Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you happen to know if there was a decision at the beginning mandating unanimity?

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I don't know. I will find out, though, and I will report back to the committee. I'm sure my staff member is behind me right now, writing something down or typing on his BlackBerry. Keith Mitchell will look after it for us, and will ensure that we get that information back.

Mr. Chair, that's a good point. If there is that establishment of trust at the beginning of a process, we may not have needed a motion to explicitly spell out the need for unanimity. It may not have been required if it had been conducted in a different way. This might have been brought directly to PROC, perhaps in a discussion paper to PROC, with some clear discussion rather than having it tabled in the media, never being brought before Parliament and officially tabled. We may not have ever needed this debate. We may not have needed this discussion if we had been able to deal with it in a different manner.

We are where we are now. That's unfortunate, but yes, that's a good point to raise. I'm not sure they needed that. I'm not sure if McGrath had it either, the need for a clear statement that things would be unanimous. I always prefer to have unanimity, so that's a good point from which to start.

One other point I wanted to highlight from this article, and again, others can read the full article in the Canadian Parliamentary Review, autumn 1983. Minister Collenette recounts a fascinating and, I find, fairly moving statement from a former minister, whom I think is well known to this place, Paul Martin, Sr. This comment actually tugged at my heartstrings a little bit because every time I walk into this place I get a great sense of awe.

I worked in this place as a staffer. As a student at Carleton I often walked by this building. Looking at the Parliament Buildings, especially at night, for me, is a very moving experience. In fact, earlier last week, when we adjourned at midnight, walking through this nearly empty building, a dark building, was quite the experience. It's a special feeling, seeing it from the outside.

Mr. Waugh was with me, so he enjoyed that too. The comment recounted from Paul Martin, Sr. touched me. I say that in all sincerity. Minister Collenette wrote:

I remember the Honourable Paul Martin at a farewell dinner in 1975 before he was to become High Commissioner to London, telling a jam-packed dinner in his honour in Parliament's West Block that “one day, many years from now I shall return on a cold blustery night with the snow whirling around and I shall walk along Wellington Street and look up to the House and see all of the lights blazing, knowing that the Chamber is sitting and that the vital issues of the day are being debated. I can imagine a stranger coming up to me and asking me why the lights were burning, why all of this activity and I would explain to him the work of Parliament and that I used to work there”.

I find that quite the moving statement, sentimental nonetheless. He was concluding his parliamentary duties and was moving on. It reflects the importance and the enormity of our work in this place. We may not always appreciate, from a personal standpoint, what we do in this place until we may no longer be here. I'd like to serve in this place for many years, and I hope to have that opportunity, but elections do happen, life intervenes, and I may not have that opportunity forever. The least I can do, for four years during this Parliament, is to have the opportunity to serve in this place. Going forward, I can recount to my kids and grandkids that I had the right and the opportunity to serve in this place. When I walk down Wellington Street in the future, like Paul Martin, Sr. before me, I can say that in that place the important issues of this country, of this nation, are being undertaken and are being debated now.

Mr. Collenette did some interpretation of his own of that statement, talking about the regular sittings of the House and the length of time members should be debating. I took it more as a sentimental statement. In his article, Mr. Collenette talked about the sitting hours of the House more literally. He went on to write regarding Mr. Martin's statements, “It is the centre of decision-making in the country and to try to shut it down artificially just because the switchboards turn off in most offices across the country at 5 or 6 o'clock, may not be conducive to good parliamentary government.”

That's an important interpretation, an important consideration. Ought we to schedule our debates, ought we to schedule our discussions and our daily itinerary, based on a 9 to 5 work day? It's an important consideration. I don't know the statistics and I don't know how many Canadians work 9 to 5. I know Mr. Waugh has talked before about his work day as a trustee and a sportscaster. It was certainly not a 9 to 5 day. We don't work 9 to 5 here. I don't think anyone would disagree with that, regardless of when the House sits. We're in our offices here on the Hill prior to 10 o'clock in the morning and we're often in our offices at different times throughout the day, and sometimes late into the evening. So artificially deciding when the House sits based on a 9 to 5 day, I think, is what Mr. Collenette is getting at there. We ought not to finitely decide where that is or ought to be, and it's a worthwhile discussion. And from a family perspective, we need to look at what we're doing to facilitate that. Here, I would go back to the earlier comments. Not to repeat myself, but we do need to consider different family situations in each discussion.

One of the things I would point out that I particularly appreciate about the Canadian Parliamentary Review is that it does bring in experts of different varieties from different walks of life. Often they have academics writing articles. Often they have practitioners who worked in the House from a procedural standpoint, and MPs as well. One such article that I came across—and again my staff was kind enough to print it for me—was by Robert Stanfield, one of the few Canadians to be given the title the right honourable—the Right Honourable Robert Stanfield—who didn't serve in a position of Prime Minister. There are a couple others. I believe Don Mazankowski is the only current living right honourable who didn't serve as Prime Minister, or as Governor General, but I'll perhaps have to double-check that. He wrote an interesting analysis, and he called it “The Opportunities and Frustrations of Backbenchers”, and it was written in 19—

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Backbenchers don't have frustrations.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

They don't have frustrations, none at all. I'm proud to be a backbencher actually. I don't think there's any better experience as a first-time MP than serving on the backbenches for two reasons. First of all is the experience of serving in Parliament. It allows us to get our feet wet and to do our job. Second of all, you actually get a great vantage point of the House from sitting in the back row. You get a bit of a bird's eye view of everything that's going on, and by sitting in the back row versus the fourth row, you actually get the individual seat rather than the theatre style seating that is in the fourth row of Parliament.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You get to vote first on private members' bills.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

And we get to vote first, and we have more legroom.

Actually, Mr. Chair, if you'll indulge me I want to address something that is related to the Standing Orders. It's concerns voting on private members' bills, since you mentioned that.

It's an important discussion actually, and the Speaker has mentioned the process for that a couple of times, but backbenchers vote first, so there is no visual cue to members from the whip or from the party leader or from the leadership on how a vote is undertaken on a certain matter. Certainly, information can be provided to members in advance of how a whip or a House leadership would encourage you to vote on a piece of private members' business, but not seeing how someone's going to vote first presents an interesting opportunity for private members, because you don't know, you cannot predict with full certainty, how your caucus is going to vote on the matter. We've seen a couple of situations in which people started voting line by line, not realizing that they might not be entirely in favour of that certain matter. The ability to stand up and vote on a private member's bill without first having a visual cue from your party leadership, I think, is a fascinating matter.

I don't know when that came into being, and perhaps I'll task the good folks behind me with finding out when that rule change came into effect, but I do think it is somewhat in line with one of the McGrath report recommendations on digital or electronic voting, the reason being....

Go ahead.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I think that's timely. It's a good chance for me to mention what happened in this committee, to those members who aren't normally on the committee—which is everyone except Filomena and Blake—when we had the discussion on electronic voting. Earlier tonight Todd Doherty mentioned that he liked to stand, and there are certain votes of conscience where there's a lot of passion, and people might like to stand. As was discussed at our committee before, you wouldn't have to use electronic voting every single time. You could do it for all these repetitive things that everyone knows are going to happen, but when you get these motions of conscience and you want to stand, you could still have a standing vote. I just wanted to put that on the record as an option.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

The question would be, though, how it would be determined and by whom. Who decides when it's a matter of conscience? Who decides when it's a non-routine type of vote? There would be the challenge there, right?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That would have to be discussed, for sure. We'd have to discuss it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I was just going to say that I think that there would be a real advantage, because our system of voting is archaic. A lot of people wouldn't realize that our names aren't called and then we vote. We stand, and then our names are called. It can create confusion for the table officers, and that's one of the reasons it takes so long. I think it would make sense to have a button at our desks, and I think we should stand and vote electronically simultaneously, which would save time because the table officers wouldn't be wondering how someone had voted. It would light up; it would be automatic. They'd just read the names from an electronic screen in front of them instead of having to peer down to the end to see who's standing.

But again, compare that with the U.K. Parliament—and I'm sure John knows this. Its voting system is truly bizarre. The British have eight-minute bells, which is hardly enough for people to get there, and they don't vote in the House at all. They have corridors. Where we have the government lobby and the opposition lobby, they have corridors. There are 650 MPs and they don't all fit in the room at once, so everyone who wants to vote nay runs down one corridor, and then everyone who wants to vote yea runs down the other corridor. There are essentially table officers with iPads recording the votes as people come along. If they see the face of an MP in the nay corridor, they know that MP is there to vote nay. MPs wouldn't be in the nay corridor unless they wanted to vote nay. If an MP really wants to abstain, the only option is to make sure to run down both corridors because then the vote won't count because of voting nay and yea. But the members are not seen in the House.

I actually think the tradition we devolved of having a seat for every member in the House, for having a defined moment to stand, is really important, but I think we could improve on it and modernize.

While I've got the floor, I'm just thinking about the bells. The eight-minute bells in the U.K. aren't enough, but if we were to have a system where, when votes were announced the day before, we moved to 10-minute bells, but when votes were unanticipated, we stuck to 30-minute bells, I think that would be completely fair and reasonable and would save a lot of time, because we have 30-minute bells for votes that everyone knows are going to happen.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We actually have that system already. For pre-announced votes, sometimes there are 15-minute bells.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

When the members are all present, such as immediately after QP, we don't have bells at all, but we have a convention of 30-minute bells for a lot of times when we actually could be prepared to get there early.

We certainly need 30 minutes. There was one vote, the surprise Monday vote that led to the crisis around motion 6 last spring. I was at the Lyme disease conference that was being held at the former offices of the City of Ottawa, and it was just by the sheerest luck that I was able to run fast enough, grab a cab fast enough, and get back here in time for the vote fast enough. I got back here, and it actually made some members of the governing Liberal Party think that, because I'd managed to get back for the vote, I must have had a heads-up from the Conservatives and the NDP about their plan. I actually had no heads-up. I just was lucky as anything to find a cab. So the 30-minute bells have their place, but not always.

Anyway, I'm sorry about the interruption, again. I think standing in our place is an important tradition in Canada, and I wouldn't want someone else to decide, as you suggested, Mr. Chair, when it's an important matter and when it's not. Some people's routine may be somebody else's conscience.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Go ahead, Kevin.

[Kevin Waugh, Conservative, Saskatoon—Grasswood, SK]

I'm a traditionalist, and I totally disagree with everything about pressing a button to record my vote. I can recall a couple of weeks ago one of the most heartfelt votes I've ever experienced in the House of Commons, on Wynn's law. It wouldn't have been done by pressing a button and having that recorded. We started voting on Wynn's law in the back row, and you could see the momentum building in the House of Commons that night. That was one of the most fantastic nights I've experienced in 18 or 19 months as an MP, and I could see people on the TV, and I could see Mrs. Wynn up in the gallery. We don't ever want to lose that. That alone, with that motion that we had that night, was tremendous.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

I wouldn't want to be misunderstood. I agree. We should stand and vote in our place. I'm saying, in addition to standing—as we stand—we push a button, so the table officers aren't confused in any way about who has voted and in what sequence.

I absolutely agree that standing in our place and voting in sequence actually affects some of the outcomes and is really a critical part of our version of Westminster democracy. I wouldn't want to lose it, but I think some modernization could be accommodated without losing it, exactly as you described. I couldn't agree more. Thank you for letting me clarify.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I'm not debating this, but just providing some other input that has come to the committee. In the Swedish parliament, which is in a semicircle—which is another thing we've discussed—everyone has a vote at their desk, and they are allowed five seconds, I think. There's a big board that shows exactly how everyone voted. It's done very quickly.

When we had the Scottish parliament here last week, they said they have electronic voting, and that once we had that we'd never go back again, away from it.

I am adding other input, not debating it.

[Elizabeth May, Green, Saanich—Gulf Islands, BC]

This is an anecdote that will take tremendous latitude on your part, Mr. Chair, but Bill Blaikie, who's been mentioned in this place, was a wonderful parliamentarian. I recall once, in the Mulroney years, that there had been agreement by all House leaders that there would be no objections, that things were going to pass by unanimous consent. Unfortunately for the House, that night, Bill Blaikie came back having just seen Braveheart. Every single time they asked for consent he said “nay”. He insisted on standing every time, to oppose and draw things out. Sometimes you just feel inspired, if you're a Scot.

Anyway, Bill Blaikie is one of my heroes. There are very few parliamentarians who can carry off playing the bagpipes, although Sean Fraser from Central Nova does play the bagpipes quite well. Oh, and Chungsen Leung, a Conservative and person of....

I'll wrap up, but bagpipes are another important part of Canadian democracy. I just wanted to throw that in.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Nater.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

I do not play the bagpipes. I once suggested to my wife that I could learn, and she said I could learn to move as well, so there will be no bagpipes in the Nater home.

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

How about the harp? I'm hearing a long concert tonight, so....

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

The harp?

I don't know about the harp. I do play the trumpet trombone baritone, but not the harp. I'm not a harper.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, back to the debate.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Returning to electronic voting, when you have either, we do in a way have a method in place now that we employ relatively often, by applying votes by unanimous consent. That could be something to be considered for electronic voting, or just more frequently for these types of votes. The one challenge with applying votes is that it doesn't provide the same opportunity for an individual to change from a party direction on a specific matter.

In our system, in our Canadian approach, we typically do vote more often than not with our party, but there are times when we break from our parties. We've seen that on different bills, especially on private members' bills, but that's a separate matter. Wynn's law is a good example. On government matters, we have seen government MPs vote a certain way, and we've seen opposition MPs vote different ways as well. They may vote with the government legislation, or vote against a piece of government legislation that our party may have supported.

There are challenges. There are opportunities to speed things up by applying a vote, but it could also have the unintended consequence of further heightening or strengthening the party, the power of the whip, when he or she seeks to apply the vote. As an individual MP I may be hesitant to oppose the application of a vote, because I would be singled out in that case, and in so doing, tying up the House and making votes take significantly longer. I may not be inclined to do that simply to oppose a specific matter one way or the other. So there are considerations there.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

It's career limiting.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

Very much so, and that's exactly the way it's described. It can be a career limiting movement. In our 149 and three-quarter year history of this place, we see examples of career limiting moves in one way or the other, from opposing to supporting certain things that perhaps the government whips may or not agree with. I do hope to get to my discussion of whips and House leaders, and the role they play in House administration. It may not be this evening, but I will, hopefully, at some point have the opportunity to do so.

I want to go back to the discussion of Mr. Stanfield. Other than former governors general, former prime ministers, and chief justices, the only non-chief justice, governor general, or prime minister who has had the honorific of right honourable is Don Mazankowski. I was able to confirm that, thanks to my staff, but it is a very prestigious title.

Going back to Bob Stanfield, often referred to as the best prime minister we never had, he wrote this article for the Canadian Parliamentary Review—