Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence - May 13, 2014
OTTAWA, Tuesday, May 13, 2014
The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day, at 9:30 a.m., pursuant to rule 12-7(2)(a), for the consideration of amendments to the Rules of the Senate; and for the consideration of a draft report.
Senator Vernon White (Chair) in the chair.
[English]
The Chair: I thank everyone for making it today and I welcome Senator Wells, who is replacing Senator Batters.
As you can see on the agenda, it is pretty open. We will move right into a subcommittee report, originally struck on broadcasting but, as a result of steering's intervention, is now moving into other areas. I will ask Senator Nolin to brief us, please.
Senator Nolin: I will make my presentation in both official languages.
[Translation]
I am pleased to present to you today the first report of the Subcommittee on Broadcasting. The subcommittee is considering ways in which Senate rules and practices should be adjusted to deal with the possibility of broadcasting. As the chair said, the mandate is fairly broad. Since it is very likely that the sessions will be broadcast, the committee entrusted the subcommittee with the responsibility of studying ways to ensure that the meetings are more interesting to viewers, among others.
[English]
This report proposes a change that would be applicable only to items of non-government businesses. It will allow a limited number of senators to move that debate not be further adjourned provided that two conditions are met: one, the item must have been called at least 15 times; and, two, debate on the items must have lasted for a cumulative total of at least three hours.
[Translation]
Only the sponsor or critic of a bill, the senator who moved a substantive motion, or the senator who moved the adoption of a committee report could invoke this process.
If the Senate adopts the motion, debate would have to come to a conclusion at that same sitting. Any final vote would be taken according to the usual practices.
[English]
If the Senate rejects the motion that debate not be further adjourned, a similar motion could only be moved again once the two basic conditions have been met once again.
While ensuring that there is ample opportunity for debate, this provision would provide a tool to ensure that if the majority of senators want to reach a decision on an item, they can do so without undue delay.
[Translation]
We have reviewed the statistics and the length of debate of various bills that we studied during the last session and, in practical terms, only Bill C-377 would have been affected by this provision if it had been in force during the last session. A few other bills, such as Bills C-290 (sports betting), C-304 (to amend the Human Rights Act), S-210 (sealing) and S-211 (service in official languages), were debated for more than 100 minutes, but did not reach the proposed three hours.
[English]
A change of this type might change some of the dynamic of debate. This will no doubt be an aspect on which senators will want to give careful consideration as they consider this proposed change.
Colleagues, I'm open for questions and comments. Basically it is to shorten debate on an item that has been on the Order Paper too long. That's the main idea. It is not related to government business because we already have in the rules a procedure to terminate an item of government business.
The Chair: Thank you for the work of the subcommittee and certainly your work as its chair. The three members of the subcommittee brought this forward unanimously to the full committee. I will entertain comments.
Senator Jaffer: I thank Senator Nolin and the subcommittee for looking at ways to improve the way we work. Senator Smith spoke about this so it's not the first time I've heard it, but I'm still confused as to how it would work. Since you've considered it, can you explain the steps, please?
The Chair: Practical examples, please.
Senator Nolin: Bill C-377, was a good example. By the way, that's the only bill during the last session that could have been open for such a procedure because the length of the debate was more than three hours. The sponsor or the critic of such a bill could trigger the procedure to force the vote at the step where we are in the debate on the legislative process. That's basically it. After it's called 15 times, which we already have in the rules, we have to rewind the clock — and three hours.
Honestly, I must tell you that we had a long discussion about the three hours and whether it should be two hours. We decided to let the dynamic operate and see; but time will tell. If three hours is too long, the committee will probably look into ways to shorten the three hours to two.
By the way, we looked at the procedure in the House of Lords. You would be surprised how fast they move on those items. We are giving senators all the opportunity to be part of the discussion.
Senator Jaffer: I have been giving a lot of thought to this. So the chair knows where I'm going, I feel we need more time. I will tell you one thing I'm struggling with since I heard the proposal.
Our leaders can speak for as long as they want. I'm not making any suggestion about either of our leaders — this is not about that but about the future. Our leaders can speak for up to three hours, and then that's it. That's not really debate. The leaders can speak for as long as they want, as we know. With only three hours and a leader speaks for two hours, it limits the debate. I feel that we need to reflect on when we do three hours, what does it mean? How would it unfold?
I very much respect what you said about the House of Lords, but they do things completely differently than we do. They move things very fast. My concern is about that.
Senator Nolin: That's why the future dynamic of the institution — the chamber will tell us whether we were wrong on the three hours. Should we have a longer period, or should we limit leaders' time to speak, which they have in the House of Lords? Time will tell.
The idea is to shorten the debate. There is no point in having a bill or motion or an item be on the Order Paper eternally. On both sides, everybody is complaining about "too long." If we are to vote on it, let's do it. If we are to vote for or against, let's do it. There is no point in having an item on the Order Paper for —
The Chair: As well, Senator Jaffer, that fact that it includes 15 calls allows 15 times for people to speak, even if the leader has spoken for three hours. You can still stand up, and someone else the next time, for your 15 minutes. If either leader chose to use up the three hours, it would still allow other people the chance to speak.
Ultimately, from a practical perspective this might allow someone who brings a private member's bill forward to arrange the path by which they can see the end of the vote one way or another, whereas now some people feel in some cases there is no end. People can stall or hold up a bill, and it's difficult to get to a point where you can force a vote.
I do agree with Senator Nolin. Although we agreed when we brought this forward, the three of us said we could end up changing this in a year. Our plan or proposal was to bring forward bills and have them voted on and not allow them to stand for a year or more and continue to rewind the clock. We may end up changing something. If for no other reason but to move forward on this and allow us to move the broadcasting into not having people watch us say "stand, stand, stand," over and over, I think it is healthy.
Senator Nolin: I want to add that there will be pressure on the deputy leaders on both sides to make sure that they identify someone to speak on it as critic. The sponsor is easy, because that's the person who is proposing the item, but the critic is different. As we all know, because we're witnessing it regularly, there is nobody who wants to talk as a critic on an item. That's why I referred to the future dynamic of the chamber evolving.
Senator Jaffer: I'm looking at this, and it is at least 15 times and three hours.
Senator Nolin: Both.
Senator Jaffer: If we are looking at the broadcasting issue, I will say that we should look at "and/or." That's why I want to reflect on it and come back. I say that because it can be 15 days. I have had my own bills that have been there for 15 days and people have not spoken. Then I have to wait for someone to speak for three hours? I want to take time to reflect whether it should be "and."
I get what you are saying and I agree with you. I'm not against this. In my mind, if it's "and," I haven't had anything that I brought in that has taken three hours, so we'll still be stuck with that. Do you know what I'm saying?
We do everything in our rules with consent. This is a very good idea, but I would like the subcommittee to look at whether it should be "and/or." I'm not sure.
Senator Nolin: It is our report, but it is your decision. There is no point in rushing a decision. If colleagues want to reflect on it and discuss it, no problem. I think that's the proper way to go.
The Chair: The three hours isn't a cap. It's a minimum, not a maximum. We could end up with 15 hours of debate ultimately, and somebody still has to bring it forward and say, "I want to vote now," and only two people have that option.
Senator D. Smith: I can live with this because it's better than the status quo. Is anything totally perfect? What's totally perfect? It's like beauty; it's in the eye of the beholder.
Senator Nolin: We are working on it.
Senator D. Smith: I would emphasize the chair's point. The three hours is a minimum, not a maximum. You can still get up and give long-winded speeches on it, but if we see people are up talking and the only reason they're talking is to get to the three hours, I'm thinking we probably should have made it two hours.
There are some people around here who think that every rule is perfect — I won't mention any names — and that nothing should ever be done, but I think this committee should keep on going and refining where there is bit of an issue, and I think there is one here.
You want to delay it a bit, but I don't think it should be indefinitely. We should deal with it. You may reflect on it, Senator Jaffer, and then make a decision about what your position is.
I'm okay with it because it is definitely better than the status quo. Quite frankly, if I see people yacking away just to hit the three hours, I'll be saying we should have made it two.
The Chair: We are bringing it here to introduce it and have a dialogue here, and then we can bring it back after the break to see whether or not we are in a new place, allowing people to reflect on it. Our goal wasn't to drive this through in the first 15 minutes.
[Translation]
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, Senator Nolin, for the excellent work of the subcommittee on broadcasting. If I have understood correctly, senator, the televised debate would not be on a government bill. That is not the issue. The debate would be on something other than government business.
Senator Nolin: For government business, we already have a procedure for accelerating decision-making and setting deadlines. With respect to the items on the Order Paper, the idea in this report is to trigger decision-making by the House for all matters that do not come under government business.
Broadcasting is sort of like the backdrop. We are anticipating that it will be broadcast one day, and the idea behind all of this is to improve the quality of the "televisual product" of Senate meetings, at the end of the day.
Senator McIntyre: That is why you mentioned certain bills that concern this very idea of broadcasting, such as Bills C-284, C-304, C-210 and C-211. Very good. I understand.
Senator Nolin: Those bills used the most time in the last session.
Senator McIntyre: Those bills would fall within the context of a motion proposing debate on something other than government business.
Senator Nolin: Barely; it would take a few more minutes of debate. Only one debate has exceeded 180 minutes, so three hours, and that was Bill C-377. In the case of other bills, the duration varied between two hours and two hours and 15 minutes. The sponsors of these bills, and the critics, would therefore have appointed other critics or speakers to fill the required three hours.
Senator McIntyre: Thank you, senator.
Senator Nolin: Thank you.
[English]
The Chair: Are there any other comments or questions?
If there is agreement, we will set this over to the next meeting of this committee. I would ask that you put your thinking caps on to see if you have any other ideas, concerns or suggestions. I would like to see us have something in place by the end of this session so that in the fall, in particular, when we walk through this, that people bringing private member's bills forward understand the path.
I agree, Senator Jaffer, with some of your comments. I think any of us now will at least know how many you have to get to speak and you have so many minutes. I think we figured it out that with the critic and the sponsor, you would probably need six or seven other speakers for the fifteen minutes to get to the three hours.
Senator Jaffer: Critic and the sponsor each.
The Chair: They have 45 each, so that's an hour and a half, so you would need to add five.
Senator D. Smith: They don't always go the limit.
The Chair: That's right, but it might entice them to if they want to get to three hours. I think we would see people moving things forward quicker, and that's really our goal.
Senator Nolin: While we take those few days between now and the next time we study this, why not reflect on the three hours but also the 15 times. Should it be three hours? Could it be four? Should it be two? Reflect on all the options to make sure that when we have the next discussion, we can have a thorough discussion, and then we can decide on it. The idea is make sure that an item does not stay too long on the Order Paper.
The Chair: Thank you very much, Senator Nolin. If we are in agreement, we will move that to the next meeting.
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Chair: The next item of business: We have a subcommittee on parliamentary privilege. Senator Furey is not here, but we will ask him for a short update next time he is here, if you would not mind passing that on to him, Senator Day.
We also received Senator Day's bill, Bill S-207, An Act to amend the Conflict of Interest Act (gifts), which was referred to us on May 8. We will refer this to the steering committee for determination on witnesses and how many days we expect this will take. Maybe we will try to set up a short meeting of steering later this week so we can bring it back after the break.
We have nothing else on our agenda. If there are any other questions, concerns or comments, we will take them now. If not, the meeting is adjourned.
Senator Jaffer: Chair, I know I'm a bit of a pest, but I still have a request. Some of us are new and Mr. Robert has kindly said he would do a personal orientation. I have not asked him, but it would be a good thing for new members to get up to speed, as all of you are. I ask you to consider an orientation.
The Chair: I will talk to Mr. Robert again.
(The committee adjourned.)