Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2017

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Since we're on national television, I'd like.... This is total self-promotion, by the way. I might as well be on The Shopping Channel, because—

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

Where can one buy this book, and how much does it cost?

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

You can go to Amazon.ca and search Turning Parliament Inside Out.

I'd like to thank the beautiful publishers at Douglas & McIntyre for helping us out with this. It's coming out in May or June, and you can pre-order now. It's good stuff.

We have authors from throughout Parliament. I would just like to list the authors, if that's okay?

As I mentioned, Michael Chong, myself and Kennedy Stewart edited it.

Here are the authors for the three forewords to the book: Ed Broadbent, Preston Manning, and Bob Rae.

I'll go through the chapters.

We have a consensus opinion on all forewords from all colours. It's a veritable rainbow.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

There we go.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Here you have, in number one, “Westminster Parliamentary Democracy: Where Some MPs Are More Equal Than Others”, by Elizabeth May, leader of the Green Party.

“How to Fix Question Period: Ideas for Reform”, by Michael Cooper, a brand new member of Parliament, who has been here already.

“Empowering the Backbench: the Story of Electronic Petitions”, by Kennedy Stewart. We talked about his drive to change the Standing Orders on e-petitions, and he has a chapter on that in this book.

“Rebalancing Power in Ottawa: Committee Reform”, by Michael Chong, a current leadership candidate.

“Speaking in Parliament”, by Nathan Cullen.

We also have “Breaking the Parliamentary Glass Ceiling”, by newly elected Anita Vandenbeld, a Liberal MP not far from here.

“Social Media, Social Movements and Young-Voter Engagement”, by Niki Ashton, an MP in Manitoba.

Finally, last but by no means least, chapter 8: “Introducing the Assembly of the Federation: the House of Sober First Thought”, by Scott Simms.

And the conclusion, of course, is by Michael, myself, and Kennedy.

Once again, that is Turning Parliament Inside Out. You can get it at Amazon.ca.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

After that shameless self-promotion, I think we—

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

That is the biggest example of shameless self-promotion I've seen in a very long time, and for that I apologize to my colleagues, but the quote came up that this book is germane to the conversation. I thought this too was germane, so, colleagues, thank you so very much for giving me this time.

The proceeds, by the way, are going to Samara.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Monsieur Berthold.

[Luc Berthold, Conservative, Mégantic—L'Érable, QC]

Continuing on this Amazon.ca kick, Mr. Chair, I'd like to share the name of an excellent book I got from the Library of Parliament. I would've liked to tell you about it this evening, but I probably won't have a chance given my colleague's eloquence.

Another time, then, I will definitely tell you about this book, which perhaps illustrates the tactics the government is using to try to change our rules. The book is Machiavelli's The Prince. I will happily discuss it another time, as it will be a real pleasure to share my passion for the book with the members of the committee.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I'm not quite sure if it's that germane to the situation....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You can come back at Easter with Garnett and David and talk about it.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I would be remiss if I didn't plug my book, The Fight for a Principled Foreign Policy, which is available on Amazon. All the proceeds go to me, though, not to any worthy organization.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

That's very good. That's honesty.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

The royalties aren't that significant, and we're all trying to get by on an MP's salary—

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

There's a good pension.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Let's stick to the topic.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I felt the need to reply to the comments even if they made me stray a bit.

I look forward to reading the book, Mr. Simms, and, yes, it seems like in the writing of the book you've been able to achieve some consensus, which is a good example for the House of Commons.

I was heading in a direction of wanting to suggest some of the kinds of changes that perhaps would come forward from a discussion that was proceeding on the basis of consensus, on the basis of including the full range of parliamentary voices; that wasn't just reflecting the perspectives of the government in the discussion, which is precisely what we're concerned is going to happen if we proceed in the way the government intends to do without the amendment.

There are many changes that would, to coin a phrase, “modernize the House of Commons”, whatever is meant by that; but more seriously that could improve the functioning of the House of Commons perhaps in a way that isn't about advantaging or disadvantaging any particular player, but just achieves those kinds of Pareto improvements. In other words, it makes things either better or not any worse from everybody's perspective. There probably are ways of achieving some of those kinds of changes through consensus, and certainly by doing something that I think the public would want us to do, which is to strengthen the role of private members.

There are a few issues, in particular, with how we handle private members' business. I think it would be a worthwhile principle to work toward that basically in a four-year Parliament every member of Parliament has an opportunity to bring forward a private member's bill to a vote. We're not there yet because of the limitations of the schedule. The fact is there is only one hour of private members' business a day for the time we are sitting. I shouldn't say every member of Parliament, of course, but every member of Parliament who is eligible to bring forward a private member's bill. As happens in our current environment, at the beginning there is a draw and “some will win, some will lose”, and some will “sing the blues”. Some will have an opportunity to bring forward a bill that reflects their priorities, and others will not. Some are, on the basis of a random draw, more equal than others.

It's hard to imagine any fairer way of doing it, given the way the schedule currently functions, than by having a draw. Measures could be brought forward to allow us to work through more of that draw, and have more members of Parliament get the opportunity to bring forward bills that reflect their priorities. I think that would be a positive thing. We can look at ways of changing either the way the schedule operates or more creative solutions that would create the conditions for more private members' bills to come forward for debate in the House.

One of them is to have a distinction made between private members' bills and private members' motions. Right now when matters are debated in the House, whether it's a private member's bill or a private member's motion, there are two hours allocated for that bill or motion at second reading—not at the same time, two separate hours—and then we proceed to a vote. This certainly makes sense on legislation. Even that a bill would pass on to a second reading vote with only two hours of debate, that's much less debate than government legislation receives. Of course, we wouldn't want to extend the number of hours because that would further reduce the number of private members' bills that could be brought forward, but we wouldn't want to reduce the number of hours either. Two hours is about right for private members' bills.

Then we have a lot of private members' motions that come forward. These are statements of the House that are not binding on the government in any way. Many of them have some symbolic significance.

We see private members' motions that suggest a study or matters of recognition for particular communities—maybe they create a heritage month, maybe they create a commemorative day—those kinds of motions. In many cases we have private members' motions that have a substantial amount of support within the House.

There may be pros and cons to this, but an option would be to say that private members' motions only receive one hour of debate, not two. Private members' bills receive two hours of debate before going to a second reading vote and then proceed on from there, but private members' motions are voted on after a single hour of debate. The effect of doing that would be that we could make it substantially further down the list. Of course, it would depend on how many private members' motions versus bills were proposed. Maybe it would create a bit of an incentive for members to propose substantive legislation as opposed to motions. There's nothing wrong with doing motions, of course, but it is an avenue that allows members to actually propose changes to laws, not just motions.

Having that reduced amount of time for debate on private members' motions—not on bills, simply on motions—would create the conditions that would allow more members of Parliament to bring forward either private members' motions or bills because it would allow the House then to work through more of the list. That's the kind of idea that isn't going to be proposed in a government-dominated process, but it might be something worthy of consideration in a more consensus-driven process.

Yes, I'm open to that.

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

As a quick comment for my friend and colleague, I just want to point out the irony of the problem of their particular suggestion. Both Conservative and NDP members have changed the Standing Orders in recent years by a simple majority vote on a private member's motion. I'm not sure if the member is advocating for the ability to change the Standing Orders with a single hour of debate.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

Fair enough. I just want to put out ideas that should provoke discussion about how we consider the role of private members. I'm not going to endorse any of these specifically. Perhaps an appropriate modification would be motions that do not include....

This is the curious thing about motions. In one sense you can think of motions as one of the less important things we do because they're not binding on the actions of government in terms of policy. On the other hand, if they involve an instruction to a committee or a change to the rules of the House, that is done through a motion. In some sense, that's one of the most important things we do because it impacts that substructure of democracy. If you were changing the number of hours allocated to certain kinds of bills or motions vis-à-vis private members' business, you might want to say that there would be certain distinctions between motions that made certain kinds of changes and didn't make certain kinds of changes or that did involve instructions to committee or didn't involve instructions to committee. Those are the kinds of distinctions that could be made.

There are certain kinds of recognition or commemorative motions that come forward that potentially could be dealt with in a single hour. That would create more of an opportunity to then proceed with more bills being brought forward. That's just one idea.

Here's another idea, and maybe this will get more support from Mr. Graham. What if we had a system in which all members of Parliament put forward a bill that they were interested in, and then in some secret ballot format, members of Parliament could choose a certain—

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Sorry. I would just thank the opposition House leader for coming tonight and spending quite a while here. Thank you.

[Candice Bergen, Conservative, Portage—Lisgar, MB]

It was great to be here. Thank you very much.

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

Mr. Genuis, I see where you're going. I would just congratulate you on finding a way of marrying open-list proportional with motions.

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

I just want to put it on the record as an idea—maybe you're anticipating this—that all members of Parliament who wish to would put forward certain legislative ideas. Then you would select a certain number of bills to go forward for debate, not on the basis of a draw, but on the basis of what individual members were interested in. The risk with that is, if you did it with the whole House together, there's a risk that government members would only select government bills, and therefore private members' business would become another avenue simply for having government legislation brought forward.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have an opinion on this?

[Garnett Genuis, Conservative, Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB]

You'd have to look for ways to balance it out. That would be something really interesting: if members submitted legislative proposals but did so anonymously and then, on the basis of secret ballot, you had private members choose a certain number of those bills that they would like to see go forward. The effect of that would be that we would be prioritizing bills that were most likely to get support in the House. We would then have the top 20 ideas from members of Parliament, not on the basis of a draw, but on the basis of the popularity of those ideas, be put forward, debated, and very likely, passed. It would create an opportunity to more quickly move forward with ideas that don't necessarily even have the support of the cabinet, but that reflect the kinds of things that members are interested in seeing.

It would probably make sense in the context of that vote for the selection of private members' business to exclude the people who are also excluded from bringing forward private members' bills. It is actually an expression of the will of private members in terms of what kinds of legislative initiative they would be interested in seeing. That's just one idea. I don't think you would want to eliminate the draw process as well, but it would create an opportunity for even a member who did very poorly in the draw, but who had a good idea for good legislation that would actually get support in the House, to move that forward.

Did you want to comment?