Association of Secretaries General of Parliaments
CONTRIBUTION
from
MR M BOSC
DeputyClerk of the House of Commons of Canada
To the generaldebate on
PLANNING CHAMBER BUSINESS – INFORMAL CHANNELS FOR DECISION-MAKING AND TIMETABLING
Bern Session
October 2011
The business of the House of Commons is conducted, for the most part, in an orderly manner in large part because of mechanisms for informal consultation that are the outcome of both formal rules and well-entrenched practices that have evolved over time. Some would say that due to these informal channels Chamber Business is so well planned that proceedings are de facto choreographed. The Standing Orders of the Houseincludesome mechanisms for the planning and scheduling of the House’s business. These rules are extensive butnotexhaustive. For example, the Standing Orders establish a daily program in general, but the detailed structure of the time set aside for Government Ordersand how it plays out is largely dictated at the government’s discretion.
I would like to talk to you today about compromise and adaptability in the practices of the House, and to share some of the experiences we have had recently in Ottawa of negotiation in minority government versus majority government situations. I will provide examples especially from the work done by House Officers, primarily party House leaders, but also from time to time party Whips, and from the work done by private Members themselves.
House Officers
For many years now, the planning of House business has been executed mainly through the House leaders’ meetings, which are informal in the sense that they are not explicitly provided for in the Standing Orders.
Each recognized party, that is, eachparty that has a minimum of 12 seats in the House of Commons, appoints one Member to be its “House Leader”. The position of the party House leader hasexisted for a very long time, and it benefits from a status recognized in the Parliament of Canada Act, that provides for additional allowances to those Members playing that role. The House leaders are the primary agents for the planning of House business as they, along with their staffs, party Whips and their staff, meet regularly to discuss upcoming business in the Chamber, how long bills will be debated, when particular issues will be discussed, and the like. The Clerk of the House is a regular attendee as an observer at these weekly meetings.
House leaders are generally expected to be familiar with the Standing Orders, with the gist of Speakers’ rulings, and with the various conventions that apply to the day-to-day functioning of the House. Their effectiveness as negotiators is in part a product of this familiarity. Furthermore, the success of the House leaders at managing and expediting the business of the House is related to their perception of themselves as House Officers with an obligation to serve the best interests of the institution as well as those of their respective parties. It is not unusual, for example, for the House leaders to negotiate a more expeditious discharge of outstanding business prior to the Christmas or summer adjournments. It is, I believe, accurate to state that the House leaders’ meetings, though not provided for by statute or by the Standing Orders, are nevertheless indispensible to the effective planning and timetabling of Chamber business. By keeping the details of House leaders’ meetings confidential, the parties ensure that discussion can be frank and collaborative. House leaders can be candid with each other about the obstacles they face in gaining acceptance of particular proposals from their respective caucuses.
The Government House Leader plays the most important role here—particularly when there is a majority government—and bears the responsibility of ensuring the smooth flow of government business. In order to accomplish this, he or she must determine the level of priority which the Cabinet attaches to particular legislative initiatives, statutory deadlines (if any) for the renewal of legislation, and the availability of Ministers who sponsor bills and of the committees designated to consider them.
Given that the Government House Leader must ensure that the consideration of legislation takes place in a timely fashion, he or she will consult with the other House leaders to eliminate obstacles to its progress.
Regular meetings of the House leaders are convened by the Government House Leader; they vary in frequency but tend to be weekly. At these meetings they discuss, negotiate and arrangeHouse business to ensure the smooth, thorough and speedy consideration of legislative initiatives. The Government House Leader indicates the tentative order in which items of government business will be considered,usually over a two-week horizon, in order to afford the other House leaders the opportunity to have their spokespersons in the House as appropriate. The House leaders may also come to agreements to expedite the passage of government bills and they may negotiate the conditionsof special debates (e.g. Take-note debates), statements on occasions of note,or other special proceedings. They also discuss the scheduling of allotted opposition days, although the timing of such debates remains a government prerogative.
The tone of these meetings is dependent upon the political context, but tends to be cordial and collaborative. The House leaders come to know each other well as a result of these frequent meetings and the result is usually a productive working relationship. In order to function effectively, the House leaders have considerable delegated authority from their parties so that they can commit to negotiated agreements withthe confidence that they will receive the necessary support from their respective caucuses, though of course they often return to their parties for explicit confirmation.
Since agreements during House leaders’ meetings concern the allocation of House time,the opposition House leaders are at somewhat of a disadvantage in a majority-government situationsince the government has at its disposal procedural tools, such as time allocation and closure, that it can use to expedite the progress of legislation. In a minority Parliament, on the other hand, the government must be prepared to put some water in its wine if it hopes to achieve anythingon its legislative agenda; such negotiations often occur at the House leaders’ meetings, although private agreements may also be arrived at between the government and one or more of the opposition parties. An agreement negotiated by the House leaders might, for example, limit the number of speakers on a bill at a given stage, in exchange for certain considerations— perhaps an agreement by the government not to oppose an opposition amendment. A majority government may also on occasion be receptive to such agreements,simply as a gesture of good will. The tendency for these types of negotiations is well-established, and has become an inevitable and effective feature of the arrangement of the House’s business.
Agreements tentatively negotiated beforehand by House leaders are often effectedby the unanimous consent of the House. In fact, practically all motions that are eventually adopted by unanimous consent are preceded by much negotiation, and unanimous consent is little affected by the minority or majority status of the government. Since one dissenting voice is sufficient to deny unanimous consent for a motion, even an independent Member without the leverage provided by party status has the power to block certain initiatives and therefore, potentially, to secure concessions on matters of importance in return for granting consent. The 41st Parliament has already been fascinating to observe in this respect, since the Bloc Québécois – at one time the Official Opposition, and the second opposition party as recently as the last Parliament – was reduced to only four Members during the last election, and thus no longer has official party status. These four Members sit as independents, even though they identify themselves by party. A fifth independent Member is the leader of the Green Party but she is the only Member from that party in the House. These five independent Members have already exercised their ability to deny unanimous consent on occasion and, as a result, House leaders have found it necessary to consult them beforehand in order to reach agreements regarding the conduct of House business.
Informal agreements also facilitate special events that require the House to resolve itself into Committee of the Whole (in order to allow non-Members on the floor of the House, something that is not allowed when the House is sitting). This has happened in recent memory when the House resolved itself into Committee of the Whole in order to allow the Olympians from the 2010 Olympic and Paralympic games to stand in the House for a brief ceremony in their honour, and when the House sat in Committee of the Whole so that representatives of aboriginal communities could be present on the floor of the Chamber to accept the Prime Minister’s apology for abuses committed against First Nations in Canada’s residential school system. In the latter case, an agreement amongst parties also allowed the aboriginal representatives to not only be present on, but also to speak from, the floor of the House. These are but a few examples which clearly demonstrate the impact of informal negotiations between House leaders on the ability of the House to adapt to new and unprecedented circumstances, as well as allow its procedures and practices to evolve.
There are, of course, other parliamentary conventions that also require the use of informal channels for decision-making. One of these is the number and order of speaking slots available to the Members of any given party, which is usually proportionate to the number of seats held by that party in the House. Since a number of recurringprocedures in the House are managed by rotation lists – Question Period, Statements by Members and debate, it is incumbentupon the parties, and inparticular their Whips, before the start of a new Parliament, to agree upon the order in which representatives from the various parties will speak. While mathematical calculations form the basis for these rotation lists, there can still be room or need for negotiation, particularly as the list varies according to the procedure. The official opposition, for example, normally has the greater part of the questions during Question Period, with proportionate accommodations made for each of the other opposition parties and any independent Members. Government Members are also allotted a certain number of speaking slots but not in proportion to their numbers in the House since Question Period is ultimately an opportunity for the opposition to ask questions of Ministers in order to hold them accountable.
While such negotiations take place between the representatives of officially recognised parties, they must at times take into consideration the independent Members. Independent Members usually have relatively infrequent opportunities to make statements or ask questions given their small representation in the House. It falls to the Speaker, as guardian of the rights of all Members, to ensure these Members are aware of the House time available to them, and to monitor their use of it. In the past, many of the independent Members did not even use these rare chances to speak. In the current Parliament, however, independent Members are making full use of their allotted time and have risen to speak or to pose a question more regularly than was the case in the last Parliament.
This is but one example of how the Speaker too, by taking on an informal planning role, can contribute to ensuring the effective functioning of the Chamber.
PRIVATE MEMBERS
But it is not only House leaders and the Speaker who informally take charge of certain aspects of House business. Private Members too can become engaged in negotiations in order to pursue their particular interests. Their lobbying of other Members in order to secure support for their items of Private Members’ Business is certainly the most common instance given the usually lengthy process as prescribed in the Standing Orders that requires private Members’ items to gradually and repeatedly work their way to the top of an official list, the “order of precedence,” before coming before the House for each step in the process.
The progress and eventual success of an item of Private Members’ Business will naturally depend on securing the support of a majority of Members in the House. Since private Members’ bills or motions are customarily the objects of free votes – in the parlance of the Commons, they are not “whipped” votes along party lines – a private Member may see his or her bill supported by Members from several or even all parties. In addition, the rules permit two Members with items in the order of precedence to exchange places. If this is carefully arranged, it is possible to have a bill considered and passed more quickly than would normally be the case. For these reasons, private Members’ items are excellent examples of informal, behind-the-scenes negotiation and discussion among Members as private Members drum up support for their legislative projects and possibly make concessions (perhaps by accepting proposed amendments) to increase the chances of successful passage.
Private Members’ consultations are not limited to their own private Members’ items. In fact, there are times when motions originating with backbench Members (e.g. for the designation of a day in commemoration of a particular historic event) are adopted by the House, usually by unanimous consent. Thelobbying thatprecedesthese is necessarily focused on other Members and House Leaders both from the private Member’s own party and from other parties.
Conclusion
The procedures and practices of the House of Commons are governed explicitly by its Standing Orders, rules that provide guidance, structure, safeguardsfor the minority and some assurance that business can be transacted fairly and effectively. As we have seen, there is much that is left unsaid in the Standing Orders, much that perhaps must be left unsaid, and the work of the House depends vitally on a number of informal, unwritten channels that allow for negotiation, compromise, and gestures of goodwill among the Members.