Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2019

[David Christopherson]

So you think that is something we should at least consider even in the initial trial process?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It has been a grand success in Australia. Yes.

[David Christopherson]

I'm probably out of time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

[David Christopherson]

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That was a great exercise to see who could talk the longest without asking a question.

Now I will open it up informally to anyone who would have a question.

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Chair, I believe my colleague Mr. Reid may have a couple of questions later.

I have a broad question to get your thoughts on it.

First of all, I do want to thank our friends at Samara. I see that Dr. Paul Thomas is here. I would say Dr. Thomas is one of my two favourite Canadian political scientists who are named Paul Thomas. I just want to point that out. I do appreciate the exceptional work that Samara does and the information it provided to this committee.

You talked a bit about the evolution, especially of Westminster, and how they got to that point. I hadn't realized the process they went through with the initial committee report and the period for members to respond and give some thought to what they wanted, and then coming up with the final report and debating it in the House. It seemed like a very logical process they went through, whether it started that way or not or whether events got in the way.

How would you envision a similar process playing out here? Would it replicate that process, with an initial report and a period for feedback and then a final report that could then be debated in the House? That's my first question.

Connected to that, should we as committee, if we decide to look at that process, also have a part in that looking at other aspects related to that? I'm thinking about some of the Westminster innovations such as the Backbench Business Committee. Should we be looking at that at the same time to see how that might play a role?

We had a review of the e-petition systems here. One thing that was suggested in the past and wasn't adopted at the time was like in the U.K., with a debate to be triggered based on a petition. Should that be rolled up into this type of discussion, or should we focus only on a parallel chamber process? Should we include more in it at the same time? Can we have your thoughts on that?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Those are two good points.

In terms of the process going forward, I do recommend...because as the U.K. recognized, this is a fairly large—they said “radical”—innovation in their usual practices. They were very cautious with it. They had a select committee look entirely just at putting that set of initial proposals together, which they then got out to all MPs for a period of months over Christmas break and into the following year, before they came back with a second report. That formed the basis of the debate that went into the House. Then they started it on an experimental basis for a year.

When they first came out with that first set of proposals, they weren't even at that point suggesting a pilot project. They just said, here's what we're thinking, and we really want to see what you think of this proposal. I think the input they had back from MPs went into report two, and that eventually formed the basis of the Standing Orders.

On the second point, the whole culture of backbench business in the U.K. is different and has evolved differently. It would not be my recommendation to go down that road. It might be something for another look, maybe chapter two for the modernization committee, if we were to create such a thing.

It certainly has merit. I think there would be aspects of the program that you could put in a second chamber that would improve opportunities for backbench members to get on record matters that are relevant to their constituents. I would want to get a separate understanding of just how backbench business and that committee operates in the U.K. That is fascinating, I grant you, but I think that would be something for a separate look.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Mr. Christopherson mentioned, and it was mentioned around the table as well, that if we were to implement changes, we should do it on a trial or provisional basis. I suspect you would recommend that as well.

What time period do you think is acceptable? Is it the length of a single Parliament? Is it two Parliaments? What timeline do you think would be appropriate to be able to get to know the system, first of all, but then actually to have a legitimate opportunity to see if it's working and achieving the goal that was set out?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

In each case, when they got to the point of establishing a pilot project, there were reports a year or so after the first year of operations. That was a report to Parliament, around which there was a determination made as to whether they would go forward, and in some cases what changes or modifications they would make.

In terms of the span of time, a committee looking at this would need at least several months—there's a ton of information out on this—to put together an initial set of proposals. They would need to get it out for input and consultation—that's perhaps another half year—and then try an experimental or pilot project, all broadly within the framework of one Parliament. Then, perhaps at the end of that Parliament or some time shortly after, there would be a report on its utility and its usefulness to Parliament, and only after that—probably in the Parliament after that—an adoption, if Parliament chose to make it a permanent part of the institution.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Other members?

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Just a quick comment before I ask a rather more serious question. If we have the parallel chamber sitting after the regular chamber, wouldn't that make it a serial chamber?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I take that as a rhetorical question.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

When these topics have come up in the past, what have been the credible arguments against doing this, if there were any? Have there been serious...? What are the points made against it?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

There were, in the initial go-around, in both instances. In the case of Australia, there were dissenting reports on that initial debate and the tabling of the first reports. There was concern that the parallel chamber would in some way diminish the pre-eminence of the main chamber. There was a sensitivity to that. In addition, there was a feeling that it would be inconsequential for audiences at home.

In all cases, the experience showed that early skepticism was essentially solved or dissipated over time, because of the values and some of the enhancements they made to the program. They added things like the constituency statements and having more of what we call “take-note debates”. The debating schedule in Westminster Hall is full. You basically apply to get your debate put on the agenda—either a 30-minute or a two-hour debate. You have to guarantee as the applicant that people from different caucuses will show up and participate. Those debates have been extremely relevant to the people at home. You'll know that take-note debates for us are a pretty rare occurrence. It's pretty much the domain of the usual channels in the main chamber.

Honestly, as we look at this, the opportunities for that parallel chamber to make that kind of a difference are certainly there.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Has anybody ever made a parallel chamber and then closed it because it just didn't work?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Not to my knowledge.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

I have one final, quick question before I cede the floor. Are the party structures and the party control in favour of these things in general, or is there a threat to control over business by giving more power to the backbench from party organizations?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Again, that touches on the culture that has developed in the U.K. in particular. Backbench business and the role of backbenchers have been given a very much higher but different kind of profile, going right back to their 1922 Committee. Things have evolved, just as I said at the outset.

Our set of conventions, traditions and Standing Orders has evolved differently from theirs. It's a situation where the functions of the chamber need very much to line up with what we consider our needs to be. Members here have the best understanding of what's going to make a difference, not only for the efficiency of their time—you'll know that we're all under pressure time-wise—but also because it will correspond in essence to bringing the public closer to Parliament, giving them a much greater and stronger connection with the work we do here.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Simms had a question, but he's deferring, if it's okay with the committee, to Mr. Baylis. Is that okay?

You have a question, Mr. Baylis?

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

Thank you, Chair.

If we were to do something in Canada, we'd still not be the pioneers. Can we say that? We're not the first. We're not the second. We're not even, how would I say, a rapid third follower. How long have these been in place in Australia and in the U.K.?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

They have been since 1994; so Australia has more than 25 years' experience. At mid-decade it did its 20-year report, which to a great extent was the source of the research I did. Yes, we're certainly not early to this at all.

[Frank Baylis, Liberal, Pierrefonds—Dollard, QC]

I'm asking because we're great in Parliament at talking things over and over again. We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel here, would we?