Evidence of meeting #5 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 votes.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Marc Bosc  Acting Clerk, House of Commons

11:05 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

We'll get started.

I'd like to welcome Mr. Schmale, now a permanent member, to the committee. I think you'll enjoy it. We've been working well together.

Mr. Dusseault is here for Mr. Christopherson today. Welcome to the committee.

The Clerk's time is very valuable.

Thank you very much. I know you're a very busy man. You have a huge department to administer, so we really appreciate your being here today. In a family-friendly Parliament, recommendations have a lot of ramifications and technical consequences, and you know better than any of us what they might be, so we're really looking forward to getting your advice and technical advice on the ramifications of things we're considering.

11:05 a.m.

Marc Bosc Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm glad to be here this morning. I have a short statement, and then I'll be happy to take your questions.

It's a pleasure for me to be here to provide you with assistance as you consider parliamentary reform initiatives that strive to create a more inclusive and family-friendly environment for members.

Today, I will have a few remarks to make at the outset, and then I will be happy to answer any questions you may have and to come back if you wish.

My remarks will focus on general principles and concepts, and will contain a few references to the historical evolution of the Standing Orders relevant to the subject before you. I will also highlight areas for reform the committee may wish to consider in this study.

Before I begin, I wish to convey the good wishes of the Speaker as you carry out your important work. He has asked me to let you know that he looks forward with interest to what the committee will bring forward as recommendations, not only those in the area of family friendliness but also, in due course, any recommendations about improving question period, decorum in general including applause, and making the work of members even more meaningful in the House and in committee.

Time is the most precious commodity any of us has. This is especially true for members of the House of Commons, whose lives are extremely busy with countless commitments and pressures. As all members know, a key factor that adds to stress is unpredictability, which makes planning infinitely more difficult.

Time and its availability, or scarcity, as well as the predictability of how it is used, are critical for individual members. This also holds true for parties and caucuses and their roles and responsibilities in the House, and for the executive, given its obligation to bring before the House the program it has committed to advance.

Historically, the House has shown itself to be responsive to changes in the needs of members. The rules and conventions by which the House of Commons has chosen to govern itself have been in constant evolution since 1867. As such, while the fundamental business of Parliament has remained largely unchanged, the context in which members carry out their parliamentary responsibilities and how they fulfill them has led to regular adaptations. Standing orders and practices have changed in ways that are at times subtle and at times more obvious, often with a view to increased efficiency and the needs of members.

Such changes were brought about in different ways. In some cases, the House adopted committee reports recommending certain changes. In others, the House considered a government motion inspired by committee recommendations, and in yet others, changes were made on the initiative of individual members, or the government, acting alone. In all cases a simple majority of the House is what is required to make a change to the Standing Orders.

In the 1960s, changes in the Standing Orders at last brought a measure of certainty to the supply process, such that the total unpredictability of when the House would adjourn for the summer was greatly diminished. Clearly this was a family-friendly change.

In 1982 the House adopted two key measures to make the House more family friendly. It eliminated evening sittings and it adopted a parliamentary calendar setting out sitting and non-sitting periods that allowed members to plan constituency work more effectively.

Additional changes in the 1990s further refined the times of House sittings to closely approximate what they are today.

The possibility of having votes at 3 p.m. was codified in the Standing Orders in 2001. More recently, the use of autopilot mechanisms has been resorted to in order to bring a greater measure of predictability to the work of the House.

Co-operation between House leaders has long been beneficial as a vehicle for coordinating the day-to-day business of the House. By meeting regularly to consult on the sequence and timing of certain aspects of parliamentary business, a greater degree of predictability of the business of the House becomes possible.

Advances in technology have also been used wisely by members to help relieve some of the pressure to be here at all times. The e-notice system, a portal for electronic filing of notices of motions and written questions, is the perfect example as it provides members with an alternative to being present in order to file paper copies with original signatures at the journals branch. With this technology, they can submit notices wherever Internet access is available.

Today's desire to look at ways to adapt is no different. Advances in technology, an increasingly high demand on members' time, the need for a work-life balance, and the heavy stresses of frequent and long-distance travel all contribute to the impetus for an examination and modification of the work day, week, and life of members of the House. Your invitation to me today is an indication that we may be at a point where there is a will to further refine the schedule and procedures of the House.

Rather than immediately get into the details of particular standing order changes, today I will set out three thematic areas that the committee may wish to explore as it pursues its review. Having read the transcript of the government House leader's appearance, I realize that some of this has already been touched upon, so forgive me if some points seem repetitive.

First are votes.

Here the committee could look at the timing of votes, the way in which they are taken, including electronic voting, the duration of the bells, the way votes may be scheduled or deferred, and so on.

Second, the committee may want to give consideration to the days and times of sittings. Factors to consider here would include: days of sittings, specifically the impact on parliamentary business of not sitting on Fridays, for example; the number of hours per sitting day; the start and end times of sittings on particular days; the possibility of two sittings on the same day; the total sitting hours in a week; and, of course, the calendar as a whole and how many weeks should be sitting weeks in a given year.

Third, and again with a view to alleviating some of the time pressures we are talking about, the committee may wish to examine the usefulness of a parallel chamber, a practice followed in Britain and in Australia, and perhaps elsewhere. Here, the committee could look at whether it would want to recommend such an alternate venue and if so, how it could function, when it could be convened to have its sittings, what limitations could be placed on what it could and could not do, and so on. In other words, would it exist for debate purposes only or for more?

In its consideration of these thematic areas, the committee will want to be mindful of consequences as varied as the impact on the progress of legislation, supply proceedings, private members' business, statements by members, question period, notice periods and requirements, committees and caucuses, parliamentary publications, special debates, and so on. It is a long but not insurmountable list.

As can readily be seen, each of these thematic areas carries with it numerous and complicated implications and consequences. Indeed, experience has shown that unintended consequences are probably likely.

Regardless of what changes may be adopted, a certain degree of unpredictability in House proceedings is likely to persist. There may be valid reasons from an opposition or government perspective for votes to occur unexpectedly, or at times, outside the norm, or for the House to sit longer than originally expected. This is likely to continue to be a reality of the parliamentary environment.

That said, changes can be made, and we will of course bring to bear whatever knowledge and resources the committee requires to thoroughly flesh out whatever proposals it chooses to make. Our role is to help the committee, and ultimately the House, to accomplish what it wishes to accomplish.

I'm happy to take your questions.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you, Mr. Clerk.

The first round of questioning will be seven minutes: Liberal, Conservative, New Democrat, Liberal.

We'll start with Ms. Vandenbeld.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Thank you very much for taking the time to appear before this committee.

I have not come across what you mentioned here about a parallel chamber. I don't think it's something that has come up in the discussions before. I'd be very interested to know what that actually means. You noted that it's done in Britain and Australia. Is this a chamber that would be similar to committees, where it would be given references from the main House of Commons? Presumably there would be votes in only one of the chambers.

Could you elaborate a little bit on that?

11:15 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

As I understand it, it's primarily a debating chamber in the jurisdictions that employ that method. It's not too dissimilar from a committee of the whole, for those members who are familiar with that forum.

We could certainly do more research for the committee on that point, but my understanding is that it's primarily for debate. It's a mechanism by which more members of the House are able to get on the record their views and opinions.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Would they be televised?

11:15 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

I don't believe they're televised in Britain or Australia, but we can check on that.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Okay.

I'm also interested in what you said about technology. I know that for things like notices of motions, we're already using technology, but of course we have the capacity with modern technology to be able to do much more with that.

I'd be particularly interested in the idea of whether or not votes could be done using technology, which would allow members to be present for votes even if they're not physically in the chamber, and whether there might be unexpected consequences or implications that you, in your experience, might be able to think of that we may not.

11:15 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

We can tackle electronic voting in two ways. First, assuming that members are present and we have electronic voting, there are many examples of how that can be done. Many jurisdictions employ it. None is perfect, but if you're talking about saving time, it can permit the taking of votes during the bells, essentially. You can vote as soon as you get to the chamber. Once you've done that, you carry on your business and pursue other activities, as opposed to the bells ringing, everyone showing up, and everyone voting at the same time. It sort of defeats the purpose. That's assuming that everyone is present.

The next part of your question has to do with members not being present but still voting. It's certainly something that can be examined. There are certain fairly deep philosophical issues surrounding that. I wouldn't want to get into it today without doing much more research on them. Parliamentary privilege comes into play. There are a lot of factors to consider with such a proposition.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Do you know if there are other jurisdictions doing that?

11:15 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

I'm not familiar with any at this time, no.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

Okay.

Thank you.

11:15 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

You still have three minutes left.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Anita Vandenbeld Liberal Ottawa West—Nepean, ON

I'll share my time.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Ms. Sahota.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

Ruby Sahota Liberal Brampton North, ON

Thank you.

I'm not aware of whether there's a certain number of sitting days that Parliament has to sit, or what two sittings in one day would actually look like. How would that function? How would that work?

11:20 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

The parliamentary calendar provides for a set number of sitting days per calendar year if the House is in session. For 2016, that number is 127. In previous years the number was around 135. This year we have essentially one fewer sitting week than normal.

With regard to two sittings in a day, again it is entirely up to the committee how it wants to approach this if it wants to pursue that idea. On the longer days, Tuesdays and Thursdays, it would be possible, I believe, to split the day in half and have one sitting in the morning and one sitting in the afternoon. This idea comes, obviously, from the elimination of another sitting day, Friday. It's not necessary to do that if you keep Friday, but if you take one day out of the equation, there obviously would be serious consequences to the progress of legislation, to private members' business, and so on as a result. So you need to give that some consideration. It is certainly possible to have two sittings in a day, and that could be structured however the House wants to structure it.

What I'd like to stress about procedure is that it's very flexible. The House can decide to structure its proceedings any way it wants. There are really very few impediments to what the House can decide to do. It just has to keep track and be mindful of the consequences of whatever it decides. That's where people on the Procedural Services team, who I am offering to the committee today to help with this process, are able to provide that minute expertise on the standing order implications and on whatever else has to change if you make a certain change. That's what we are there for. We are certainly happy to help the committee in any of its work.

11:20 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Richards.

11:20 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Thank you for being here today. We had the chance in the last Parliament to have you before our committee, and we always appreciate the thoughtful and considered advice that you provide to us in our deliberations here.

In your opening remarks, you certainly laid out very well some of the things that could be considered in making changes to the Standing Orders and also some of the things that have to be really thought through with regard to, as you mentioned, ensuring that we don't come out with any unintended consequences. I'd like to explore a couple of those areas a little further in the time we have.

The first is that one of the areas you mentioned was looking at consideration of the days and times of sittings. You mentioned specifically the impact of not sitting on Fridays and what that would mean for parliamentary business in some of the areas that you identified. You talked about the number of sitting hours per day, the start and end times of sitting days, and a number of other factors.

What I'd like to focus on first is that question period is a very important part of the day in Parliament. It provides the opposition with a very important opportunity to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians; so question period and the impacts on it are key parts of anything we would want to consider. If we were to talk about eliminating Friday sittings, that certainly would or could have some impact on the amount of time in question period that the opposition would have to hold the government to account on behalf of Canadians.

I'm wondering if you could give us a bit more information on how that would be affected if Friday sittings were eliminated, and whether you have suggestions on how we could ensure that there wouldn't be less time provided for that very important function in Parliament.

11:20 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Obviously, if you take a day out of the five-day sitting week—on Fridays the House sits for 4.5 hours from 10 to 2:30—that lost time, if you want to put it that way, could be made up on the four other days.

Historically, when the House has adjusted its sitting hours, it has tried to make sure that the number of sitting hours per week either increased or at least didn't go down. That's what was done previously. You could conceivably add the time lost for the various items at different times in the week.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

I'm sorry to interrupt. Specifically on question period, though, obviously of that four and a half hours that we sit on a Friday, between the S.O. 31s and the questions, it's about an hour approximately, or maybe it's exactly an hour.

11:25 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Obviously, of that four and a half hours, one of those hours would have to be for a very specific function, which I think is something that is a very key part of the opposition being able to hold the government to account. It's a key part of the day. It's one of the parts of the day where the opposition obviously has an opportunity to set the agenda or to at least ask the government, on behalf of Canadians, the questions they feel are important. Specifically on that, do you have thoughts on how it could be dealt with so we wouldn't lose some of that time?

11:25 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

If you look at it from a purely mathematical standpoint, if you're losing 15 statements, or 16 statements, you could add them to each of the four other days. You could split them in four and add them in that way. Similarly, for questions, you could make a calculation and say that of the 45 minutes or 50 minutes of question period, let's apportion it, divide by four, and add it to the other days. That would be one way of doing it.

11:25 a.m.

Conservative

Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB

Yes, purely in terms of enough time, that would certainly do it. Obviously, there are other considerations that we'd have to look at as well.

You mention a number of other areas when we talk about the elimination of Friday sittings and also in looking at all of the areas. You mention things like the impact there would be on the progress of legislation, on supply, on private members' business, and statements. We already talked about question period, but there are notice period requirements and the impact this would have on committees and caucuses. Those are a number of the things you mentioned.

Would you be able to elaborate on what you see specifically in regard to the elimination of Friday sittings? We'll focus on that. Could you give us some indication about some of the things you see being potentially problematic, or things that we would have to at least find ways to deal with? Could you elaborate on some of those points?