Evidence of meeting #145 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was project.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:55 a.m.
Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.
You spoke earlier about all the people in Great Britain and Australia who were initially skeptical. However, this skepticism is no longer necessarily an issue. Have these countries carried out studies and prepared reports on the topic?
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
In my opinion, some things have become obvious over time and as the second chamber project progresses. Concerns and skepticism were initially expressed. However, these concerns didn't materialize. More importantly, there has been further improvement with regard to the business of parliamentarians. The benefits showed a significant improvement, despite the initial concerns.
11:55 a.m.
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Just to follow up, we've been talking around it, but I really want your perspective because, in your capacity as Deputy Speaker, you've spent more time than most of us thinking of this place holistically—every day, it's your job—and how things move and what's doable and what isn't.
I think it's fair to say that there is a lot of interest and a fair bit of support, and some of us are actually excited about this as a positive move forward. All of that is to say that it looks as if, right now, Chair, at least at this committee, if we could find the sweet spot, I think we're in a position, I would hope, to put together a report that actually moves this forward.
My question to you is this: In the real world of how this place actually operates, the question is ideally, within that context, for those of us who want this to happen, what do you think we should shoot for in this Parliament? Do you think there is enough time that we could actually get into the details? Should we spend more time now drilling down on details to get it as close to ready as possible, and then ask the House to endorse it, and then carry that over?
Or do you think that, given the realities—and you and I have been through a number of Parliaments now—that we're better off to just wrap up this report and give a favourable recommendation to the next Parliament?
I sense that you're enthusiastic toward this as an idea, as many of us are.
So that was a long way to ask what you think is the best we could do in this Parliament with this committee, given that we probably have majority support across all three of the recognized parties to do something. What do you think that something is? What's the most ambitious thing we could do to see this come to light, given that we're into the silly season, we're running out of runway, but we do have time?
Give us your thoughts, sir.
11:55 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, it might not be the most ambitious approach that I would take, but I think if your committee were to table its recommendations based on what it has reviewed here and to give perhaps an initial path forward as to what next steps Parliament may wish to consider in the next iteration, that would still form the basis of a study on record, looking at the facts—the pros and cons of this idea—and then putting it into play so it could be picked up by the next Parliament to move forward with....
In that report, you might want to take some of what this committee considers to be the highlights, or what you consider to be the advantageous aspects of a parallel chamber.
But if you were to go forward, also give some thought to what that path of development might look like. Is it a separate committee? Is it a subcommittee of this one? However, agreeably, your work is very busy. You have a lot on your table. It might not be ideal for this committee to do. But that's the way I would see it.
I agree with your latter suggestion around getting that documented evidence summarized and reported to the House, but beyond that I don't see creating a pilot project by the end of this Parliament. There are a few other things going on between now and June, and it might just get lost in the matters pending.
Noon
Hamilton Centre, NDP
—and if they, in the majority, are as enthusiastic, they would have something to work with.
Noon
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, very much.
There will be members who will be back in the next Parliament, who will know that this is an area of study in which there was some interest and can pick it up from there, if the next Parliament wishes.
Noon
Hamilton Centre, NDP
Excellent, that's a great contribution to this discussion. Thank you so much, Deputy.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you.
We have time for one short question. Either it could be Mr. Simms or he could defer to Mr. Whalen.
Is that okay?
You have one question.
Noon
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair, for the opportunity.
Thank you very much, Mr. Deputy Speaker. It's a great report.
In your presentation, you mentioned one point, which is that it's important to know what gap we're trying to address by having a second chamber.
What is your view on the gap that needs to be addressed by the second chamber, or is there one?
Noon
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Well, I have looked at this in more of a conceptual sense. I would certainly defer to members to really think about and discuss those things.
In my view, and speaking not so much as a chair occupant but as an MP over these years, I do think that the opportunities for more MPs to get on the record matters that are directly relevant to their own constituents has been a feature of the other parallel chambers that has been resoundingly successful.
I would suggest finding ways to do that through debates, through constituency statements and through other aspects of that part, while not taking away from the main chamber the importance of its taking up consideration of government and more controversial and consequential business.
Noon
Liberal
Nick Whalen Liberal St. John's East, NL
Do you think this could happen simply by shortening the amount of time that each individual would have to participate in regular debates? Many chambers in the world limit the amount of time you speak on an issue to three minutes per reading. It seems that 10 minutes per reading has a lot of repetition.
Noon
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, it can have that effect.
If you were to venture into that area—not to say it isn't worth consideration—you're getting into an area that is very much the domain of the parties and how they wish to debate important measures before the House as they relate to government business. I think time limitations are a different kind of discussion. I do believe that both on the government side and on the opposition side—and we see this repeated time and again—parties want the opportunity to get on the record on these matters that are very much part of our law-making, so I would not want to see this in any way derogating from the ability of the House to perform that important function. This is perhaps why a secondary chamber gives an additional ability to do some of these things without taking away the preeminence of the main chamber.
Noon
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
To be honest, this is a comment, not a question, to my colleague, Mr. Whalen I'm responding to his suggestion that you can shorten interventions to three minutes.
As a practical matter, it's often difficult to express a complex thought, especially one that involves providing the chamber with background information in a shorter intervention. I recently was addressing the indigenous languages act and had to go through population statistics on Inuktitut speakers and how many of them are unilingual. You just can't do that quickly.
You can always divide your time. We already have a process for allowing 20-minute speeches to be divided into 10. One could easily subdivide further and accomplish that goal. A folkway has to develop of accepting that, but division of time is all done by consent anyway. I think that's a better way of achieving what you're pointing to than to put a cap on, which creates an irreversible problem. I can't say that I'm going to be aggregating the time of the next three speakers in order to provide a more fulsome discussion.
I just wanted to get that on the record.
Noon
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, Mr. Reid, and thank you, Mr. Stanton. This has been very helpful to kick off our debate on the potential of this.
We'll just suspend for a couple of minutes to change witnesses.
12:05 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Welcome back to meeting 145 of the committee.
During the break, I had a compliment on how well our committee works together. I may have to refer to that in the future at some time. I'll keep that.
Our next order of business is the study of the Centre Block rehabilitation project.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Mr. Chair, on a point of order, we're starting a few minutes past 12. Would it be agreeable to the committee, in order to get a full hour with these witnesses, if we go a little bit past 1 p.m. to sort of even out?
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
