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

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

Is it run by the House of Commons or is it privately run?

[Andre Barnes]

I could find that out as well.

I'll move on to the document on the parallel sitting chambers in other jurisdictions.

One is called the Federation Chamber. It was devised in 1994 in Australia's House of Representatives. The United Kingdom devised a parallel chamber called Westminster Hall. Apparently it was modelled on the concept of the Federation Chamber in Australia.

There is a large number of similarities between the two chambers. Both can sit at the same time as the House sits. Both chambers are located conveniently on the parliamentary precinct. Quorum in both chambers is three, although any number of members are able to participate in the debates. It might be worth signalling to the members that in the case of the House of Commons in the U.K., there are 650 members, and from what I've heard, there are about 350 seats. If all members showed up, there would not be room for them. That is a difference between our chamber and their chamber.

Both chambers have their proceedings presided over by a deputy speaker, another chair occupant. The public is allowed to attend both chambers. The proceedings of the chambers are televised. The records of both chambers form part of the official records of either House. No votes can occur in either House. To be more specific, in Westminster Hall a motion comes under discussion and it is written in neutral terms, so no vote is permitted. In the Federation Chamber, for all the items that are referred there, there's supposed to be a consensus about moving them forward. It appears as though the Federation Chamber was called the Main Committee when it was first instituted. In that sense, it appears to operate like a committee. It appears it would put forward a recommendation in a report to the House, and then the House would concur in it. The Federation Chamber can make decisions, but they need to be formally accepted by the House for them to come into force. There's no voting allowed. Everything that would require a vote in the Federation Chamber would be referred back to the House, but it seems that they can move certain items of business forward in the Federation Chamber.

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

Would that be similar to a committee of the whole?

[Andre Barnes]

In the Canadian context, a committee of the whole can vote. It would be somewhat different, because a committee of the whole would resolve into that in the main chamber. Technically, a committee of the whole can call witnesses. I'm not sure about the ability of these different chambers to call witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thanks, Chair.

You mentioned the difficulty they have in terms of the number of seats and the number of members. I guess they had a chance back when it burned to make it bigger, and I think it was Winston who said at the time, “No, no, no, we like it the way it is.”

What I didn't hear was that they did it to save time or to.... What was their other reason? It wouldn't just be for the seating. Did they clearly state that their objective was the ability to move more legislation through quickly without losing any of the benefits of our system?

[Andre Barnes]

For the Federation Chamber, what I found was that it is a debating chamber established to provide a parallel forum to the chamber for debate on a restricted range of business. It was clearer when I looked into Westminster Hall that it was to provide a greater opportunity for debate, because there was only so much time in the main chamber, and overflow business was being sent to....

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

That's what I wanted to get at. Were they deliberately trying to improve their efficiency in terms of how much they could deal with at the same time without giving things up? One could argue that one of the downsides of recognizing two days as one is that legislation can be rammed through, even though it would have met the requirements of an extra day given the fact that it has now been compressed, so you lose something in that kind of process. My assumption was that they were trying to provide a parallel process to save time, and that is clearly their main motive.

[Andre Barnes]

For Westminster Hall, it says that the purpose of Westminster Hall debates is to provide an additional forum for debate, essentially to make more parliamentary time available in the week without extending sitting hours.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, I'd never heard of it until it came up here. It's a fascinating concept. I don't know whether it would work for us in any way, but I think it's worth some exploration. Having sat on the government side in another Parliament, House time is precious. I understand there could be an argument from the opposition side, “Let's not go down that road. We want to slow the government down.” But if we remove ourselves from partisanship and look at it structurally, is it in our best interest to have the ability, when we want to, to move things along quicker without trading off some aspect of good democracy?

I would suggest, Chair, and colleagues also, that I find this intriguing. This is my the seventh or eighth Parliament now, and I find this fascinating. I would hope that we would at least give it a chance, kick it around to see if there is something there that could benefit us. There may not be, but I'd sure like an opportunity to explore that. It's a unique concept, and it's not surprising that it came from the mother ship, so thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Chan.

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

I want to echo what David just said. I'm truly fascinated by the parallel debating chambers.

I want to ask Mr. Barnes a question with respect to whether by creating these additional forums it puts additional pressure for other matters to creep into the debate process.

My recollection is of a motion that was put forward in Westminster Hall. I believe it was debated in Westminster Hall. I believe that under the British system, regular individuals have the ability to sign online petitions. This was the motion about banning Donald Trump from the United Kingdom. I know that ultimately it was not a votable matter, but I believe it ended up in Westminster Hall, if my recollection is correct. As a function of creating this parallel debating chamber, did you observe that there were subsequent reforms that created new opportunities for additional material—to get back to David's point—to put pressure on legislative time and on the ability to debate the actual substantive bills and motions that were before the House?

[Andre Barnes]

I think that the use in either jurisdiction of their parallel chamber is different.

In the case of Westminster Hall, the items that can be referred to Westminster Hall are very scripted in terms of who can send an item to the chamber each day. Mondays are taken up by a new creation of theirs that was studied by procedure and House affairs last session, e-petitions. The e-petitions committee, which is a brand new committee, has the ability to send e-petitions for debate to Westminster Hall. That would have been how that item would have arrived.

On Tuesdays and Wednesdays, my understanding is that it's sort of like the adjournment proceedings that happen here at the House. Those are taken up via some random draw that members sign up for at the Speaker's office in the House to be able to participate in Westminster Hall.

Thursdays are scheduled by a British creation called the backbench committee, which allows backbench members to put forward items of business. Apparently at 35 sittings in a session, the backbench committee can put forward items of business to be considered. Twenty-seven of them have to be in the main chamber and the rest can be in Westminster Hall.

It's very circumscribed what business can be sent there.

From what I gather, for the Federation Chamber it's a little different. It seems as though you can bring bills forward for a second reading. If I read it properly, it says “close examination”. That might be like our clause by clause. You could do that at the Federation Chamber, and if there was consensus to move it forward, you would report it back to the House.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham, and then Mr. Christopherson.

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

Mr. Chair, I was just seeing opportunity in the longer term plans, not over the next couple of years. Centre Block is going to close for renovations soon. We're going to move to West Block, make a new chamber there, and then we're going to move back to Centre Block, close West Block so we can take the chamber out. We might save two years by keeping that second chamber as our second chamber 15 years down the road from now.

Another thought I had, just for the sake of argument, is if we were getting rid of Friday sittings, that's four hours of sitting that has to be redistributed. If we put all the second reading PMB stuff into the secondary chamber, more MPs would get a chance to bring a PMB forward. You could actually have two or three a day instead of one a day, and it would only go back to the House for third reading. It might be an efficiency to look at, just for the record.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

To build on where Mr. Graham was, I agree entirely. I had two points to make, and one of them was on rebuilding the House. What a great opportunity if it turns out there is something there that would be useful to us that we've already built. It still costs a little bit of money, but the big money would be spent in terms of infrastructure, heating, cooling, and communications, etc. It's a great point, and I agree entirely.

The other thing I was going to ask was, has the mother ship done a review yet? Have they actually said, “Okay, we've done this for a while.” Do they actually have a review document, and if so, could we get that circulated, please?

[Andre Barnes]

Sorry, it's just to give due credit to the Australian chamber, because I made it sound like they didn't.... Westminster Hall is modelled after the Federation Chamber. They are the innovators of this.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

The Aussies get the credit. Fair enough; give them their due. All right, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Where the backbench committee can bring things forward, do they also have opposition days and private members' business where backbenchers can bring forward motions? How often does that...? Is it like us, where they have it every day?

[Andre Barnes]

I'm not familiar with their sitting week. I know they have private members' bills. I know that our House is very circumscribed. I keep using the word “circumscribed”. There is a set schedule and a lot of procedures about it, but I can come back to the committee. I'm not sure about supply days either.

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

Do you know of any countries or any jurisdictions that might have a parallel chamber type of thing that isn't necessarily physical but at different times? For instance, does anywhere have a parallel chamber that would sit on Fridays or evenings when the main chamber is not sitting rather than in a separate space?

[Andre Barnes]

Prior to the appearance of the Clerk of the House, I had only heard of Westminster Hall. I had never heard of the Federation Chamber in Australia. I can look around to see what other jurisdictions are doing. I could be mistaken, but I don't believe there are any in the provinces or the territories, and there isn't one in New Zealand so it would have to be in another Commonwealth jurisdiction, maybe, like in India or....

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I don't think we have to limit our research to Commonwealth countries, either.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We could also start putting the Senate chamber to good use.