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.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Charles Robert  Clerk of the House of Commons
Michael Morden  Research Director, Samara Centre for Democracy
Paul Thomas  Senior Research Associate, Samara Centre for Democracy

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We'll call this meeting to order.

Good morning.

Welcome to the 147th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

This morning, we are continuing our study of parallel debating chambers. We are pleased to welcome Charles Robert, the Clerk of the House of Commons, to share his expertise on parallel chambers.

Mr. Clerk, it's a pleasure to have you here.

Just before we start, you may remember that about a year ago the Clerk told us that he was embarking on reorganizing the Standing Orders just to make them clear and easy to access, not making changes to them, and that he would report back to us. He's available on Tuesday, if the committee would be willing, to just update us on the progress of that report and on getting it ready for the next Parliament. By that time it would be ready, I think. If it's okay, he could report to us next meeting.

11:05 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

If you are looking for consent from the members, I'd be happy to indicate on behalf of the Conservatives that we would very much welcome that.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Okay, so we'll put you on the agenda for Tuesday and you can update us on that project.

11:05 a.m.

Charles Robert Clerk of the House of Commons

I look forward to it.

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

You can now have the floor for your presentation.

We look forward to hearing your views on this exciting initiative.

11:05 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

Thank you, Mr. Chair and honourable members of the committee.

I am pleased to be here today to talk about parallel debating chambers. I understand that the former clerk of the United Kingdom House of Commons, my good friend Sir David Natzler, who retired recently, as you know, has also appeared to discuss that legislature's experience with its parallel chamber, Westminster Hall.

I would like to begin by reminding the committee of an updated briefing note that was initially submitted in 2016 during your study of initiatives towards a family-friendly House of Commons. This updated note was sent to you a few weeks ago, and I hope the information it offers will be helpful as you discuss the possibility of establishing a parallel debating chamber.

My presentation today is intended as an open discussion on establishing a second debating chamber parallel to the House of Commons, and on the implications for our practices and procedures. I would like to share a few thoughts on the issues being studied by the committee.

The work of the House is governed by practices and rules of procedure that structure each sitting, from government orders and private members' business to routine proceedings. These rules also apply to the House of Commons calendar, voting and many other areas.

Changes in House practices have often been influenced by the needs of members themselves. Major procedural reforms are often the result of a consensus among MPs.

Establishing a second chamber could open up some interesting opportunities for members, and I encourage you to study innovative recommendations and proposed options that, as Mr. Natzler explains so well in his testimony, could be new, unexpected and different from the operations of the House.

It is up to you, as a committee, to determine the scope of your study and the recommendations you wish to make. It will then be the responsibility of the entire House to decide whether to proceed with this reform.

Australia and the United Kingdom offer starting points for a look at how our own House of Commons could introduce a parallel chamber. Some elements could be copied and applied to our legislature. Others may not be as easy to apply since our practices and procedures differ in many respects from those of our counterparts. It is therefore a good idea to analyze how parallel chambers function elsewhere, but still take into account our own rules and way of doing things.

And so, if your committee intends to recommend a parallel chamber, you must determine how it will operate. This involves such issues as where the chamber would sit, what limitations would be placed on its activities and what decisions it could take.

There are many, more specific questions to be answered as well. In terms of logistics, where would members want this new chamber to be housed? How would the chamber be laid out? Would members debate face to face as they do in the House of Commons or would the room be arranged in a hemicycle?

The committee might also address some important questions concerning the debates themselves. For example, how would the work of the House, such as bills, the business of supply, and private members' business, be managed? Would the parallel chamber be empowered to make decisions? Similarly, what would be the quorum requirement? Would members be able to move motions and amendments during debates in the parallel chamber? How would the two chambers be allowed to communicate to ensure continuity in proceedings? What rules of debate would apply? Would they be similar to the rules of the House or more like those used in committee? What would be the hours of sitting for the parallel chamber? What would happen if there were a sitting in the second chamber and the bells rang for a vote in the House of Commons, or if it were time for oral questions or other activities that required all MPs to be present in the House?

These are a few of the procedural matters that the committee will want to consider. As you discuss these questions and their answers, you may find that they give rise to other complex issues.

And so, while I encourage the committee to pursue your study and report back to the House, I am tempted to recommend, if I may, that you use this report as a springboard and a starting point for the debate on procedure at the beginning of the next parliament. Your report would serve as a benchmark and its recommendations would be food for thought in the debate pursuant to Standing Order 51.

As always, your committee is the master of its own proceedings and is solely responsible for deciding on the next steps to take. If your committee, and subsequently the House, decides to proceed with a parallel chamber, it goes without saying that the administration, my procedural team and I will be pleased to provide our support. We will be ready to act on your recommendations and provide you with all the resources necessary to implement them.

I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

I'd like to welcome Linda Duncan and Scot Davidson to the procedure and House affairs committee. I know everyone wants to be here, so you've drawn the lucky straws today.

While the boss is here, Mr. Clerk, I think the committee would agree that we'd like to thank you for providing us with the best clerk in the House of Commons for our committee.

11:10 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

I don't know how long you'll keep him.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We'll move to questions.

Mr. Simms, go ahead.

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

I am the second Scott—any more Scotts and we'd have a country.

Mr. Robert, first of all, it's a pleasure to have you here, sir. We spoke to the clerk in the U.K. He speaks highly of you.

11:10 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Yes, he does. I guess you've probably already figured that out, but I thought I'd let you know.

I really liked your presentation here, and I'll tell you why. It's not in generalities as to how this could work or may not work or what have you; you've made some specific recommendations here that I like. You end off your report “would serve as a benchmark and its recommendations would be food for thought in the debate pursuant to Standing Order 51.” I'm putting that out there, because I think it should be a part of our report. Again, these are my opinions.

I want to go back to something else that you pointed out. It seems to me that the best advice we can get from you is along the lines of what's feasible and what's not feasible. I have a few opinions about a parallel chamber. I enjoy the makeup and characteristics of what is in Australia. I enjoy the makeup and characteristics of what is in the U.K. They seem to be working in different spheres as to how they operate.

11:10 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

I have a very specific question.

Given the fact that we don't have programming, although interestingly enough, the Senate seems to be delving into some type of program that I haven't fully read about yet, but they're doing something.... However, when it comes to programming of bills, they tend to go on for some time and then they get guillotined, as the members of Parliament in the U.K. would say. In the absence of that, would a parallel chamber serve as a way of allowing more parliamentarians to debate any particular bill that is in front of us?

11:10 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

Again, I think it really would depend on what kind of responsibility or role you want the parallel chamber to play. The answer is yes, if that's what you want the parallel chamber to do. There would be no reason why.... My understanding of the programming motions in the United Kingdom, which have been in place since about 1998 or 1999—

11:10 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Since 1999, yes.

11:10 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

—is that they obviate the need for time allocation or the guillotine, because they basically spell out the time that you will have to debate the bill at this stage or that stage, so it's fairly comprehensive in its intent. It is, properly speaking, as the term suggests, a programming motion.

The suggestion that you are raising, if I understand it correctly, is that you would like to use the parallel chamber as an opportunity to allow for additional debate, presumably within the stage the bill is at.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Yes.

11:15 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

Government business tends to be focused on one or two items per sitting. You could select, by some kind of arrangement with the government and the opposition parties, to allow for a third debate to take place that would create more opportunities for the members to participate and express their views on a bill that has already been initiated in the House and can now be discussed further in the parallel chamber while you're still discussing other government items in the main chamber.

It's not impossible to do. In fact, it might be regarded as a beneficial purpose of having the parallel chamber.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

To me, that supplements the legislation that we're currently doing, which is primarily government legislation. Now, if I'm correct, what I take from the U.K. model is that it's more of a supplement of backbenchers and their business in bringing forward other items such as emergency debates and petition debates, which is rather new, but it supplements the members to do their work in other areas, if need be.

11:15 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

That seems to be the way it's modelled, yes.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

It's exclusively focused on that, if I'm not mistaken.

11:15 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

Yes, but there's no reason why this House has to restrict it to that kind of role.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL

Ah, see, you're good. You anticipated my question. Can we combine both?

11:15 a.m.

Clerk of the House of Commons

Charles Robert

You can do as much as you like.