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 27, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): Colleagues, I see a quorum sufficient for hearing evidence from our esteemed witnesses today.

We're delighted to have our House of Commons clerk, Mr. Corbett, the deputy clerk, Ms. O'Brien, and Mr. Bard, who is the chief information officer for the House of Commons. Welcome to you all.

• 1105

We're continuing our review of issues related to electronic voting. Before we get into that, I would like to offer an explanation to my colleagues here. You have in front of you now a document that's called “Electronic Voting”, dated February 26. Rather, it is just about to be distributed. The clerk advises me it was distributed by e-mail last night, February 26. I have a cover page on my copy, which does have a date; the distributed copy may or may not.

In any event, you will find that the document appears to attempt to make a case for electronic voting. The reason it does that is because I—as chair—have heavily edited it. Mr. Robertson provided the framework. However, I want to point out that Mr. Robertson did not by himself create this document. I wanted you, Mr. Robertson, to work as always in your objective way and in accordance with what members want. However, in this case the document is closer to what the chairman thought the committee should have. If you have complaints about the way it is structured, you should direct those complaints to me and not to... I take full responsibility for that. However, Mr. Robertson has been very helpful.

The document is there to assist you. There are some comparisons. There's a small table that attempts to compare the various times involved in member voting in the House. Those are guesstimates based on experience, but we realize that the House does not run by science alone.

Having said that, we'll now go to our witnesses. Mr. Corbett, you have probably had an opportunity to browse through the transcript of the previous meeting. You've also had some years of familiarity with the issues we're looking at. So perhaps you have an opening statement that could give us some direction today.

Mr. William Corbett (Clerk, House of Commons): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

My apology to the committee that I was under the weather last week. I had one of these 24-hour stomach flus that just knocked me flat for a couple of days. I thank Audrey O'Brien for replacing me, and I'm glad to be back.

I have indeed read the transcript. I see from the comments that there's a nice broad diversity of opinion on this subject, as indeed there has been in the past.

We have managed to locate answers to many of the questions raised in the context of last week's meeting for which answers weren't immediately available. I'd certainly be happy to ask both Audrey O'Brien and Louis Bard to give you the benefit of those answers.

I also have some information in terms of the hourly cost of a member of Parliament's time and the per-hour costs of keeping the chamber of the House of Commons open and operating. I also have a considerable number of caveats as to the utility of trying to relate these figures to any savings that a particular system might indeed bring. Because members are not paid by the hour, but rather are paid an annual allocation and an expense allowance, determining hourly costs very much depends on what members decide is the length of their working week. That period of time can then be divided by the monetary amount and we can come up with an hourly rate. But the hourly rate can vary depending on what members determine is the length of their working week.

There were questions about India. There were questions about Germany. I know we have answers to those, Mr. Chairman.

• 1110

The one remark I might make in all of this, based on my experience and based on what I read of your deliberations last Monday, is that it would certainly assist. Based on the experience I've had as a manager at the House, whenever we move to a new computer application there is a considerable amount of front-end work before you automate any system or any process in terms of sorting out of what is good and what is bad with the process before you try to automate it. Largely, the system you end up choosing for automating the process will be dependent on the modifications you have made to the process along the way.

Certainly the whole business of conducting recorded divisions in the House of Commons is something that could be easily flow-charted with all the elements and an examination thereof, and for which some critical decisions are taken as to whether we wish to continue in this way or whether we wish to look at options at each point in the chain. That would be something that would simplify, I think, the process of decision-making for the committee: knowing what are all the various component elements of the conducting of a recorded division in the House.

That's just a comment based on my own experience and in the application of technology to processes as we've had them on the Hill. I'd certainly be happy to ask Audrey O'Brien to give you the benefit of the answers to some of the questions, and Louis Bard as well.

The Chair: Why don't we do that, colleagues? There were two or three questions carried over from our last meeting.

Ms. O'Brien, you probably have answers, so why don't we ask you to do that?

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

Let me just go through these briefly. There was a question about electronic voting in India—which has the only Commonwealth Parliament that has electronic voting—and how that seems to be working out. The information we found is that what they call the automatic vote recorder—for which members press a button, with results appearing on what they call an indicator board—is only one of the means of voting. They also have other means of voting: by members rising in their places; by the automatic vote recorders, as I've said; by voting slips on which they indicate aye or no and the member signs the slip and marks the division number on it; and by division going into lobbies, which is similar to the system that is now in existence at Westminster.

Basically, the automatic voting system is capable of recording votes in as little as four minutes, whereas a recorded vote required before the use of this system took at least eight to ten. But in echoing the caveat that I made last week in terms of what happens if you only have a single vote, then according to the press reports we've been able to find, a single vote can take as long as one hour. So again, it's a mixed reaction, depending on what it is you're dealing with.

In terms of Germany, unfortunately it is the case—and we have been able to confirm this—that when the Bundestag was moved from Bonn to Berlin in 1999, the new parliament building in Germany did not include the introduction of an electronic voting system, despite the fact that one did exist in the Bundestag in Bonn from 1971 to 1977. It was removed for various objections, but we couldn't actually find a record of what those objections were, so that remains shrouded. They didn't want the new parliament to feature an electronic voting system.

We're still trying to find out, and perhaps the next time the delegation goes to Germany, members might talk to some longstanding German members about this to find out what the objections were. They were obviously strong enough that in the creation of a new parliament building there was no provision made for that kind of system.

• 1115

[Translation]

We're still trying to find out why Germany decided to abandon this practice, but unfortunately, as I said, we haven't yet discovered any compelling reasons for this decision.

Questions were also raised about the costs and benefits of electronic voting. I touched on this at the last meeting, but I will ask Mr. Bard to go into this in greater detail today.

Mr. Louis Bard (Chief Information Officer, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start by saying that in November of 1997, the former Clerk tabled to this committee a report which in essence was a technical evaluation of possible options. The report in question was entitled:

[English]

“Electronic Voting Systems—Draft—Technical Issues”. This was tabled in November 1997.

[Translation]

This document outlined nine possible scenarios costing anywhere from $2.2 million to $4.5 million, depending on the selected options and system components. By components of an electronic voting system, I mean user interface, that is the instrument used by Members to display the matter or question before the House, to record their vote and to obtain the results of the overall voting. On the one hand, we have the voting system itself which gathers the information and records the vote, while on the other hand, we have the various interfaces with the House system, with outside systems, the kind of information the whips and caucuses would like to have. These are essentially the three components of an electronic voting system.

[English]

If you remember, at that time, in January 1998, we also came back with what we called “A Business Case for Electronic Voting”, which was aimed at trying to streamline some of those scenarios and at giving you high-end and low-end solutions that varied from $2.5 million to $3.5 million.

Again, every component of a voting system has been costed separately: how much it will cost to get a display or console for caucuses and a console for the clerk; how much it will cost for the system itself, for a big display. All of the components have been costed. Those costings have been designed on the models that we've seen in Washington or that we've seen in Baton Rouge, and through some other experience in dealing with a company in the States that does a lot of those winning applications. They also compare costs and exchange solutions for such an environment.

To my knowledge, the numbers are quite accurate, but they can be reduced if we reduce the options, if we reduce the composition of the application. It's very clear that since then we have continued our effort at doing a lot of site reviews of the chamber to see what is under the floor, how we can modify the infrastructure, and what will be feasible or not feasible. We've noticed that the other system is so old—it's around twenty years old and has never been replaced—that it requires major replacement.

Then, working towards specifications for the new House in the West Block and the new House in the Centre Block, all the pre-planning includes putting in place a proper infrastructure to support electronic voting. The scenario at that point recommends that, yes, we can support electronic voting, but at this point the most difficult part for us is to give you a right costing.

As mentioned, we give you nine scenarios in order to understand what will be an acceptable system for the House of Commons, what will meet the spirit of this House, and what will reflect the heritage and also how you members of Parliament would like to use this environment. But in terms of data gathering, research and statistics, we have a lot of information and a lot of capabilities that are possible today.

When I read the blues last night, I had no doubt that what is a simple system versus a high-end system all depends on the kind of experience and quality of life you want in the chamber and how you believe this will change how you do business. Then, from a technology point of view, we are ready to help you and we are ready to do any costing you wish us to do—if somebody can define for me what the simple, ideal, and non-complex systems will be.

• 1120

There is no doubt also that in the complexity of the systems we've seen over time there are some changes in how technology has been adopted in various legislatures. And there's no doubt... a new proposal or a new idea in terms of the types of things that will facilitate this environment.

However, the fact is that it will be a substantial investment for a very long period of time. The life cycle of such an environment will be, in terms of depreciation, at least 10 to 15 years. That's the only thing I have at this point.

The Chair: Thank you very much. You and the rest of the administration have clearly done some homework on this, and we thank you for that. This is a bit like thinking about buying an automobile. The first decision is whether or not you are going to buy one, and the next decision is to choose what options you're going to put on it.

I'd like to go back and ask the clerk to try to let the chair here have some of these numbers I was fishing for earlier. That is, I need some kind of a number I can put on my time. What might my time as an MP be costed out at? Various professions do it, and accountants always want to do it. It's greater than zero—and no one's objecting to that one—but I want to ask you to try to put a number on it, even though I know you're going to add caveats and say you can argue with it seven ways to Sunday, up and down. I just need a number to work with, and I'll take the low end. Secondly, I want to know the amount of money it costs to run the House of Commons, whether in peacetime, during normal hours, or in overtime. That will be helpful, even with the caveats, and could I ask you to address that, please.

Mr. William Corbett: Certainly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We have, in looking at this, taken the basic sessional allowance for members of Parliament of $67,225 and the expense allowance of $22,639 to give us a total of $89,864. We have looked at figures for a 40-hour week, although we're pretty sure there's no member of Parliament working anything less than a 40-hour week and some go to 90 hours. But we did find a baseline we could hang some kind of credibility on.

As you may know, after every election there is a commission that studies allowances and services for members of Parliament. In the 1994 report there was an Ernst & Young assessment contained therein where it was determined that the average member of Parliament works 2,860 hours a year. This represents approximately 61 hours a week if you assume the normal standard of three weeks vacation plus the various statutory holidays in the year. Divide the total revenue by 2,860 and you will arrive at an approximate hourly rate of $31.43.

Now, I can give you the rate if you assume a 40-hour week, and it would run in the neighbourhood of $47.80. If you're working a 90-hour week, however, you're probably underpaid, because that would come in at around $21.24 an hour.

The Chair: Okay, that is a guesstimate of what is being paid to members of Parliament for their work. It doesn't include the infrastructure costs for an MP in doing his work.

• 1125

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): We could change that by changing the voting. That would change the infrastructure cost of the MP's office.

The Chair: Okay. Can we go to the cost of the House?

Mr. William Corbett: Based on the last couple of performance reports of the House, in which its administration costs were set off against the various lines of business,

[Translation]

lines of business. On average, the hourly cost of running the House is $17,600. However, when the House sits beyond it normal time, it is far more difficult to calculate the cost of one additional hour of operation, the reason being that salaried employees are not paid overtime, while other staff members, such as minibus drivers and fifth-floor cafeteria workers, receive overtime pay.

[English]

We guesstimate that an overtime hour—an hour of House time outside normal working hours—comes in at some 50% of that hourly cost, or approximately $8,500. But we have very little tangible data to go on.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, I'm sorry, but you don't mean 50% of, you mean 50% more than the cost of $17,000 an hour.

Mr. William Corbett: No. The cost of the table officers, for example, is factored into the $17,000 per hour for the day. After hours, the cost is zero, because they're already paid for the normal working day. They get nothing extra for being there, just as members get nothing extra.

Mr. John Reynolds: We should do a lot more overtime.

Mr. William Corbett: But some personnel are indeed required to stay on, who have already worked a normal day and who have already been paid from that $17,000. These people will cost the House extra funds. But it's very difficult to pin down how many of those services there are, and what the real cost of them is.

The Chair: So that approximate figure of $8,500 is what the House would have to be prepared to pay if it went into overtime.

Mr. William Corbett: What we're dealing with here, Mr. Chairman, are only the costs paid from the House of Commons budget. We're not talking about any additional costs that may be charged back to Public Works—such as lighting, heating, etc. Those are outside our purview; we couldn't even guess about them.

The Chair: Thank you very much for those figures. They may or may not be helpful to members, but at least we have a dollar figure we can relate to if the need arises.

Mr. Corbett.

Mr. William Corbett: We also have some data on the number of recorded divisions for private members' bills, which was asked for at the last meeting. I can ask Ms. O'Brien to—

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: There was a question

[Translation]

raised by Mr. Saada, namely how many roll call-votes were held in connection with private members' business. During the first session of the 36th Parliament, there were 34 recorded divisions, and during the second session, 19 in total.

[English]

If you want it broken down in a slightly different way, the recorded divisions on bills were 24 for the whole 36th parliament, and there were 29 on private members' bills and motions, for a total of 53.

• 1130

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll go to questions and discussion. I have indications from Mr. Bryden, Mr. Fontana, and Mr. Bergeron. In keeping with the practice of looking to the opposition first, I'll say Mr. Bergeron, and then I'll go to Mr. Bryden, and then Mr. Fontana.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chairman, thank you for getting that information together for us. In many cases, it should prove quite useful to us.

I'm a little surprised that you were unable to find out what prompted the German Parliament to do away with electronic voting, after the Bundestag was relocated from Bonn to the Reichstag in Berlin. Is it because the people in Berlin are reluctant to answer our questions, or is it simply because the Library of Parliament has not been able to get the necessary information? I'm more than a little surprised, given the crucial nature of this information. We're told on the one hand that we need to be forward-looking and embrace new technologies, while on the other hand, one of the most important democracies in Europe is abandoning electronic voting and reverting to roll-call votes, and we can't seem to find out the reasons for this change of heart. According to our information sources, India is the only country in the Commonwealth that uses electronic voting.

I think we need to know what prompted certain parliaments to turn to electronic voting, but equally important, we need to know why some legislatures have decided to scrap the idea and revert to roll-call votes. It's important that we know the reasons behind these decisions. We'll certainly need to have this information at some point in time in order to make a decision where this matter is concerned.

As for the hourly cost of an MP, quite frankly, I find that debate to be somewhat byzantine. Let me explain.

Based on the figures that you have quoted, one could, using rather twisted logic, conclude that from a price-quality ratio, the public comes out ahead when Members resort to roll-call votes over a number of hours, because, rather than pay them $31 an hour, they are actually being paid $24, $21 or $25 an hour. We can interpret such figures any way we like and come to an entirely different conclusion than did the government by demanding these figures. It's possible to conclude from these figures that the more members resort to roll-call votes over many hours, the better this is for the public purse because members will be working longer hours to earn their pay.

I have another question. You indicated that the hourly cost of running the House was $17,000. Does that the hourly cost when the House is sitting, or is that the cost of a normal sitting day at the House of Commons? Let me explain myself. There are times when the House does not sit, but when services nevertheless continue to be available at the House of Commons. There are hourly costs associated with operating facilities within the Parliamentary Precinct, aside from the hours during which the House is actually in session. Therefore, does this figure of $17,000 apply when the House is sitting, or when it is not?

Mr. William Corbett: This figure was calculated on the basis of the number of hours during which the House sits during the 135 days on the parliamentary calendar. Specifically, it applies to those people directly associated with a House service, be it food services staff, Journals staff, pages or Hansard workers. Persons who work for Hansard are on duty when the House sits, but not when it is in recess. That's how these figures should be interpreted. It's not a matter of totalling the costs of running the House and dividing this figure by the total number of hours. It applies strictly to the services associated with the running of the House.

• 1135

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I would like to comment on last time on this matter which some members, and the chairman in particular, seem to be focused on, namely the hourly cost of a MP and the hourly cost of operating the House. What we are seeing here is an attempt to validate the view often stated by the Government House Leader that the roll-call votes frequently demanded by opposition members cost taxpayers dearly. In his opinion, a way must be found to eliminate this all-too frequent, time-consuming and costly practice.

The government believes that one way of achieving this stated objective is to introduce and promote electronic voting. Let me state for the record that I have not expressed any opposition to electronic voting. However, I do find this whole debate on the hourly cost of a Member and the hourly cost of running the House somewhat pernicious because it tends to validate the government's arguments in the face of opposition views. We cannot, in my opinion, put a price tag on democracy and we must be prepared to spend whatever is necessary to ensure that our democracy is allowed to flourish.

However, if electronic voting is nothing more than a means for the government to quell opposition, then I would have to say this debate is taking a rather unpleasant and pernicious turn.

This being said, times are changing and we need to see if in fact the Parliament of Canada should adopt the practice of electronic voting which appears to be quite in vogue south of the border, but less so, or so you say, in Commonwealth countries or in Germany, which has abandoned the practice.

I have one last question for you. Is this information available and if so, why hasn't it been passed on to us yet?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Thank you, sir.

We've contacted the German embassy for information regarding this matter. We received confirmation that members had discussed this issue prior to the plans for a new building being completed and they decided to abandon electronic voting.

We didn't have much time and we were unable to get an answer from the German government as such. However, we are continuing our discussions with our German counterparts...

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: In Berlin.

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: ...in Berlin, because this issue is indeed highly relevant, as far as this committee is concerned.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Corbett.

Mr. William Corbett: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to go on record as stating that we brought these figures to the table this morning at the request of members of the committee, and we are taking no position on the issue Mr. Bergeron has raised. We were simply responding to a request for figures, and we brought them.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I never implied that...

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, I'm sure you understand the import of the clerk's answer. The clerk provided this information because I specifically asked him and Ms. O'Brien for that information more than once. If you believe the numbers are silly or the question is silly, I accept that. There is no need to explain it further, for you've made your point, and I thank you for that.

Now we'll go to Mr. Fontana. You're next, Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): To tell you the truth, I'd like to follow Bryden because—

The Chair: Oh, I'm sorry, excuse me.

Mr. Joe Fontana: —I obviously want to critique what he would probably end up saying. But it doesn't matter. Let's have a qualitative discussion here.

First of all, I don't know what his fascination is with Germany. I know that an awful lot of Canadian politicians might be fascinated with German politics, but at the end of the day, I'm not sure how relevant to the situation it is whether they decided to have it or not have it. Over one hundred countries and organizations in the world have electronic voting, including the United Nations, the European Community, the United States, Westminster Abbey, and other—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I didn't know they voted in Westminster Abbey.

• 1140

Mr. Joe Fontana: Westminster. Okay.

My point is that some people might be fascinated as to why the German parliament got rid of it. The fact is there's a heck of a lot more countries in the world that have it, but Germany, which decided for some reason... Perhaps the answer's important—at the end of the day I couldn't care less what the Germans do, I'm more interested in what the Canadians want to do.

I thank the administration for doing an awful lot of work over the past six or seven or eight or ten years as we've discussed it. If you look even at the scenarios that have been provided to us, there's no attempt here to change traditions. We've got some wonderful traditions—the traditions of the House, the traditions of the Standing Orders. It's a matter of how you're going to use technology and modernization in a way that, at the end of the day, will result in better decision making, better quality of work for the member of Parliament, better quality of work for all of Parliament. And from an infrastructure standpoint, I think Mr. Louis Bard has indicated our House is in need of improvements now, and we should not wait until 2012.

The audio is terrible, as I said the other day. If you want to bring your own laptop into the House, it is cumbersome. It's difficult to do that without an extension cord, depending on how long you're going to be in there. So there are infrastructure elements that we members need in the House of Commons, for those who choose to use computers, and so on. I think our infrastructure needs should be attended to—and I think Mr. Bard has pointed out that those needs have been factored in. It's got nothing to do with electronic voting, but if you're going to tear up the carpet, you're going to tear up the floor, let's get some modern stuff. The audio has to be improved, and we can get electronics in there, I think, to better do our job.

Secondly, with regard to the economics of this whole issue, surely, if you look at the timing under the different scenarios, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to understand we can save an awful lot of money. I don't care how you put it. Certainly it all depends on how long we're going to vote, how long each vote takes, and everything else. But the fact remains, from the raw data presented on scenarios A, B, and C, if we adopted some sort of technology, in order to actually cast the vote, and you add up all of the time we will save, especially if there are multiple votes and we go on for four, five, or six hours in the House after 6 p.m., we could pay for this system, whether or not it be $2.5 million or $3.5 million, in less than a year. So there's no doubt that, any way you point to it, we are going to save money. But I'm not sure that is the whole issue.

I want to talk a little bit about qualitative issues that I think are important to me and to all members. How many times have our committees met, and we've had witnesses come to Ottawa at substantial expense to meet with us when we're hearing bills or the like, and all of a sudden we can never get to our committees, because we've got votes, and they go on and on? What do we do? We cancel meetings. In my opinion, we look awfully disrespectful to the people of Canada who come to this place wanting to give us testimony on important bills.

How many times have we planned caucus meetings—an awful lot of what we do happens inside the party's structure, where we need to have meetings— and had to cancel them because of voting that's taken too long ? And what about our own individual time? I don't know about you, but my time is about 80 or 90 hours a week, and if I have to spend four or five hours a week sitting in the House of Commons voting, without the technology that allows me to do my constituency work, or work within the committee, or caucus committee, that's taking away from my time.

So on the qualitative issues, you should look at whether we're interested in becoming a little bit modern, in becoming a little more respectful of the work that we do for ourselves, quality of life issues that I think are very important in terms of the amount of stress that's involved. Yes, it's important for us to mingle, and this electronic system in fact may allow us, during the bells, or during the vote-taking... Nothing of that will change, that we'll be able to talk to one another, or even spend more time doing a lot more than yelling at each other back and forth, when in fact we're sitting there doing some votes.

• 1145

I wonder if I could just ask some technical questions. Based on the assessments you've done to date in terms of the kind of system—some people are talking about a computer-based system and some are talking about just a simple little switch—depending on whether we want display boards up there or whether a display board is really a display camera or a video screen of some sort, can it be done in a way that will ensure the integrity of the House and the traditions and the architectural value of this House, Mr. Bard?

Mr. Louis Bard: Again, in terms of those considerations, we recommended that we'll need to involve fibre as part of the process to make those assessments.

The construction of the House is very small in terms of space and capabilities, and with the stonework and the woodwork, all of those elements, as soon as you add any substantive elements to those infrastructures, you are disrupting the heritage of the environment. In order to be able to put something in place in a reasonable amount of time, we need to stay away from those intrusive, large displays that you hang on the wall.

Mr. Joe Fontana: There is no display of the vote now. It's an audio display. The vote is tabulated and then announced by the House. The people of Canada, if they're watching CPAC, get to see the yeas and the nays. Other than that, presently we don't have any display whatsoever. If in fact a display was important so that the gallery or the people of Canada could know how a particular party or member voted electronically, a display of some sort can be integrated into the system over and above what we do now, including television.

Mr. Louis Bard: Yes.

Mr. Joe Fontana: With regard to the infrastructure we presently have in the House—forget about the new one down around 2012—when is it anticipated the work will be done to improve the audio and to do the actual work that needs to be done?

Mr. Louis Bard: The work we have done with the previous clerk and Mr. Corbett has been that everything was supposed to be planned with the restoration of this building, which was supposed to be moving to the West Block in 2004. As you know, all those plans have been revisited and changed.

What we did last June, along with the clerk and the Speaker, was to explain to Public Works that if it takes till 2012 to renovate this building, I don't believe we could wait till then to start fixing some of the infrastructure. We are vulnerable, and the audio system won't last ten years. There's no doubt about it. All of that was replaced in the Senate two or three years ago, but not at the House. We've made a case at least to support the replacement of the audio systems and to put in place some of the infrastructure that will offset some of the costs of electronic voting. To date Public Works has agreed to support us to continue to do our study, analysis, and planning for developing the infrastructure, but it has not approved any funding in terms of the replacement or implementation of the new infrastructure.

Mr. Joe Fontana: I appreciate that information. My point, though, is the infrastructure is in need of replacement, the funding can be found or is planned, and the sooner it needs to be done, the better. It has nothing to do with electronic voting. It has everything to do with audio and some services that are deteriorating.

Mr. Louis Bard: Such as electricity in the chamber.

Mr. Joe Fontana: The figure of $2.5 million or $3.5 million did include some infrastructure costs, as I understand it.

Mr. Louis Bard: That's correct.

Mr. Joe Fontana: So those could be taken out of the equation, I suppose.

Maybe Audrey or Bill can let us know how many countries in total around the world have electronic voting. Maybe you already have that information. I just keep hearing that Germany decided not to reinstate it. I think that information is available. I've seen it before.

Mr. William Corbett: I don't have that information at hand this morning, Mr. Chairman—

Mr. Joe Fontana: No, I don't expect you to have it.

Mr. William Corbett: —but certainly we can get that. The interparliamentary union probably would have that data.

The Chair: Mr. Fontana, we're—

Mr. Joe Fontana: Just one final question, if I could.

The Chair: Be very brief, because you've had a pretty good run at it.

• 1150

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, thank you.

Based on the scenarios, if I could, of whoever put this together, with A, B, and C is it assumed that the C scenario, which is pre-scheduled multiple votes, is the usual mode we're in, as opposed to A and B, which are the pre-scheduled single vote or unscheduled single vote? Usually the House operates on a pre-scheduled multiple-vote system presently, right?

Mr. William Corbett: I have to confess that we did not write this document that you have before you, Mr. Fontana.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay. I'm sure you've read it then. Based on this, if C is the pre-scheduled multiple votes, would you agree that's mostly how we vote in the House of Commons when we do get together to vote under that scenario?

Ms. Audrey O'Brien: It's certainly very frequently the case, yes.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Okay, it is frequently the case. Then based on that scenario in terms of the economics of how technology can help us do the same job, the people of Canada are more interested in the result of the vote, not necessarily how we actually did it on a recorded vote. Based on that scenario, have you done an analysis of how much time and therefore money would be saved under this scenario?

Mr. William Corbett: We have not, Mr. Fontana, because it is extraordinarily difficult to pin down what the costs we are talking about would be. Basically any costing that we have done in terms of systems is the actual cost of purchasing such a system. But we have not gone into it at any point yet because it's extraordinarily difficult without knowing what system you're going to. You can't offset other costs of the operation of the place until you've chosen the path down which you're going to go.

The Chair: Okay. Thank you, Mr. Fontana.

We'll go to Mr. Bryden, then Mr. Borotsik, Mr. Blaikie, and Mr. Bergeron. But I just wanted to point out that in the document you have in front of you, as always happens, there is an error in one part in segment C of the scenarios, the 15-minute bell pre-scheduled multiple votes. Under electronic voting, it says the time used by the House is 30 minutes. That number should read 17 minutes, not 30 minutes, under electronic voting.

Okay. Now we'll go to Mr. Bryden, then Mr. Borotsik.

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

The Chair: You will all have taken note of the risks of letting the questions drift on. I'd ask you to make your points but focus on questions from the witnesses. I'll be reminding you all at five minutes. Thank you.

Mr. John Bryden: I'll keep it tight, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'm here and speaking as a backbench government MP. That is my interest in this question. It's going to be followed by a question to the officials.

My concern as a backbench government MP is I'm afraid that electronic voting will adversely affect my ability to make a statement of conscience by being seen to be standing voting against my government.

I'm not a rebel. I'm maybe a maverick, but not a rebel. I believe in party discipline. However, from time to time, government legislation comes forward that I disagree with fundamentally. When I do rise in my place and vote against the government, I want to be seen by the opposition. I want to be seen on television by Canadians. But most of all, I want to be seen by my colleagues on the government side and by the government itself. My concern is not about money. My concern is not about time. My concern is whether electronic voting will deprive me of this opportunity to make a statement of conscience before the House and before the country.

It is my impression that there has been a change since 1993. It has been a gradual change, but we're seeing more and more examples of government backbenchers rising in their places and voting against the government than we saw before 1993. My concern, as I repeat, is that electronic voting would not enable me to make this visible statement. Or even worse, if you bring in the system of electronic voting and one government promises to allow you to stand in your place and press the button, another government could take that promise away and make you stay in your place and press the button.

• 1155

The question is the visibility of acting as a government MP and showing that you're voting against the government. I should point out that this is an enormous credibility issue with the public as well, because the public believes—or doesn't believe—that government MPs do this.

Is it possible to do an analysis of the voting patterns of government backbenchers, to determine whether there is indeed a trend toward more backbenchers voting against the government instead of abstaining? My impression is that before 1993, people would just stay out in the lobby. But since 1993, more and more MPs on the government side are actually rising in their places.

I think that would be useful data for this committee to consider. The implications of electronic voting by members of Parliament, as opposed to the visibility of making a statement of conscience, I think is pertinent to this whole question.

The Chair: Before Mr. Corbett answers, let me say that I think colleagues will recognize immediately that the clerk may have difficulty determining what a vote against the government is.

Mr. John Bryden: It's a nay, standing in your place.

The Chair: That's a vote. But the clerk may have difficulty determining whether a vote by a member is a vote against the government.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Not if it's against government legislation.

A voice: It doesn't mean a confidence vote.

The Chair: If it's clear to the clerk, I'm delighted. In any event, I will let the clerk answer the question.

Mr. William Corbett: It's clear to the clerk that these are very, very dangerous waters. The clerk is a sailor in his spare time, and he knows dangerous waters when he sees them. This is something we've stayed away from in the past—even avoiding designing anything into our system. If asked, we might provide the party whips with extra help to assist them in tracking the voting patterns of their members.

We have never tracked members' voting patterns in that sense, and we would probably find it difficult to do. It would probably have to be a manual search back over time.

That's not something we would be comfortable doing. We would probably prefer it to be referred to the Library of Parliament or someone else. It's not entirely consistent with our role.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that I think the clerk is correct. I don't think the table should be asked to provide these kinds of services. I think it would be appropriate if some or all members wanted the library to give us an idea, if they thought it was relevant, as to whether there has been a greater or lesser frequency of backbenchers voting against government legislation in the Parliaments of 1993 and 1997, as compared to previous Parliaments.

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): It's not relevant.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not sure it's relevant, but if we wanted that analysis, I think the library could do it for us.

Mr. John Bryden: I take Mr. Blaikie's point. I don't think it is correct for the table officers to consider that. Perhaps that analysis should be done by the parties themselves, or by the parliamentary library.

The other question my colleague points out is with electronic voting, how will a member like myself be seen to be making a statement of conscience? How can I be guaranteed that I will be seen to be making a statement of conscience?

Mr. Joe Fontana: You're going to stand up and—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: On a point of order, Mr. Chairman, these are political questions. I can answer that point: your vote will still be recorded. But that's neither here nor there. I don't think these are questions for the table. We're trying to carry the debate to the witnesses. If we want to have this debate, we should let them go have their lunch, and we can have the debate.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie is trying to assist here, and he's doing a good job. These are questions of immense political import, but it's not the clerk's job to enhance and facilitate our respective politics. These are difficult waters.

Mr. John Bryden: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That's fine.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Bryden.

Now, Mr. Borotsik, Mr. Blaikie, and Mr. Bergeron.

• 1200

Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): I'll be very brief, Mr. Chairman, but I would just like to echo the sentiments of Mr. Blaikie.

I had written down here that ultimately this is a political decision. This is a decision that's going to be based on politics more so than cost-benefit analysis. I appreciate all of the information that has been brought forward by Mr. Bard and others, but ultimately a cost-benefit analysis as to the cost per hour of every member of Parliament really is a moot point. This is a political decision that's going to be made based on politics.

I don't want to put any of these people in a bad light. I know they've done a very good job in treading that water, Mr. Corbett, and I appreciate it.

By the way, Mr. Fontana, I don't agree with you. The only issue that I do have to ask of the table officers is the reason why Germany no longer has that electronic process. I've always been of the impression that one need not reinvent the wheel constantly. If we can find some reasoning and rationalization from Germany as to why they had it but decided not to go to it, at least it's to our own benefit for this political decision as to why they didn't. Maybe they found out, Mr. Bryden, that they didn't in fact have the ability to stand up and show their social conscience. Perhaps they found out that the technology was so ineffective that there were too many mistakes made during that process. I'd like to know that.

I don't want to go to Germany to talk to those parliamentarians, I can assure you of that. But I do believe the table officers are smart enough and have enough contacts to be able to find out for me the reason and rationalization for why the Germans did that.

We have the technology. The amount of money that we save or don't save or that we spend is really a moot point in this whole issue. I think the debate that we have here now is, is it right, is it wrong, is it tradition, is it not tradition, is it politics, is it not politics? We have to make that decision among ourselves, and not just ourselves, because I think all of our colleagues have a part to play in this. I think it may well have to be an open debate in the House of Commons, to see what every member of Parliament has to say either for or against electronic voting. We've done it for 137 years. We basically have...

And by the way, if I saved four hours, Joe, I would probably do stupid things like sleep, spend time eating, or things of that nature. I mean, saving my time... We're going to go until eleven tonight and we're going to have three votes. Electronic voting wouldn't resolve that issue, I can assure you of that. We would still put our hours in and we're still going to have to vote. All we'll have is more votes and more time, so I don't think it's a time thing; it's a political thing.

I would like to know why Germany hasn't done it. I think it's very important, for me particularly.

That's it, Mr. Chairman. Thank you so very much.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Borotsik.

Mr. Blaikie.

An hon. member: Eating?

Mr. Rick Borotsik: I may eat, I may sleep. I may even visit my family more often. Wouldn't that be interesting?

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie has the floor.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, I think Mr. Bryden's point is not a bad takeoff for what I wanted to say. Really, any discussion of electronic voting has to be... We're trying to have a discussion on electronic voting without any context. You're trying to give it a context by making it kind of a bean-counting exercise, but I would suggest that's not the appropriate context. We need to figure out what the context is.

As I explained at a previous meeting, an earlier rationale for electronic voting was the very opposite to what Mr. Bryden said. The McGrath committee thought that electronic voting, by permitting more anonymity in voting, by not having to stand and to kind of thumb your nose at your colleagues, might encourage more independent voting or free voting. Now, Mr. Bryden is against electronic voting for the very opposite reason.

Mr. Fontana said it interrupts committee meetings. Well, that raises the question of the whole way the business of the House is organized. There have been numerous reforms and recommendations made around this place to try to separate out times for committee meetings. Yesterday, in preparation for the debate on M-2, I was reading through transcripts of debates held in the House in 1969, in which they were talking about the need to have committees meet independently of the House so that they wouldn't be interrupted. That was one of the intentions of the McGrath committee and of the Lefebvre committee: reducing the time in the House, meaning not having the House sit in the evenings, so that committees could sit in the evening without being interrupted.

My point in all of this is that we're trying to have this in a kind of contextless context, and I think the government is going about it the wrong way here. It's clearly either on the personal agenda of the chairman or on the agenda of the government through the chairman to get electronic voting through, just as they want to get M-2 through.

• 1205

My point here is that this all has to be part of a package. It has to be a package with some kind of motif, mission, purpose, unifying objective—

Mr. Joe Fontana: It's called modernization.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, you call it modernization. We'll get modernized, but will we have parliamentary reform? Will we have any redistribution of power here? No.

The government will get what it wants through this electronic voting. They'll go forth and wear badges all over their foreheads about what great modernizers they are. This will be the legacy of this Parliament for the Liberals as far as Parliament is concerned, but will we have parliamentary reform? No.

All I'm saying is that the pathetic nature of the arguments they've had to bring forward in favour of it shows that this thing by itself is not a stand-alone item. If we can figure out what it is we want to do in terms of parliamentary reform, it may well be that electronic voting will serve that purpose. If it does, I'll be for it. But just to be for it because somebody comes up with some very weak, contingent, almost contrived economic arguments for it is hardly a reason to be for electronic voting. If we're concerned about committee meetings being interrupted, let's talk about the calendar of the House and how we might organize our day better.

If we're concerned about whether to encourage or discourage free votes, then let's talk about what kind of parliamentary and political culture we want to create around here. That will impinge not just on questions of electronic voting but on the non-partisanship of chairs, on the way we do committee business, on the independence of committees, and on the whole question of party discipline in the first place.

I just find this to be a very unacceptable exercise we're going through here. I see barely any point in continuing unless we seriously take up the whole task before us—which at one point we had before us, that is to say, parliamentary reform or review of the Standing Orders. If we're not going to do it, let's not just have this kind of piecemeal thing, which is just really the government's agenda as announced in the throne speech.

It's the government's agenda. It's not an agenda of this committee or of those seeking parliamentary reform. It's been announced in the throne speech. If the government just wants to ram through its throne speech agenda and its platform, that's fine. We know how to relate to that kind of stuff.

But if you're interested in real parliamentary reform, let's try to talk about this in some more appropriate context than by all trying to be sort of amateur accountants, trying to figure out what our time is worth and how much it would be worth if we weren't voting. What would all of us, individually, be doing if we weren't voting? Rick would be sleeping.

It becomes kind of ludicrous after a while—like this whole exercise, if you ask me.

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I believe there may be other members who have not yet spoken and who may wish to do so. Perhaps we should hear from them first.

[English]

The Chair: Sure. Thank you.

Mr. Reynolds.

Mr. John Reynolds: Thank you. I just want to follow up on what Bill's saying.

We were here a couple of weeks ago talking about a motion to have secret ballots in committees. There was a lot of support on both sides for that. I think it was Ms. Parrish who suggested that we not do things piecemeal and that we discuss the whole issue.

I agree with the comments that we're wasting some time here. We're doing a lot of things piecemeal right now. We're doing micromanaging, for which we hire professionals.

I've always made more money when I wasn't here than when I was here. Most of us probably have. If you didn't, good luck to you.

We have a House leader who has told the press that he wants to bring in a committee on parliamentary modernization or whatever term you want to call it. I like to call it parliamentary reform. Why can't we look at him and just tell him that we should get on with that? Can he give us a list of what he wants to put through and tell us if he'd be satisfied with chairing that committee? I mean no disrespect to you, but he is a cabinet minister. If he chairs a committee, it will probably mean that the things that committee approves will get done.

These meetings are really, Mr. Chairman, a waste of time for a lot of people. We're micromanaging and talking about technology none of us know a damn thing about unless you happen to be—and I shouldn't say that, because some people here are—a specialist in those areas.

We really have to look at what we want for parliamentary reform and then just let the professionals we have sitting at the end of the table go and do their job. We don't need all this micromanaging about what it costs and how much we're going to save.

• 1210

We know Mr. Boudria wants to have electronic voting, and I accept that. Whether or not I want it, we're going to get it. Members on the other side know that, too.

We all wanted to have free votes in committees, but we don't have that yet. Nevertheless, I would hope this committee could go back to Mr. Boudria and ask him to please give us a list of what he wants to put on the agenda of the special committee on parliamentary reform. Make your suggestions. Let's have our committees and our votes, and let's see if we can really do something while we're in this Parliament. We still have three or four years to go. I hope we're not sitting here two years from now still discussing what we should be doing on parliamentary reform. Let's get on with it.

The Chair: Next is Ms. Parrish, and then Ms. Catterall and Mr. McNally.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I'm told I screwed this up five years ago, so here I go again. I was Ontario caucus chair five years ago, and I did survey the caucus in writing. At that time the Ontario caucus was adamantly opposed to it.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Wrong.

An hon. member: Right.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I was adamantly opposed to it, and I am still adamantly opposed to it. I don't give a damn whether it's a time-saver, a money-saver, or anything else. I think it's an abdication of our responsibility to stand up and be counted.

There are a lot of things in the Speech from the Throne that after a while we look at and decide maybe that was a great idea but it didn't go through. I can think back to 1993, when we talked about child care across the country and the provinces—

The Chair: It's fine that members want to put positions on the record, but we have witnesses, and if there are no more questions for the witnesses, we could let them go.

Mr. John Reynolds: I move we let the witnesses go.

The Chair: Ms. Parrish, you'll have the time you need to make your point.

If colleagues don't have questions... Oh, there are some questions.

Mr. Geoff Regan: We're going to hear back from them about Germany, and I think that's relevant. I would be interested if we could find out about that. There must be some German parliamentarian who can tell you why he or she objected to the thing. Obviously, enough of them objected so that they changed it. Hopefully, you can track them down. Good luck.

The Chair: Colleagues, we're in a phase now where we're trying to elicit some information that will help us deal with the issue. Some colleagues may or may not have already made up their minds. But if there are questions or comments related to eliciting information for the record, I'd prefer to get to those, if I could.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Mr. Chairman, I'll resume the floor in a moment if Ms. Catterall has some questions.

The Chair: Okay. Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): It's basically one question. The memo in front of us has as one of its assumptions that there would not be an electronic capability for individual members at their seat. I'm not sure why we've come to that conclusion. One of the issues raised at the last meeting, for instance, was whether small monitors at the desks and in fact full computer services at the desks do away with the need for a display board or boards.

If we have to rewire the chamber for our audio anyway, I'm not sure we should so quickly dismiss this. The projected renovations to the House are at least eleven years away. Given what the first projections were, I could easily add ten years to that.

In my view, access at your work desk—which it often is for many of us—to the latest means of communication is going to be as much a tool of work as the pen I have in my hand. I think it would be perhaps shortsighted not to at least consider that possibility right now. The next Parliament is going to be doing its work electronically. It's foolish, in my view, to not at least consider the merits of having that installed now. Twelve years from now the equipment will be different. It will all have to be changed. We just have to look at how often the computers in our offices are changed to upgrade them to what has happened in less than six months. We can't possibly imagine that Parliament is going to function without that access for the next twelve to twenty years.

The Chair: Mr. Corbett, do you have a comment?

Mr. William Corbett: My only comment is that perhaps Ms. Catterall wasn't here at the beginning when it was announced this was not our proposal. This did not come from us. This came from the committee itself.

• 1215

Any work that would be done on the audio systems in the next year to two years, when the summer opportunity for working below the floor in the chamber presents itself, would certainly include, insofar as is possible, any infrastructure necessary such that the desks could be wired with both the electronic fibre-optic cabling for signal purposes and the power necessary to operate laptops. It would be a subsequent decision as to whether the House would decide to proceed from the floor up to the desks, but we would certainly ensure that the infrastructure was there.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I guess I would just say that I think it would be fairly important for us to integrate these decisions, Mr. Chair, if in fact this would affect whether we need or don't need display screens. And the impact on the heritage appearance of the chamber and so on might be a significant factor in our decision. I just don't know why we're considering them separately.

The Chair: Considering what separately?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Well, we're considering electronic voting. Meanwhile, the upgrading of the audio system, wiring under the floor and so on is going ahead. Hopefully we can make a decision soon enough to know whether in fact we want direct access at the desks built in, rather than something people have to bring into the House.

The Chair: I don't think anyone has proposed that we do things separately. The document you have in front of you deals only with an analysis of electronic voting.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: But if those displays are available at each desk, in fact we may not need display boards.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Yes, and that scenario is open.

The Chair: Yes, that's probably true. Okay.

Is that it, Ms. Catterall?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Bergeron and then back to Ms. Parrish.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I have a comment and then a question for the witness. In some respects, I've come full circle, since the chair, even though he felt there was nothing further to say on the subject, used his position of authority to in fact make an additional comment. With all due respect to Mr. Corbett, Ms. O'Brien and Mr. Bard, I would have to say that Mr. Corbett's final comment was, in some respects, superfluous given that I had already pointed out when I had the floor that the clerk was providing answers to questions raised by committee members and by the chairman in particular who seemed obsessed with costs. I was well aware of this fact, and even mentioned it.

Let me just say for the benefit of the chairman that I did not find his questions to be silly, but rather pernicious, which is not the same thing.

Now for my question: Mr. Bard, you referred to two highly relevant and interesting documents. I'm not sure whether I ever saw these documents, or had access to them. In any event, could we possibly get copies of them at this time, as they would appear to contain very pertinent information?

Mr. Louis Bard: Yes, they are available for distribution.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'd like copies of both documents, please.

[English]

The Chair: All right. Is it all right right now if our witnesses take their leave? Is that okay with members and we'll continue our discussion?

Okay, thank you, Mr. Corbett, Ms. O'Brien, and Mr. Bard.

Now to Ms. Parrish.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I'd like to get back to my original comments. I happen to agree with Mr. Blaikie and several other speakers around the table that every once in a while you need fundamental change and you need a complete review of the way we do business around here. Things have changed dramatically in the last seven years since I was elected.

I think if you bring in electronic voting, it's like putting neon on an old tired hotel. It looks all glitzy and you've done something terribly modern and you can hang your hat on it, but it hasn't fundamentally changed the building. I also believe, as Mr. Bryden pointed out, that it requires full participation of all members. Let's forget partisan lines this time. Let's forget it's in the throne speech. There have been things in throne speeches before this that, upon reconsideration, we've dropped.

• 1220

I think this is one of those times in this democratic institution when I want to really have a full debate. I want everybody's opinions to be counted. I don't want to be bullied. I don't want to be shouted at. I don't want anything shoved down my throat. I would like to have a good, hard look at this, and I would like to go along with Mr. Blaikie and suggest that maybe it's time we review, under Mr. Boudria's guidance, the whole way the system works around here. Let's look at what the problems are, let's not just throw a bit of neon on the top of it and say wow, we fixed it.

I am still opposed to this, and I will vote against it. Thank you.

The Chair: Electronically, I hope.

Mr. McNally.

Mr. Grant McNally (Dewdney—Alouette, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair. I won't take much time.

I think we've been asking some of the wrong questions throughout this whole process, but we're kind of getting to the right ones now. Those are the underlying philosophical discussions that my colleague has just raised, that Mr. Blaikie raised, and that Mr. Reynolds raised. I would tend to agree with them.

We brought some proposals forward for parliamentary reform that were understandably dismissed by the government House leader. That's part of the partisan cut and thrust around here, and we understand that. But I think we do need to take a look at the way this place functions. If electronic voting is going to be a part of it, then make it a part of it, but not the focus of the entire exercise, which seems to be what we've done now or what has happened. I'm not sure exactly how this has come about, but it has become that. Whether it is the legacy that the current House leader wants to leave with us or what, I don't know what the motivation is.

We have a motion before the House today, a closure motion. It was mentioned about this piecemeal approach to change. And we've had government members argue that we shouldn't proceed in such a way, yet that's exactly what we're doing now. And I would submit that it's exactly what's happening in the House today with this motion M-2.

If we're going to be intellectually honest and we want to solve some of the problems around this place, then we need to move forward in a less partisan way. I don't know that we can ever have a non-partisan discussion, because we have such deeply held differences on some important issues. I don't think that's a wrong thing, but I do think we need to reach out for ways to come together on important issues, not for those of us who are around the table today, but for the good of this institution for now and for the future. If we don't start with some leadership now, the same debate is going to be happening ten years from now, fifteen years from now, or twenty years from now.

We have an opportunity to put the pressure on those who are involved in the process, to say it is time. There is not just a political will for it, I think there's a desire for it among people across the country. It's not just parliamentarians, but people who are saying that the institution needs some change. Who's going to step up to the plate and do it? I encourage government members to be the ones to do that. Obviously we have suggestions on this side, but government members do as well.

It's time for us to look at the bigger picture, and I would agree with my colleagues on that. That is the question we should be asking, and we should frame this into that as part of that discussion.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Mr. Macklin.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): I guess what I would suggest is that the exercise we've gone through to date has not been futile. My belief is that you have to examine all of the pieces, as well as the overall philosophy.

Some of the arguments that have been brought forth may not have a great deal of bearing in terms of a member's dollar-per-hour time at the end of the day, but as far as I'm concerned, the relevance here is that we have to look at the various segments and then code this with the philosophy that we want it to go forward in terms of reform.

To me, if I take the one example, we're looking at electronic voting as one issue. It strikes me that it's almost like we're dealing with the tail. The dog that we should be dealing with is whether or not we want an electronic workstation at each desk in the House. Electronic voting then could be a portion or a part of that function at that desk. If we want to have more members spending more time in the House, I think the electronic workstation at each desk has some significant merit.

I still think that in this exercise that we go through, you still have to look at the parts. In other words, you're looking at the engine of the car you want to buy. You have to look at the various segments, and look at the overall philosophy at the end of the day, and incorporate, after having examined each of them, as many of the parts in that car as you feel are appropriate.

• 1225

I don't think the discussion has led us astray. I do believe that the overall philosophy argument is valid. But if we simply go off on philosophy, we may never achieve any reform during this term. Rather, we'll be discussing philosophy ad infinitum. I think it's important that we look at the various parts that we're examining through this process. I'd like to encourage more analysis of what it is we would hope to achieve, and put those things on the list, whether or not the House leader is outlining them or whether we as a committee are outlining things we'd like to see.

The Chair: Thank you.

We'll wrap up with Mr. Bryden if there are no others.

Mr. John Bryden: Just one very brief comment.

We had all agreed that the function of this committee on whatever subject it deals with is to make our Parliament and our democracy function better. That is the question that is before us today on this issue. That's it.

The Chair: Now, colleagues, just a heads-up.

This Thursday we'll have Mr. Kingsley, the Chief Electoral Officer. He will be appearing generally on the estimates—estimates introduced in the House today, and the supplementary estimates to be introduced a couple of days from now, I understand. There will be a number of issues come up from that. Hopefully one meeting will suffice.

We also anticipate being in receipt from the House after second reading of Bill C-9, which has a change to the Canada Elections Act. Without going to steering committtee, my intention is to allow Bill C-9 to just come into our agenda on a referral from the House. We'd start off as is customary, with an appearance of the minister, and then we'd deal with any other witnesses we need to see.

If that is acceptable, that is our agenda for the next couple of meetings or three.

We'll adjourn now. Thank you.