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.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Welcome back to the 147th meeting of the committee, as we continue our study on parallel debating chambers.
We are pleased to be joined by representatives of Samara Centre for Democracy. Here today are Michael Morden, research director; and Paul Thomas, senior research associate. Thank you both for being here today.
Members will recall that Samara also submitted a brief to the committee on this subject.
I'll turn over the floor to you, Mr. Morden, for your opening remarks.
Michael Morden Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this committee.
My name is Mike Morden. I'm the research director at the Samara Centre for Democracy. Next to me is Dr. Paul E.J. Thomas, our senior research associate.
As you may know, the Samara Centre is an independent, non-partisan charity that is dedicated to strengthening Canadian democracy through research and programming. We want to thank the committee for undertaking this study. Doing so reflects its commitment to stewardship of our Parliament and our democracy by extension. That includes examining issues that are not on any political front burner but deserve consideration because they hold the potential for incremental improvement of our institutions. That's a role we also want to help play.
The Samara Centre supports the creation of a parallel debating chamber. We would also like to encourage the committee to keep the following objectives in mind when designing such a chamber: it advances a clear value proposition by not solely duplicating the business and character of the main chamber; it empowers backbench MPs by providing greater control over the agenda and substance of debates; by doing so, it makes parliamentary debates more relevant and accessible to ordinary Canadians; and it may be used as a platform for experimentation in order to drive improvement to the state of debate in Parliament overall.
As members might have already reviewed the brief that we submitted last month, we would like to save the bulk of our time in order to address questions as best as we are able. I will open just briefly by describing our interest in this proposal. Paul, who is wiser on this subject, and indeed on most things, will then speak about the model of a parallel chamber that we think is best suited to improve the life and work of the Canadian Parliament and to strengthen its ties to citizens.
Since its founding, the Samara Centre has conducted exit interviews with former parliamentarians after they have retired or faced electoral defeat. A central theme of this work is the strong sense among MPs that extensive party control over many facets of parliamentary life hinders their ability to independently advocate on issues and meaningfully influence government policy and legislation. We've always argued that such limitations have important implications for the overall health of our representative democracy.
In our most recent round of interviews, undertaken after the 2015 general election, we were also surprised and troubled to discover just how dismissive former MPs were of parliamentary debates in particular. We took up that theme again last year, when we collaborated with the all-party democracy caucus to survey current MPs. We asked questions of members to assess where they felt more or less empowered to do the work of democratic representation. The strongest finding to us was that debates were the domain of parliamentary work where MPs felt they made the least impact. In fact, two-thirds of MPs who responded were dissatisfied with the state of debate in the House. Just 6% identified debates as an area of parliamentary work where they felt empowered to influence policy or legislation.
We have also observed, as others have, an increase in partisan conflict over time in Parliament, reflected most simply in the recent and sustained spike in the use of time allocation. That conflict reflects the legitimate desire of opposition MPs—and, we would hope, all MPs—to debate and deliberate on government business while also advancing issues independently. It also reflects the legitimate desire of executives of all party stripes to advance government business. That tension will not resolve itself organically, and could conceivably get worse.
Finally, consistent with the views of MPs, our ongoing surveys of ordinary Canadians have repeatedly found the perception that MPs do a better job of reflecting the views of their parties than of their constituents. We want citizens to see themselves more closely reflected in parliamentary debates.
In short, we see four overlapping problems that a parallel chamber could help resolve: one, disempowered MPs who, because of party control, are hampered in their ability to represent their constituents; two, persistent unhappiness with the quality of parliamentary debate, even among MPs; three, a parliamentary time crunch; and four, an enduring disconnect between Canadians and their Parliament.
Dr. Paul Thomas Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
I will begin, too, by expressing Samara Centre's gratitude for being invited to testify before the committee today. Dr. Morden has already spoken to some of the challenges that we feel are facing the House of Commons, so I will focus my remarks on how a parallel chamber could be designed to help respond to those challenges.
As Deputy Speaker Bruce Stanton described in his remarks to the committee last month, there are two precedents for parallel chambers that could serve as inspiration: the Federation Chamber in the Australian parliament and Westminster Hall at the British Parliament. Both are supplementary chambers, with neither being used for recorded divisions. Both meet only on days when the main chambers are sitting as well.
Australia's Federation Chamber is used for a variety of parliamentary business, such as constituency statements, member statements and debate on uncontentious pieces of legislation. Rather than adding new functions, it serves as what Mr. Stanton called an “adjacent lane” for House business, with most of its functions also occurring to some extent in the parallel chamber. Moreover, decisions regarding what business goes to that chamber are made by the party whips.
In contrast, Westminster Hall proceedings are distinct from those of the main British House of Commons. Westminster Hall is used exclusively for adjournment-style debates, which can be 30, 60 or 90 minutes long, depending on the issue being addressed and the number of members wishing to speak. The debates are selected through four different mechanisms, all of which are driven by backbench members: Individual backbenchers can apply for a debate to the Speaker's office, which holds a ballot of applications once per week. They can apply to the backbench business committee, which is a committee of backbench MPs that schedules a portion of the debating time both in Westminster Hall and in the main chamber itself. The liaison committee, which is made up of the chairs of the various standing committees, can also schedule debates on committee reports. Finally, the petitions committee of the House of Commons can schedule debates on petitions receiving over 100,000 signatures.
However they are chosen, as Sir David Natzler noted when speaking with you, a fundamental characteristic of Westminster Hall debates is that a minister must attend the sessions and respond to the points made. This requirement allows the debates to be much more influential than is possible through member statements.
Importantly, such debates need not be explicitly critical of the government. Indeed, Westminster Hall is regularly used for debates that mark symbolic days, such as Holocaust Memorial Day, World Cancer Day or International Human Rights Day. Such general occasions allow for Parliament to be responsive to the concerns of citizens without being centred on a specific issue at the time.
Although the Federation Chamber has created more opportunities for Australian MPs to raise concerns from their constituents and participate in legislative debates, we believe modelling a new parallel chamber along the lines of Westminster Hall would better respond to the challenges facing the Canadian Parliament.
While it is not possible to exactly duplicate Westminster Hall in the Canadian context, the Samara Centre nevertheless recommends that any Canadian parallel chamber be designed for the benefit of backbench members, with backbench members being able to schedule business independent of party whips; that participation in a parallel chamber similarly be free of control by the party whips, with no lists developed to schedule interventions by members; that much of the debating time in such a chamber be devoted to general debates like those of Westminster Hall, with ministers being required to attend and respond to the points made; that the topics for such debates could be chosen by applications from individual members, the reports of parliamentary committees or petitions from the general public; and finally, that the chamber be a vehicle for further procedural experimentation.
At a time when both citizens and MPs are questioning the value of parliamentary debates, the creation of a parallel chamber devoted to hearing from the diversity of Canadians through their elected representatives could help to empower both Canadians and parliamentarians themselves. It could help make backbench members more central to parliamentary debates, and parliamentary debates more central to political life in Canada.
Thank you very much. We look forward to your questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you very much for your presentation.
I'll do the same as last time. We'll have one round and then open it up for whoever would like an opportunity.
We'll start with Mr. Simms.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Dr. Thomas and Mr. Morden, I'm glad you guys are here. Thank you so much. You have done us all a great service in the work you have done, especially in getting to the nub of the issue of what excites us about being here, and at the same time, what frustrates us about being here.
I hate to focus on what frustrates us, but you just have to read my householder to figure out what excites me about being here. Let's talk about what is frustrating.
Here's what you said earlier: Two-thirds of the MPs you surveyed are not satisfied with the debate proceedings as they are now. Is that correct?
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
That's a hell of a number to look at. That's everybody but cabinet, almost, right?
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
That tells us that we're way behind in making this place more accessible, and accessible not only to parliamentarians but the disconnect also between Canadians.... That makes it further worse, this situation that we're in, to try to find a cohesive place, so I'm glad you came here with some actual suggestions, especially when you say the Westminster Hall is preferred. Let me get to that, because we're juxtaposing, for the most part, Westminster Hall and the Federation Chamber, as I think it's called, in Australia.
In Westminster Hall, one of the most popular things for a parallel chamber is the petition aspect. People bring in a petition and it gets a lot of attention from the public. That's one aspect. Is this the type of thing that you see as the best possible route for a parallel chamber?
Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
One of the things that struck me in reviewing Sir David Natzler's remarks to committee was his suggestion that something like eight of the 10 most-watched debates in recent years had been debates in Westminster Hall provoked by petitions. It's really kind of astonishing. That's not government business.
I found that actually really encouraging. It's a little bit emboldening as well, because it suggests to me in strong terms that it would still matter to Canadians, in this context, to see their issues debated at Parliament and how that holds value. As the Clerk and others have described, there are a number of different ways to design the parallel chamber, and we do need clarity on what problem we're trying to solve and about—I think reasonable people can disagree—where the balance should be struck.
Ms. Duncan raised in the last session this question of where ordinary citizens come in. We do see something like a petitions mechanism, as well as the opportunity for an ordinary member to approach either the Speaker's office or a backbench business committee to advocate on an issue that they see as holding importance for their constituents. Either a petition or a backbench member, it's either a direct or an indirect mechanism through which citizens can fuel through greater agency what's debated in Parliament. That, to us, strikes us as a particular value proposition for the parallel chamber.
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
If I could add to that, I think one of the major elements of the petition system has been that it's an ongoing relationship with the person who signs. If a debate is selected, they receive a notification of when that debate happens. Signing the petition is not the end of your involvement with the process. You are notified and you're invited to then watch the debate online, which is how they get those viewing numbers. It's a way of having Parliament appear more responsive.
What Sir David told you was actually already inaccurate. The largest petition ever in the Westminster Hall system received six million signatures. It was debated on Monday. In the British practice, it's not a direct relationship between the number of signatures on a petition and then the debate. There's the intermediary body of a committee that can have some editorial control. They grouped one petition against Brexit with another in favour of Brexit and had it be debated in Westminster Hall. They had high traffic.
The other thing I would note is that it allows those members to take part, but the main element is the ministerial response at the end.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Obviously, you can't have hard and fast rules on this. I agree with that, by the way. I wanted to use that as an illustration. To me, that's one that exemplifies what Westminster Hall is about—this petition process—in addition to the other stuff that backbenchers do.
Very quickly then, on the other side of the equation, this is one thing that interests me. With time allocation now being used often here—and more in the last Parliament—if we had a parallel chamber to allow more members to debate government legislation, would that work, in your opinion?
Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
I think it's another route to go. We outlined a few problems we thought a parallel chamber could help to resolve, but the extent to which it's resolved for one problem was coming at the expense of another. We've tried to make the case for at least setting a fair measure of time aside to reflect the practice at Westminster Hall, which isn't resolving the problem of not enough time to debate government business. It's addressing other issues, primarily backbench control, and also this question of how to bring citizens in.
Nevertheless, if the members perceive the greater concern to be not enough time to deliberate on government business, then a parallel chamber could be a mechanism for that as well.
You could also look at other mechanisms like programming motions, which we've never taken a position on but which has been recommended to me by members from all parties as another approach. I believe the Clerk concluded by mentioning that those two could also sort of work in tandem.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
It could address an issue, but it's not as important as the other aspect of allowing citizens to be more engaged in debate through the Westminster Hall-type system. Is that a safe assumption? Is that what you assume?
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
From the research we have, I would say there is a dissatisfaction with the current debates of the House by both MPs and citizens. Having more debates, while perhaps allowing for greater scrutiny, may not necessarily meet the immediate need as compared to having a different type of debate, such as a debate that might more constructively engage with citizens or allow backbenchers more opportunity to raise their concerns.
I think it kind of gets to the question of what Ms. Duncan mentioned, where there was some element of what additional purpose would this serve. Having it be, perhaps, a bit qualitatively different than what goes on would be more of a recommendation at this point.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you to both our witnesses. Dr. Morden and Dr. Thomas, it's nice to have you here.
I wanted to start by asking about this recent Brexit debate in Westminster Hall. It seems to me that one of the problems arising in the House itself at this point, as the issue is debated and re-debated, is that for reasons that have to do with what's on the agenda and which changing coalition of members—factions, I could almost call them—is in favour of or against different proposals, or the rules on reconsidering an issue that the House has debated before, the debate in the House is being constrained in ways that are perhaps not productive. It would be a very interesting exercise to go through it, from a game theory point of view, as to how the debate has evolved in the Commons.
This raises the issue that there's no longer really a venue in the House itself—or what one might think of as a plenary session—where we're debating the big-picture issue of Brexit itself, as opposed to this or that way out of the current fix the country is in. The fix itself changing on a nearly day-to-day basis. Is that actually what happened in this debate on the e-petitions, that in fact it was possible to go back and reconsider the big-picture issues? That's number one.
Number two is, has this also been a venue for the numerous backbenchers—there are so many of them in the U.K.—who are not in a position to get up and have debates in the Commons itself, to speak and to give those individuals a chance to address Brexit issues?
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
I must confess that I have not watched the debate in its entirety. My knowledge of it comes largely from the reporting of BBC Radio 4, through the Today in Parliament podcast.
From that report, it did appear to be more of that fundamental discussion of Brexit. It is challenging, I think, at present for the British House of Commons to have fully dispassionate debates on Brexit, given the extent to which the entire political system has been consumed by it, particularly the divisions not just between, but within parties on this issue.
The report concluded by saying that it was refreshing to see it in a different venue, and that the party lines became blurred. That is, in some ways, one of the main benefits of that system. I believe it was noted by David Natzler that the Westminster Hall model is a horseshoe, which helps to reduce partisanship as compared to the more traditional two swords' length seating arrangement.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Yes, although nothing about Brexit is about a clearly defined opposition in government, to put it mildly.
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
This is true. In that regard, it was a different place, as compared to the indicative votes, but those issues certainly did bleed into the content of the debate.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Do you have any knowledge about how well attended the debate was?
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
Again, from the report I read, it was quite extensive. One element of British debating style is that members often take interventions from their colleagues, so while the traditional format for a 30-minute Westminster Hall debate is to have one speaker present for 15 minutes, and another reply from the government side, that's usually with three or four interventions each, so the number of members who are in Hansard becomes greater than what might be assumed just by looking at the time.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
Is this on the basis of an actual rule of the committee or is this on the basis of a convention that has sprung up in the committee?
Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy
It's the same practice as in the House. There they also will often be asked in debates to give leave or give way for someone else to interject a question as the speech is being delivered.