PRHA Committee Report

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Committee Report

HOUSE OF COMMONS
CHAMBRE DES COMMUNES

OTTAWA, CANADA
K1A 0A6

[ Thirteenth Report ] [ Appendix - First Report ]
[ Appendix A - Summary of Submissions ] [ Appendix B - Summary of Proposals ]

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has the honour to present its

THIRTEENTH REPORT

Pursuant to its mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), the Committee recommends the following changes to Private Members’ Business.

On October 28, 1997, the Committee passed the following motion:

That, the Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business be instructed to review the First Report of the Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business tabled before the Committee during the 35^th Legislature in regards to procedural changes to Private Members’ Business;...

In accordance with this order of reference, the Sub-committee reviewed the March 1997 report, a copy of which is appended. Minor changes were made to some of the recommendations, and others were adopted without amendment. The Committee has considered the report of the Sub-committee at its meeting of November 25, 1997, and has agreed to present the following report.

The Committee therefore recommends:

That, Standing Order 92(1) be amended to remove the provisions that not more than five motions and five bills may be designated as "votable items," and to provide that not more than 10 items from the order of precedence may be so designated.
That, the Standing Orders be amended to allow, at any one time, one item outside the order of precedence that has been jointly seconded by at least 100 Members to be placed at the bottom of the order of precedence, unless the Member proposing the item already has an item in the order of precedence. The 100 Members must include at least 10 Members from each of a majority of the recognized political parties in the House of Commons.
That, for the purposes of the draw and the selection of votable items, an item of Private Members’ Business on which a recorded division has been deferred not be considered to be in the order of precedence if the item would be removed from the Order Paper as a result of the division.
That, Standing Order 97.1 be amended to provide that a standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member’s public bill has been referred shall in every case, within 60 sitting days from the date of the bill’s reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill or requesting a single extension of 30 sitting days to consider the bill, and giving the reasons therefor. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the 60 sitting days, or the 30 sitting day ex tension, if approved by the House, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.
That, recorded divisions on Private Members’ Business begin with the sponsor of the item, if he or she is present, and then proceed beginning with the back row on the sponsor’s side of the House, and then the back row on the other side.
That, the Standing Orders be amended to provide that during the first 30 sitting days after a prorogation, whenever a private Member, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a private Member’s bill that he or she introduced in the previous session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper, or, as the case may be, referred to committee, at the same stage in the legislative procedural process at which it stood at the time of prorogation.
That, the Board of Internal Economy be strongly urged to have appointed, by resolution of the House, a Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, who would be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting services for Members, and that he or she be provided with sufficient staff.
That, priority be given to the drafting of private Members’ bills for Members who have not previously had a bill drafted during that session of Parliament.

Respectfully submitted,

PETER ADAMS, M.P.
Chair

APPENDIX

[ Previous Section ]
[ Maximum Number of Votable Bills and Motions ] [ Alternative Procedure for Getting onto the Order of Precedence ] [ Deferred Divisions and the Order of Precedence ] [ Disposition of Private Members' Bills by Committees ] [ Recorded Divisions on Private Members' Business ] [ Effect of Prorogation on Private Memebers' Business ] [ Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel ] [ Priority for Drafting ]
[ Next section ]

[Report tabled with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs
on March 18, 1997 - 35^th Parliament, 2^nd Session]

The Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business has the honour to present its

FIRST REPORT

On September 19, 1996, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted the following motion:

That the Committee undertake a study of Private Members’ Ballot Items, to determine the possibility of allowing all or more such items to become votable, and to study the disposition of Private Members’ Bills at the committee stage . . .

The Committee subsequently referred this matter to its Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business.

As a first step, the Sub-committee sent a letter to all Members of the House of Commons asking for their comments or suggestions with respect to making all or more Private Members’ bills and motions votable and the disposition of Private Members’ bills at committee stage. As of November 12, 1996, 45 Members had responded, many of whom provided interesting and thoughtful insights and suggestions. The Sub-committee appreciates the time and energy of those Members who sent in written comments. (A Summary of the submissions received is attached as Appendix "A.")

Several of the Members who responded indicated a desire to appear before the Sub-committee, and four Members did appear to discuss their ideas. The Sub-committee also heard from Mr. Robert Marleau, the Clerk of the House of Commons, and Mr. Camille Montpetit, the Clerk Assistant (Procedural Services), who provided much useful information and background, and subsequently submitted more detailed written proposals to the Sub-committee. We also held a meeting with the legislative counsel of the House of Commons.

The Sub-committee reviewed various proposals that have been made over the years regarding Private Members’ Business, including those of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (the McGrath Committee) in 1984-85, and the Standing Committee on House Management in the last Parliament. It also looked at other reports and articles, reviewed the operation of Private Members’ Business in recent years, and considered how Private Members’ Business is organized in other parliaments. The members of the Sub-committee also have drawn upon their own experiences with Private Members’ Business.

In approaching its task, the Sub-committee looked at the history of Private Members’ Business. In the early years after Confederation, private bills and Private Members’ Business accounted for the bulk of parliamentary business, and Private Members’ Business took precedence on particular days of each week. Gradually, as the pressure of government legislation increased, the time devoted to Private Members’ bills and motions was reduced, at first by means of special or sessional orders, and later by amendments to the Standing Orders. By 1955, virtually all the time remaining for private Members had been appropriated by government business. In that year, amendments were made whereby a maximum of eight days in each session were devoted to Private Members’ Business. In 1962, however, the allocation of a certain number of days per session was abandoned in favour of one hour a day to a total of 40 hours. The House experimented with a sin y each week in 1982, but this proved unsuccessful, and in late 1983, Private Members’ Hour on certain sitting days was reinstituted.

The criteria which determined the order in which items of Private Members Business were considered have changed over the years, with a ballot being introduced in the late 1950s. The organization of Private Members’ Business was first placed under the Clerk of the House in 1979.

In 1985 the McGrath Committee recommended a series of changes to Private Members’ Business, including, most significantly, the establishment of an order of precedence and the selection of a certain number of "votable" items by a parliamentary committee that would be required to come to a vote after a certain number of hours of debate. Since 1985, various procedural changes have been made, mainly to fine-tune and further improve the rules regarding Private Members’ Business. These include provisions for the exchange of non-votable items, the selection of items, the separate listing of motions and bills and the maximum number of votable motions and bills, the time allowed for debate of votable items, the number of items in the order of precedence, and the treatment of Private Members’ bills from the Senate. There have also been minor amendments to the time at which Private Members’ Hour is held, and various provisions designed to en ed as seldom as possible. Changes were also made regarding the deferral of votes of Private Members’ bills and motions, and the manner of voting on Private Members’ Business. In 1994, the Standing Orders were amended to remove the requirement for a Royal Recommendation when a Private Member’s bill is introduced.

As is apparent from this brief discussion, Private Members’ Business is far from static. It has evolved over the years, in response to different demands and issues or concerns. This is an on-going process, as Private Members’ Business is continually improved and refined. Improvements, however, are generally incremental, in response to specific problems or circumstances.

The impetus for the current study was a feeling, on the part of many Members, that too few Private Members’ bills and motions come to a vote, despite the fact that many of the issues raised by them are important to Canadians and that they represent one of the few opportunities for private Members to initiate issues. In addition, there have been examples in recent years where bills received second reading and were referred to a committee, but were never heard from again, which many people feel subverts the legislative process. In addition to these concerns, it became apparent to the members of the Sub-committee at an early point that there are other fundamental issues involved in Private Members’ Business, and, accordingly, we broadened our inquiry to consider some of these.

During our study, we considered many options for Private Members’ Business. Many of the questionnaire replies contained suggestions, and the witnesses who appeared before us also provided many interesting proposals and ideas. The Sub-committee also considered suggestions that had been put forward in the past and in various articles and papers. A summary of the main proposals and suggestions is contained in Appendix "B," which gives an idea of the range and diversity of options that we considered.

After much reflection and discussion regarding possible reforms to Private Members’ Business, the Sub-committee has agreed to the following recommendations:

Maximum Number of Votable Bills and Motions

Since the adoption of the McGrath Report, it has been a hallmark of the Private Members’ Business that from the items that are placed on the order of precedence, a certain number are selected as votable. The number has changed over time, but at present, the Standing Orders provide that up to five private Members’ bills and up to five motions can be designated as votable. Since 1990, separate lists of bills and motions have been kept.

This has occasionally led to difficulties. There have been times when a draw has occurred and there are so many votables in either the bill or motion category that no new ones -- or very few -- can even be considered. This is unfair to those Members who have items drawn. On other occasions, the Sub-committee has found itself with more worthwhile bills or motions than it can make votable, and yet there may be vacancies among the other category.

The Sub-committee has concluded that there needs to be more flexibility in terms of the designation of votable items. We agree that no more than 10 of the 30 items on the order of precedence should be votable at any one time, but we would suggest that the Standing Orders no longer prescribe that five of these be motions and five bills, as at present. Instead, it would be within the discretion of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and its Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business, to determine how many bills and how many motions should be votable, up to a total of 10. Items would continue to be drawn on the basis of a maximum of 15 bills and 15 motions. Obviously, the Committee would not have to fill all the positions available.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, Standing Order 92(1) be amended to remove the provisions that not more than five motions and five bills may be designated as "votable items," and to provide that not more than 10 motions or bills from the order of precedence may be so designated.

Alternative Procedure for Getting onto the Order of Precedence

The Standing Orders currently provide that a random draw is held at the beginning of each session, and periodically thereafter, to select items of Private Members’ Business for the order of precedence. Dissatisfaction has been expressed by some regarding this lottery, as it is purely chance that determines whether a particular item is selected or not.

Standing Order 86 currently allows for more than one seconder of an item of Private Members’ Business, to a maximum of 20, but this is of limited use. It is specifically provided, in Standing Order 92(1), that the Sub-committee not take into account the number of Members jointly seconding an item, "but shall allow the merits of the items alone to determine the selection."

Some private Members’ bills and motions enjoy widespread support among Members of the House. If a significant level of support can be demonstrated, the Sub-committee believes that the item should be placed on the order of precedence and, thus, given one hour of debate. It would then be eligible to be deemed to be a votable item, on the same basis as all other bills and motions in the order of precedence. If the sponsoring Member is prepared to work hard to solicit support, and if enough Members feel that the item should be debated, then this alternative procedure could be invoked.

In order to avail oneself of this special procedure, we believe that a bill or motion should have a high degree of support, and that it should cross party lines. Thus, we would suggest that items would be required to have the support of at least 100 Members, representing at least two recognized political parties in the House. When it has been determined that the item has the requisite support, it shall be deemed to have been drawn and placed on the order of precedence as a motion or bill when a draw is next made.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, the Standing Orders be amended to allow items outside the order of precedence that have been jointly seconded by at least 100 Members from at least two recognized political parties in the House of Commons to be placed on the order of precedence, unless the Member proposing the item already has an item in the order of precedence.

Deferred Divisions And The Order Of Precedence

Often when there is a vote on a votable bill or motion, the division is deferred. On rare occasions, a draw is held before the deferred division is held. Even if debate on a bill or motion has been completed, when the vote is deferred the item continues to be listed on the order of precedence, thereby preventing other bills or motions from being drawn or deemed to be votable. As a result of various changes in recent years to the Standing Orders and the practices of the House, a division can be deferred for up to several days.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, for the purposes of the draw and the selection of votable items, an item of Private Members’ Business on which a recorded division has been deferred not be considered to be in the order of precedence if the item would be removed from the Order Paper as a result of the division.

Disposition of Private Members’ Bills by Committees

A number of private Members’ bills that have received second reading and been referred to committee have unfortunately disappeared and never been heard from again. Sometimes this is due to the fact that some committees are very busy, while in other cases it is because the clauses of the bill have been defeated. This has led to considerable dissatisfaction. We are not in a position to comment on specific cases, but we do wish to prevent this situation from arising in the future.

Once a bill receives second reading, it ceases to be the Member’s bill, and it becomes a bill of the House. The principle of the bill has been approved by the House. A committee is generally delegated the task of studying the bill, by calling witnesses, and reviewing the specific clauses of the bill. The final decision, however, on what changes, if any, should be made to the bill must be made by the House, and it is unfortunate when the House is unable to make this decision because of the failure of a committee to report a bill back, with or without amendments.

The Sub-committee has followed with interest the debate to date on Mrs. Daphne Jennings’ Motion M-267, which would amend the Standing Orders to provide that private Members’ bills be reported. We believe that this is the right approach. The Standing Orders should be amended, however, to provide that a committee have 60 sitting days in which to report a bill, as this would adequately deal with adjournments and so forth. By the end of this period of time, the committee would be required to report the bill to the House, with or without amendment; alternatively, the committee could report the bill with a recommendation not to proceed further with it. The committee could presumably ask for additional time to study the bill, with reasons for such a request. If the bill is not reported, and no report is tabled, the bill would be deemed to have been reported without amendment. We believe that 60 sitting days is sufficient time for mo by a committee or sub-committee; if additional time is required because of the complexity of the bill or the issue, we presume that the House would agree if the committee has been diligent in its work.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, the Standing Orders be amended to require that a committee to which a private Member’s bill has been referred must, within 60 sitting days, report the bill to the House, with or without amendments or with a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill, or request that additional time be provided to the committee for studying the bill. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the 60 sitting days, the bill shall be deemed to have been reported without amendment.

Recorded Divisions on Private Members’ Business

In the last Parliament [34^th Legislature], the Standing Committee on House Management recommended that voting on private Members’ bills and motions should start with the sponsor of the item, and then proceed with that side of the House of Commons. The intent of this change was to emphasize the non-government and non-partisan nature of Private Members’ Business.

The Sub-committee believes that the practice concerning recorded divisions on private Members’ bills and motions needs to be changed further. We considered the possibility of having a roll call of Members’ names in alphabetical order, but were persuaded that this was impractical. We suggest, as an alternative, that the voting should begin with the sponsor of the item, and then record the votes in favour beginning with the back row of the side of the House on which the sponsor sits. After proceeding through the rows on that side, the rows on the other side will vote, again beginning with the back row. Votes against the measure would be recorded in the same fashion. We feel that this will further emphasize that Private Members’ Business belongs to private Members, and further distinguish it from other business of the House.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, recorded divisions on Private Members’ Business begin with the sponsor of the item, if he or she is present, and then proceed beginning with the back row on sponsor’s side of the House, and then the back row on the other side.

Effect of Prorogation on Private Members’ Business

At the beginning of the current session of Parliament [2^nd Session, 35^th Legislature], the House approved a motion introduced by the Leader of the Government, Mr. Gray, whereby a private Member’s bill could, at the option of the Member, be reintroduced at the same stage as it was at the time of prorogation. There was a requirement that the Speaker be satisfied that the bill was in the same form as at prorogation, and the motion for first reading had to be proposed within the first 30 sitting days of the session.

We believe that this measure was very useful, and greatly assisted a number of private Members’ bills to become law. There are enough procedural and practical impediments to the progress of private Members’ bills. Prorogation is beyond the control of Members, and its effects on Private Members’ Business should be minimized.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, the Standing Orders be amended to provide that during the first 30 sitting days after a prorogation, whenever a private Member, when proposing a motion for first reading of a public bill states that the said bill is in the same form as a private Member’s bill that he or she introduced in the previous session, if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, the said bill shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and shall stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper, or, as the case may be, referred to committee, at the same stage in the legislative procedural process at which it stood at the time of prorogation.

Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel

The drafting of private Members’ bills requires expert advice from specialists in legislative drafting who are free to give independent legal advice. Members must be provided with the support they need in preparing their bills and motions, if they are to carry out their functions properly. They must be satisfied that the legal advice and drafting that they receive serve their interests, and respects the nature of the solicitor-client relationship.

To avoid possible conflicts of interests, or confusion about the roles and responsibilities of the various players, we feel that it would be desirable to re-establish the Office of Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons. This officer should be appointed by resolution of the House, and would report directly to the Speaker and the House of Commons. Our concern at this point is not with whether additional resources, personnel or expenditures would be required. The establishment of this office would, we feel, ensure its independence from the government, enhance the solicitor-client relationship that is essential to drafting, and constitute recognition of the importance of private Members in the legislative process.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, the House of Commons appoint, by resolution, a Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons, who would be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting services for Members.

Priority for Drafting

The Sub-committee is concerned that a small minority of very active Members not monopolize the scarce legislative drafting services that are available. We would suggest that a clear policy be adopted whereby the requests of Members who have not had private Members’ bills drafted would be handled in priority to those of Members who have received assistance in the drafting of private Members’ bills during the same session of Parliament (whether such bills were introduced in the House or not), regardless of when such requests were made. Other issues -- such as the reintroduction of bills from previous sessions, and the time expended on requests for individual Members -- should also be addressed.

The Sub-committee recommends:

That, priority be given to the drafting of private Members’ bills for Members who have not previously had a bill drafted during that session of Parliament.

Respectfully submitted,

Carolyn Parrish, M.P.
Chair

APPENDIX "A"

[ Previous Section ]
[ Introduction ] [ Replies Received ] [ Proposal that all or more Private Members' Business in the order of precedence be deemed votable ] [ The disposition of Private Members' bills at Committee Stage ] [ General Comments ] [ Willing to appear before Committee ]
[ Next section ]

SUMMARY OF SUBMISSIONS REGARDING

INTRODUCTION

On Thursday, September 19, 1996, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs adopted the following motion:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs undertake a study of Private Members' Ballot Items, to determine the possibility of allowing all or more such items to become votable, and to study the disposition of Private Members' Bills at the committee stage....

Subsequently, this matter was referred to the Sub-committee on Private Members' Business for study.

At the outset of its study, the Sub-committee decided to canvass the views of Members of the House of Commons, and a memorandum was sent to all Members on 3 October 1996 seeking their views with respect to

(1) the proposals that all or more Private Members' Bills in the Order of Precedence be deemed votable, and

(2) the disposition of Private Members' Bills at committee stage (i.e. after second reading).

Members were asked to send a one-page summary of their comments or suggestions with respect to either or both of these issues to the Clerk of the Sub-committee by Friday, 11 October 1996.

This paper is a summary of the replies received to date.

REPLIES RECEIVED

As of Monday, 21 October 1996, a total of 45 replies had been received. (It should be noted that one submission was signed by 33 Members, some of whom also sent individual replies.) The breakdown of replies is as follows:

Party Replies Response Rate

Liberal	6	3.41%
Bloc Quebecois	2	3.77%
Reform	37	72.55%
NDP	-	0%
Progressive Conservative	-	0%
Independent	-	0%

PROPOSALS THAT ALL OR MORE PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS IN THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE BE DEEMED VOTABLE

There was virtually unanimous support for this proposal among the Members who expressed an opinion with respect to it. While most Members supported the idea that all Private Members' Bills on the Order of Precedence be deemed votable, a few implied that there should be limitations.

A letter signed by 33 Reform MPs called for all private Members' bills drawn to be deemed votable and debate limited to a total of two hours before voting, and that all private Members' motions drawn be deemed votable and debate limited to a total of 90 minutes before voting. Furthermore, it was proposed that all votes on the current week's private Members' bills and motions should be taken the following Wednesday immediately after Question Period. It was explained that this proposal would diminish the amount of partisanship in Private Members' Business while still not imposing excessive new demands regarding the sitting of the House. The holding of all votes on Private Members' Business the following Wednesday would allow Members a better opportunity to inform themselves about the issues involved. To time the votes immediately following Question Period would allow much better media access to the issues, to get them into the "mar well as facilitating full attendance by the Members.

Several of the Members signing this letter also sent separate submissions. Grant Hill, Garry Breitkreuz, Dale Johnston, Mike Scott, and Daphne Jennings, for instance, sent separate letters urging that Private Members' Business be votable. John Williams and Bob Mills asked that the Sub-committee consider amendments to the Standing Orders to allow all or virtually all Private Members' Bills to be votable.

In a separate letter, Ray Speaker proposed that all private Members’ items should be deemed votable, and proposed to deal with the increase in votable items by reducing the time provided for the consideration of votable motions by one hour, while leaving the time provided for votable bills at three hours. He explained that under the current system, 30 private Members' items take 50 hours of House time; under his proposed system, the same 30 items break down as follows: 15 votable bills (45 hours) and 15 votable motions (15 hours) for a total of 60 hours. There would be a time difference of 10 hours (17%), but, although the advancement of private Members items would be 17% slower, votable times would be increased by 67%. Mr. Speaker suggested that the Sub-committee could play around with other variables, including the addition of House time to consider Private Members' Business.

Philip Mayfield said that all private Members' bills in the Order of Precedence must be deemed votable, because voting is an important method by which Members represent their constituents. He argued that if a bill is not votable, MPs cannot represent their constituents' wishes on the specific issue to which the private Members' bill relates.

Ed Harper strongly supported the proposal to make all private Members' bills and motions votable. "I believe that this will improve our ability to represent our constituents as most of these bills and motions deal with subject matter that may be of less that prime importance to the government of the day, yet nonetheless represents concerns and issues of importance to various groups and regions within Canada, including one's own constituents. I believe that it is important for individual Members to be given the chance to record their positions on the various issues that do come to the House in the form of Private Members' Business. Currently, if a bill or motion is deemed non-votable, then only those Members fortunate enough to debate the issue will be able to officially record their positions. If we extend voting to all these bills and motions, then all Members will be able to record their positions and better represent their "

Myron Thompson lent his support to proposals that all or more Private Members' Bills in the Order of Precedence be deemed votable. He felt that these proposals would certainly rectify some of the problems associated with Private Members' Business, as borne out by his own experience. He felt that his own Bill C-224 certainly warranted being put to a vote, and met all the criteria in the selection of votable items, but it had been deemed not-votable by a "behind closed doors committee" with no accountability or explanation provided. "In my opinions, this is truly undemocratic and a scar on our legislative process." The bill had been the culmination of many meetings with police officers, and would have addressed their concerns and made a difference in the fight against crime. After only one hour of debate in the House, however, there was no further discussion of this issue, no vote and certainly no new legislation to help the police vate Member's bill received was yet another example of how our Private Members' Business is in desperate need of some massive reforms." Mr. Thompson felt that the proposals contained in the motion would be a good start: "I only hope that they are considered by more than a 'behind closed doors committee' with some accountability to us as legislators."

Lee Morrison said that in his view all Private Members' Business should be votable. He felt that from personal experience he had an excellent example of why this should be the case: he introduced Bill C-219 last spring, which would have made it illegal to deny severance pay to older federally regulated workers if they were eligible to received reduced pension benefits, thereby placing older federally regulated workers on the same footing as their younger colleagues. Although the bill was supported by Reform, Liberal, NDP and Bloc MPs, it could only be made votable with the unanimous consent of all Members present for the debate. "With such broad support behind my bill, I was somewhat hopeful that it would receive the necessary consent to allow a vote and to have it sent to committee. Nevertheless, the Chief Government Whip refused unanimous consent and killed the bill. Bill C-219 was a sensible non-partisan housekeeping measure to e It is unacceptable that under a strange and archaic House rule a lone MP can bring about the rejection of a broadly supported private Member's bill."

Bob Ringma said that all items which make it to the Order of Precedence should be deemed votable. The rationale is simple enough in that Private Members' Bills and Motions are, in many instances, the only meaningful way in which a Member of Parliament can initiate legislation on behalf of his or her constituents. "Much of the House’s activity and time is already spent dealing with the government’s legislative agenda. In this regard, there is little or no opportunity for back-bench or opposition MPs to bring forward ideas and measures which might also have a positive influence on the country."

Jake Hoeppner felt that Parliament would witness far more effective representation if Private Members' Bills were votable, and urged the Sub-committee to endorse this initiative.

Ted White was in favour of making ALL private Members' Business votable, even if it means dealing with fewer private Members' bills during the year. "It is an important part of the democratic process that debates, whether in a local sports club, at a school, at a university, or in the House of Commons, be followed by a vote to establish the level of support for the opposing positions taken."

Keith Martin heartily supported any effort to make all private Members' bills and motions votable: "I believe that private Members’ bills should have more prominence in the House with a greater number of those coming to the House for debate and vote."

Pierrette Venne agreed with the proposal that all private Member's bills in the Order of Precedence should be the subject of a vote, and felt that clearly this would also apply to all motions. She argued that when a bill or motion is deemed non-votable, it is no longer of interest. She suggested that second reading debates of bills be three hours long, while debate on motions be limited to one hour.

Rose-Marie Ur supported the proposal that all or more Private Members' Bills in the Order of Precedence be deemed votable. She simply is not comfortable with the current system where so few MPs dictate which private Members' bills are deemed votable --unfortunately, objectivity is not always the guiding principle in the choice of bills. She further suggested that the current allotment of six votable items should at least be doubled to 12.

Roger Galloway said that all such bills should be votable. "To do otherwise is simply a waste of time and a waste of the limited resources that are available to MPs in the drafting and preparation of private Members’ bills."

Albina Guarnieri wrote: "The Sub-committee on Private Members’ business continues to have the sole function of preventing elected Members of Parliament from voting on issues presented as Private Members’ business. The [Sub-]Committee as currently struck is an infringement on the rights of all Members of Parliament. The current practice of rendering completely arbitrary decisions on which bills shall be votable and then refusing to provide a reasoned basis for judgement defeats any facade of a connection to any official criteria. The Sub-committee routinely abuses its authority, exercising judgements based on private lobbying efforts rather than merit or adherence to guidelines. The occasional secrecy adopted by the [Sub-]Committee protects its members from any accountability for the arbitrary nature of decisions while allowing its Chair to break with secrecy when convenient. All bills presented by Members of Parliament, if chosen g to established criteria, deserve to be presented for a vote in the House of Commons. There, all Members can determine whether there is merit to refer the bill to a Standing Committee for review, examination by the departments involved, and possible amendment. There is no justifiable reasons why bills presented by elected representatives of the public should be subject to obstruction by a Committee acting arbitrarily, unaccountably, and in secret."

John Bryden said that he did not think that all bills need to be deemed votable. "I think that the rule that a private Members’ bill should not involve government expenditure is a good one for it puts a realistic limit on private Members’ bills and conforms to the parliamentary tradition that the government’s main authority for legislation is the spending power accorded to it by budget bills. Private Members do not have similar spending authority. I also think that we have to be careful not to have a situation where private Members are competing equally with the government on legislation since, after all, the government derives its authority to give itself spending power from the fact that voters voted its party as a majority."

Alex Shepherd wrote that he always thought it a "rather innocuous process to determine the difference between votable and non-votable items." He said that while he could see the need for a screening process, he believed that far more private Members’ bills should have the opportunity for a vote in the House. He continued: "Indeed, I believe that the public is desirous of providing a greater degree of authority to its individual representatives. I feel that the private Members’ hour provides an opportunity to bring these issues to the floor of the House of Commons."

Paul Szabo said that he concurred with the spirit of the motion that there be more votable items. He noted, however, that some bills or motions may not meet all the criteria for votability, but they can involve issues or points that are worthy of debate in the House, and he, therefore, supported the continuance of certain non-votable items.

THE DISPOSITION OF PRIVATE MEMBERS' BILLS AT COMMITTEE STAGE
(I.E. AFTER SECOND READING)

John Bryden said that he thought that it was important that committees report back to Parliament on the disposition of private Members' bills. "If a committee does not want to see a bill go forward, then it should recommend an amendment that would basically kill it at third reading. This would be best done with the concurrence of the MP and the government, especially when the latter has moved sufficiently on the content of the bills. If not with concurrence, then it still should be done if the committee so rules. House procedure might have to be changed so that a private Members' bill coming back without committee support receives, say, only an hour of debate or possibly a late show. At any rate, while we want to encourage quality private Members' bills that do succeed, we must also recognize that individual Members do not have the resources to work through the full significance of proposed legislation and we do not want to let anyt msy or foolish."

Rose-Marie Ur would prefer that all bills stand the same chance of ultimately coming to a third and final reading vote. "Perhaps the test of whether a bill would make it to the floor of the House for third reading should be decided by a vote of members of the Standing Committee studying the bill. Hopefully, members of each Standing Committee could be guided by the merits of the bill itself rather than any partisan motives. It is really up to us as Members of Parliament."

Roger Galloway said that these bills should be dealt with in timely fashion. "Obviously, committees are 'masters of their own destiny.' For the most part, committees are free to develop their own procedures and schedules. However, we also know that certain mechanisms exist to priorize government bills before a committee. I would recommend that each committee develop a similar mechanism for dealing with private Members' bills. This could be done at the beginning of each session. Such a mechanism or policy would establish that the committee would deal not only with government business in a timely fashion, but also with private Members' bills in a similar manner."

Alex Shepherd wrote that some degree of priority should be placed on private Members’ bills: while they should not receive a higher degree of precedence that government bills, there should be a system which would ensure that they are out of the queue for only a specified time, and that they are dealt with eventually. "I realize the time constraints which committees are under; however, I believe that finding ways for individual Members to be more active in the legislative process would be good for the stature of the House, and good for the general attitude of the public toward elected representatives."

Paul Szabo felt that the disposition of private Members’ bills by committee should be set at a reasonable period. He thought that the House should clarify or reaffirm the reporting obligation of committees. "I believe that committees must always report back items which had earned the support of the House and were referred to committee."

A letter signed by 33 Reform MPs proposed that all private Members' bills sent to committee be reported back to the House within 90 sitting days.

Several Members who signed the letter also sent separate submissions, including Myron Thompson, who indicated that he supported the study of the disposition of private Members' bills in Committee.

Daphne Jennings asked that the Sub-committee look into her Motion M-267 which would ask the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to consider recommending to the House that the Standing Orders be amended by adding the following:

97.1. A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member's public bill has been referred shall in every case either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor.

A number of other respondents urged the Sub-committee to consider this motion, including Ray Speaker, who felt that it addressed the issue of the disposition of private Members' Bills at committee stage; Dale Johnston, who supported the implementation of the motion; Mike Scott, who also strongly urged that guidelines be established to prevent private Members' bills and motions from being unduly delayed at committee stage: and Jake Hoeppner, who lent his full support to the motion.

Garry Breitkreuz said, that in his opinion, votable private Members' bills and motions should only be able to be disposed of as a result of a vote in the House.

Philip Mayfield argued that House of Commons committees must report all private Members' bills back to the House for the following reasons: the disposition of private Members' bills at committee stage denies MPs the right to represent their constituents in the House; the failure to report them back breaches the privilege of the House (see Beauchesne's, citation 639(1)) and thwarts the will of the House to approve or reject legislation; and their disposition by the Committee breaches the role of committees (Beauchesne's, citation 679(2)) -- committees are bound to consider and report bills back to the House, not to dispose of them.

John Williams asked that the Committee consider amendments to the Standing Orders to ensure that private Members' bills be required to be reported back to the House after consideration by committee.

Ted White was in favour of a change in the handling of Private Members' Bills in committee. "Having passed second reading in the House, they should be subject to such minor amendments [as] are necessary for practical application and then recommended for enactment as if they were pieces of Government legislation."

Val Meredith said that her experience with a bill that was successful in passing second reading in the House (Bill C-240) and reinstated as Bill C-254 caused her to question the process. The bill has been sitting in the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee for almost two years. "My argument is that once a bill passes second reading, it is in essence a bill of the House. For a Committee, any committee, to ignore the decision of the House and to refuse to deal with studying or reviewing the bill and reporting back to the House is contempt. Contempt for the process, contempt for the House of Commons, contempt of Parliament, and contempt for democracy. A committee must deal with all legislation given for the consideration by the House in an expeditious manner. Not to do so only makes a mockery of the House and the process. I urge the Committee to consider seriously this opportunity to advance the just and fair disposition of Private Memb "

Pierrette Venne wrote that private Member's bills on the Order of Precedence should have the same importance and treatment as government bills, as well as the same treatment in committee. She therefore suggested that these bills be subject to three readings in the House, unless the House decides otherwise.

GENERAL COMMENTS

Mike Scott wrote: "It is imperative that Private Members' Business be accorded the respect of the House. Many Members, such as myself, feel that under the current rules, this respect is missing and consequently we do not pursue opportunities to advance Bills or Motions. Why go to a great deal of work drafting a bill which may not be deemed votable or which is waylaid at Committee? The above two proposals will go a long way to ensuring a more credible and fair process."

Ed Harper wrote: "I believe that the quality of our representation is improved by the ability of each individual Member to present motions and bills in the House, and to hear different viewpoints discussed."

Paul Szabo wrote that Private Members’ Hour is often a very unproductive time for Members on duty who are not chosen to speak. "To more fully involve Members and to raise for the attention of the House questions or problems noted by Members, I suggest that consideration be given to restructuring the Hour to provide for questions or comments. For example, 10-minute speeches could be shortened to seven minutes, etc." Mr. Szabo also sugested that the sponsor of the bill or motion should specifically have the right to a brief final comment or statement at the end of the debate.

WILLING TO APPEAR BEFORE THE COMMITTEE

Several respondents specifically indicated that they would be willing to appear before the Sub-committee to further discuss their ideas and proposals: John Bryden; Daphne Jennings (who would like to make oral presentation regarding her Motion M-267); Bob Ringma; Roger Galloway (who would be interested in submitting a written brief on the subject if it is not possible for him to appear in person); Val Meredith; and Réal Ménard (who wishes to address (1) votable items, (2) the role of legislative counsel, and (3) the treatment of private Members' bills generally in the House of Commons).

APPENDIX "B"

[ Previous Section ]
[ Proposal that all or more Private Members' Bills and Motions in the order of precedence be votable ]
[ The disposition of Private Members' Bills at Committee Stage ] [ Legislative Motions ] [ The Lottery/Criteria ] [ Other ]

SUMMARY OF PROPOSALS AND SUGGESTIONS

The following is a summary of the main proposals and suggestions that were considered by the Sub-committee regarding Private Members’ Business. Most of these proposals were presented by witnesses who appeared before the Sub-committee or by respondents to the questionnaire that the Sub-committee sent to Members. Other suggestions were made in materials provided to the Sub-committee, or have otherwise come to the attention of the Sub-committee. Where appropriate, background or explanation is provided.

PROPOSALS THAT ALL OR MORE PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS AND MOTIONS IN THE ORDER OF PRECEDENCE BE VOTABLE

Many Members who responded to the survey felt that all private Members’ bills and motions drawn should be votable. Some Members felt that the Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business should continue to determine whether the bills or motions meet certain minimum qualifications, and that a mechanism should be devised to make more or all of those that are deemed appropriate votable.

If all items of Private Members’ Business in the Order of Precedence were votable, changes might have to be made to the current rule whereby votable items have up to three hours of debate. Among the suggestions:

It was suggested that in the case of private Members’ bills, debate be limited to a total of two hours before voting, and that in the case of private Members’ motions debate be limited to a total of 90 minutes before voting. All recorded divisions on the current week’s private Members’ bills and motions should be taken the following Wednesday immediately after Question Period.
Alternatively, the increase in votable items could be dealt with by reducing the time provided for the consideration of votable motions to one hour, while leaving the time provided for votable bills at three hours. Under this proposed system, 30 items break down as follows: 15 votable bills (45 hours) and 15 votable motions (15 hours) for a total of 60 hours. There would be a time difference of 10 hours (17%) from the current system, but, although the advancement of private Members items would be 17% slower, votable items would be increased by 67%.
Private Members’ bills and motions could be referred to a committee after the first hour of debate. Drawn bills and motions could (after vetting by the Private Members’ Business Sub-committee to ensure they meet the required parameters) be debated in the House, leaving the decision as to whether they proceed beyond first reading, to a pass or fail vote in the House. This would draw more Members’ attention to Private Members’ Business, a desirable feature.
It was suggested that if all private Members’ bills and motions were to be made votable, this might necessitate a reduction of the items in the Order of Precedence from 30 to 20.

Other Members argued, however, that there must be some screening of Private Members’ Business. Not all private Members’ bills and motions should be votable as this would cause the whole system to lose credibility. Those Members who appeared before the Sub-committee were unanimously against making all bills votable. John Bryden, for instance, said he disagreed "quite emphatically with the idea of making all private Members’ bills votable, because what would happen then, in my mind, is that you flood the system with private members’ legislation, which would be difficult to handle and you would get the good with the bad and I think what you would do is debate the coverage. You would lose credibility in terms of the good material that’s coming through as opposed to material that’s not thought out very well." Mr. Bryden argued that private Members’ bills should not infringe on the right of the government to create new expenditures.

THE DISPOSITION OF PRIVATE MEMBERS’ BILLS AT COMMITTEE STAGE

There was general agreement with the proposition that committees be required to report to the House on the disposition of private Members’ bills in a timely manner. Support was expressed for Private Members’ Motion M-267 (Daphne Jennings), which would amend the Standing Orders as follows:

97.1. A standing, special or legislative committee to which a Private Member’s public bill has been referred shall in every case either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present to the House a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill and giving the reasons therefor.

Suggestions for ensuring that private Members’ bills are reported to the House included the following:

The Standing Orders could be amended to provide that all private Members’ bills that are referred to committee after second reading be reported to the House within a certain period of time (e.g. 45 or 90 sitting days).
As part of the motion of referral, the committee be given a deadline in the motion for second reading after which the bill would be deemed to be reported -- six months was considered reasonable by most Members. (Committees which were unable to deal with a private Member’s bill within the specified time could report this fact, and the reason therefor, to the House.)
Any committee to which a private Member’s bill is referred should proceed with it diligently and perhaps even schedule specific times for considering such bills.
Committees could be required or encouraged at the beginning of each session to develop a mechanism or policy for dealing with private Members’ bills. For instance, the Justice Committee has adopted a policy whereby private Members’ bills are reviewed monthly, and each sponsor has five minutes in which to address committee Members. Members of a committee should be advised by the clerk of the committee when bills are referred to the committee.
Committees be encouraged to establish sub-committees to deal with private Members’ bills.
If a committee rejects every provision of a private Member’s bill, or is slow in proceeding with it, this should be reported to the House. The Sub-committee should consider what amendments to the Standing Orders would make such reporting possible.

It was pointed out that sometimes Members let a bill go through at second reading because they expect it to be "killed" in committee. Members might take second reading votes more seriously if they knew that the bills would come back to the House at some point.

Statistics were circulated regarding the length of time private Members’ bills spend in committee. In the 34th Parliament, for instance, private Members’ bills were not taken up by a committee for an average of 32 days; in this Parliament the average is 100.45 days, although those bills that are reported back to the House are generally reported in less time. In the last Parliament, 60-67% of private Members’ bills were reported back, with or without amendments. In this Parliament, only 21% of private Members’ bills referred to committees in the first session were reported back; fully 50% were not ever taken up by the Committees to which they were referred.

LEGISLATIVE MOTIONS

The Clerk of the House proposed that the Sub-committee consider "motions to introduce bills." The following is a brief summary of the paper provided to the Sub-committee by the Clerk explaining how the system could work:

Such motions would be similar to a Ways and Means motion for taxation measures. The motion to introduce a bill would set out the terms of the proposed enactment in fairly simple terms.
Such motions could be drafted by the Members or their staff, or legislative counsel could be consulted.
The motions would be placed on the Notice Paper, and would be eligible for the draw.
The draw could treat such motions as a third category (in addition to motions and private Members’ bills) or as the same category as bills.
Once selected in the draw, such motions would be deemed to be votable -- there would be no determination by the Sub-committee except regarding the basic qualifications (e.g. that that matter is within federal jurisdiction) -- and would be entitled to one hour of debate.
A vote would be held after 55 minutes of debate.
If the motion were successful, it would constitute an order of the House authorizing the Member to introduce a bill. A time limit for bringing in the bill could be established. The resulting bill would have to be within the "four corners" of the motion.
Once tabled, the bill would automatically be entitled to one hour of debate at second reading, at the end of which there would a vote (or deemed approval if less than a certain number of Members indicate opposition), and referral to committee.
Members would still be entitled to table private Members’ bills; the motion to introduce a bill would be an alternative, not a substitute.

Many bills that are drafted by legislative counsel apparently are never introduced in the House of Commons, while many of those that are introduced never proceed beyond first reading. In light of limited drafting resources, it is argued that the motion to introduce a bill would be a way of obtaining a green-light from the House before proceeding to the detailed and time-consuming work of drafting a bill. Bills that had been approved in concept could be given priority in terms of drafting.

Some Members expressed concern with the idea the House would be asked to vote on a concept, instead of a bill. Several Members argued that there can be difficulties in supporting a concept that has not been expanded or drawn out, rather than seeing a concrete proposal. It was also argued that the interchange between Members and legislative counsel is important in the development of private Members’ bills, and leads to the best results.

Concerns were expressed that often ideas evolve or changes become apparent during the drafting process, and this could result in difficulties if they deviated from the terms of the motion adopted by the House. It was also felt that there might be some uncertainty as to who "owned" the concept at the point of drafting -- the sponsoring MP or the House.

A number of Members argued that even if the legislative motion option is adopted, they should retain the right to table a bill. Moreover, Members’ must not be deprived of the right of access to legislative counsel for drafting. Legal drafters are extremely important. They are knowledgeable and devoted people, and should be free of as many constraints as possible. There is a gestation period involved in bringing in legislation: a great deal of discussion takes place with the legal drafter, in the course of which proposals are refined, and the Member is guided along in his or her thinking.

It was suggested that, while there can be no question of depriving Members of an instrument as valuable as the private Member’s bill, the legislative counsel could advise Members on the feasibility of resorting instead to detailed motions, along the lines of a Ways and Means motion, especially when a Member wished to put forward an alternative to a government measure. Such motions would have the advantage of being more quickly drafted and of getting the House to pronounce on a concept rather than a piece of legislation. These more detailed motions would be treated like any other motion. Their adoption would be a formal decision by the House that action be taken on the matter, and the government’s legislative counsel would then be called upon to draft an appropriate bill. It must be clearly understood that the choice between a bill and a motion would be solely up to the Member, once he or she had heard the advice of the legislative couns

THE LOTTERY/CRITERIA

Some Members had serious reservations about the selection of bills and motions by a draw. They argued that all private Members’ bills and motions should be reviewed and evaluated on their merit. Those bills and motions that a committee felt met the criteria should go forward, rather than being dependent on the "luck of the draw." The elimination of the draw, however, could create even more difficulties for the Members who are assigned the task of choosing bills and motions. Most private Members’ bills and motions raise issues that are important - to the country, to a region, or to particular groups in society - and deserve an airing, and it would be difficult to choose from among all of them, rather than just those drawn.

It was, for instance, suggested that the Sub-committee look into the possibility of abolishing the draw for Private Member’s Business. The draw makes the whole process look rather silly, and is a cause of great frustration among the Members. Perhaps all bills and motions could be referred to the Sub-committee on Private Members’ Business, thus giving every Member who has presented a bill or a motion the chance to explain why that particular bill or motion should be declared votable.

Other Members felt that a lottery is a good idea, but suggested that perhaps there could be some provision to override it if a particular bill or motion had a certain level of support, either from all or several parties represented in the House.

It was also suggested that bills or motions for which there is considerable public support should be allowed to go forward -- for instance, a specified number of signatures. (See, for instance, Bill C-348, tabled by Mr. Crête, which would ensure that the objects of any petition with 250,000 or more signatures that is presented to the House would be put in the form of a bill and introduced in the House, providing they could be achieved by a private Member’s bill.) Against this, it was argued that legislation should not be determined outside the House, and that it should not be based on the number of signatures, but on the number of MPs (who are elected to represent their constituents). (Standing Order 86(3) currently provides for up to 20 seconders of private Members’ bills and motions.)

The draw of Private Members’ items for the Order of Precedence could be made by party affiliation. The total number of items in the Order of Precedence could be pro-rated among the recognized parties in the House. This, of course, presents one more barrier to the "non-partisan" nature of Private Members’ Business.

The criteria for the selection of votable private Members’ bills and motions should be reviewed -- whether the current system is retained, or all items of Private Members’ Business are votable so long as they meet certain qualifications. The criteria have not been reviewed since they were developed in 1987. Dissatisfaction has been expressed in the past, for instance, about relatively trivial bills (for instance the designation of commemorative days or weeks, or a national sport). One Member said that the prospect of government legislation on a particular subject is often used as an excuse for not allowing a private Member’s bill, but that this should be reviewed, as often government legislation is not tabled. Another Member argued that private Members’ bills should not be in competition with government legislation: private Members have considerable scope and opportunity in terms of amending legislation. It was also argued that private ot involve government expenditure -- it is integral to our system that the government retain control of the spending power.

It was suggested that if an order of precedence existed, twice each year (spring sitting/fall sitting), each recognized party in the House could be given the opportunity to place one private Members’ bill or motion on the list.

OTHER

A number of other proposals or points were made:

Perhaps every two weeks an entire day could be set aside for Private Members’ Business (in addition to the existing one hour per day). The Clerk of the House advised that for a period of time in the early 1980s one day a week was set aside for Private Members’ Business, but this did not prove successful as few Members showed up.
Limits on the number of bills that each MP can have drafted each session of Parliament should be considered. Alternatively, there could be a limit on the amount of time that legislative counsel can spend on bills for each MP.
When the Sub-committee reports its selection of votable items, it could also be empowered to set a time limit on debate for each bill or motion selection, to a maximum of three hours. This would allow the Sub-committee to expedite the consideration of any bill or ordinary motion on which it is felt that there is general agreement -- although it could also be another source of irritation for disgruntled MPs.
The frequency of the draw could be reviewed -- for instance, when list down to 10 items, instead of 15. This, however, could increase pressure on the Sub-committee to meet and report.
Speaking times in Private Members’ Hour could be reviewed, to encourage more participation and debate. Some time ago, a Member suggested that there should be shorter speeches, and provision for questions and comments. The suggestion was also made that the time for speeches be allowed to be split.
Voting on private Members’ bills and motions could be done alphabetically (although there might be political and technical difficulties). Alternatively, after the sponsor has voted, voting could be by row, with the back row going first. These measures are designed to encourage truly non-partisan, individual voting.
It was argued that drafting assistance should be made available for all Private Members’ bills and motions.
The House could create the position of Law Clerk, reporting directly to the Speaker and the House, using only the resources currently available and without additional expenditure. The Law Clerk’s Office could consist of the Law Clerk and a number of legal counsel, who would provide Members with the support they need in preparing their bills and motions. Setting up such an Office and guaranteeing its independence from the government would on the one hand constitute recognition of the importance of private Members as legislators and on the other confirm that the Office exists solely to serve private Members and is accountable only to the House. This measure would improve the working atmosphere and relations among House employees, which have plainly deteriorated, largely because of confusion about their respective roles.
While Members would have to be assured broad access to the Law Clerk’s Office to have bills drafted, steps would also have to be taken to ensure that a handful of Members did not monopolize the Office’s services. Once a Member had requested assistance in drafting a bill, any subsequent requests he or she might make should be lower on the Office’s priority list than requests from Members who were not already being served.
The Standing Orders could be amended to provide for a vote after the first hour of debate and for the immediate referral of the bill to committee before second reading in cases where the bill’s sponsor had indicated to the Clerk-at-the-Table at a specified time before debate began that he or she wished to make use of this procedure.
If there is a deferred division with respect to a item of Private Members’ Business, and debate therein has ended, the item should be treated as if it had been dropped from the Order of Precedence, thereby opening up a place for another item.