Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Feb. 16th, 2016

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

You mentioned briefly something about officers of Parliament roles for members. What did you mean by that?

[Andre Barnes]

Maybe that isn't the best term for it, but for the whip, the House leader, the chair, and the deputy chair, there could be some arrangement made. It could be put into the rules, should members so decide, that there would be some sort of division, or equality, or some sort of balance. That option exists. It came up in the IPU report. I won't take credit for making that up. It's something that came up. In looking at the number of chairs at the time I wrote the paper, I saw that there were only two female chairs at that time—for health and the status of women—out of 24 standing committees.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

In terms of going forward, do you have suggestions you're about to make? Are you looking for some? What are your thoughts on going forward?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Well, we're going to get some more reports, but for the subcommittee report, which we'll do next, there were a couple of days set aside for this family-friendly inclusive Parliament for witnesses and further discussion. That's when we would cover it, I would think.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Does that apply to the second chamber concept as well, or do we look at...? It seems to me that you could make an argument that it should have a separate process.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, I think from your previous discussions a few meetings ago you suggested, and I agreed, that we focus on the inclusive family-friendly thing for the first report or we'll never get through it, and the House speakers will go ahead without us. I think yes, we should do that as a separate—

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Is there merit then in asking the analyst to take a look at some options? There was some discussion about private members. I think it was Mr. Graham who talked about more PMBs being processed.

Could we ask the analyst to take a shot at that? Maybe a blue sky—whatever the current terminology is for these things these days; I've lost track—just take a look at everything we do, and along the lines of Mr. Graham, give us some ideas, just to give us a starting point and see how much time we want to invest in this. It seems to me it's either going to be a great idea that could lead us to major reform that's very positive, or it's going nowhere because it's too radical a change. An early indicator might be helpful.

[Andre Barnes]

I will discuss this matter with the experts at House procedural services—they've been super helpful so far—and see what their expert views are on the matter.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Perfect. Thank you.

Thanks, Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We will term that as a second study so we don't get mixed up with the first one.

Jamie.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

I'm going to make a couple of comments on what Mr. Chan was saying about the child care spaces. When my son was born, there was a one-year wait for a child care space. I had to register him before he was born so that he was in the queue. I think this is a bigger issue than just here. Having said that, I'm curious to hear the answer, whether or not it is an issue of space here with the child care or if it's the number of providers. I'm very interested to hear that.

As a comment on how we're talking about voting or delivering reports via Skype or electronic.... I know that in the U.K. you have to be there and press the button, but they have almost 700 members. I think there is something special about standing in your place and voting, or commenting on a bill, or questioning, so I don't want to.... My thought is not to go too far down that road, because I think you lose something. We're elected members; we're here and we're doing our work. There are issues where we can improve things and measures we can take, but I don't want to get too far down the road where we mail things in and have our whips vote for us. I caution against that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Chan.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I want to follow up on your point. I take the point that you raised.

Maybe one of the ways we do it depends on the nature of the matter before the House. For example, if it's a confidence matter, you would have to be in the chair. We could describe private member's legislation as one where that might be appropriate. We could create different categories and classes of material that might allow for the use of alternative means of voting, as opposed to saying “yes” or “no.” I don't know if there have ever been discussion papers about those types of situations.

I get the point that you raise. I'm sensitive to our tradition within the Westminster parliamentary tradition, but you know it is the 21st century and we're a vast country. I'm particularly mindful of individuals like our chair who represents a riding that it takes a long time to get to.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I had to get to the airport at 6:30 yesterday morning. I got here at 10 last night. That's how long it takes.

Anita.

[Anita Vandenbeld, Liberal, Ottawa West—Nepean, ON]

On that comment, I think we can separate voting from getting on the record. For instance, if it's a parallel chamber, we were already saying we wouldn't have votes and we wouldn't have quorum. We would possibly do private members' business. That sort of thing could be done using video conference, or some way of recording and getting on the record, but anything that requires voting, or what we traditionally do in the House, would still have to happen here.

I think the two things are completely different concepts, voting by proxy versus the idea of using technology. Somebody could be here with a computer screen on Skype and still participate in the committee, something like that possibly. I'm just throwing that out, blue skying.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Ruby.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

To follow up on some of those comments, I agree, and I think it is very special to be sitting in the House, to be standing up and voting, or pushing a button and voting or whatever we will do in the future, and actually being present. But I think we're moving away from the reason we're trying to make some of these reforms: to have diverse people with different situations in their lives participate and be a member in the House.

It's equally valuable and important to have those perspectives in the House present as well, using some kind of technological means or not. We're talking about family-friendly politics. There are parents who can't even fathom running, becoming a member, because they currently are having children. We need those perspectives in the House.

For me personally, whether it's for a situation like that, or an elderly or sick aging parent, or a circumstance that doesn't allow for the member to be in the House, I guess it would be up to the House of Commons or administration to figure out whether the reason is valid, at that point, for the member to be missing. I don't want to create a slippery slope where everyone's just taking off and no one's here anymore, but we should note that sometimes there are good reasons for people not being able to be here. Let's still give them a voice and a way to communicate and be present through another means.

I also want to say that you've done a great job presenting a cross-section of different parliaments and the way things are done, but have you come across any opinion pieces or reviews of which parliaments are most effective, even though they've gone through these changes? We just have the facts of what happens where, but are they effective at the end of the day?

We seem to sit more days than any other parliament, with the exception of the U.K. That's in this report. Are we the most effective? We're obviously trying to figure out how, at the end of the day, we can still do our jobs and serve our ridings well. I think it's very important for us to know that perspective as well. Who passes the most private members' bills? Who's passing more legislation and getting stuff done? Let's look at that instead of being so fixated on the number of days, or Fridays, or where the hours are, and whether we have a parallel chamber or not. Who's getting the work done? That's what I want to know.

If there's something that you could forward to us to give us some more information and insight into that, that would be great.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I would tentatively say that with the agenda, it might be two or three weeks before we get back to this, so you could also see if there are countries outside of the ones you've studied in the Commonwealth that have anything to add. You have a little bit of time, I think.

Is that good for this morning, on this?

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

I wish our analyst good luck with this.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We'll suspend for a few minutes for lunch. Then we'll come back to the subcommittee report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The subcommittee had a good meeting this morning and came up with some recommendations for the next month or six weeks or so. I'd like to go over all of them first before people ask about particular things, because they might be in there. Those of you who don't have them yet can write them down as a draft. Of course, it's always tentative. The committee can always change it as things unfold.

Here's what the subcommittee came up with as a draft and depending on when witnesses come, etc., the timing of this could also change, with the hope that the same items would be in there somewhere.

Let me give a bit of a preamble for anyone who's new. Our committee has to review the conflict of interest rules every five years. It was done last Parliament, but they just picked the low-hanging...I think what Blake said was they picked the fruit that had fallen to the ground. The major things weren't dealt with. There are all sorts of reports and recommendations. There is one technicality. It's a little form I think we should approve, which wouldn't take very long, just because this committee approves forms.

For this reason, we recommend that the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner be invited to appear Thursday this week. On the following Tuesday, February 23, the committee could consider matters relating to committee business and future work on the comprehensive review of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members. We'd take all the reports from the researcher plus what we had asked the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, and come up with either a report or a road map to a report, or whatever we have to do. On Thursday, February 25, it looks as if the minister might be able to appear at that time, so we've set that time aside for the Minister of Democratic Institutions. That is tentative and we might know in the next day or two. The clerk is following up.

Then, if time permits after that, depending on how long the minister is here, we'd have a review of caucus input. As you know, we've instructed the caucuses' whips and House leaders to report through you, so we don't want to leave it too late. While it's fresh in their minds, so they feel they're being listened to, we will take that input in one of our upcoming meetings soon. If there is time at that meeting, that will be done then; otherwise, it will be done soon thereafter.

On the following Tuesday, pursuant to Standing Orders 110 and 111, we would invite the two other federal appointees to the independent advisory board on Senate appointments, and if that only took an hour, then we could carry on. If we didn't get the motion done, the caucus stuff, reporting back from the previous meeting, we could carry on or do that then.

On Thursday, March 10, we would select the second option that the Chief Electoral Officer gave us for providing a briefing. It wouldn't be a regular meeting, but it would be in the regular time slot. The clerk and the Chief Electoral Officer would arrange the room and the meal, etc. It would be on the parliamentary precinct.

Then there will be a constituency work week and after that, on March 22 and March 24, tentatively, depending on whether the other things got done, or other things came up, the committee would then hear witnesses and have discussions on a family-friendly and inclusive Parliament based on further research from the researcher. Also, from now over the next month, if anyone thinks of particular witnesses we should invite, those are the targeted days. We could give them some advance notice.

Does anyone on the subcommittee think I've forgotten anything in that draft outline?

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

I would just mention, Chair, that I talked to you before the meeting about having a substantive notice of motion. I am still looking for an opportunity, with your guidance, to place that motion. It's not urgent urgent, but the sooner we deal with it the better, I guess.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Right.

We were thinking that if the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner does not take the full two hours, we could at least start it then. If not, then the following Tuesday we would either start or continue it.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Very good, Chair. Thank you.