The Daily Program / Routine Proceedings

Presenting Petitions: delay in presenting petition after it has been certified; members other than members who specifically sought certification authorized to present petition

May 28, 1987

Debates, pp. 6500-1

On March 23, 1987, Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council) rose on a point of order concerning the presentation of petitions by New Democratic Party members. His point of order was twofold. First, he questioned the delay between the certification of the petitions by the Clerk of Petitions and their actual presentation in the House by certain members. He pointed out that some members presented petitions long after they had been certified. He argued that this practice delayed the redress of the grievances set out in the petitions, discredited the House and violated the fundamental right to present petitions to the Crown and to Parliament. Second, he referred to the practice where petitions are certified for one member and presented by another. In Mr. Lewis’s opinion, this practice misleads the House by giving the impression that concern over an issue is widespread since petitions are presented by different members. Other members also spoke to this point of order. After making some preliminary remarks, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] On May 28, 1987, he delivered his ruling which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and President of the Privy Council has been patiently awaiting, for quite some time, the Chair’s comments on a matter which he raised on March 23 last. The honourable parliamentary secretary, on a point of order, questioned the current practice with respect to the presentation of petitions. In particular, he pointed out a number of instances where petitions were certified by the Clerk of Petitions and then presented to the House some weeks or months later. He claimed that a lengthy lapse of time between the certification of a petition and its presentation in the House denied those Canadians who were petitioning the opportunity for speedy redress of their grievances. It also, he claimed, denied the government the right to reply promptly.

So that all honourable members and the public will understand, under the rules of this place when a petition is presented either by an honourable member rising to his or her feet to present it, or by filing it at the table, the government is now required under the rules to reply to that petition in so many days. It is important that all honourable members and the public which is watching this understand that because that is a key ingredient of these remarks.

The honourable parliamentary secretary is raising an extremely legitimate complaint here. Any Canadian who signs a petition would not expect that several months would elapse from the date the petition is first signed until a response is forthcoming. While a delay of several weeks is potentially required in order to allow for the collection of signatures, the transmittal to Ottawa, the certification by the Clerk of Petitions, the presentation in the House, and the response by the government, most Canadians would agree that delays of some seven or eight months, as pointed out by the honourable parliamentary secretary, are difficult to justify.

The second point raised by the parliamentary secretary dealt with the presentation of petitions by members other than the member who had the petition certified. As honourable members will know, before a petition can be presented it must be certified at the table. He claimed that this practice would be misleading because when members from across the country were presenting petitions the implication could be drawn that a particular issue was of more widespread concern to Canadians than possibly was the case.

By way of response to these two points let me first quote Standing Order 106(1) which states:

Prior to presentation, the Clerk of Petitions shall examine all petitions, and in order to be presented, they must be certified correct as to form and content by the said clerk.

There is no specific mention in this Standing Order of any requirement to present a petition within a specific time frame, only the point that “prior to presentation” it must be certified. The Chair consulted the McGrath committee report of June 1985 which recommended this particular Standing Order to see whether any indication was given there of a possible restriction on the period of time between certification and presentation but could find no guidance.

To take the matter further, in Beauchesne Fifth Edition citation 691 states:

A member cannot be compelled to present a petition. In a subsequent action, it was held that there is no right in a person desirous of petitioning the House to compel any member to present his petition and that no action will lie against a member for refusing to do so.

If there is no requirement that a member present a petition, can there be a requirement that a petition should be presented within a specified period of time following certification? On March 23, 1987, the honourable member for Ottawa—Vanier ably pointed out that various reasons might prevent a member from presenting a certified petition expeditiously. I would suggest to members that several months need not elapse between certification and presentation in most circumstances. However, I agree with the honourable member for Churchill that the present Standing Order does not impose any specific restriction.

To address the second point raised by the honourable parliamentary secretary let me quote Standing Order 106(4) which states:

Any member desiring to present a petition, in his or her place in the House, may do so on Presenting Petitions…

There is no specific mention here that the member presenting the petition must be the member who had it certified, or indeed that it must be the member in whose riding the petitioners reside. There is no restriction stated in the Standing Order. It merely states “any member”.

On a careful reading of the Standing Orders and a strict interpretation of those Standing Orders, I can find no requirement that the member who has the petition certified must be the member who presents it. In fact, as the honourable member for Ottawa—Vanier pointed out, Beauchesne [Fifth Edition] citations 689 and 690 specifically relate to members presenting petitions for other members.

However, because the current Standing Orders relating to petitions are provisional and have only been in force for a short time, and because the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure is in the process of considering the Standing Orders at the present time, it might be timely to suggest to members of this committee that they may wish to pay particular attention to the Standing Orders relating to the presentation of petitions, if as the honourable parliamentary secretary has contended, these particular Standing Orders are causing concern.

As these provisional Standing Orders are now written, I am unable to order that the member who has a petition certified be the same member who presents it to the House, nor can I define any time restriction for the period between the certification and the presentation of a petition.

I do, however, feel that the issues raised by the honourable parliamentary secretary are legitimate ones dealing with the fundamental right of every citizen to petition the House of Commons and to expect speedy redress. I would suggest to all members that they give this issue their close attention. I thank honourable members for their representations.

F0328-e

33-2

1987-05-28