Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 19th, 2019

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

No. There are really excellent reports on what the pros and cons have been and the process they undertook to get to the introduction of a second chamber. I will say that there are even differences between those two, Australia and the U.K. In the same vein, we can't take what they did and necessarily replicate it here.

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

We can't copy and paste it.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I think we need to take account of any gaps or issues or limits that such a device or mechanism might help.

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

We would take something that pioneers have done for decades but customize it as Canadian.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

That would be my read of it, yes.

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

Given this approach, when you first go down a path, you go slowly; the second time, when it's been well travelled, you can go with a little more security. I'm just curious, timing-wise, about how long it would take to put this thing in there. Is bringing parliamentarians up to speed on what it would look like the main thing you'd like to accomplish?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes.

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

I know we talked about Samara. It did its survey, and most parliamentarians were against a second chamber. I presume they don't know what it means when they say they're against the second chamber.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I took that report, if I can say so, to be more neutral. There's not a wide understanding of what a parallel chamber even is, among parliamentarians, because it's something new for us. In the last Samara report you're referring to, I didn't see the result as being at all a diminishment of that idea. I think, with more information, that could be looked at.

To get back to the origins of your question, Mr. Baylis, the first part would be creating the initial proposed standing order, but we would take some time to really get that right. We would use the examples of the other Houses and put forward the best proposal we could and then get input from MPs. That should take some time, months at least, in which they would have the opportunity to study and reflect on that.

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

I'd like to hear your thoughts on this. If we were to propose something along the lines of “this is the proposal”—you never get things 100% right anyway—and built into it that after a certain period of time, etc., that would be within the same Parliament.... I note this because one Parliament could say, “We really like it”, but then they could all be voted out. It could happen.

[Voices]

Oh, oh!

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

A new group could come in and say, “What's this about?”. I'm wondering if it should start and at least be evaluated within the term of the same people. What are your thoughts on that?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I think that's a really sound way of framing it, honestly, because you're right that in a four-year Parliament you would have the opportunity to also put it out as a proposal, get feedback on it, propose a pilot, and allow at least a year or so for that to operate, to learn from how it works, its shortcomings and its advantages, and to table a report on the first year of operations. That would all be completed before the end of a Parliament, and in the next Parliament, then, a motion could be taken up to adopt it.

I'll say again, just as a final point, that the best way to accomplish this, of course, is to have all registered parties in the House working together on this.

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

Do I have one last question?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can have one more.

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

Just speaking to the historical sense, you mentioned that there was reluctance in both Houses of Australia and Westminster when it first came. Am I correct in understanding that after it had run, it gained popularity?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes.

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

How did that happen?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

The early criticism and skepticism all but abated after several years of operation. I mean, it's not to say that there still might not be some dissenting voices out there, but by and large it was seen as an innovation that, no question, was an advantage and a help to the work of parliamentarians and to Parliament itself. In the case of the U.K., these e-petition debates, as Clerk Natzler said at your last meeting, are sometimes the most watched bits of Parliament that you're going to find, aside from some special committees from time to time at which there's controversy or something of that nature. In terms of general debates, it has the effect of bringing the public closer to the proceedings of Parliament.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Madame Lapointe.

[Linda Lapointe, Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.]

Thank you.

Mr. Stanton, I listened to you very carefully. I'll ask you the following question to make sure that I understood correctly.

You're proposing, for example, that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs conduct a fairly extensive study. However, consultations and studies take time. As my colleague Mr. Baylis was saying, some things already exist, including reports. You mentioned limits earlier. We mustn't reinvent the wheel each time.

If I have understood correctly, you're proposing that, in the next Parliament, we conduct a major study and prepare a report on the topic. You're suggesting that we set up pilot projects and carry out the projects in the next Parliament. Is that correct?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes. First, the Parliament of the United Kingdom may have created a select committee on modernization to study this issue specifically.

[Linda Lapointe]

Yes.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Therefore, it may not be necessary for a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to do so. In this case, it will be up to us to decide. However, the topic and study are very broad, and consequences and changes must be implemented in all Parliament's processes and procedures. As a result, I think that the committee can first propose a set of recommendations for consideration and consultations with the members of Parliament. If they so wish, a motion could then be introduced to establish the second chamber. It would on an experimental basis, in my opinion.

I agree that this process will take up to two years, in order to obtain all the comments and recommendations from the other members. The new second chamber will then be tested for a certain period, on an experimental basis.