Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 2nd, 2016

[Marc Bosc]

It can happen. The length of speeches over time has been on a downward trend. There used to be no limit on the time members could speak. Then it went to, I think, 40 minutes—no, even longer than that initially, and then down to 40 minutes, and then down to 20 minutes, and then it was splittable, and so on. Again, it's entirely up to the committee to decide what is an appropriate length of time for a speech.

The only thing I would say is if you go too low, then you put at risk questions and comments. Let's say you said the maximum speech length would be five minutes. Well then, how long are questions and comments going to be? That's a problem.

The other thing I would say is I'd probably disabuse you of the illusion that reducing the length of speeches will reduce the number of members who actually get up to speak. With 338 members, more members will come forward to fill that time. That's what will happen.

[An hon. member]

That's a good thing.

[Marc Bosc]

And as Mr. Lamoureux just said, that's a good thing because it gives more members an opportunity to take the floor, but if you're thinking it will reduce the time the House sits, I doubt it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Lamoureux.

[Kevin Lamoureux, Liberal, Winnipeg North, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bosc, I always appreciate your thoughts on these types of issues.

I think of it in terms of members of Parliament wanting to better serve their constituents both here in Ottawa and in their constituencies, and we factor in the importance of families at the same time. There is validity to looking at Fridays, as other provincial legislatures have done, yet provincial legislatures are more local than Ottawa is for the vast majority of ridings, so I think it is a responsible thing for us to be at least looking into it.

I learned something when you talked about this whole parallel chamber. I had never heard of that before.

Let me throw a thought that just started to evolve as I was listening to others speak. You say that you can divide up the questions. You can divide up the S.O. 31s and you can put them in that Monday-through-Thursday slot. The concern is with the debates and to a certain degree private members' hour. Technically we could have a double, and we often have two private members' hours in one day. That currently happens quite a bit, so we could actually designate a day, say Tuesday, as the day for a double private members' hour.

I don't know anything about this parallel chamber, but maybe you could have the parallel chamber sit on Fridays. You indicate that typically there are no votes and that it's just more of a debate day where you debate government business, which allows for ongoing supply motions, opposition days, private members' hour, everything that is done during the week. Then you could start off at 9 in the morning and go until 3 in the afternoon. In fact, we could have it increased by a half-hour or an hour to accommodate debates.

The votes seem to be of critical importance. If this were to prevent votes from occurring after, let's say, 4 o'clock on Thursdays, then every vote would be suspended until the following Monday.

On something of this nature—both aspects that I just finished talking about—can you give a personal opinion? Are you comfortable giving a personal opinion on something of that nature, as I qualified it at the beginning?

I'd be interested in your thoughts on that.

[Marc Bosc]

I hesitate to give personal opinions because that's all they are: personal opinions.

What I will say is this. With regard to votes, as I said in my opening remarks, we're still in a situation where we're dealing with parliamentary reality. There will be times when, whether on the opposition side or the government side, there are valid reasons for wanting to pursue things at times not otherwise typical for that kind of proceeding. It could be a procedural vote. It could be closure on a government motion or a bill. Who can predict? Who can predict where we would be on a Thursday and how important the measure would be to whoever is proposing it?

I hesitate to say that you could lay down some kind of rule for no votes after a certain hour. We have done it for Fridays, so by that logic you could do it. It's certainly doable, but consideration will have to be given to those other imperatives.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'm going to start by saying that I don't think it's in the spirit of what the government proposed initially that parliamentary secretaries, who are not supposed to be members of committees and not have votes on committees, are nevertheless taking up question and answer time on committees. I'll be raising that with the House leaders when we have our meeting later today. That seems to me to be a violation of that intent, and I'm disappointed to see it happening here.

Turning to Mr. Bosc, thank you for being here. It's always a pleasure to have you at our committee; you are so well informed.

We've had a lot of interest in the subject of this parallel chamber, as it's being described. As a former resident of Australia who used to spend time in Canberra, I get the impression that they actually had quite a large purpose-built room for this, which was where this kind of debate would go on. Some kind of consideration was given to things like ease of access from that chamber to the chamber of the House of Representatives so that one could go back and forth.

In other words, if we were to do something like this here, I think having it at One Wellington Street would be less than ideal. Once all the renovations are done, having it over in the room that the Commons is going to be shifted into might be very much ideal, or in some other space that people can get to without having to brave the Ottawa winter. That's a thought I throw out.

In the absence of such, because all of this isn't going to happen until after a few years have gone by, had you thought at all about the issue of where we would put a room like this? I think it has to be a purpose-built dedicated room, with all the permanent simultaneous translation booths and so on, and assigned staff as well, I guess.

[Marc Bosc]

Having been to Canberra and having seen the room, I will say that it has a bit of a makeshift look even though it was purpose-built, because things were added after the fact. It's not a very large room. Now, the Australian House is smaller than ours, so that may account for that.

I think the concept of a parallel chamber really depends on how you conceive of it. If you conceive of it as a vehicle for members wishing to get a speech on the record, let's say, on a particular bill or a motion, it wouldn't necessarily involve huge attendance. It might have a different quorum requirement. There are a lot of things that can be tailor-made.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Does it have a quorum requirement at all, or does it have no quorum requirement?

[Marc Bosc]

I don't know that there is. I'd have to check on that.

In the case of Australia, I think it sits three times a week, on Mondays, Wednesdays, and Thursdays. If I can put it this way, it's a safety valve for overflow House business. It's not a decision chamber per se. It's a debating chamber, so it allows more members to participate.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

The debates are obviously recorded. They become part of the record in some form or another. Is it a record of some kind of committee of the whole or are they appended to the main Hansard?

[Marc Bosc]

I don't know the answer to that question. We can certainly check.

Again, it would really be up to the House committee to decide how it would want to handle that if it went in that direction.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay.

I have another question, and you probably don't know the answer to this either, but it seems relevant to consider.

In Australia or Britain in the actual House of Commons, do they have an equivalent to our S.O. 31s, the one-minute member statements or some other similar type of vehicle, or is that sort of thing what effectively got moved over to the second chamber?

[Marc Bosc]

Again, I'd have to check. I don't know precisely the answer to that question. I'm not sure.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay.

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Welcome, Angelo Iacono.

Are there any Liberals who want the five-minute slot? If not, we'll go to the NDP in the next round. Okay.

Mr. Dusseault.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm very glad to have the opportunity to ask a few more questions.

There's something I didn't have time to bring up earlier. A parallel chamber is indeed worthy of some consideration. My understanding is that it is used at the Palace of Westminster, in Great Britain. Through the Commonwealth Parliamentary Association, I was fortunate enough to take part in a week of procedural study there. I really enjoyed learning how things could be done; the experience gave me a lot of food for thought when I returned to Canada.

In Great Britain, they have what they call the Backbench Business Committee, which is made up solely of backbenchers, or members with no official title in the House of Commons. The committee decides on subjects for debate in the Palace of Westminster. If a backbencher wishes to raise an issue, they can apply to the Backbench Business Committee, which then decides on the agenda for the Palace of Westminster. The subjects are often raised on a member's personal initiative and can be quite specific. I think the committee meets once a week, on Friday, I believe. We could look into that further.

I wanted to know how such a parallel chamber might improve a member's family life. Would it mean more sitting time because there wouldn't be any votes or procedural activities? Is that why you suggested it as a way to create a more family-friendly environment for members?

[Marc Bosc]

I mentioned it solely to point out that the committee and the House have a number of options at their disposal to change the Standing Orders so as to establish a schedule that better accommodates the family needs of members. That's the only reason I brought it up. I have no preference for any one solution. I simply wanted to present the committee with a few possibilities and thematic areas it could consider.

As I said earlier, if it wasn't a parallel chamber or decision-making body where votes and such could take place, it would free up a lot of time for members wanting to return to their ridings rather than attending the sitting.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

Indeed. Say, for example, it was decided that the parallel chamber was going to be held on Fridays. Members preferring not to attend or not having an interest in the debate in hand wouldn't have to worry about the taking of a vote or the use of a procedural tactic in the House, because that wouldn't be possible in the second chamber.

[Marc Bosc]

It would be up to the House to determine how to structure that second chamber.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

It would be a significant change to the Standing Orders if, for instance, we were to follow the British model and create our own Backbench Business Committee. It would be a new standing committee, and it would also be necessary to provide for a parallel chamber in the Standing Orders. Those would be major changes to our current Standing Orders.

[Marc Bosc]

Should the Backbench Business Committee be a standing committee of the House or an ad hoc committee of parliamentarians from all parties? That decision would be up to the House and the committee.

As for the creation of a parallel or second chamber, again, I believe it would be necessary to change the Standing Orders to allow such a chamber or, at the very least, to have the House adopt a motion to that effect.

[Pierre-Luc Dusseault, NDP, Sherbrooke, QC]

It could be done informally. For instance, members could decide to gather in a room, could they not?

[Marc Bosc]

I wouldn't go that far.

Previously, when the House wanted to try out a new or different procedure, it would do so by way of a motion authorizing a departure from the standard practice, even if the change was coming into effect permanently at a later time, say a year or two down the road. That's what is known as a sessional order, or a basic motion adopted by the House making it possible to change its practice. It's not necessarily included in the Standing Orders permanently.

A number of standing order changes have been made that way. That's something to consider.