody's desk that would give them exactly that same information.

I honestly don't know quite how to proceed with this. I think the committee should take a recommendation to the House. We should resolve it one way or another, or stop gnawing it over every few months. I'm just not sure what's the best way. This is something that affects us all as members of Parliament. I think there has to be, perhaps not unanimity, but certainly a high level of consensus on how we proceed.

I think in all our caucuses, as I understand, with maybe one exception, there's primarily majority support for proceeding in some fashion or other. Randy, who has discussed this most often, I think, with the government House leader, might have some useful suggestions on how we proceed.

I wonder if we couldn't immediately, before we adjourn for the summer, resolve some of these issues about the work that's being done this summer and whether it's being planned in a way that allows for this eventuality, and for the others that as members of Parliament we might want to ensure are there. If we can't reach a conclusion on it in this Parliament, certainly we don't want to block off options for a future Parliament.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I have a point of order.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Anyway, I'm personally pleased the report is here. I'd like to see us resolve it, either to say, “yes, we want to do this”; “yes, we want to do this with revisions”; or, “we want to undertake a process to finalize this clearly and put it to bed for this Parliament”.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Fontana, you have a point of order?

Mr. Joe Fontana: Can I just ask you, Mr. Chairman, because I know you've got a tabling motion that you've asked respectfully for Rick to put on hold until some of us have been given an opportunity to speak...

If, in fact, it is the intention to move to a tabling motion, can I just suggest, Mr. Chairman, that if in fact that should carry... I suppose that puts it on hold? The other thing I can suggest, Mr. Chairman, is the point of order. If it doesn't, perhaps this motion can be further amended to suggest that the committee recommends adoption of an electronic voting system in principle, and those things would in fact come back to this committee.

• 1200

The Chair: Okay. In the event that we table this today, it can be brought back to the next meeting, and the meeting after that, and the meeting after that. What we're looking for is ultimately consensus at some point in time, if there is a consensus, to proceed and recommend something to the House.

And you all know that if there is something that comes from this committee and goes to the House, almost unquestionably it will be debated in the House at some point.

So if members want more information, want more discussion, or need to do more work on this, and if that's the view of the majority of the committee, we will do that. We don't even have a motion in front of us to adopt a draft report today. We have a motion to table.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: Mr. Jordan has to speak, and then I'll put the motion.

An hon. member: And he spoke.

The Chair: No. We've been through the short list.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I did hear you, Joe.

The Chair: Hold on.

I asked Mr. Borotsik if he would allow a few other members to speak, and he has allowed that short list to proceed. Since then I've had indications from Mr. Bryden, Ms. Gallant, and Mr. Blaikie. But we could put the motion and deal with the motion. We could then continue to discuss other items related to the—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Tabling this, we could still do something on instructing them to build into—

The Chair: The wiring.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —the structure in the House on the possibility... It doesn't rule that out.

The Chair: Well, colleagues, on that—and excuse me, Mr. Borotsik, while I just insert that—we are fully able to, even by a letter, ask the clerk to ensure that, in the rewiring that takes place this summer, there's adequate provision made for the eventuality of communications and electronic voting, desk to desk. We can do that. We don't necessarily need a motion, but if someone wants to move it, that's fine.

Mr. Randy White: I'd just like to clarify that issue.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Randy White: It's my understanding that the wiring is included already.

An hon. member: Exactly.

Mr. Randy White: In fact, I'm sure it is. Therefore, if a system is going to come some day, this is only about timing, not whether or not you have to go back and renovate, and so on and so forth.

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would put, Mr. Chairman, my original motion that this be tabled until the fall. We've had debate that shouldn't have been debated, though it was very enjoyable, especially Mr. Jordan's, and I would put that motion on the table, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Mr. Tirabassi, on a point of order.

Mr. Tony Tirabassi: At the time, as this is being tabled, would it be appropriate, so that when it comes up again, that a more thorough and inclusive report with all the details, including costs, be considered at such time, rather than just general recommendations?

The Chair: Mr. Robertson will be including the suggestion you've made—Ms. Catterall has also spoken to it—and any of the others in... let's just call it the file on electronic voting, and where appropriate in the draft.

Anyway, I'll put—

Mr. John Bryden: Mr. Chairman, I have a point of order. There's a clarification I'd like to make. And I won't take—

The Chair: Mr. Bryden, it really should be a point of order.

Mr. John Bryden: Can I have just 30 seconds? Just 30 seconds.

The Chair: It really should be strictly a point of order.

Mr. John Bryden: I just wanted to say, in my earlier intervention, that I was at the meetings in which we heard witnesses on electronic voting. My concern was the fact that there was no meeting to debate the report that is now before us. And that was my concern.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Okay. All right.

The motion is to table the matter until the fall.

Mr. James Robertson (Clerk of the Committee): The question is that the draft report be tabled until the fall.

• 1205

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Now, are there any other...

Okay, Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I want to follow up on this and on one other item of business that's very brief, Mr. Chair.

I wonder if the committee would be agreeable to inviting the clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms to come to the committee as early as Thursday, if our other business allows, to explain to us exactly what is being done with the wiring this summer so that we can address some of these issues about covering all future possibilities adequately before we break for the summer.

The Chair: Is that agreed, and is that acceptable—an appearance by the clerk just to inform us as to the rewiring of the House of Commons over the summer? All right.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: One additional item, Mr. Chairman, is that I have just delivered to Ms. Gallant a letter that I hope wraps up the issue she raised at the committee a couple of weeks ago. She raised the issue of a Gulf War medal that had been given to the constituency office of her predecessor and that the veteran now wanted back.

Since our last meeting, Ms. Gallant did provide me with the name of the veteran. Mr. Clouthier was able to spend several hours just before the long weekend searching his files. He did find the memo and the medal. Apparently what had happened is that the veteran had come to his office the day they were moving their offices, and, instead of being given to Mr. Clouthier, it was packed along with dozens of other boxes and moved. It was found this weekend; Mr. Clouthier returned it personally to the veteran on Friday night, May 18, and I trust that concludes the matter.

I would like to provide the clerk with a copy of the information. It can't be circulated because it hasn't been translated, but if it could be circulated to all members of the committee, I would appreciate it.

The Chair: Very good. I was going to say all's well that ends well, but...

Ms. Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: I request that the letter be kept in confidence. The veteran does not want his name released due to feared reprisals from Veterans Affairs on his disability income.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I will be pleased to revise the letter to stroke out the constituent's name and to provide it to the committee in that way.

The Chair: All right. All's well that ends well, chapter two.

Now, colleagues, we're going to adjourn until Thursday, when we have Minister Gagliano and Mr. Fraser on the parliamentary renovations and whatever else comes down the pipeline. Thank you.

We're adjourned.