Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 30th, 2019

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

Yes.

[Claressa Surtees]

The Senate doesn't have a second debating chamber, no.

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

Is there any circumstance in which senators would attend the secondary debating chamber?

[Claressa Surtees]

They don't attend in a formal sense. Of course, if they are curious or interested in a matter that's before the Federation Chamber, they are able to attend as a visitor in the same way as members of the public, but I can't say I can recall having seen a senator in the Federation Chamber while I've been there.

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

That's all I have for the moment.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm going to open it up now to an informal process for anyone who has one question. Don't take too long, so everyone gets a chance.

Go ahead, Stephanie.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk, for joining us today.

I'm a little skeptical about the possibility of a secondary chamber. Do you have any opinions to share with the committee as to whether the newly created parallel debating chamber should be provisional or permanent? Do you think this is something that can be done on a test run, or do you think that, once it has been established, it's hard to rescind it?

[Claressa Surtees]

What I can say is that when our second debating chamber was first introduced, some members were skeptical. They weren't welcoming. Some of the ministers didn't like going there, so they'd send the junior ministers.

That level of resistance has completely disappeared. There is absolutely no sense that people resent having to go to the Federation Chamber. In fact, during the debate on the appropriation bills, the ministers go. We had the deputy prime minister there responding to issues during the consideration-in-detail stage of the budget bills.

It's grown in authority over the years. I guess with any change to long-established procedures, there is always concern about how valuable it will be and whether you will actually be able to achieve what you're trying to address to overcome the issues. An approach that allows some flexibility is probably a good one, and if there is a need to adjust whatever the original arrangements are, then I think that would be helpful. Certainly, in the case of our Federation Chamber, it has evolved since it first commenced. It's gone from two days for a few hours, if required, to each day on which the House sits, with indicative hours of business for the Federation Chamber.

Of course, if the business that's been allocated is concluded, then the Federation Chamber can conclude earlier. I think members appreciate, too, that it's not that people have to go there just because it's available. It's only going to be operating when there's actual business that needs to be addressed. That's the way it works.

I hope that addresses some of your issues.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Yes, it does. Thank you.

Similar to what my colleague asked, can you think of any unintended consequences that could arise from establishing a parallel debating chamber? Is there something that doesn't seem obvious, which became apparent? Was there a residual outcome you didn't anticipate or that was not anticipated in establishing the parallel chamber?

[Claressa Surtees]

Inevitably, having another debating chamber means there can be greater demands on a member's time. It's a busy time for members of our Parliament. I can imagine it's the case with yours. A lot is going on on a sitting day. The committees are meeting. The House is operating. Visitors are coming in all the time. So members' diaries are quite full. The members need to be careful not to double-book themselves; by that I mean put their name on the list to speak at the same time as a matter comes up in both chambers, because of course they need to make sure that they can fulfill their commitments about speaking.

A little flexibility is necessary with things like speaking lists. Members might need to converse with their colleagues to adjust the order in which they're expecting to speak in the two chambers. It can be visible sometimes. Members literally dash from one chamber to meet a commitment in the other.

What perhaps wasn't anticipated was the evolution of the Federation Chamber itself and [Technical difficulty—Editor] that is conducted now in the Federation Chamber has really grown. Members in particular appreciate the short speaking [Technical difficulty—Editor]. It wasn't always the case, but every time the Federation Chamber meets on any day, the first period is set aside for constituency statements, so members have an opportunity to speak for three minutes. They can say a lot in three minutes, reflecting on the good work of people in their communities. They really value those opportunities.

At the moment, the members include ministers. Some ministers have an opportunity to speak about their constituencies during those three-minute periods. Ministers did not have an opportunity to do that before. The Standing Orders were changed about 10 years ago to enable ministers to have that opportunity as well as just private members having that opportunity, and I know the ministers have valued that. Otherwise, of course, they have the opportunities to speak as a minister, but not necessarily to talk about something in their constituencies. Those sorts of things have been very valued.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Upon reflection of establishing the secondary chamber, I'm wondering if your Parliament has determined less severe democratic alternatives to establishing a secondary chamber that would have potentially achieved the same objectives that were set out for establishing the secondary chamber. I'm certain they could be wide and varied, but does anything immediately come to mind, such as, instead of setting up this entire secondary chamber they could just have...fill in the blank?

[Claressa Surtees]

I'm not aware of any other proposals for a procedural change that might have been considered at the time. As I mentioned before, the obvious issue is if you don't have enough time to debate legislation, so you need to create more time. How you create more time is perhaps through having more sitting days, longer sitting days or this second debating chamber.

[Stephanie Kusie, Conservative, Calgary Midnapore, AB]

Thank you very much, Madam Clerk, for being here with us today and for providing this information.

[Claressa Surtees]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I have two quick questions, just to finish off.

You said that most of the decisions were done by voice vote. Could you say roughly what percentage? Does that mean for most votes, how individual MPs voted is not recorded?

[Claressa Surtees]

What I should have said—if I didn't—was that most decisions of the House are taken on the voices. The chair will put the question, “All those of that opinion say 'aye', and of the contrary, 'no'. I think the ayes have it”. That will be the conclusion of the decision.

If the outcome is challenged and a division is called, then of course we go through the formal process, but yes, most decisions in the House will be taken on the voices. There is not a list of who voted which way because unless the announcement by the chair is challenged, then the presumption is that there is no challenge.

On the very rare occasions where only one member dissents, then of course that member can have the dissent recorded in the votes. One name would be there. We need two voices for division.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

This is my last question. Here we have 24 standing committees, based on the portfolios. They spend a lot of their time, maybe the majority of their time, doing a detailed review of legislation, of various bills.

If your committees don't do that, what do they do?

[Claressa Surtees]

The House committees typically look at more long-term inquiries into public policy issues. They'll have terms of reference either directly from the House or perhaps referred from a minister and they'll be looking at issues of public policy.

That's the nature of our committee work.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is that it for everyone?

Thank you very much. This has been fascinating. We'll definitely have to come and visit soon. You've given us lots of new ideas and uses of the second chamber, which is totally different, as Mr. Simms said, from Westminster.

Thank you very much for taking this time for us. It has been very, very helpful.

[Claressa Surtees]

Thank you very much, Chair. It has been my privilege to be able to discuss these matters with you, and should there be anything you'd like to follow up on, I'd be only too pleased to respond.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.