Evidence of meeting #147 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 debate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes, using a consensus and going in and saying.... It's entirely possible that any one proceeding could disrupt that, but I think only temporarily.
That was a comment I had to make. I just wanted to get that on the record.
Thank you very much.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
We have to ask the witnesses questions, not make a speech.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
No, there's no rule about that. If the witnesses wish to comment on that, I would welcome that.
Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
I think that points to the importance of getting the process through which such a chamber would be created. If it's an act of consensus in the first place, you can establish norms and conventions that can endure.
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
In this regard, as my colleague said, the parallel chamber has been part of a suite of reforms introduced in Westminster over the past 20 years. When it began, the only way of getting debates was through the ballot of application submitted to the Speaker. In 2009, the backbench business committee was created, out of a series of reforms. That is, as its name implies, backbenchers who are elected. The chair is elected by the whole House. Members are elected by their respective caucuses. They sit and decide what will be debated during certain slots.
That speaks, perhaps, to that kind of consensual element, where you could have a different way of managing the business from the broader main chamber.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Madam Lapointe can go before me. I'll take whatever time is left.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Thank you very much.
When witnesses appear before us, I think it's an opportunity to hear what they want to say, what they think and what they've been studying.
Earlier, you mentioned in your briefing that you had studied the cases of people who had lost their jobs or retired in 2015. You say that two-thirds of the people seemed frustrated with the way it worked.
Have you checked whether the figures for 2006, 2008, 2011 or all previous elections were different?
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
Samara has done a series of exit interviews with former MPs, beginning with those who left in 2006. The surveys we began with MPs on different subjects started in 2016. Our report on heckling was based on surveys.
The specific issue of how satisfied people were with debates only emerged out of a survey we conducted last year in conjunction with the democracy caucus. The frustration with debates is a long and enduring matter that would date back to the MPs who exited in 2006, 2008, 2011 and so forth. The specific number for the survey of the current MPs, the two-thirds, comes only from 2018.
Liberal
Linda Lapointe Liberal Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, QC
Okay. So they were mainly those who did not return in 2015.
We talked to the clerk earlier. We talked about objectives. In the context of a possible parallel chamber, what objectives would you like to achieve?
I would also like to know whether you studied the role of members of Parliament as well. The clerk seemed to say that it had evolved over time. We want to better represent our constituents. That's my second question.
My third point is about the parallel chamber. We talked about it earlier. I would like to know whether, during the evolution of the parallel chambers, the behaviour of members of Parliament seems to have improved.
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
The nature of the debates in Westminster Hall in part reflects the different tradition, it would be best to say, of the British House of Commons, where party discipline is much more fluid. They have the three-line whip system, so that the government stakes out aspects of business that are crucial and then allows dissent on a wider range. That has existed previous to the adoption of Westminster Hall. Where the debates were chosen, the culture in that chamber reflected this aspect to some extent. Members were used to having a diversity of opinions.
It also speaks to the broader relationship of the MPs with their whips. There is not the same ability for party leaders to deselect members as the ultimate threat. It's chosen by constituency associations and then on from there.
That said, where it has made a greater difference is in the ability of individual members to hold a debate as part of a broader advocacy on a particular issue. Oftentimes, what you will see is a member raising a particular issue, say, pancreatic cancer, as a first step. Then it might lead to another debate and potentially a bill.
As part of my own research, I looked at the evolution of the law in metal theft. Scrap metal theft is a large issue in the U.K. They have many old buildings. It started with a Westminster Hall debate, then went on to eventually be a private member's bill to regulate scrap metal dealers. That has empowered backbench members to build a broader campaign. It has provided more tools to allow that sort of advocacy.
In terms of the basic relationship between members and their parties, it has always been a bit looser. However, in recent years, and this refers to Ms. Duncan's point, rebellions have increased. There has been more dissent on votes. In part, that reflects the coalition government period and the current hung Parliament.
I hope that responded to your questions.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
First of all, I want to thank you for the work you're doing. It's very insightful. The exit interviews you've done and the polls you've run are fascinating. Through the different ones you have done, I'm assuming that you've sensed frustration with the type of debates we have from people exiting all parties. Is that true?
Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
Yes, and this frustration was shared across party groups. That was a consensus finding.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
Was there a breakdown at any point of whether that frustration was over debate on government legislation or PMBs?
Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
I think we asked to assess members' satisfaction with the state of thoughtful and substantive debate at a higher level. That was the response we got.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
I definitely agree with some of Ms. Duncan's points, but then I disagree with some of them as well.
There is a lot of partisanship, definitely, in this Parliament, but I do think it shifts from time to time. When we are debating PMBs, I notice less partisanship. When it comes to voting, there's a little less partisanship when it comes to PMBs, unless you're the NDP.
In the committee process, we also see a little less partisanship maybe, until there's a vote on some type of issue, but when we're trying to explore topics and discuss ideas, you see that the partisanship starts to shift a little, so I can envision a parallel chamber where perhaps the culture doesn't completely go away but shifts a little bit, and that's a start.
I'm really thankful for the work you've done. In terms of debating government legislation, have you ever had anybody say that they didn't have enough time to debate government legislation, whether they were the government party or opposition?
Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
Inadequate time to deliberate and debate in general was identified in the survey as the number one obstacle to doing the work of democratic representation. What the source of that time crunch is or what members don't have time to do specifically—it may not necessarily be a debate in the main chamber but having time to prepare for committee—I don't know. We didn't have a chance to assess that.
Liberal
Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON
It would be interesting to learn a little bit more about that, because just like what was mentioned, what we're seeing in the House right now with the level of debate is that it's not necessarily thrilling to sit there and watch sometimes. Sometimes we're forced into having a certain number of days on different pieces of legislation, but the ideas are not new after a while. We're recycling the same ideas.
Perhaps every member should have the right to get their feelings and statements on the record, but I think the contentment with the level of debate that's happening starts going down after a certain point because you are recycling the same ideas. That has to be brought into balance somehow.
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
That was one issue as well. The resources available for members to perhaps bring their own perspectives on legislation was identified as a major issue, where the members' capacity to have staff to conduct research and just sort of independently scrutinize legislation was seen to be challenging.
