HAFF Committee Meeting

37th PARLIAMENT, 1st SESSION

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

EVIDENCE

CONTENTS

Thursday, May 9, 2002

Á

1110

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.))

The Chair

Á

1115

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance)

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Ron Wall (Director, Parliamentary Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office)

Á

1120

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.)

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Geoff Regan

Á

1125

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons)

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

The Chair

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

M. Rick Borotsik

Á

1130

Mr. Geoff Regan

Mr. Rick Borotsik

Mr. Geoff Regan

The Chair

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

Mr. John Reynolds

The Chair

The Chair

Á

1135

Mr. Patrice Martin (Clerk of the Committee)

Ms. Audrey O'Brien

Mr. Rick Borotsik

The Chair

---

CANADA

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs

---

NUMBER 064

l

1st SESSION

l

37th PARLIAMENT

---

EVIDENCE

Thursday, May 9, 2002

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Á  (1110)  

[English]

    The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin I would be grateful.

    Before I introduce the main item for today, I'd like to refer you to the order of the day: main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2002, vote 30 under Privy Council--Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada.

    You will recall that when we met with Mr. Kingsley and some of his staff the other day, we considered the estimates. We also considered his priorities and planning report.

    It is moved by Jacques Saada that vote 30 under Privy Council carry.

    PRIVY COUNCIL

    Chief Electoral Officer

    Vote 30--Program expenditures.......$12,226,000

    (Vote 30 agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall I report vote 30 to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Colleagues, before I introduce our witnesses on the topic today, I want to remind you that there is a draw for private members' business today. You all know that means they have ten working days in which to call their meeting. My assumption is that one of those won't be tomorrow. My best guess is there might be a meeting the first Wednesday or the second Wednesday back, but no doubt we'll hear from our subcommittee on that.

    When we return, our plans are to meet, first of all, with the steering committee on the Tuesday. I think that's a very important meeting, so I urge the parties--the steering committee consists of the whips--and would be most grateful if they could be there for that, because we have to use the remaining time as effectively as possible.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik (Brandon—Souris, PC): Is that Tuesday the 21st?

    The Chair: Yes, the 21st. That's the very first Tuesday back, at 11 a.m.

    We've already agreed, though, that the first Thursday back, which is the 23rd, we have to meet as a committee to receive the steering committee report and to consider where we're going on televising committees of the House. As you know, our experiment in allowing media into all committees comes to an end at the end of this month. We have to report to the House before then. So we are going to deal with that. It should not take long. We'll discuss it at the steering committee meeting. We will have a report ready for the steering committee meeting, so I hope it will not take long on the Thursday.

    Also on that Thursday, as I mentioned the last time, a committee from Bangladesh equivalent to ourselves wants to meet with us. Since then, I've heard there's a committee from Malawi equivalent to our own that wants to meet with us.

    Mr. Geoff Regan M.P. (Halifax West, Lib): Meet with us there, is that right?

    The Chair: In Malawi and Bangladesh, that's right. No, we don't go beyond the gates here, Geoff.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

    The Chair: My suggestion is that we kill two birds with one stone and invite them to our meeting on the Thursday, and that when we've concluded the official meeting, which is dealing with televising the committees of the House—and they may come in late—that we then close down the official recording of our meeting, continue with simultaneous translation and lunch, and engage in a discussion with Bangladesh, their committee, Malawi and ourselves. I think in that way we will have fulfilled our duties as the senior committee of the House.

    I hope you're all comfortable with that.

    Colleagues, the main item today, as you see, is Bill S-34, an act respecting royal assent to bills passed in the Houses of Parliament.

    I have here with me today Philippe Mela, who is a legislative clerk, and as a resource person we are most honoured to have our deputy clerk, Audrey O'Brien. We welcome you both here.

    Our first witness needs no introduction: our colleague, a member of this committee, Geoff Regan. Geoff, we welcome you here.

    We also have Ron Wall, who is the director of parliamentary operations of the Privy Council Office. Ron, we welcome you to our committee. It's the first time you've been here since I've been in the chair.

    Simon Ruel is counsel to the Privy Council Office. Simon, we welcome you also.

    Our colleague Geoff Regan understands the rules of procedure of this House. First of all, you don't touch the button, Geoff. Secondly, you address all your remarks through the chair. Thirdly, you have no more than two hours for this presentation. That's a joke.

    Geoff, we're in your hands. We understand you have a presentation. Please proceed.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I want to thank you for your instructions on getting to this room today. I had no trouble finding it, I want you to know.

    Mr. Chair, I'm pleased to speak to Bill S-34, the royal assent bill. I have a few comments to make about the bill, and then I would welcome the opportunity to discuss it in more detail.

    I was very pleased that during the April 12 second reading debate on Bill S-34 all parties agreed that the royal assent ceremony is an important tradition of Parliament and that the royal assent process should be modernized so that it can be given by written procedure.

[Translation]

    Today, we are considering Bill S-34, the result of some serious reflection by MPs and Senators over the past two decades. In 1983, the Senate initiated a debate on alternatives to the Royal Assent process. In 1985, the Senate Committee on Standing Rules and Orders tabled a fourth report recommending changes to the Royal Assent procedure. Also in 1985, the McGrath Committee of the House of Commons recommended in its report on the Standing Orders of the House of Commons that Royal Assent be simplified.

    Bill S-34 gives concrete expression to a legislative initiative of the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, the Honourable Senator Lynch-Staunton.

Á  (1115)  

[English]

    Did you get that, Rick?

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I got that. I'm listening.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: All right.

    The McGrath committee and others noted that there are a number of issues regarding the royal assent ceremony, including the fact that the ceremony interrupts the business of the House and the other place for a significant period of time.

    Other countries and provinces have implemented provisions similar to those in Bill S-34. The U.K. did so in 1967. Canada is the only Commonwealth country that still uses the traditional ceremony on a regular basis.

    Mr. Chairman, Bill S-34 preserves the royal assent ceremony as an important tradition by requiring its use twice in each calendar year, including for the first appropriation bill of each session, and permits that royal assent be given by written declaration. The bill's provisions are procedural and simply relate to the form of signifying royal assent.

    During the second reading debate last month, Mr. Chair, the leader of the opposition indicated: “This change improves the efficiency of the House and maintains the traditional ceremony when such a ceremony is desirable”.

[Translation]

    The Member for Rosemont--Petite-Patrie had this to say about the proposed legislation:

We think this bill from the other house is a legitimate one. Its intent is to modernize the royal assent procedure by enabling royal assent to be signified by written declaration, instead of the traditional parade we now have for each royal assent ceremony.

[English]

    The member for Sackville--Musquodoboit Valley--Eastern Shore said:

    “I also want to mention the fact that although this is a very important aspect of changes to our House of Commons in terms of forming a simpler procedure in this regard, it maintains the traditions that we hold so strongly in our parliamentary tradition. It is worth noting that the majority of members of Parliament here would support this initiative. We in the New Democratic Party support this and hope to see quick passage of the bill as soon as possible.”

    The member from Pictou--Antigonish--Guysborough, Mr. Chair, also supported Bill S-34 and reminded us of the good work of members of the other place on this issue:

    “What we have here in the final bill practically mirrors Senator Lynch-Staunton's good work and provides an alternative procedure for the granting of royal assent.”

    In conclusion, Mr. Chairman, let me say that Bill S-34 is a non-partisan initiative. It enjoys the support of all parties of this House. In fact, Mr. Chair, it has been made clear to me that if I lose this bill today I've really screwed up.

    Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

    Mr. Geoff Regan: It is consistent with the practice of the U.K., other Commonwealth countries, and the provinces. It preserves the royal assent ceremony as an ongoing tradition of Parliament. It would enable us to continue this committee's work to modernize the procedures of the House by allowing royal assent to be given by written procedure, thereby avoiding an interruption of proceedings of the House.

    Now, Mr. Chair, I'd be pleased to answer any questions. Thank you.

    The Chair: Thank you, Geoffrey.

[Translation]

    Is there anything further you'd like to say? No.

[English]

    The order for questions is John Reynolds, Jacques Saada, and Pierre Brien.

    Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver--Sunshine Coast, Canadian Alliance): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

    I won't hold up very long. I really have just one question. The summary prepared by our researcher points out that many details are still missing in the bill. For example, it's unknown whether representatives of the government and the opposition in both the Senate and the House could be in attendance when the bill is presented to the Governor General, and whether the ceremony would be in public. There are also suggestions that the Prime Minister could be in attendance. We want to know about holding these ceremonies outside of Ottawa and inviting school children to attend, or things like that. That's being considered. Are any of the details worked out, or are they still all up in the air? Who will decide those things once the bill is passed?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, Mr. Chair, first of all I'll refer you to subclause 3(3) of the bill, which I expect the honourable opposition leader is familiar with, which says that signification of royal assent by written declaration may be witnessed by more than one member from each house of Parliament. That was a provision that was requested by senators and inserted by the Senate in the bill.

    I'm not aware, and I'm going to ask these gentlemen, whether there has been consideration of the question of having it outside Parliament. My impression is the intention is to leave it somewhat flexible and perhaps work these things out in the future, not to have those kinds of details or considerations ensconced in legislation. But let me ask if that's accurate.

    Mr. Ron Wall (Director, Parliamentary Operations, Legislation and House Planning, Privy Council Office): The government has had informal discussions with the Table, in the House and in the Senate, and with the Governor General's office about this. The attendance would be subject to the importance of the bill, if there were a written procedure ceremony. The bill provides for attendance by members of the House and of the Senate.

    The details of the ceremony would be subject to the importance of the bill, the interests of Parliament, of the government, and of the Governor General. If a written procedure ceremony were to be desired, it's certainly possible; at the same time, if a bill were of great significance, the case was made in the Senate that it would probably be an opportunity for the usual traditional ceremony to be used.

    The Prime Minister's attendance was raised at the committee stage in the Senate, as was the participation of the Governor General, and the leader of the government in the House and in the Senate made undertakings to the committee that every effort would be made to encourage the attendance of ministers, including the Prime Minister, the Governor General, and members of Parliament. By having longer-term planning for traditional ceremonies, we would be able to promote that.

Á  (1120)  

    Mr. John Reynolds: My only point is it would be a very good idea, if you had a bill that had significance in Saskatchewan, British Columbia, or Atlantic Canada, that you might want to do it there, just to bring Parliament a little closer to the people. As long as it's being done in a way that's equitable--not just the Prime Minister or the Governor General going off to do a political show, but members from all parties being there to see a bill passed--I think it would be very good.

    The Chair: Can I ask, is that possible?

    A voice: Yes.

    The Chair: Yes? That's good; thank you.

    Jacques Saada, then Pierre Brien.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard--La Prairie, Lib.): I'd appreciate an explanation. Clause 4 notes the following:

4. Each House of Parliament shall be notified of a written declaration of royal assent by the Speaker of that House or by the person acting as Speaker.

    Are the houses required to be in session for this to happen? How will the Speaker formally notify Parliament if the house is not sitting?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I'm happy the honourable member asked that question because I have an answer for him.

[English]

    Bill S-34 states in clause 4 that “Each House of Parliament shall be notified of a written declaration of royal assent by the Speaker of that House or by the person acting as Speaker.” There is no requirement that the House formally sit.

    The government's position is that this provision could be implemented by having the House sit and receive notification from the clerk of the Parliaments that royal assent has been given to a bill, or--as provided for under Standing Order 28(4)--having the House meet for the purposes of royal assent during an adjournment. The government believes that if the House so desired, it would be legally and procedurally acceptable to implement notification during adjournment by amending the Standing Orders to allow for notification to be signified by a special edition of the Journals of the House.

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The aim of the bill was to simplify the Royal Assent procedure. If we in fact want to accomplish this goal and if one of the most important elements, namely finding a way for Royal Assent to be signified without the House or the Senate having to be in session, is linked not to a bill, but to a standing order which may or may not be adopted, then I have to wonder about the logic of this approach.

[English]

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, as I've said,

[Translation]

    Standing Order 28(4) makes provision for the House to sit briefly for the purpose of giving Royal Assent, without the Speaker having to be present. Is that correct?

Á  (1125)  

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Correct.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Also during the summer recess, if Royal Assent is required, the House may sit with only the Speaker in attendance for that very purpose.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: The amendment you alluded to earlier...

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Royal Assent would thus be signified in the Journals, without the House having to convene at all.

[English]

    The Chair: Could I perhaps ask the deputy clerk to come to the table and comment briefly on this point?

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien (Deputy Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I have a brief point of clarification. Mr. Regan was referring to Standing Order 28(4), which provides for the House to be informed of royal assent by the House being called into session for the sole purpose of royal assent, with the Speaker in the chair, the announcement made, and the journal published.

[Translation]

    To answer your question, Mr. Saada, if the House wants to simplify the process to dispense with the brief, almost meaningless ceremony attended only by the clerks and the Speaker, or Deputy Speaker, in front of a virtually empty House, then the existing Standing Orders would have to be amended. During the course of our consultations with the government, it was suggested to us that this could be accomplished by adding a provision to the Standing Orders whereby the written declaration received in accordance with the terms of this bill would then be signified by the immediate publication, the very day on which the declaration is received, of a copy of the Journals of the House of Commons . There would then be no need for the Speaker to convene the House.

    Mr. Jacques Saada: I just want to be certain that I understand what you're telling me. Obviously, if the Speaker is present for the Royal Assent ceremony...I don't wish to revisit the whole debate, but I'm just trying to grasp the logic here. If the Speaker has to notify the rest of the House and we need to consider how he would go about this, specifically through the Standing Orders, then the process wouldn't be automatic. Surely there's some way this can be accomplished. If everyone is in agreement on the spirit of the legislation, it' s normal that the same should hold true for the Standing Orders, but technically speaking, it is possible that there might be some disagreement over amending the Standing Orders. Am I right?

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Yes, I believe...

    Mr. Jacques Saada: Therefore, unless the Standing Orders are amended, Royal Assent can be given only when the House is sitting. Otherwise, there is no way for the Speaker to notify members.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: In my view, the more cautious approach would indeed be to amend the Standing Orders, failing which the logic you are seeking...

    Mr. Jacques Saada: There would be a problem.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: I agree. There would be a problem.

[English]

    The Chair: Okay.

    Geoff, are you comfortable with the exchange?

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Incredibly, this is the committee where that kind of a change should originate.

    The Chair: Rick Borotsik.

    M. Rick Borotsik: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

    I know Mr. Regan has given sufficient credit to Senator Lynch-Staunton in his first attempt to bring forward this piece of legislation. I'd just like to confirm that for the record and to thank Mr. Regan for it.

    It was in 1967 that the U.K. passed its legislation to streamline its royal assent. We're 35 years late. We started in 1983 and we're finally here. I really applaud, certainly, the Senate--and all-party support--for this piece of legislation, Bill S-34.

    My question is, and somewhat facetiously, when this is passed, how will this bill be given royal assent? And since it has all-party acceptance, would it be seen as significant--where in fact it would have the typical royal assent--or would it simply be by letter?

Á  (1130)  

    Mr. Geoff Regan: Well, Mr. Chairman, until this bill receives royal assent, it isn't the law.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: There you go; it wasn't a facetious question. It was in fact going to be the last bill as such that will be under the old process.

    Mr. Geoff Regan: There may be a number of bills the same day this is given royal assent, of course.

    The Chair: Is there anyone else?

    We're all ragging the puck here.

    An hon. member: It's okay now; we have all-party consensus.

    The Chair: First of all, I will welcome Wayne Easter as an official member of this committee. I may say... [Editor's Note: Inaudible]

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: That would be the opinion only of the chair.

    The Chair: No, no, listen to me. He was appointed by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons this morning. This is very impressive.

    Mr. John Reynolds: There were only three people in the House, though.

    An. hon. member: That's right!

    The Chair: Colleagues, given this all-party support, I wonder if I could have permission to call clauses 2 through 7 together.

    It is moved by Jacques Saada that clauses 2 through 7 carry.

    (Clauses 2 to 7 inclusive agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall clause 1 carry?

    (Clause 1 agreed to)

    The Chair: Shall the preamble carry? It is so moved by Rick Borotsik.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Shall the title carry, as moved by our new member, Wayne Easter?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: It is moved by Tony Tirabassi that the bill carry.

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: As moved by Pierre Brien, shall I report the bill to the House?

    Some hon. members: Agreed.

    The Chair: Colleagues, on your behalf, I would like to thank our three witnesses. We appreciate this. This committee does not get to deal with legislation very often. We normally deal with problems, as far as I can tell, but we thank you for a very clear explanation.

    John Reynolds.

    Mr. John Reynolds: Mr. Chairman, we have a new Clerk of the Privy Council. This committee has up to 30 days to invite him to appear before us. I would like to move that we invite the new Clerk of the Privy Council to appear before this committee.

    The Chair: Quite obviously, you've moved this and it's a perfectly legitimate motion. Might I suggest that this is something to be dealt with by the steering committee, John--or do you want to deal with it now?

[Translation]

    Mr. Jacques Saada: May I say something? As a matter of form, I was under the impression that we had agree about an advance notice provision. We could decide to vote on this as early as our next meeting, so as to respect the advance notice requirement.

[English]

    The Chair: I have one more comment, gentlemen. I'm not being obstructionist, but he would normally be invited by the government operations committee rather than us, I'm advised. We can certainly argue that. I would be quite willing to take this motion under advisement. We will certainly address this on Tuesday, which is our steering committee, and it could proceed rapidly after that, if that's okay with you.

    Mr. John Reynolds: No problem.

    The Chair: Colleagues, are you comfortable with that?

    I'll repeat now, for the benefit of our new member, the first meeting after the break is the steering committee, which is the Tuesday.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: The new member is not paying attention, Mr. Chair.

    The Chair: I know he's not. It's hopeless.

    The second meeting after the break, which is two weeks today, a Thursday, we'll consider televising of committees. Then we meet less formally with delegations from Bangladesh and Malawi, and we have an excellent lunch that day.

    Colleagues, the meeting is adjourned until.... Hang on a minute. Colleagues, I do apologize. The point was made about the change in the Standing Orders following this bill becoming law. We will have a motion at the steering committee that we will consider for that purpose at that time. Is that clear enough?

Á  (1135)  

    Mr. Patrice Martin (Clerk of the Committee): Maybe the steering committee can ask the clerk to draft new rules.

    Ms. Audrey O'Brien: Perhaps the committee would like to instruct the clerk through me to draft standing orders for the steering committee to consider that would address this point of the seamless implementation of Bill S-34.

    Mr. Rick Borotsik: I would take great pleasure in instructing the clerk to do just that.

    The Chair: So it's agreed, colleagues, and that completes this.

    Colleagues, have a good break. The steering committee is Tuesday, the regular meeting is Thursday.

    The meeting is adjourned.