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

February 2nd, 2016 / 11:35 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

All right. Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Bosc, thank you for your presentation and the possible solutions you provided for our consideration. Indeed, I think that, in 2016, we should be having this conversation—and a good one at that—about making our procedures more flexible.

I want to start by drawing to everyone's attention the following question. What are the current rules governing maternity and paternity leave for members?

11:35 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Members don't have any. That leave isn't available to members.

11:35 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

That confirms my information. Some of my colleagues in the NDP welcomed new babies into their families, and they had to deal with a number of challenges. The same thing could happen to other members of this Parliament in the future.

You presented a few options that allow members to do work without having to be on the Hill. You talked about the ability to file notices of motions electronically and all the measures that have already been taken to improve the situation, making it possible to perform a number of tasks from one's riding, without having to be here in person. What are your thoughts on increasing that flexibility so that members could perform more tasks remotely?

Take, for example, someone who has just had a baby and is at home or in their riding but wishes to express their concerns or make suggestions regarding a certain bill, by having a speech published in the record of proceedings, without reading it in the House. At first glance, does that idea strike you as problematic?

11:40 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

That isn't a House practice. But, as I said at the beginning of my presentation, the House is free to change its practices however it likes.

As far as I know, the only example of a situation where such a practice is allowed is upon returning from the Senate, following a Speech from the Throne; in that instance, the Speaker is allowed to have the throne speech published in the record of proceedings as if it had been read. In theory, then, it is possible.

Would the House want to provide for such a practice? It's possible, but I don't know.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Very well. That's interesting.

Now I'd like to discuss the taking of votes, a routine practice here, in Ottawa. We could opt to group votes together at specific times, such as after question period. I think that's an idea worthy of some serious analysis.

On a few occasions during the last Parliament, the House leaders jointly saw to it that votes were grouped together at the same times. That made things a bit easier in terms of the necessity to be present in the House for oral questions and, then, votes immediately after.

No votes are held in the evening, which means that we don't have to come back. However, that can result in more votes being taken at the same time. And that gives rise to another question, the possibility of breaking up long voting periods.

Under the current procedure, does the Speaker have the authority to interrupt voting for a 5- or 10-minute break between votes, when 10 or 12 votes are scheduled after question period?

11:40 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Currently, the Speaker doesn't have that authority, but there is nothing preventing the House from giving the Speaker that power.

As for the holding of votes at 3 p.m., you're right; that practice was adopted a few times. It works well insofar as the bells are generally not rung. I would point out, however, that a party wanting the ringing of the bells can always demand it. In order to ensure that voting can take place without the bells being rung, the possibility would have to be included in the Standing Orders.

That said, as you pointed out, when a large number of votes are taking place, the time required for that is added to the end of the day, as is the practice. That's another consideration to take into account.

11:40 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Indeed.

You may be able to enlighten us as to the procedure we should follow in order to make changes to the Standing Orders. I'm not sure whether you're able to comment on this, but I was wondering whether the best way to proceed might be to adopt a committee report here, in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, laying out certain changes. The House could then adopt the report in order to implement the proposed changes.

Do you think that would be the best way for the committee to proceed?

11:40 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Frankly, I don't have an opinion on the best approach to take since changes have been made to the Standing Orders in a variety of ways, including the one you just described.

I see that Mr. Reid is in the room. Just recently, he successfully had the Standing Orders changed by way of a private member's motion. Any method is acceptable. Of course, changes to the Standing Orders are more likely to work well when a consensus has been reached, but historically, changes to the Standing Orders have been made in a variety of ways, and not always that way.

11:45 a.m.

NDP

Pierre-Luc Dusseault NDP Sherbrooke, QC

Thank you.

My concern about eliminating Friday as a sitting day has mainly to do with the two hours, or just over, used for activities that could disappear if the decision was made to simply divvy up the 4.5 hours over the first 4 sitting days of the week. I worry about those hours being allocated exclusively to debate on government bills.

On the one hand, we would lose the time for routine proceedings, possibly making things more difficult for the government, which has, in fact, managed to accomplish a lot during that period. On the other hand, we would lose the time allocated to oral questions, members' statements and, above all, private members' business.

Say Friday as a sitting day is eliminated. Do you think we should maintain that 2-hour-and-15-minute period that includes routine proceedings, to ensure the activities I mentioned are retained in the first four sitting days?

11:45 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

It will be up to the committee to decide how to recommend those kinds of changes. If it wishes to keep the fifth hour of private members' business, it can do so. If it wishes to maintain a fifth period for routine proceedings, it can do that as well.

Essentially, the committee has total freedom to recommend a structure that would accommodate the objectives you're describing.

11:45 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you. That's time.

Mr. Schmale, you have five minutes.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Mr. Bosc, for your comments so far.

We've talked a lot about some of the proposed ideas. We've talked about some of the pros and cons. I want to continue and maybe pick your brain a bit more about some of the consequences of changing the sitting days and times.

Do you think it will, I don't want to say “overwhelm”, but is it at all a possibility that it will really pack in the parliamentary calendar so that the proper examination isn't being done?

11:45 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Offhand, no, I don't think it would change all that much. Bear in mind that on a typical Friday, the House does not sit very many hours, or the same number. If those hours are taken up earlier in the other four days, then no time is lost for debate or for any other proceeding that the House may be taking up at that time, so I don't really see an impact in that sense.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Okay.

We talked a bit about the electronic tabling of bills, maybe doing it from our ridings and that kind of thing. Do you see any consequences from doing that, from being away from this place? Obviously a certain amount of work can be done here and only here. Do you see that as being an issue at all?

11:45 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

As I said earlier, I think that gets the committee into a completely different realm of consideration. Distance legislation, legislating at a distance, voting at a distance, these are all fairly fundamental issues for any deliberative assembly, which would really require a lot of study and thought. I myself would want to read up on it and reflect on it before I gave an opinion one way or another.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

That would be a pretty significant change, I think.

11:45 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

It would be a very significant change.

11:45 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Based on what we know and obviously much research, if we were to make a change, do you think you could give us a timeline—it doesn't have to be exact—on when that could possibly come into effect? It would include such changes as tabling bills electronically, that kind of thing. I'm kind of looking for a timeline, just to see....

11:50 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

It's very hard for me to answer that question without knowing precisely what is being asked; I really can't. There may be technological implications that I'm not aware of. There may be requirements where we would have to build a system or devise other procedures internally to make that possible. I don't know at this stage. It would really depend on exactly what's being proposed.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

Absolutely. I have noticed that a lot of the work we can do now is work that we can only do here, which I'm sure would be quite the hurdle to get over.

11:50 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Yes, and if I may, it probably carries a fairly hefty price tag, in all likelihood.

11:50 a.m.

Conservative

Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON

I can imagine, yes.

In your notes you mentioned the parallel chamber. That's a very interesting comment.

Again, we've mentioned time and cost, and we're building a chamber now in West Block to accommodate the chamber when we do move. Obviously time and cost would come into that, and possibly the whole process in terms of setting up.

I'm guessing that's years away.

11:50 a.m.

Acting Clerk, House of Commons

Marc Bosc

Well, it just depends. Probably the informatics people and the Journals people are having kittens hearing me say this, but it really depends on how complicated the committee wants to make it and the House wants to make it. It could be as simple as setting up what is essentially a large committee room. We do that all the time. Obviously, there would be implications for publications, if there is an expectation that there be an actual Hansard published. That would have to be considered, as would other factors, such as the televising of it and on which channel. All of those questions would have to be considered, but in terms of a physical set-up, it certainly is doable.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

I'm sorry, it's over now.

Mr. Chan.

11:50 a.m.

Liberal

Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON

Thank you, Mr. Bosc, for joining us today. I know how busy you are.

I'm going to split my time with Mr. Lamoureux. I'm just going to ask a couple of very quick questions.

I want to follow up on a point that Mr. Graham made, which is not so much about changing the number of sitting days as about sitting hours. Under Standing Order 43, members are allowed to speak for up to 20 minutes on a particular item. Is there any particular reason or convention that it is that particular period of time? Do you have any thoughts on, for example, if we were to reduce that amount of time to compress the calendar on a particular day a little bit?

I'm already noticing that a lot of members on the 20-minute speaking order are often splitting their time. Do you observe many members actually using up the full 20 minutes?