PROC Committee Report

Dissenting opinion of the New Democratic Party of Canada

Introduction

While the NDP agrees with some of the recommendations included in this report, there are certain recommendations with which there are unresolved issues that require significantly more analysis on the committee’s part before any recommendations should be made. Decisions made without the appropriate analysis leave significant gaps in a study that speaks to the fundamental modification of how the House of Commons runs itself during the COVID-19 pandemic and any potential issue that may limit the ability of Members of Parliament to safely be physically present in the House of Commons.

First and foremost, on the topic of this study in general, nowhere near enough time was taken to properly assess the current pandemic and parliament’s potential operations. Many of the witnesses who appeared before the committee agreed with this assessment:

With regard to how we do things in Ottawa, I would like to suggest that changing the way we do things and changing the Standing Orders deserves more extensive study, and I would recommend to the committee that perhaps this is something they should continue to do.[1]

I hesitate to put a time frame on it, but I do know that May 15 is not enough time—that is for sure. You just don't have enough time to properly absorb the information and arrive at conclusions that really cover all the aspects that have been raised and need consideration, in my view.

I agree entirely with Marc Bosc's interpretation of this.

In order to answer your question properly, I think the first step should be to distinguish what the most pressing and urgent aspects of this ensemble of questions are, get those resolved first and then add in details as solutions present themselves.[2]

When we look at the situation that exists now, you were given a very short time as a committee to come up with what is, I'm going to say, a macro-level solution. Now, once that report comes in, there's implementation, and we will need more in-depth answers to that macro solution. I would hope that the committee would continue to look at what we have, how we can implement it and how it will make not only virtual meetings but also actual in-house meetings better.[3]

Because of the extremely short time frame given for this report, a number of significant issues arose with the committee’s work. The committee met well beyond what would be considered the end of their final meeting to deliberate on the recommendations. Committee members had very little time to review proposed recommendations from other parties. The final product was rushed to the point that committee members were working with older drafts while discussing newer ones because they could not be translated in such a short time. And finally, it impacted the writing of this dissenting report, which had to be written without a current copy of the final report. This resulted in not having the ability to note page and recommendation numbers throughout.

Certain recommendations referring to particular parliamentary privileges and functions, while well-intentioned, were made before enough research was done on the topics to be able to make the conclusive recommendations as they appear in this report.

Quorum

While the committee agreed to modify the Standing Orders in the context of the current pandemic in an early recommendation in the main report, the committee also decided to recommend that the definition of quorum be amended to accept virtual presence as counting towards quorum. The latter recommendation is something the NDP believes should have been part of the broader discussion on revised standing orders.

The House of Commons Standing Order on Quorum is one that reflects the “normal” sitting of the House of Commons. The lack of analysis and witness testimony on this denied the committee the ability to review virtual factors, nor did it allow the committee to review elements of Quorum in the context of a hybrid parliament. The recommendation in the section referring to Quorum is something the NDP disagrees with. The NDP has major concerns about tasking the House with modifying the Standing Orders for a structure during a pandemic and simultaneously advising the House, without appropriate study, how to modify or consider a single Standing Order.

Successes

Success of virtual proceedings up until the tabling of this report should be noted as being mixed. Not all members have been able to connect or their connection has not been strong enough for a constant video stream and there have been interruptions to proceedings because of interpretation issues.

To recommend that the House of Commons move to additional virtual proceedings for all regular business goes against the incremental approach referred to in other sections of the report and the recommendation the committee supported, as was suggested by several witnesses:

Yes, I would agree with a staggered approach. I gather that the U.K. House of Commons at Westminster is starting slowly and seeing how it works, perhaps starting with question period and ministers' statements, those sorts of things. The values of Parliament are so much at stake.[4]

Simply put, a staggered approach is definitely the way to go.

One of the ways that could be done, which in fact has already been started with the way committees have started up again, is on a subject matter basis. I can easily see, say, a question period done on a thematic basis. You could say you're going to have three ministers one day and another three ministers the next week, and so on, so that you build up to full resumption. As the technology catches up and the health situation abates, you can continue to build up in that way.[5]

An incremental approach recommendation gives the House of Commons and all parties the ability to review processes. This would allow for the Members to work collaboratively on models that make the most sense for the constantly changing world we currently live in. The NDP agrees, the building of technological capacity is important for the House of Commons, however, the language of the recommendation under the section entitled Hybrid Model for Sittings of the House is not clear. It also is interesting that this suggestion that speaks to making the work of the House of Commons completely virtual, yet does not discuss the important factor of reviewing a hybrid model.

For the duration of the pandemic, over 30 Members have been coming to the House of Commons regularly to do the work needed to help all Canadians during this time. As we better understand the health risks of COVID-19, the second phase was to introduce the COVI committee virtually. A recommendation that reads to only have a 100% virtual sitting of the House undermines the recommendation to take an incremental approach.

Voting

The committee’s recommendation that voting be made virtual as soon as possible is deeply concerning. The committee heard very little evidence with regard to implementing virtual voting in Canada, in spite of hearing from a number of other jurisdictions who are working toward some variation of virtual or electronic voting. In fact, Speaker of the House of Commons Anthony Rota said to the committee on April 21:

Voting is something that I don't see happening in the near future. That's something that requires some technology that personally I'm not yet comfortable with. What we'd have to do is develop a secure system that guarantees that everyone can vote and everyone can vote securely.[6]

The NDP believes that voting of any kind beyond the current mechanisms in the House of Commons needs more scrutiny by the committee. Issues such as accessibility, security, verification, and timing systems need to be well understood not just by committee members but by all parliamentarians before such a recommendation should be made.

There are a multitude of options with regards to voting from outside of the Chamber of the House of Commons which should be reviewed as part of a more in-depth study on new ways for parliamentarians to vote. These include but are not limited to proxy voting, paired voting, block voting, electronic voting within the Chamber, remote electronic voting, and remote video voting. Each of these systems also still needs to be examined through both the lens of a fully virtual parliament and a hybrid parliament.

The committee heard repeatedly from witnesses that Members of the House of Commons are masters of their own domain. Decisions, such as whether to change how votes are conducted and which new system to implement, rest exclusively with Members of Parliament. To recommend that the House move forward without specifying with which voting system and how it is to be implemented leaves those decisions in the hands of the House of Commons administration. While the administration does incredible work and has really shone through their hard work and creativity during this pandemic, they do not have the authority to make this decision.

To rush the implementation of virtual voting systems without proper scrutiny puts Canadian democratic principles at risk.

Conclusion

The NDP are not in direct opposition to many of the recommendations mentioned above. The NDP simply believe that many of the recommendations require further study and a more in-depth look before committee members, and through them, Members of Parliament, are in a position to make informed decisions on these issues.

As all Members and the administration of the House of Commons have adapted to the reality that we are currently faced with, it is imperative that we do not take excessive risks by moving too quickly and know when it is time to slow down for thoughtful consideration. The NDP believes that the recommendation that advises the House of Commons to do the work of preparing a set of modified Standing Orders to use when faced with this type of situation gives all Members the opportunity to participate in this thoughtful consideration. Too many of the recommendations in the report are putting, in the NDP’s opinion, the cart before the horse.

It is important for all Members to thank the amazing teams in the House who have modified their work environment both inside and outside of the House. The capacity to adapt and change to meet the needs of the Members of Parliament has been tremendous and reflects what an amazing team we have that supports Canadian democracy. It is the NDP’s perspective that work should be recognized and that as we move through these uncharted territories the sacredness of our democracy be considered carefully.