Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2019

[Claressa Surtees]

Yes, they are. All the meetings of the Federation Chamber are televised in the same way the proceedings of the House are. We don't have a parliamentary television channel. When I say “televised”, it's through the website. All the proceedings are streamed through the website.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I used to be a deputy speaker, and tasks aren't all that onerous. You're doing a lot of the grunt work for the Speaker. On the big stuff, the Speaker calls the shots, as they should.

You said that in this chamber, the Deputy Speaker is treated like the Speaker, and is the main official. I wonder, given the new responsibilities, did the Deputy Speaker get a pay increase when they upped the responsibilities?

[Claressa Surtees]

It was 25 years ago, so I wasn't in a position to observe what impact there was. However, with the introduction of a new position, I can only assume that would probably have been the case, because the new position—the Second Deputy Speaker—receives a certain level of remuneration as well. There is a recognition that it does provide an extra challenge for the Deputy Speaker, in terms of contribution to the roster and that sort of thing.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you.

The terminology is interesting. The guillotining and time allocation remind me of when I was much younger, in the 1970s, with the auto workers. We called it guided democracy. Everybody has a term for the hand on the throat.

The reason I raise this is that in my experience, governments will sometimes want to guillotine a bill because of the debate that's happening in the House, and the media attention, but at the end of the day, it's usually because of time management. The most expensive commodity for government vis-à-vis the House is House time. It's almost like an airport, where you have planes ready to take off. You have ministers lined up, all trying to cajole the House leader to get their bill in the House. It's often about that pressure, as opposed to the politics around the issue. There are exceptions.

You said there was less guillotining by a big number. You also said that you didn't deal with contentious issues, as a rule, although you're starting to now. Were there that many non-contentious issues that required guillotining? Why? Was it time management or was it more small-p politics?

[Claressa Surtees]

They're very good points.

The issue was time management. The government at the time had a big legislative agenda, and so a lot of bills were awaiting passage, or debate and then passage. It was about time management, and this was the solution proposed. The bills could be adequately debated and still be passed in a timely manner, so that the initiatives could be implemented, or the programs put in place.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I have to say that, initially, I was attracted because of the non-partisan nature of the House. You wouldn't necessarily be giving the government more time, because that creates a political problem. You should have seen what we went through here around whether or not we would continue to sit on Fridays, and the fight's not over. These things have a significant impact.

How do the rules of that chamber facilitate the contentious issues they're dealing with? Here's my thinking: If we follow the idea that government's motivated more by time management than by trying to extinguish backbenchers' rights to get up and have their say, then this chamber would not necessarily hand the government more time. You're going to use the same amount of time in the House. It does allow more debate by more members, but it's under a different set of rules. With it being so easy to collapse the chamber, for instance, how are you managing to deal with some of the contentious issues, where right from the get-go, you're not getting agreement on what time you're going to order coffee, let alone on any amendments?

[Claressa Surtees]

What the operation of the Federation Chamber permits is for two streams of legislation to be debated at the same time. For example, at the time that a bill about higher education is being debated in the Federation Chamber, there can be a debate in the House about something to do with tax policy. Two separate bills are being debated at the same time. This means that the government can be progressing two bills over the course of a single day, whereas that may not have been possible in the past.

In our system, members have an opportunity to speak for 15 minutes in the second reading debate on a bill, so they're limited. I know that's not the case in some jurisdictions where they might be unlimited, but there is a limitation on the length of a member's speech in the second reading debate. If a lot of members wish to speak, then of course this will take hours. We have only 150 members, so it's a smaller chamber than yours; nevertheless, it's hours of debate.

It's not that the debate is going to be stopped because of the contentious nature of the legislation or the proposals, but it's just that if there were unhappiness about the bill being in the Federation Chamber at all, it is very easy to withdraw the quorum and then automatically the bill must be referred back to the House. I have to say this doesn't happen very often. It's usually because there has been quite careful negotiation between the leader of the House and the manager of opposition business to agree on the agenda for the Federation Chamber, so the bill will progress.

At the detail stage, if there are amendments being proposed by the opposition and they would like to record the formal division, then of course that must go back to the House. There are no divisions in the Federation Chamber.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Right.

Very good. Thank you very much for the fulsome answers.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Now we'll go to Mr. Graham, who speaks a little quickly so you'll have to listen carefully.

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

I will try to be cautious.

You say that all bills go to the secondary debating chamber to be looked at. Is each bill looked at clause by clause in that chamber, and do they go through each line of the bill, or is that another process altogether?

If we have 24 committees' worth of bills going as one committee, that seems impractical.

[Claressa Surtees]

Not all bills go to the Federation Chamber. They can either go to the Federation Chamber or remain in the main chamber for debate. The stage of our legislative process in which bills may be considered clause by clause we now refer to as consideration in detail. We hardly ever have a clause-by-clause approach these days.

Although the Standing Orders recognize the default position as clause by clause, usually a bill is taken as a whole by leave. Then if there is a debate about particular aspects of the bill, that can occur. If there are amendments, they can be moved and then voted on during that debate.

For us, the clause by clause is the consideration-in-detail stage, where members have opportunities of five minutes at a time to speak to the issues, and as with the other debates in the House, the call will vary from side to side. It's five minutes for one.

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

How much time would a typical bill spend in the Federation Chamber?

[Claressa Surtees]

Probably it would only be there for that day, and then it would be concluded to the consideration-in-detail stage and then referred back to the House.

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

Can a point of order of any sort be entertained?

[Claressa Surtees]

It can be, yes. The Deputy Speaker or the person in the chair would then consider that matter.

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

You said that the House does not sit later than 8 p.m. on any day. How long do votes take there? We have situations where voting could go 30 or 40 straight hours here. Does that ever happen there?

[Claressa Surtees]

Most of the decisions of the House go on the voices. If a division is called, then it will be considered immediately. Our votes are usually resolved within about 15 minutes, but that's just the count.

If there is a successive division, then, of course, that would be taken immediately after the first one.

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

If you have 20 successive divisions starting at 5 p.m. to 8 p.m., do you continue past 8 p.m., or does it suspend until the next day?

[Claressa Surtees]

Oh, I see what you mean.

Every evening we have an adjournment debate, so at 7:30 p.m. on the Monday, Tuesday and Wednesday, the days conclude at 8 p.m. At 7:30 p.m. we have what we call an automatic proposal of the question to adjourn. Because of the Standing Orders, we would conclude the division that was in progress at the time in the House, and then the adjournment debate would commence.

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

It concludes just the vote that's taking place, and not the successive votes.

[Claressa Surtees]

No. We just conclude the first division, and then, under the Standing Orders, the automatic adjournment would intervene.

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

That's fascinating.

Is there anything bad about the Federation Chamber?

[Claressa Surtees]

Well, of course, that reference there was to the House because we don't have divisions in the Federation Chamber.

The Federation Chamber will always adjourn when the House is adjourned. It typically commences half an hour after the commencement of the House and adjourns half an hour before the scheduled adjournment of the main chamber.

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

Does the other House have any similar process, and is there ever any overlap between the two?

[Claressa Surtees]

Are you asking about the Senate?