Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Oct. 2nd, 2014

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Beamish, hang on just a second while we get this straightened out.

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In the instant case, no. However, I think we do have to think in terms of long-term fairness. Nobody else gets the opportunity to support their own bill from the position of the committee that triggers the recommendation.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

This wouldn't be during anything else but the question period, David. Mr. Reid will be excusing himself from deliberations and voting and everything else.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

No, I hear you, and that helps. That mitigates it. Nonetheless, it's an advantage that Mr. Reid has that all the other sponsors of bills do not have, and we can only do our work if we're seen to be fair-minded by our colleagues.

However, I am a big believer, notwithstanding the abuse that Mike Harris made of the term, in common sense. I think in this case certainly I would be prepared, without prejudice but without setting a precedent...and only in the questions and only because it came up late. In future, we should make it clear that there is no role for the sponsor other than coming in as a witness at any time.

Since we didn't do that ahead of time and it would just disrupt everything, I'm making the case that we'll go along with it this time. But it's a one-off and without prejudice. We should be reaffirming somewhere, if I might leave it with the clerk, that in future, if a member wants to play a role at all, they have to disconnect themselves entirely.

But for the purposes of today, we can live with it without prejudice.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I appreciate that.

I'm not sure, Kevin, if you have an opinion as well.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

I'm somewhat indifferent to it. If it's set questions that Scott has, it might even be better off for you, Tom, to read them. But I'm somewhat indifferent at this point.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

With the provisos that Mr. Christopherson has made—I agree with you on this one-off situation—let's have someone, who may know more about what we're trying to talk about than the rest of us, be here to ask questions.

I'll go to Mr. Lamoureux for seven minutes. Then we'll go to where Mr. Reid would be asking questions.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Beamish, welcome.

I'd like to be really clear in my own mind in terms of the process of how it would actually transpire. After the elections occur, when the House reconvenes for the first time, is that when it really begins? Or when does it begin? Can you walk me through it from the day after the election?

[David Beamish]

As I mentioned earlier, because the composition of the House of Lords doesn't change after a general election, the election of the Lord Speaker is not tied to the parliamentary timetable. The first election took place basically when the House was ready, when the arrangements had all been agreed.

What the committee recommended, and was agreed to by the House, was that the election should be for a five-year period and, rather like the President of the U.S.A., there should be a maximum of two terms per Lord Speaker. In fact the first Lord Speaker, Baroness Hayman, decided to stand down after five years. But it's basically on a five-year cycle.

What I would expect to happen is that the next election would take place in July 2016, with the successful candidate taking over probably in September. In fact in 2006 the Lord Chancellor left the woolsack immediately after the results had been announced, and the successful candidate took her seat immediately. But in future we would do it on a five-year cycle with the election in July, taking effect after the summer break.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

In terms of just the time involved, does everyone take their seats? Are they provided a ballot? How does that work?

[David Beamish]

I thank you for that question. It's something I didn't cover in my notes.

Basically we ran a polling station for the day. A room near the chamber was available for members to cast their votes. Members who thought they might not be present on the day were able to apply for a postal vote. By 2011, the second election, postal votes had become more popular. Quite a large proportion of the votes would have been sent in in advance.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Do potential candidates have to identify themselves to the clerk that they want to be put on the ballot? How does that work?

[David Beamish]

Yes, under the arrangement recommended by the committee, each candidate had to have a nomination form signed by two supporters, and the names of the supporters were published in the information about the candidates.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

So if I wanted to take on that particular position, I would get a couple of my colleagues to sign up. I would then submit the form to the clerk's office and then the clerk's office would develop a ballot. That ballot can get fairly lengthy, as you mentioned.

How much time do they have to place their vote? When you say there are postal votes, it's almost as if it's this particular day and you have x number of hours or x number of days to cast your vote.

How does that work?

[David Beamish]

I'm just trying to find the list of candidates we put out in 2011. We circulated it about two weeks before the polling day. It was a little booklet with a full record of parliamentary service of each candidate and a 75-word statement by each. People basically had two weeks either to cast their postal vote or to decide.

I appreciate that this sort of system would not really be relevant to an election you were holding immediately after the start of a new Parliament, but because we're not in that situation, it's relatively straightforward to allow candidates plenty of time. Indeed, an innovation in 2011 was that we had a hustings meeting run by the Hansard Society, a highly respected organization promoting parliamentary democracy and interest in Parliament in the UK, and all but one of the candidates attended and asked questions. It was filmed and then broadcast on the BBC Parliament channel.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

So for all intents and purposes it's almost like a campaign within itself, because you're talking about multi-day occurrence from receiving the ballot to being able to vote. Correct?

[David Beamish]

I think that's essentially right. I think a reason for the 75-word statement recommended by our procedure committee was perhaps to try to reduce the amount of individual campaigning that members would be subjected to, and to make it more structured. But, essentially, you're right.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

What percentage of people actually participated in the actual vote?

[David Beamish]

It's quite high, but not everybody did. In 2011, the most recent one, there were 770 members eligible to vote, of whom 644 did vote. The percentage was somewhere the high 80's.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

You briefly commented on this before. Was the general feeling from going through that process quite positive? Did people feel quite happy with the results at the end of the day? Were minority thoughts or opinions expressed on the issue, or are there discussions today about the possibility of reforming it in any way? Are people content?

[David Beamish]

As far as I'm aware, I have not had any negative feedback. It may have been helpful—and I think this is something Mr. Reid has drawn attention to in your deliberations—that in both cases the candidate who was finally successful was ahead at every stage of the count. Nobody overtook anybody else. That perhaps meant that whatever your views, the process was seen to be fair.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lamoureux.

We'll go to Mr. Reid for four-minute rounds.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Mr. Beamish, for being able to appear with us today, particularly as we changed the timing of this with essentially no notice.

Before I ask you any questions, I want to mention that there was one thing you said that provoked at least one set of raised eyebrows, and that was the term “left the woolsack”. Am I right that the woolsack refers to the Speaker's chair in your country?

[David Beamish]

That's correct. Our Speaker, and, before her, the Lord Chancellor, sits on a woolsack rather than a wooden chair, as in almost every other Westminster-style Parliament.