PRHA 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]

Thursday, November 6, 1997

• 1103

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we are about to begin.

[English]

I'll just go through, as I've done before, some routine items before we introduce our guests.

First of all, you've seen the correspondence, but we've had a letter from the Senate about the treatment in the House of Commons of Senate private members' bills. My suggestion is that we refer that to our private members' subcommittee and await a report, or a lack of a report, from them, and then we'll deal with the matter at full committee.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): What are we discussing exactly, Mr. Chairman?

[English]

The Chairman: This is to do with Senate private members' bills.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Excellent.

Mr. Chairman: That's fine.

[English]

We also have another letter from the Senate that deals with the matter of whether the House of Commons procedural rules or Senate procedural rules are used in joint committees. Senator Maheu has asked me to meet with her. I propose to do that accompanied by staff, if that's okay with you. I'll discuss the matter with her and I'll report back to the committee.

• 1105

With regard to our subcommittees, for two of them—members' services and the House schedule subcommittee—we still need members from some parties: the Liberal Party, the NDP, and the Reform. In some cases we need one and in some cases we need two people for those committees. I'd be grateful if very soon we could have those names.

Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): On the issue of the subcommittee looking at the schedule, you can insert the name of the government House leader.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): And our representative on that will be the Reform House leader.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: He doesn't even know it yet.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

The Chairman: One of our ticking items of business is the business of supply. You'll recall that as a committee, we said we would have a briefing from Marlene Catterall on what happened in the last Parliament and that kind of thing. I've had a request from John Williams of the Reform Party, who's very interested in this matter and has some ideas on it.

My suggestion is that we meet after the break, at some appropriate date, Marlene, if we can arrange it with you, but likely not the first meeting—not the Tuesday, but perhaps the following Tuesday or something like that.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): The first week in December would probably suit me best. That's when it works out with other priorities.

The Chairman: Okay. We'll have this briefing and invite John Williams to come, if that's okay with you.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What I would suggest, Mr. Chair, is that I invite the people who were consistent on the committee. Monsieur Laurin from the Bloc as well as Dr. Pagtakhan from the Liberal Party and Mr. Williams would all have something useful to add to the discussion, I think.

The Chairman: Okay.

We're delighted to have with us today the Honourable Don Boudria, and as a witness we have Randy White. Our topic, as you all know, is electronic voting.

Gentlemen.

Hon. Don Boudria (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons): I'll say a few words, if that's suitable, Mr. Chairman, and hopefully Mr. White will say a few more after.

First of all I want to thank the chair and the committee for this meeting this morning.

[Translation]

I am pleased to be with you to discuss the matter of electronic voting in the House of Commons of Canada. As you no doubt know, this subject has been attracting the attention of many of our colleagues for years now. In fact, if you were to ask the Clerk of the House of Commons, you would probably be told that this matter has been a topic of study since about 1982.

[English]

I believe there's reference to electronic voting in the House of Commons in documents such as the McGrath committee's report back in 1985.

[Translation]

Electronic voting in the House is not a recent issue. During the last Parliament, the members of this committee, initially as a subcommittee, had prepared a report on electronic voting, which you already have a copy of. Two of the members of this subcommittee at the time were your humble servant and Mr. White. We prepared this document with the support of the House of Commons staff, and former MP François Langlois, who had also taken part in the exercise.

[English]

The report at the time, although favourable to electronic voting, noted that the practice of applying votes had only recently been adopted, and as a result recommended that the House delay proceeding with electronic voting at that time and for that reason. The report then noted, however, that applying votes was viewed by some as an interim measure, pending the introduction of a more permanent solution, such as electronic voting.

My colleague, Mr. White, and I are here today to talk to you about that and to suggest the time has come to move to electronic voting in the House of Commons. Our objective is to find means to reduce the constraints on time that the actual system imposes on members of Parliament.

• 1110

Years ago, the House sat late at night and votes were dealt with as they were called. It was the government's House time and it was used for voting. Under current practice, votes usually take place at the end of the day, and as a result, members pay the price in time when votes are scheduled.

You will know, of course, that the average vote takes something like eight minutes, and added to that there's the bell-ringing, the reading of the question in every detail if the House so decides, and so forth. This is time that members are in the House basically listening to bells rather than dealing with constituency matters or other work they could be doing on behalf of their constituents.

We've now experimented with applying votes for a considerable period of time, and now I believe we can address this issue, knowing when applying the vote works, when it's likely not to work, and so on. The House has a feel for this issue a lot more than it did when we prepared our initial report.

That experiment of applying votes has been very helpful. Under our rules, as you know, without being too graphic, just one member can block the use of applying votes.

[Translation]

My dear colleagues, numerous parliaments throughout the world already have an electronic voting system. We are somewhat behind the times compared to many parliaments and, in my opinion, it's high time we leapt into the 21^st century.

The American Congress has, I think, had this type of system since 1972. Perhaps you will say that the American parliament is not a Westminster-style of structure. I agree, but the Indian parliament, which certainly draws on the same sources in the British Westminster system, just like us, adopted it. Furthermore, the Australian parliament has also installed an electronic voting system in its house of representatives.

[English]

And I believe something like 38 jurisdictions in the United States have electronic voting.

I just want to advance a few more propositions and then invite my colleague to add to what I just said and introduce further themes. Then we'll respond to your questions.

[Translation]

First of all, I would like to let the members know that, when we vote at night, at the end of the day, it costs $25,000 an hour for Parliament to sit overtime. It's not free, what we do at the end of the day. So savings of time naturally mean savings of money, especially since this $25,000 an hour covers only administrative expenses and does not take account of the members' time, which of course is also valuable. Since our voters have asked us to do an important job for them, it goes without saying that our time is valuable; otherwise our voters wouldn't have given us this mandate.

[English]

In regular sitting hours, during the day as a matter of fact, it costs something like $17,000 to keep the House going, and $25,000 is the overtime fee. And of course if we sit weekends for an emergency or something like that, it's far greater.

After examining this issue, I had the pleasure of visiting three legislatures in the United States. I invited colleagues from all parties on the first trip, and that was to Boston and Hartford. More important, I had the pleasure of visiting the United States House of Representatives. That is to say, Mr. Randy White and I, accompanied by the Clerk of the House of Commons, saw last Friday the system at the U.S. House of Representatives in Washington.

• 1115

While there we met with a number of officials—perhaps Mr. White can describe that—and we saw several votes. It just happened that we walked into the chamber and within seconds the board lit up as the votes were being taken. We couldn't have timed it any better. We could have waited eight hours for this to happen, and we actually had to almost run into the chamber to see it because it was going on just as we got there. It was a great opportunity.

I have just a few descriptions of what a system could contain.

First of all, I believe it is important, as the report suggests—the report we had a few years ago—that any system protect the architectural integrity of the Chamber. In other words, it must not be offensive to look at. I think that a display panel indicating how each member is voting is crucial, but I also think that when we're not voting it must not be offensive.

And it doesn't have to be. The one in Washington, for instance, disappears. The only thing you see is wallpaper which all of a sudden glows, and out of it comes the panel when it's lit. When it's not lit it's barely visible, if it's visible at all. It has architectural integrity.

The importance of having a way of ensuring that members stand up to be counted electronically, if I could put it that way...what I mean here is that it is important for all members to see how they themselves have voted and to see how the House is voting by way of viewing electronic panels in the Chamber.

Of course, there is another residual reason in all this. It's important for a member who may have accidentally pressed the wrong button to be able to look at his own vote on the panel and correct himself, in the unlikely event that a member would make a mistake. I know that seldom happens with members of Parliament—

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Don Boudria: —but just in case, on the off chance that it could happen, it's important.

I also believe it's important for us to have a visual panel on both sides of the Chamber that identifies constantly when we're voting and the motion we're voting on, perhaps with the name of the sponsor and the number of the bill. Actually, I think we should have that now. Even if we didn't have electronic voting, it would assist members in doing their work.

This is a very useful tool. I was very impressed with what I saw in Washington. And they're moving to upgrade what they have there.

I believe the cost of this could be in the area of approximately $750,000, but of course it depends on what kind of features we want to have.

It is important to note that the cost is probably less than what it was a number of years ago, for two reasons. One is that electronic devices tend to go down in price as they become more popular, particularly with respect to the computer aspect of it, which, incidentally, is not complicated. Secondly, the fact is that some of the security devices initially thought necessary may or may not be. And I'm willing to answer questions on that principle a little later when we proceed to questions and answers.

Having said all this, I'm going to yield the floor now to Mr. White in order to let him make a number of comments as well. Then I would like to answer questions.

[Translation]

If this committee recommends that an electronic voting system be installed, it will be important for the House to be apprised of your opinion, at least in principle, so that the leaders can then each consult their respective caucuses at length. Thus, we can make sure that, as the system is installed in the House, the Rules of the House can be amended accordingly, ensuring that the system can operate properly with modern rules adapted to a modern voting system, while respecting the integrity of the structure of Parliament and our parliamentary traditions.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman. It is a pleasure to talk to the committee—of which I am a member as well—about something that is so important.

Before I came down here I was thinking that since I'm a member of the committee, maybe I could ask myself some questions.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Don Boudria: But no supplementaries.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Randy White: This is an idea whose time has come, and quite frankly, it came some years ago.

• 1120

I have a considerable background in systems in general and know about these things, and how complex they may or may not be. This is not a complex system that we're looking at here; it's in fact very simple. It's a “yes, no, report it on the scoreboard” kind of system. The technology, so to speak, today, when you're looking at the types of computers that are on the market...and that's what I think the drive is. Perhaps 20 years ago you would have had to fill this room with computer equipment to do this, but today it's practically a Pentium on a desk that can run this kind of thing.

So the idea has come, and this committee looked at this in 1984, I believe. I was a member of the committee in 1994, and we went through it extensively, I thought, and yet we didn't pursue it any further. I think for a committee such as this, with the responsibilities it has, it is time to start taking some concrete steps to get into the modern age—considering that, as you see in your notes, Sweden got involved in something like this in 1932, away back when, and Finland in 1951. As Don says, 38 jurisdictions in the United States already have it and more are getting involved in it every day.

We are about to embark on something that I think is actually not new, it's just bringing us into another age.

I was looking through the notes about the concerns of members in 1994, and I'll just read this: “Some members do have concerns about the new system. Its success does depend upon the goodwill of the parties and the members in the House.” Well, the fact is that the whole system in the House of Commons, in the chambers that we are in, does depend on the integrity of the individuals and the goodwill of one another. Having a button on your desk that says yes or no doesn't change that a bit.

As Don said, we did go down to the House of Representatives. I wasn't surprised with what I saw, other than the confusion on the floor before they voted as opposed to ours, which is rather organized and easy to understand. We met with Tom Delay, the majority whip in the House of Representatives, and David Bonier, the minority whip. Interestingly enough, when we talked to them, it seemed that electronic voting was just a matter of fact to them. It wasn't something they were really enthusiastic about in terms of “Boy, have we got a product here, and it works; let's sell you on it.” It was as normal to them as the bells are to us here in the House of Commons. For the members there, whether they were new in the House of Representatives or senior members, it was just a matter of fact that voting was electronic.

They said that if the systems went down there, which they do very rarely, they had a standing vote. There was no big deal about that, either.

We also met with Chuck McCall, who's the technical manager of the electronic voting system in the House of Representatives. He's a very knowledgeable individual who has been involved in this for 22 years. We actually drilled him rather well on the questions, but I could not really find anything to criticize any particular aspect of his presentation.

Looking at the advantages of a system such as this, they really don't change much from the advantages we looked at in 1994 and they don't change much from the advantages for any corporation that's looking at a data system. When I was in the business of developing them myself, the same advantages were there. Even though the apprehension and the fears were in these organizations, once they had the system those just dissipated.

One of the advantages, as I would see it, is speed. That's different from time saving. It's the speed of the system. Here we have a 15-minute or 30-minute bell. In the House of Representatives they have a 15-minute voting period. The bell rings at the beginning of the 15 minutes and at the end of the 15 minutes your voting is through, with the exception that maybe the Speaker can hold a two-minute carry-over period.

• 1125

So you don't need a 15-minute bell. As soon as the bell starts ringing you can go in and press your vote, and away you go at the end of it. It's done.

The time-saving aspect of that is not just for members of Parliament, clerical staff and the House. More often than not, like you, I have been embarrassed when people who have come from across the country to committees have to sit and wait to make their presentations because the bells have started ringing and we have to go, and we sometimes come back as much as an hour or more later. That happened in a particular committee I was in on the victims' bill of rights and I really felt awkward about that. We all had to leave the room, and these people were from all over the place.

So that can be eliminated to some extent.

The statistical data upon which the systems can draw is fairly extensive. It can be anything from where you're sitting, which party, or male or female if you wish—I don't know why you'd want it. But anybody who's sitting at a desk with a name and a location is in that system, and you can draw as much data as you want from it. You can also print it for hard copy.

Interestingly enough, in an electronic voting system a member can change his or her mind. We are heading toward the days of more free votes in the House of Commons, much as they have in the House of Representatives. Of the 15 minutes they have to vote on the first vote, they have the first 10 minutes to change their minds. In the last 5 they cannot, for some reason or another.

Mr. Don Boudria: They probably count by hand.

Mr. Randy White: Yes, that's right. So you essentially have 15 minutes to change your mind, except in the last 5 minutes you have to fill out another ballot to change your vote in writing. That's to give the whips an idea of who's changing their minds at the very last minute before they scoot out the door, I guess.

So there is that opportunity to press your yes and change your mind and say no. The activity is more visible, in my opinion. When we stand up in the House of Commons today, we're up for maybe three seconds and that's the end of it. But if there is not just a scoreboard in the House of Commons but a member board that shows how you voted, it's up there for some time to see while it's happening, and I think that's an advantage.

The systems today are not as expensive as they were. When we were talking about $750,000 to $3 million, I think at $3 million somebody was looking at a Cadillac. I don't think you could put that kind of money into a system like that today. So given that the House of Commons is already wired at those desks for coaxial cable—it could even be fibre optics, for all I know—they are already to go, with the exception of the panel. So it is not as expensive as it was.

It was only in 1985 that I bought the Apple II GS computer, which was the going rage for home computers. Today you can't even buy software for it because it's so old. Young people now have Pentiums on their desks. Just ask me; my son hit me up for about $3,500 not too long ago. So the technology is there and it's relatively inexpensive.

The final advantage I can see is that members can vote and run. There is also a disadvantage to that, but if you are tied up in a committee or something is happening, you can go in, press your vote and out you go. If there are more votes after that, I would see the first vote taking perhaps the full 15 minutes. Once you're in the Chamber, you don't even need two minutes to vote for the next one, because you're sitting there. The motion comes up on the board, you know what it is and you press your vote. You can go through that relatively quickly. Even two minutes is a long time. You'll find yourself sitting there waiting for the next vote.

• 1130

The disadvantage I can see is our cost, which is the same as the advantage. It costs less but it does cost. This is something where we not only have a cost justification but we also have to look at opportunity costs today.

I explained the disadvantage of members voting and running. There is sort of a collegial atmosphere and you do some lobbying while you are waiting for votes there. You may have members who just go in and vote quickly and scoot out. I still maintain that if you need to do business and talk with your colleagues, you'll find that place to do it regardless of how long you have to stay and talk.

Another disadvantage is the need to keep a place like our chambers aesthetically sound, so there is probably a cost to meld these systems into the atmosphere.

Those are my concerns. As I said, this is an idea whose time has come and passed with us. We're a little bit behind. I would like to see this committee get very serious about this and make some concrete recommendations for redrafting the specifications, which are already drafted, and bring the system up to state of the art. It was behind the times four years ago. Let's get out to tender before Christmas and install this by the end of 1998.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Thanks, Randy, and thanks, Don, for a very interesting presentation.

I have four names on the list so far: Mac Harb, Stéphane Bergeron, Carolyn Parrish and Chuck Strahl. It's Mac Harb first.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chair, I want to congratulate the subcommittee on its excellent work. I was very interested in what Mr. Boudria indicated about the cost of $25,000 per hour for the administration.

I did some rough estimates in the last Parliament on how much it would cost parliamentarians in terms of time lost, and I came up with the figure of $300,000 to $350,000 a year in terms of cost savings. That was based on 295 members. Now I think with 301 members it would be a lot more.

A system of that type would pay for itself in less than a year. I would suggest it's not a question of whether or not we should go with it, but when and how fast can we implement it so we can get on with the job. I just want to leave it at that.

The Chairman: We'll go on, if that's okay, and you can comment later.

Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I'm surprised that, when the costs of such a system were mentioned, no one suggested they might be part of a package deal. Having said that, I have three questions: one on the process and two on the content.

The first one deals with the process. You mentioned, Mr. Minister, that in the past you made a number of visits. I assume they occurred during the previous Parliament, in the company of parliamentarians from all the political parties. I think you recently went to pursue this research with the leader of the Reform Party. This time, you didn't take the precaution of going with representatives of all the political parties. Why is that?

Secondly, Mr. Minister, the arguments you have presented in favour of these changes seem quite obvious to us. Moreover, they seemed obvious in the past, first in the McGrath report and later in 1994. Why do you think we didn't go ahead before, and should we go ahead with such a change this year?

In the document that was just given to us, dealing with the procedure, we read that no security device has been provided for, each member exercising his right to vote in good faith and any abuses being dealt with by means of a question of privilege, which could give rise to disciplinary action, as determined by the House.

Here are a few observations. I have already seen, on the evening television news, American parliamentarians running from one office to another to record votes on behalf of colleagues. If we think we can settle this problem by making the House procedure more cumbersome and imposing disciplinary action if necessary, I think we're not at all simplifying the way we vote. On the contrary, we're only making parliamentary procedure more cumbersome. If necessary, I think it would be much simpler to provide for security devices to prevent this kind of problem from arising. Thank you very much.

• 1135

Mr. Don Boudria: May I respond?

Mr. Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Don Boudria: First, it wasn't during the previous Parliament, but this one, that I invited each party to assign representatives to go with me to Boston and Hartford.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: This Parliament?

Mr. Don Boudria: Yes, the House leaders were to designate substitutes. However, only one party could do so and it was Mr. White who agreed to go with me, although he had to beg off at the very last minute, a day or two before. A few weeks later, I repeated the invitation and we went a second time. I assure you that all the parties were invited.

As I indicated in my presentation, in the past, we had already declared ourselves in favour of this system. But you will recall that, in 1993, we were coping with some very severe budget cuts, though I must point out that they are not totally relaxed today. We must understand, however, that in 1993 we were all subject to some particularly severe measures, both in the House and throughout government, and be doubly cautious, although we must always be cautious in this respect. We had declared ourselves in favour, but said we preferred to wait before going ahead with installation.

Second, we were in the very early days of this voting system. I don't know whether you recall the system we adopted in 1993. It had been concocted in part by us and in part by Jim Silye, who at the time was a Reform MP. We invented the grid we use now. This is something whips now use every day, but that didn't exist at that time. I did the design, which I later shared with Mr. Silye, who added some features, after which we adopted it. It had just taken place, and we had agreed to wait and see how this arrangement worked before going ahead, but we were in favour in principle of an electronic voting system. That was the reason at the time.

As far as security is concerned, it's possible to have it. Here is what makes me say that maybe it's not urgent. I went to Hartford and Boston; there's none there, and no one sees any problems. The only thing you hear once in a while is that the parliamentarians say they've accidentally pressed their neighbour's button.

They solved this in Boston, if my memory serves me, by placing a sort of cover with a spring on top of the buttons. The cover has to be lifted with one hand and the button pressed with the other. When the cover is let go, it falls back in place. So you can't accidentally press someone else's button. That settled the problem.

In Washington, we're told the reason why there's security is that the parliamentarians don't have an assigned place in their chamber, while in Boston, Hartford and other locations, each member has an assigned seat, like us. Where members have assigned seats, they have their buttons in front of them. In Washington, parliamentarians sit anywhere in the chamber, as in the British Parliament, moreover.

Furthermore, in the American Congress, if all the MPs attend, there is not enough room. In our political culture, that's impossible. Can you imagine being elected to the House of Commons in Canada, arriving at the House and discovering there's no more room for us? It's unthinkable. Politically, we'd do everything in our power to show we were entitled to sit and that no one could stop us from entering the chamber.

In the American Congress, though, it's quite common not to find a place if you don't get there early enough. As they say in Latin, "too bad." That's how it is in their system. That's why they had to install voting stations at a few locations in the room. There are ten, I think. The 435 or so members line up, get their code out of their pocket and press the button. They're behind the benches because there aren't any seats.

• 1140

About security, there are people who have voted for others. I think you are talking about two incidents that occurred in the French National Assembly, where each member or whip was entitled to vote for a maximum of five others. It was in the rules. It was permitted to do so, but apparently these rules were changed recently.

According to today's rules, when I vote, I cannot sit in Mr. Kilger's seat and pretend I'm him. It's the same thing. We just have to adopt some strict penalties, I think, and we can do so.

Still, we can design the system so as to add that feature, if we want.

[English]

The Chairman: Randy White.

Mr. Randy White: In terms of security, in the House of Commons, of course, we have one person, one desk, one vote—one voting machine in front of you. If there is a breach of that, it would have to be a direct breach, an intended, deliberate act. If the two buttons had covers, you would have to virtually lift them off to press them.

That is a breach of confidence in the House. I think because of that we would have to have severe penalties. It's a breach of trust of the vote.

The other thing is that if you did make a mistake, of course, you can change that up to a certain point. Since you have your own desk, you are either in or you're out, according to the system, because there is nobody else at your seat.

[Translation]

Mr. Chairman: Stéphane, is that all right?

[English]

Carolyn Parrish, Chuck Strahl, André Harvey, Bob Kilger and Ken Epp.

Carolyn, you're on.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I also have concerns about security that still haven't been totally alleviated. I think there is a problem here that should be looked at as part of the investigation that looks at a security system, because there aren't too many countries in the world that have a five-party system. I think the public out there would be very concerned about that. It causes me great concern.

The second point I want to make is that I don't particularly want to ever see this moved so that you can vote from your office. I think you will completely destroy the central focus of Parliament, which is in the Chamber. I have heard people say that the next best step will be to vote from our phones or from our offices. That would be a tragedy. I hope this isn't a first step toward that.

Boy, I sound old-fashioned.

The other thing I'm concerned about is public viewing. I don't know how this panel would be set up in terms of our very good CPAC system. I don't know if the panel could be duplicated on CPAC or whatever, but a lot of little old ladies in my riding have nothing better to do than to sit there and watch the parliamentary channel all day. When I stand up, they know how I'm voting. It's very complex for them to try to get a printout later or to call or anything else. So I think there has to be some system whereby your vote....

You say we can see it for 15 minutes in the Chamber. Well, I really don't want to impress my colleagues; I want to make sure my voters know how I'm voting. That to me is a very serious concern.

The Chairman: Randy.

Mr. Randy White: I think you might have misunderstood what I said. The fact is, the data on the scoreboard is actually keyed right into the CPAC channel. You actually get a better view of it. In fact, the total visibility of all members and where they're voting from is actually available as well.

So I agree with you. One of my criteria was to have it more visible than it is today, because it's not all that visible today.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl and then André.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

We're dealing with hostile witnesses, so I have to be very pointed with my questions.

My biggest concern, of course, is in the report, where one of the disadvantages listed is that electronic voting could result in additional work for the party whips. We have to talk about this. I'm a little worried.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Chuck Strahl: At any rate, I think it's a great idea whose time has come.

As a little historical note, at the Reform Party assemblies, for several assemblies now, we've had electronic voting. I think some of the hardware is pretty archaic, when I think of it now. When we started on this, it was the big, thick cables, trying to make it all work.

What it does, of course, is to allow quick votes on lots of different issues. It also gives, as has been mentioned, a much better visual display of what's going on.

• 1145

You can do lovely things. You can put pie graphs out of it. And I assume we're talking about a system in each whip's area. As long as you have access to that electronic data, then each party or whip or CPAC or whoever can make good use of that data. And they can show some interesting things. Depending on the free vote on a private member's bill—and hopefully more and more free votes—it can be a very useful thing, and it can make the vote itself the highlight of the day instead of a humdrum thing, which would be different.

An hon. member: What a change.

Mr. Randy White: Yes, what a change.

I had a couple of other questions. One is about the security of the vote and the actual vote. As I understand it, our system will be such that each person will have a voting panel. I'm not so much worried about someone who says he's going to sneak a vote in on his partner's desk, but I am wondering about someone who says he can't be there and asks you to just reach over and vote and no one will know.

Because there will be milling in and out, no one will be able to know who came in. You couldn't possibly track this because you can come into the House from any direction. So if a busy person is rushing in and out, I don't think you could prevent this. And I don't think you could possibly know who did it...because you can say that maybe it was your party that wanted you to vote and you were busy so you just said to someone, “While you're walking by my desk why don't you just trip on your shoelace, reach up and push the button? No one will know the difference.”

It is a concern. That said, there could be some value—I'm not sure, I'm just throwing this out for discussion—in allowing for a certain number or a certain percentage, as we do now with the pairing, where in essence we allow people to be counted with their party or counted by pairing.

I think we've all received a letter from Ted White, who talked about the New Zealand experience where they actually allow a certain number or percentage of proxy votes. In other words, you just say, let's not kid ourselves, six people can't be here tonight from my party—or up to 10% or whatever. They sign a slip to ask you to please vote this way or that way for them, because they want to be counted with their party. They don't want to be paired, they just want to be counted. So rather than tempt somebody to just get on the record, would it not be something to consider?

The Chairman: I have a very long list. Don, and then—

Mr. Don Boudria: I'll make this very brief. First of all, I don't think that concept has anything to do with electronic voting. If we decide that we want to do that, just as the French decided some years ago...that's in fact what they had. They did away with it because they thought it made people not show up. But in fact I don't think this has anything to do with electronic voting.

On the issue of the security mechanism, why don't we just find out the price with it and the price without it? Then you can just adjust that thinking a little further on. Anyway, it's a fairly minor detail, unless of course it's twice the price, and then you can say it's a minor detail with a big cost.

Mr. Randy White: Imagine yourself in the House of Commons ready to vote, when your colleague gives you a phone call a little ahead of time and asks you to press the button for him. I don't know anybody in the House of Commons who would do that, and if the penalties were severe... You're condemned in the House of Commons if you vote for somebody else. That's obvious.

So while there are concerns about that, what you have is a board with your name on it, and you're either there or you're not and everybody sees it. If you're punching in somebody's name it's not a matter of tripping, it's a matter of going to someone's desk and unlocking, if you will, and flipping it up...it's a deliberate act. We can look at the security, I'm sure, but you'll find the integrity of the party, its officers, the government, the opposition and the individual members is at stake. I just don't think you would find that.

One of the other advantages here...you want visibility on it. When we're in the House of Commons ready to vote, the Speaker starts to read the motion and we dispense. If anybody watching television misses that, they don't even know really what you're standing up for.

Mr. Don Boudria: Neither do the members.

• 1150

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Randy White: Yes, some of the members too.

But on the system, on the scoreboard, the motion as much as possible is there and the counter is going at all times. People can watch it, see what they are voting for, see how many people are voting and see which party is voting. That makes a whole difference in the visibility.

As far as security goes, each party would want to have some access to a systems auditor from time to time just to make sure the system is working well, but I don't see security as quite the problem we may envision it to be.

The Chairman: André Harvey is next. Then I have Bob Kilger, Ken Epp, Yvon Charbonneau, Marlene Catterall and Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral.

André.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I think that the purpose of our meeting is to see whether we should undertake the installation of an electronic voting system. As far as I'm concerned, it's hard for me to speak on behalf of the whole caucus. I think we should go ahead and submit the idea to all our colleagues.

Personally, I think it's a sign of progress for all our fellow citizens. At least we'll let them know we have our priorities in our work, as the House Leader pointed out. We have our priorities and it's not always the many hours we spend voting that are among our most urgent priorities for our fellow citizens. Personally, I think it's important to keep working towards this goal and I would just like to emphasize the good job done by those working on this issue.

I would like to ask one little question. First, I would like to know whether proxy voting takes place in other countries. Can an absent member vote by proxy in some way?

Second, I would like to know whether there would be room for solemnity for extremely important votes. At such times, could electronic voting be suspended in order to go back to the traditional way of voting, where all the members would be summoned to Parliament at a predetermined time? It wouldn't mean regressing, but rather marking the importance of some votes.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman: Don.

Mr. Don Boudria: As I said, it ricocheted, you might say, in France. There used to be authorization to vote for others, but I'm told that no longer happens. Does it happen elsewhere? I don't know. I know that, in the Indian parliament, it's not possible for the members of one political party to vote against their own party. In other words, all they can do is vote yes or not at all. There's no mechanism for voting against one's own party. Would a sort of vote by proxy be a bit like that? It means almost the same thing.

With regard to traditional procedure, in the American Congress, it exists for the election of the President. It's a motion, and everyone rises symbolically. They do it once in each parliament. There's also a residual procedure in case the system breaks down. The members can still vote by standing up one at a time.

[English]

The Chairman: Bob Kilger is next, then Ken.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I know it hasn't been lost on any of us that this presentation is being made by the government House leader and the leader of the official opposition.

Electronic voting is basically something we are now evolving to from what was the application of votes, with Mr. Boudria, Mr. Silye and others from other parties who finally came to agreement, which has been very useful too over that period of time. But I think it was just to buy time, if I can use that term.

Basically the time has come—and as Mr. White said, it has actually passed—for us to introduce electronic voting. I certainly endorse the committee applying itself very quickly and disposing of the matter before we rise for the Christmas or winter break so that in fact the tender can be prepared to the specifications. A real objective for all of us should be to have it in place by the resumption of the House in September 1998.

• 1155

Certainly practical issues of visibility have been addressed. I'm satisfied with particularly the comments by Mr. White. I think we've all experienced, through committee work, having witnesses sit there and be left behind to wait, sometimes for hours, for the committee to be reconvened. So I think all the practical applications are being addressed.

On the issue of security, at this time I don't have a grave concern. I still believe in the honour and integrity of parliamentarians from all political parties. Certainly it's something we'll continue to be vigilant about and respond to, if necessary.

Additional information, which could be useful here, would be what the additional costs might be. That would be interesting to know. But I don't see it right now as being a huge problem for all of us.

With respect to the wish from the other parties—to Mr. White and Mr. Boudria—perhaps you could relate, if you feel comfortable, what the reaction has been from the other parties' House leaders. I know already you've demonstrated clearly to all of us the co-operation that is becoming visible to all of us through your negotiations in terms of other aspects of your work. I'd like to know whether in fact with the other three parties we have the consensus that we've had today from the minister and the House leader from the official opposition.

The Chairman: Randy first.

Mr. Randy White: I'd have to talk specifically with them and ask them the question, but my sense is that not just with the House leaders but also with the members there's a desire to make a change. So I think you're going to see that.

I want to address, Bob, one comment you made. It is about the integrity of individuals. If we as parliamentarians are going to try to protect ourselves from parliamentarians, we're in real trouble in this country.

Even if there were PIN numbers attached to a card, there's nothing to prevent a person with no integrity from passing along the PIN number or just telling the person the PIN number and giving a card. In fact, it makes it a lot easier to do that. You know, why protect yourself?

In the House of Representatives we asked about this kind of situation. They really had not had a problem in that area. The biggest problem was one of the members complaining that he didn't press the “yea” button, he pressed the “nay” button. In that case, the systems are flawless. I think the guy tried to get his way out of voting against the party or something.

Mr. Don Boudria: Very briefly, one of the co-authors of the report of the 1985 committee was the person who is now the House leader for the New Democrats, Mr. Bill Blaikie. As one of the co-authors of that document, Mr. Blaikie spoke at that time in favour of it.

I'm sorry I can't tell you...I haven't discussed it in great detail other than discussing it at a House leaders meeting, but I have no information to the contrary. I think we've just heard the opinion of the Conservative Party through its whip. I'm looking forward to the comments by Madame Dalphond-Guiral. We heard, I think, very favourable comments from Mr. Bergeron moments ago.

Without yet saying there's unanimity, there's certainly a very broad consensus.

Ken Epp and then Yvon Charbonneau.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I have had most of my concerns addressed already. I won't repeat them. But there is one comment I'd like to put forward, particularly for those of us who are very distant from Ottawa.

Sometimes the taxpayers pick up a tab for flying us down here physically when the primary reason for coming is to be present for a vote. I really think it would be saleable for us to extend this computerized system so that one could cast a vote from the riding. They want to be in the vote, and it would mean considerable savings for the taxpayer.

There are situations where as members of Parliament we are required to be out doing things. Even now there are different committees travelling the country. For them to able to be included in the vote electronically via a phone hook-up with proper security would be very advantageous, I think.

I wish the subcommittee or whoever is doing this would look into that and include it as an option. It might be rejected, but I think we should at least look at it.

• 1200

Mr. Randy White: I have just a comment. We all crawled before we walked, I think, and to implement a system like this, you have to look at the most inexpensive, first of all, and get the satisfaction level and the confidence level of the system put in first. Maybe one day, long past our time, somebody might do things like that. I think you have to crawl before you walk.

Mr. Don Boudria: There is an argument to be made that at the present time this already exists, but in the reverse sense. If two members are duly paired, signed by the whip, it's registered in the record one off against the other—in the negative proposition, mind you, but still one off against the other, duly authorized not to be there. That is almost equivalent to that which exists now...[Editor's Note: Technical difficulty]

The Chairman: Next I have Yvon Charbonneau, then Marlene Catterall, then Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral. Yvon.

[Translation]

Mr. Yvon Charbonneau (Anjou—Rivière-des-Prairies, Lib.): I bear in mind the great deal of work and the many consultations that took place before these conclusions were reached, whose implementation has been delayed by certain circumstances. I think we'll be very largely in agreement on the conclusions, at least as far as I'm concerned.

I'd like to contribute the point of view of a newcomer. Although I share the conclusions you've reached, it remains that the arguments I'm hearing are only ones of saving time and effort by House personnel. I also hear arguments about efficiency at some level, that is, it's quicker and less time is spent in the House.

We're told that, in India, they have electronic voting, but the last time I saw pictures of the Indian parliament, people were throwing chairs at one another.

There's the matter of efficiency and so on, but we shouldn't give the impression of people for whom the act of voting has become a technical detail, something a little futile, rather secondary. I'm expressing a concern and I'd like those who will have to defend the issue more visibly than a humble MP to have arguments on the side of democracy, on the side of the democratic quality of what we are doing. I haven't heard any argument to this effect and I haven't seen anything in the report in this connection.

These are, however, among the most solemn or most significant moments in a member's attendance. Members can applaud or ask questions depending on which side of the House they are on during question period. They can spend weeks and weeks, or nearly, without appearing in the House of Commons. Voting by standing up requires more courage, to my mind, than pressing a button, particularly on some issues. There are the routine votes: someone wants to postpone this; someone wants to forward that; someone wants to end something else. These are intermediate votes, which are of relative importance. But when I want to vote and I want to show that I'm behind my leader for the Throne Speech, or the Opposition wants to say it is against the Throne Speech, for major reasons, it's more important. If there's a constitutional debate and I want to support the amendments being made to the country's constitution, if I want to adopt the budget or I want to defeat the government on the budget, if I want to order a return to work by strikers in some labour dispute, it's more important. In a certain number of cases, it takes quite a lot more courage to stand up and be counted on television than it does to press a button. I know that even when members press a button, everyone can find out how they voted, but it's not the same thing. It doesn't take the same courage. You're not committed in the same way.

So, you'll have to prepare some arguments to this effect and say that, from the point of view of democracy, electronic voting is going to improve democracy and give more meaning to members' being in the House for votes.

• 1205

If we've got to the stage of being able to vote even from our riding office, the next stage will be to organize a cross-country video conference, instead of gathering in the House of Commons.

That way too, we can save money, plane tickets, hotel expenses, and so on. Long live video conferences! No more planes, no more nothing. Think about it. It's not just a matter of saving money. It's a matter of democracy. It's important. When we're here, when we commit ourselves, when we stand up, when we vote« Mr. Harvey asked whether we could keep that for certain occasions.

How many bills do we give a third reading to each year? All of them? I asked how many votes were taken. That's my question. There are lots of intermediate votes.

I wanted to express this thought. If I were an editorialist or an outside critic of the House, these might be the arguments I would bring up. I think the politicians who suggested the changes would be expected to answer them.

[English]

Mr. Randy White: A quick comment on that, Yvon, is that perhaps the electronic voting in India gave the individuals a lot more time to throw the chairs around in the room.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Randy White: It may actually be more difficult or uncomfortable or more responsible for a member or anybody else in the House of Commons to see their name up on the wall for the full voting period and to see which way they voted...than for the three seconds they stand up and down. So there is that other accountability option—having it sit on the wall for that whole period.

The Chairman: Don, you might want to address the special occasion thing again.

Mr. Don Boudria: There's no doubt that

[Translation]

there's a saving of money that's partly behind it. But it's not just that. There's a saving of time, but there's also the matter of a better use of one's time. Every time an MP comes to Ottawa from British Columbia, for instance, it costs taxpayers $2,000. Is it right for the taxpayer to pay $2,000 to bring him here and then pay him $100 or $150 an hour for him to spend his time listening to the bell ring? Is this the best use of his time? It's not just a matter of savings. It's a matter of making the best possible use of taxpayers' representatives' time.

Regarding democracy, I think there is an argument there, and I wish to thank Mr. Charbonneau for bringing it up. An MP who stands up to vote in the House on a motion before him seems more accountable. If he constantly sees the result of his vote before him instead of just standing up for half a second, it may be more responsible.

As for the solemnity of voting, that doesn't even exist in the British parliament.

[English]

The mother of parliaments does not have a stand-up vote. Let's not forget that. This is does not form part of the traditions we inherited. In fact, the system in the British Parliament resembles more closely a manual system of electronic voting from the lobby. You go through a set of doors, almost like going through a turnstile. There's the “nay” lobby and the “yea” lobby. That's what it is. It's a primitive form of that kind of voting.

I think Yvon is right in the sense that we must not only say that it saves money; we must also say that it's a better use of the MPs' time. It's more accountable. An MP is more available to serve his or her constituents instead of listening to bells.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall and then Madeleine.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Speaking of bingo halls, I'm not too excited about the idea of having flashing lights up in the House of Commons. I wonder why it's necessary. I presume it's to display information for the public, which means that the display could be outside the Chamber in a separate room, and telecast. It doesn't have to be flashing on the walls of the House of Commons. Members could have at their desks a small display.

• 1210

What do they need to see? How they vote? How they voted? What the total vote is at any particular moment?

I'd certainly want the subcommittee to consider that kind of option. I suspect it would be cheaper as well, because we wouldn't have to worry about how we accommodate this in the House of Commons. Have you looked at that, or can you look at it?

Mr. Randy White: Yes, in fact that was looked at as part of the proposal in 1994, I believe. The aesthetic complications with a score board, so to speak, is probably fairly expensive to put up. That would have to be costed out. I think we'd have to look at locations and how it fit in.

I was quite impressed with the one in the House of Representatives. You really had to look to see this thing, and you really couldn't see it unless they were voting. If they were voting, it sort of came through the curtain; it showed up and then virtually disappeared after the voting. So we'd have to look at that part of it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Yes, I would want to see an option that has it out of the Chamber, available for televising but out of the Chamber.

Secondly, how would this work when we have, say, five or six votes? My impression is that one would have to have the vote on one motion, wait for the announcement of what the vote was, and then vote on the subsequent motion. Given that, would that really be faster on nights when we have several votes than the current system of applying votes? Have you actually looked at the cost of the new system versus the potential savings, putting aside the time savings for now. But it really comes down to the same thing, how much time would actually be saved?

I want to know those answers before I justify what may be a fairly major expenditure.

Mr. Randy White: We'll both probably put something in here, but yes, we have the last time and this time. As a matter of fact, as I said before, with the 15-minute bell we have now, the first vote should be well within the 15 minutes. Subsequent to that, I think you're going to find members sitting in their seats. If you give them two minutes to vote for each one of the rest, they're going to be sitting there wondering what to do.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: So it's two minutes plus. Would you still have the reading of the bill?

Mr. Randy White: Maybe Don can answer that, but it's going to show up on your board.

The other thing is, as Chuck said, each year when we vote at an assembly in the Reform Party the results are instantaneous. There is no waiting. In fact, we start off at 30 seconds to vote—and that's well over 1,000 people; it's 2,000 or 3,000 people—and they get that down to about 12 seconds after people are used to doing it. That's all it takes to get all of those votes in, so it's a very quick process.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: My final question is on the running vote. I presume one would be able to see where the vote tally stands at any given moment. I have some concern about that in connection with the ability of members to change their votes. Is that controlled so you can change your vote once, if you've made an obvious mistake, but you can't change it three or four times as you see how the vote is developing? But if it's as fast as Randy says, you wouldn't see that in any case.

Mr. Don Boudria: You can do it any way you want, I suppose. Once we get down to designing this thing in great detail, what we need is the advice of our clerk to sit down with the subcommittee of this group to iron out every single small detail.

But potentially—and the House of Representatives does it this way—in the last few minutes you have to do a manual exercise if you want to change your vote. This is probably so members won't play tricks; they won't pretend to vote the wrong way to scare off the whip, I guess, and change it at the last minute, or vice versa. I'm not sure. But there is a mechanism to approach the bench and change your vote at the last minute. Prior to that, you can press it any number of times. There's red button and a green button. You press the red button and the red light goes on; and if you subsequently press the green button, the other one goes off and that one goes on. You just keep on repeating it until you're fed up playing with the buttons—if that's what you want to do.

• 1215

At a certain time, however, it ceases to operate that way. Perhaps it could be a case that on a first vote you can do that, and on a subsequent vote, once you've pressed the button, that's it. Then you would have to approach the table and do it manually.

Those are the kinds of things where the table could supply information to this committee to make two things: possible changes to the standing orders or to adopt a report that could then be used as guidance for the Speaker.

Let's remember, many things a Speaker does are not in the standing orders. The definition of how a motion is put before the House is nowhere in the standing orders. Why is it right now, for instance, that if we had the bill we'd read the title of the bill, and if we had the motion we'd read the motion in its entirety? There's no reason for that. It's just practice.

We could decide that every motion will have a title and that's the way it'll be done from here on in. Motions won't be read at the end. They'll be read at the beginning but not necessarily at the end. But that would have to be in some type of report that we would design to offer guidance to the chair.

The Chairman: Madame Dalphond-Guiral.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): I have two comments and two questions. That's not bad, eh?

My first comment is that there's no stopping progress. I think we don't have any choice but to adopt electronic voting.

Second, I would personally be completely opposed to being able to vote outside the House. I think that, for the people, Parliament is the place where we vote. I have a very hard time imagining myself being made to come from the other side of the world to vote, unless it was an absolutely major issue. And if that were the case, well, it would cost $2,000 for a plane ticket. There's a price for democracy. So, personally, I would be completely opposed to being able, gradually, as a result of electronic voting, to vote in our cars, for instance.

These are my two questions. Members are customarily matched up in Parliament. It's commonly called pairing. In a system using electronic voting, would pairing still exist? If so, what provision has been made? Does the whip vote for the number of members he pairs?

Mr. Don Boudria: My interpretation, for what it's worth, is that things would remain exactly the same. In the next day's Hansard, there would be an indication of all those who voted and those that were paired.

Whether the vote is recorded electronically and the names of those who are paired are indicated, or whether it's done manually, it's all the same. It's just the recording system that changes. In my opinion, there's no need to change the rule as such.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: At present, we have 301 MPs. Let's imagine a scenario. They say, for example, that the first vote lasts 15 minutes. I've heard people around the table saying that, with electronic voting, it might not be 15 minutes. That's assuming all 301 seats were filled.

Having been whip, I know that sometimes some of our colleagues, for all sorts of good reasons they haven't told us about, are not present for votes. I imagine that that also happens in other parties. Stéphane has the gift of dual vision, but not to that extent. How can he know that Mado has decided not to go and vote today? If I haven't told him, he doesn't know. So, he can't have paired me. If I am away for the wrong reason, he won't pair me either.

So, the infamous 15-minute bell will be maintained. No one can say there's any guarantee in this regard.

Mr. Don Boudria: No. Maybe our information is not quite detailed enough. Instead of voting for eight minutes after the bell has stopped, we could vote while it's ringing. When the two whips approach the table to greet the Speaker, they do so to end the vote instead of beginning it. The vote itself takes half a second. So it's not the 15 minutes. But later, if it's decided that 15 minutes is too long, it could always be shortened.

• 1220

What we save is the period after the 15 minutes. We save eight or nine minutes after the bell. It may sometimes be as much as ten minutes if someone raises a point of order. That's what is saved. Subsequent votes can take up to eight minutes each, whereas they could just take a minute.

There's something we mustn't forget. The first time people use electronic voting, they're all going to be rattled. That's to be expected. The second time, people will be a little less rattled. When we've used it for three months, it will be part of our ways and customs.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: My last question is concerned with the comments made around the table about security. Has there already been some assessment made of how the Canadian and Quebec people will react to the prospect of electronic voting? How much importance is attached to voting security? It's fine to say that we don't need security because we're all responsible parliamentarians, who are basically honest, but how does the public perceive the issue? It's not clear that our own perception resembles the public's.

Wouldn't it be a good idea to check that out? If the public expects a vote to be the real vote, thus a completely secure vote, wouldn't it be a good idea to lay down some security rules?

Mr. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, I think we shouldn't decide whether we want to have a security system or not in the light of a survey or something like that. We should decide to have or not to have a security system according to the need to have one or not. That's what's important. We can do two things. First, we can design our system so that it can accommodate a security device. In other words, we can install an outlet to plug in a security device if we decided it was necessary.

Or, we could also ask for an estimate of the difference in cost between a system that can accommodate a security device and a system that cannot. If it costs five per cent more, maybe the answer is yes. If it costs twice as much, we would certainly want to take a close look at the situation before deciding to spend twice as much just in case someone in the future might think the system wasn't quite secure enough. That's what I would suggest as a solution.

[English]

The Chairman: Ken.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm ready to make two motions here, if you're ready.

The Chairman: Let's hear them.

Mr. Ken Epp: The first motion is that we simply receive this report.

The Chairman: D'accord.

Mr. Ken Epp: My second motion is that we instruct the administration to redraft the specifications with a view to putting this out to tender by January 9, 1998.

An hon. member: I second the motion.

The Chairman: Ken, I know it's not for me to say, but my thought would be this. By the way, I think perhaps your motion is....

Could we not redraft this report, their report, and at our next meeting, which is the Tuesday we come back, look at that report, and on the basis of it, so that some of the points that have been made today...on the basis of it we consider progress?

Now, colleagues, that's only a suggestion.

Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I've heard a number of questions and issues that people want responded to before we go out to tender. I've learned over long and sometimes sad experience that while it's important to do something quickly, rushing it and not resolving those issues first ends up with more cost and more delay in the long run.

I don't want to put an artificial deadline on it until this committee is satisfied that we're proceeding in the right way and we know the kind of system we're calling a tender for.

Mr. Don Boudria: I have a suggestion. The chair and the committee might want to consider instructing the staff to adjust the report you have, consider it at a subsequent meeting, and perhaps call to testify before you administrative people such as the Clerk of the House—who has the position, first, of an administrator, and secondly, is the technician behind the rules, if I can call him that—to indicate any problems they might foresee. Having considered that, then maybe you would want to consider adopting or not adopting the revised report at that time. It gives everyone a further chance to consult with their colleagues.

• 1225

The Chairman: Madame Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: More than this, I think what this committee needs to know is what instructions will be given to the Clerk in going out for a tender call that specifies what user needs must be met, and that is up to us to define. This system goes to the very heart of our prime role as members of Parliament. We're the only ones who can say what we want this system to do for us.

The Chairman: Rewrite the report or revise it. There's a suggestion that we get some expert advice on that.

Going back to my suggestion—because I sense, by the way, there's interest here—our first five days are already taken up because we have the chief electoral officer here. The first Tuesday is not. If that report can be ready and we can set it up for the first Tuesday, are you agreed that we'll go ahead and do it that way? If not, we'll do it at a later meeting.

Mr. Ken Epp: If it helps you, I'll withdraw my motion.

The Chairman: Withdraw your motion, and we'll keep it in mind for a future occasion.

Mr. Ken Epp: Sure.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think that's moving expeditiously, which I think we should do on this. I think everybody wants to see something done.

Is there any value in having—I'm thinking out loud—the clerk or researcher put together something? Is there any value in having some preliminary discussions either with all the House leaders or all the whips to try to get some of those things addressed in the next document before it's presented? Otherwise, we're going to go around and around here again with the same list, and it's going to be put off for another couple of weeks. I wonder if it would be worth while to try to get together with the whips or the House leaders or some group to ask whether anybody has a problem with this.

The Chairman: My interpretation of that is that we'd better not talk about the first Tuesday; we're quite likely to go to the second Tuesday. Okay? I just want some sense of that. If we can do that as well before the first Tuesday, we will do so. But if not....

Don Boudria and Bob Kilger.

Mr. Don Boudria: Mr. Chairman, an action you might want to consider in the future, if and when you have finished your report, whatever your conclusions are, is that the report be tabled in the House and it be concurred in. Then, whatever you agree to, I think the Board of Internal Economy is actually the instrument that makes those things happen. If they want to administer the funds, we would put out the contracts, probably through Public Works, however it's done. But the sequence would be that what your conclusions are, what your general outline is—and every single fine detail doesn't necessary have to be in it unless that's what you want—should then be concurred by the House. Then it's the will of the House, not just the will of a group.

The Chairman: Doug Kilger and Madam Parrish.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, there might others but I thought two strictly cost items were raised. One was with regard to the monitor, in-house or out; and I think the other one was related to security. Where are we going to access that information?

The Chairman: Madame Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I've heard exactly the same concerns that our whip has suggested, and as chair of the Ontario caucus I'd like to get a feel of this from the Ontario caucus so that we go forward with this with full support and good direction. So if you bring it back the first Tuesday, I don't meet my caucus until Wednesday morning and I'd like the opportunity to consult with them.

The Chairman: I sense it has become more complicated and we may well be being looking at a later date. I know we can't do it on the Thursday, that's all. We're likely looking at the following Tuesday. We will not be doing it before the second Tuesday, November 25.

Is that okay, colleagues? Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just so I'm clear, then, it's not coming back until the second Tuesday. I think that's wise.

The Chairman: That's at the earliest, depending on the circumstances.

• 1230

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I'm just interested in the format it's going to come back in. Is it going to come back in the form of a recommendation? The old report has disadvantages, pros and cons, problems, etc. There's no use rewriting that. What we need to come to discuss is a set of recommendations, don't we? We can adjust it here, but we have to come with something to discuss. Otherwise we'll just come with pros and cons, and we'll go around again.

The Chairman: The researcher tells me they would have to have draft specifications and there would be some indication of these costs. It seems to me that at that point, the committee is going to have to make recommendations with respect to it, Chuck.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The report from before was a good report, because we didn't know what we were dealing with, but we don't want to deal with that again. We want to say, “This is the system we think will work. What does everybody think?”

The Chairman: And there will be comments and discussions around it. Is that okay, colleagues?

Some hon. members: Yes.

The Chairman: I'd like to thank our witnesses today, Don Boudria and Randy White. We're very grateful to you gentlemen for the time you've taken.

Before we leave, though, Randy White has a proposal about a review of the standing orders. I'd be grateful if you'd take this along with you and look at it, and at a future meeting we will discuss this. I will discuss it again with Randy White; he and I have already had one discussion.

The meeting is closed. Thank you very much.