PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, December 4, 1997

• 1121

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, could we begin? I apologize for the delay, but it did give us the opportunity to have a glimpse into the working life of one of our subcommittees.

If I might comment on that, it's an indication, it seems to me, of the pressure that's on this committee because of the sorts of people who are on it. For example, some of our colleagues have important roles in their respective caucuses and they're also on a subcommittee and now they're here, and we seem to be dealing with many items at once. It's something we should bear in mind, or at least I should bear in mind.

The principal order of the day is the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii), consideration of proposals on changes to the Standing Orders. But before we get to that, I'd like to try to give a sense of where we are on all these items, and I've tried to do this at each meeting, because I know members have all sorts of things on their minds.

First of all, we have a routine item. As did all the other standing committees, we received a letter about the problems associated with computer software and the year 2000. We have replied in a pro forma way to Ms. Susan Whelan, who circulated that letter, pointing out that there is a committee of Parliament dealing with that.

On the matter of private members' business originating in the Senate, the advice we got was to refer that matter to the House leaders. That has now formally been done, and the House leaders, if they've not already received it, will be receiving that.

With respect to the Canada Elections Act and our deliberations on it, you have before you in both official languages a draft letter to all registered political parties. You will notice in it a variant paragraph, which is for those registered parties that are represented at present in the House of Commons. I'd be grateful if you'd look at that letter.

You'll recall that we're going to ask for written submissions from all ten registered parties. The idea is that in some way, which we can decide when we come back after the break, the parties represented in the House of Commons will be asked to appear before us. Based on the discussion we had in the last meeting about that, we can consider when we come back whether there will be a subcommittee; if there is, how we'll proceed; if there isn't, how we will proceed; and things of that type.

The thought is we will consider the written submissions and then some oral presentations, then the Chief Electoral Officer will be invited back, and then we will proceed with any recommendations we might have on the Canada Elections Act. That's the thought process, and I'll ask towards the end of meeting for your comments on this letter, if I can.

Another topic that is ticking is rules for joint committees. I want to thank Jamie Robertson, R.J. Senko, and Isabelle Pelletier. We had a meeting on that, and you will be receiving, if not tomorrow, on Monday, the current status of those matters. You'll get the table again, Senate rules, House rules, and possible changes, and you will have notes in which we identify the relatively few items that might be contentious, as well as suggestions in each of the other categories.

• 1125

You have just heard that the subcommittee on the scheduling of the House will not be reporting before Christmas, and it asks for an extension. Can I assume that extension is in order? Okay.

Electronic voting is the other matter, and I think you know where that is.

Are there any comments on those? That's my way of keeping us up to date.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Just so I'm clear on the electronic voting, where is it?

The Chairman: We will be returning to electronic voting following the break.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay, good. Thank you.

The Chairman: Are there any other questions? I wasn't avoiding questions. That's fine.

I want to thank the Clerk of the House, Mr. Marleau, and Monsieur Camille Montpetit for appearing before us again. We really do appreciate your patience with our committee and the time you've taken for us.

Colleagues, on this matter of review of the Standing Orders, you've all received the correspondence dealing with it—and if you don't have it, we have extra copies here—from Mr. Randy White and Mr. Charles Caccia, and a copy of the letter to Monsieur Stéphane Bergeron concerning proposed changes to the Standing Orders.

You'll recall that at our last meeting we also discussed specifically votes at report stage and applied votes. My understanding, Mr. Marleau, is that a paper is being prepared on those matters. Is it here?

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Yes. If it hasn't been circulated, the clerk of the committee has received a first draft, as we suggested at the last meeting, on the application of the results of one vote to subsequent votes—that is, putting into the Standing Orders roughly the practice that now requires unanimous consent.

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues, that material will be circulated to you now. So we have three pieces of correspondence and the clerk's material on application of votes and report stage voting.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Not report stage, sir.

The Chairman: Excuse me; I'm sorry. We simply have the clerk's report on the application of the results of one vote.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's right.

The Chairman: I'm in your hands as to how we proceed. I don't know, Mr. Marleau, if you want to comment.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can quickly explain it if you want.

The Chairman: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Currently the now well-understood and well-used practice of applying the results of one vote to another or the parties declaring how their members wish to vote on subsequent divisions requires unanimous consent of the House, which means a single member can force the House to go through as many roll calls as have been scheduled for that evening.

This would provide for the chief government whip to simply announce that, after consultation, there has been agreement among the representatives of the recognized parties to proceed this way. So unanimous consent of the representatives of the parties, if I can put it that way, would be required.

It also provides for those members who now want to, or who will want to at the time it is being applied, to be able to stand in their own place and declare for themselves how they wish to vote, whether along the lines that the party whip has already announced to the House or against the party lines announced by the party whip.

The Chairman: Randy White.

• 1130

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Marleau, while I might agree with this, would you just try to give me your interpretation of the effect on the democratic rights of an individual, whether it be individual or individuals who are in a recognized party in the House of Commons or whether it's an individual within a party? It could even be a government backbencher who wants for some reason or another to proceed as we can do now. Can you tell us how this affects the expression of their democratic right?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'm not sure I seize the question of the effect on the democratic rights.

Mr. Randy White: I guess it's the right of an individual to continue with the way things are, like we have today.

Mr. Robert Marleau: At the present time it requires five individuals to force a recorded division. A recorded division is entered by name in the journals of the House. What you're looking at is a modification of the demand for recorded division and the entry in the journal. Currently the process to get that entry in the journal is a roll-call vote—stand up in the House. This would provide for the parties to agree to change the formula of the entry into the journals of the names by doing away with roll call under certain circumstances on agreement of the five parties. But it would allow still the individual member who does not wish to have his whip assign his vote to rise in the House and so state whether he or she is for the motion or against the motion or voting with the party or voting against the party line. That's paragraph (b) in the proposal. So it doesn't entirely take away the opportunity of a member to rise in the House, be seen and state his intention of voting.

The Chairman: I have Mac Harb, Chuck Strahl and Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Mac Harb (Ottawa Centre, Lib.): Mr. Marleau, I was going to ask a question along the same line that my colleague has asked. Have you looked at the possibility to continue to do it with the parties' agreement but to say that...? If, for example, the parties all agree on applying a certain vote but five members stand up in the House of Commons, they could force a vote. I think probably by doing that you're striking a balance between the right of the individual member of Parliament as an individual member and the political party that is recognized as a political party in the House. Is that something that would have worked, or would it not work?

Mr. Robert Marleau: What you have now is five members demanding the entry of the names onto the journals. That is the mechanism that takes this beyond the voice vote. You could have a different formula from this one to go to an alternate to the roll call. I would think it should be more than five, since the first is just to get the entry into the journal. If the issue is felt so strongly by members of the House that the traditional roll call be maintained for that particular vote, then you might want to add a different formula from the five, so five and then maybe twelve, twelve representing the number of a recognized party in the House, just off the top of my head. But you already have fifteen and twenty-five in the Standing Orders for other provisions, such as the extension of a sitting or in Standing Order 56.1, when unanimous consent has been denied. You could play around with those formulas.

What I thought I'd been asked to do was to try to come as close as possible to the practice now in the House and transfer that into the Standing Orders.

Mr. Mac Harb: I like what you're proposing. Thank you.

The Chairman: It's Chuck Strahl, Bill Blaikie, Stéphane Bergeron and Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I like what you have here for the most part, Mr. Marleau. I think it represents accurately what is happening right now and it does make sure that there has to be some significant opposition or reason why you can't apply the vote. When we dibbled and dabbled with this in our own office, the two questions that came around were.... One was already raised by Randy and by Mac: that it would be possible to say if more than a dozen members want to rise to force a recorded division—everyone stand up, because it's the future of the free world, in their opinion—then that would allow them to do that. I think it's wise to have that escape valve, so if somebody says I want to be seen and I want everyone to be seen on this issue, and it's not so frivolous that it's just a delaying tactic, it's an actual heartfelt desire of more than a dozen members....

• 1135

The other question I have is just a procedural one. Right now the Speaker stands up and asks if there is unanimous consent to put the question. What I have here is

In cases where a recorded division immediately follows another division without debate...

—or however you say it—

...the Speaker will ask for those members who oppose the application of votes to rise, and if more than a dozen members rise, a recorded vote is then taken...

—or a roll-call vote or whatever you call it.

It puts the onus, instead of all on the government whip, in the Speaker's hand, to ask that routinely. I don't know if that's wise, but it would then, as Mr. White has pointed out, take out the appearance or the idea that this is all going to be rammed through and new members who protest don't have an opportunity to slow it down and get a recorded vote. If it were just routinely asked on the application of votes, are there members opposed to the application, and the Speaker, not seeing more than 12 rise, says the votes will now be applied, and the government whip...and then just go around the circle. That way that safety valve would be there routinely. It would be in the Standing Orders. It would just be another sentence the Speaker would utter; and having uttered it and not seeing it, they would just go to the application of the votes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The short answer is yes, that's doable. We could write it up that way.

Do you wish to have those twelve members be any twelve members as a composite coming from various political parties, or do want those twelve to be within a political formation which may not be in agreement with the whips' agreement of proceeding that way? Otherwise, if you're looking at the whole House as a concept of twelve, you might want just to revisit the standing order, which now requires just five to ask for a recorded division, if you're going to go around the House.

I think what you're trying to do here is to provide a mechanism where maybe all the whips of the parties are in agreement to proceed with the application of the vote but a substantial number of members within a caucus might not be in agreement with that. There are two aspects to your approach. Is it a way to appeal the decision of my whip, or is it a way to appeal the agreement of five whips in the House? There are two tiers I think you want to think about there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. My opinion on that is that you may not get whatever the number. When we get into this, 12 is just a totally arbitrary number. It could be 15—

Mr. Robert Marleau: Or 25.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: —or 25. It's just that I think there should be a safety valve there, one that's not dependent on the party structure in the House but as there has been in times past, where people actually say I'm opposed to a constitutional amendment—something important, whatever. It's important enough not only that their vote be counted.... Because it already is: it's already in Hansard, it's in the journals; it will already be counted. But it's important enough that they want to force the House actually to vote. If you had a number, whatever that number is, from the collectivity of the House, then it could be on private members' business, it could be on anything. He could say, I want to see where everybody stands on this, literally.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Then I would suggest the number would have to be higher, because if you already have a basis of political agreement in the House among the five party whips—and I presume there's a strong basis within their own caucus if they want to continue as whip over time, and they have some impact on the delivery of that agreement—then the number would have to be higher, at least 25 to match 56.1, which is the standing order you've been asked to look at.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Okay.

The Chairman: Bill Blaikie.

• 1140

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I think this conversation just kind of shows you the road this is taking us down, having to have this many members stand to do this and that many members stand to do that. Maybe we're not supposed to be this frank in committee, but the way I read this is that it is to deal with the problem of Mr. Nunziata. Why don't we just talk about what we're talking about—

An hon. member: The Nunziata amendment.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —instead of talking about something else, because what this does doesn't reflect the current practice in the House. The current practice in the House requires unanimous consent, and this would not require unanimous consent. This would require the government whip to get up and to indicate not that there have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and that you'll find unanimous consent, but there have been consultations, Mr. Speaker, and you'll find agreement among the party whips. Am I right? This would prevent an individual member of any kind, whether it is the one independent member that we have now or an independent-minded member of any particular caucus, from demanding a standing vote on a particular vote for whatever reason.

I would like to see the process that we have now formalized in the Standing Orders. That may also have been part of what's going on here, but it's not really formalized at this point. So that's a good idea, but this doesn't formalize it, this changes it. I think we should think twice about whether we want to change it.

Maybe some of you cannot imagine yourselves in the situation of being an independent member. I can, because I was treated like one in the last Parliament, even when I wasn't. I remember demanding standing votes or denying unanimous consent because I felt there.... For instance, on one occasion, I remember demanding a standing vote on the privatization of CN when it was simply going to be applied along with a bunch of other votes. I felt that was a particularly important matter for my riding, and I wanted there to be a standing vote. Nobody else in the House thought so. I remember being yelled at, people asking me what I had for breakfast, what the hell was the matter with me today, or whatever. But I knew what was the matter with me. I knew that was an important matter, and I wanted a standing vote on the privatization of a major crown corporation.

I don't think we should take this right away from individual members. I think it should continue to be a matter of unanimous consent. It doesn't get screwed up that often that we need to kill a fly with a hammer here. The government and all the rest of us have an obligation to consult with independent members as well, and not just hope they don't show up or something. That didn't happen in the last Parliament oftentimes. Sometimes when it didn't happen, that was the cause of unanimous consent being denied.

People who are members of Parliament, whether they're independent, whether they are treated as independent when they're not, or whether they're members of recognized political parties, all have the same right to consultation about things that are going on in the House. So I'm against instituting this in the way it has been presented to us.

The Chairman: Stéphane Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères, BQ): I would like to make a comment. In fact, I'd like to ask a question. Before asking it, I would however like to respond to what Mr. Blaikie said.

I totally agree with him when he says that we have to somehow take into account of the whole of our colleagues in the House whoever there independents or whether they belong to a political party. We also have to take into account their views concerning the applications of votes. It may however happen that a colleague knowingly tries to raise a fuss in the House merely to enhance his profile or to increase his credibility or lack of credibility, as a case may be. I suppose there are limits to the behaviour the House can accept from a member.

Do we want to go as far as changing the rules to avoid that type of behaviour? In doing so however we are infringing upon the right of an independent member or, as Mr. Blaikie was mentioning, of members who are not independent but who are considered as such.

• 1145

I want to remind him he got a taste of his own medicine since his own party was opposed at the time to recognizing as an official party the nine members of the Bloc Québécois who had been elected. When the member for Beaver River was the only Reform Party member, she was also treated as an independent.

Mr. Blaikie is hardly in a position today to complain to the committee that he was treated like an independent member for four years. He simply got a taste of the medicine he himself gave to the Bloc Québécois members and to the member for Beaver River.

That being said, we must try to avoid a situation by which the majority would impose its will on independent members, but the House must also take whatever means are necessary to prevent one or several of its members from misbehaving themselves.

Is my question, Mr. Chairman.

[English]

The Chairman: It's a long preamble.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was a long preamble.

The government's whip is suppose to speak on behalf of recognize parties whips or is suppose to inform the House of the agreement which was reach by the recognize parties. In the past, Mr. Chairman, enforcing situations arose in the House and we were able to reach an agreement. Will the Speaker ask if the whips has reached an agreement or will the chief government whip simply stand and say the whips agreed to apply the result of one vote to subsequent votes?

[English]

The Chairman: If I could, colleagues—before you reply, Mr. Marleau—I think this is an indication of how important any review of standing orders that we conduct is, but I would point out to you that our idea here was to begin to lay some general ground rules for a review of the Standing Orders. This began with a letter from Mr. White and is supposed to, after Christmas, move into a more substantial meeting in which we'll have experts and so on. You should remember that.

Now, we're on one topic, and I have a reasonable speakers' list here, but I think it's important that we try to keep that in mind.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We still have this topic before us. We have an actual amendment to the standing orders being suggested.

The Chairman: The idea was that the committee will now consider the Standing Orders so that, Bill, we can design the meeting in February or March. That's basically it.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So we're not here to decide anything today.

The Chairman: There was a paper circulated five weeks ago, I think, with an outline of the procedure we were going to follow. The idea was that we'd have a general discussion before Christmas, which is what we're having now—and by the way, the committee can do whatever it likes with this general discussion—and on the basis of that, we would have a fairly well-designed meeting in which we would have experts and so on. That's where we're at.

It happens that one of the topics that came up is, of course, the paper Mr. Marleau has circulated. I'm just reminding members of that.

Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: If I can position this document for a moment as well in terms of what I had understood was the request to us, this particular request came out of your discussion on electronic voting, not this particular subject matter.

The Chairman: But it is relevant.

Mr. Robert Marleau: You wanted it included in the package. As well, could we bring forward a proposed amendment for your consideration in this package? That was my understanding,

The Chairman: That's correct.

[Translation]

Mr. Robert Marleau: In response to Mr. Bergeron specific question on the agreement to which the chief government whip may refer, I think that if the chief government whip stands in the House and says the whips of different parties have agreed to apply the vote, a member could always submit to the Chairman that there hasn't been such an agreement or that consideration must be given to such and such requirement. That goes without saying. I didn't think Standing Orders had to specify that the agreement was to be reviewed by the Chairman.

• 1150

Rule 78 of the Standing Orders under which the government states there have been consultation works differently. In all legislatures I have known, members have always complaint about the extent of those consultations. It's a different situation. If the chief government whip indicate there have been an agreement when there hasn't been one, I believe it will soon become obvious.

[English]

The Chairman: Carolyn Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I think this is an amazingly good recommendation. I've looked at it under the same coloured glasses I used when we looked at the reform of private members; it's an evolutionary process.

What I think is very good is that we've actually had a chance to test it in the House before we try to formalize it in standing orders. As we tested it in the House we found one or two problems with it, which are being addressed.

We're talking about two types of systems here. One is the system that's allowed for an independent and another is a system that is part of being a member of a party. An independent can vote in this House. With this standing order they can abstain from the application of votes; they have the individual right to stand up and say no, I don't want this vote applied. They can ask questions, they can speak. That is the democratic right of an individual who's not party affiliated in our House. They don't have to work on committees, they don't have to do House duty, they don't have to work through a whip, and they're under no party constrictions.

So what are we looking at here? Are we looking at making rules for independents to cause havoc in the House and go beyond the privileges of being an independent, or are we looking at rules that we've tested, that have worked, that have slight anomalies? Some independents are taking advantage of the situation.

I think it's an excellent solution to the problem. If you're going to be part of a party there's a whole bunch of duties you have to do. If you're part of a party and five or six of you don't like a vote being applied, you can say to your own individual whip that you don't want this to happen. I'm sure most whips, with five or six or ten people, would adjust.

I think this is actually amazing. I looked at it and I kept thinking 12 people, 25 people. We have to go back to what we have in the House of Commons here; we have a party system. We have rules, we have obligations, and we have privileges that are all involved with a party system. This fits beautifully. I think it gives enough of a leeway that people can object to their own whip, which is the way we work in a party system, or they can stand up and say don't apply my vote. What it removes is an independent taking more privileges than he or she deserves by purposely slowing down the whole process of the House, which is often either spontaneous or vindictive. I think it's great; I'm impressed.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Some of us in this House have sat through an entire night of having to stand on vote on every single one of 100 amendments to a piece of legislation. Believe me, that is cruel and inhuman punishment to get on the record for your constituents your view on an issue.

Any vote that comes to the House for a recorded division already has had to have five people saying they want that recorded division. What the whips in the last Parliament were able to work out was a new technique that doesn't in any way diminish accountability of each single member of Parliament. It retains that accountability but has allowed us to save literally probably tens of thousands of person hours for members of Parliament and millions of dollars.

Personally, I think the purpose of the Standing Orders is to allow the House always to conduct its business in a way that is respectful of the role of members of Parliament and to allow them to be accountable. I don't see anything in this amendment to the Standing Orders that reduces that. I do see tremendous advantages for the functioning of Parliament and for the health of members of Parliament, frankly.

Any member of Parliament is not denied their right to stand up and vote by this. I think that's the protection we need to ensure for members of Parliament who may not disagree with this on a particular item. I don't think we can set up a system where one, two, or even five members of Parliament can hold the vast majority of Parliament hostage to carrying out its business the way it wants to carry it out.

• 1155

Mr. Chairman, I think this is a good amendment. We have a process that works well. I probably wouldn't have an overwhelming objection if we wanted to put a minimum floor, but I frankly don't see the necessity of it when it has already had to happen for us to even get to the point of being able to apply this standing order. We're incorporating in the standing order something that we've done and it has worked well.

The Chairman: Okay. It's Bob Kilger and then George Baker.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

There has been some question as to whether this actually formalizes the practice or not. Or is it something different? In your understanding, are you satisfied that in fact what is being proposed here just formalizes the practice that is occurring in the House right now?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, it is not.

Mr. Bob Kilger: It's different in which way?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The current process requires unanimous consent. This process will require an agreement among the represented recognized parties in the House, the whips of those parties.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Maybe it's the short period of time I spent in the chair and my longstanding sensitivity to private members. I think there should be a threshold, but a very low one—not being one but I'll pull a number out of a hat and the number I've written down is three. When I see it go higher, I become very concerned, because then I think the heavy hand or the big machinery of our party structure of course becomes even more evident and I feel somewhat that maybe we're swatting a fly with a two-by-six.

I understand we have a delicate situation in the House. In this case, it's one independent; it could be six or seven. But I want the number to be somewhat greater than whatever the number of independents are so that in fact it brings into the stream someone, at least a few people, from one of the recognized parties.

So I'm trying to find that balance, and I think there's a greater balance to be sought and achieved with a lower benchmark than a higher one, which I think would appear to become and for all intents and purposes—let's not kid ourselves—becomes very heavy-handed.

So I would have a tendency to lower the benchmark to.... I picked the number three, notwithstanding the practice that it takes five to force a vote, and so on and so forth. I throw that out as a personal observation and something I would feel more comfortable with.

The Chairman: Next is George Baker, Chuck Strahl, Bill Blaikie, and then the chair.

Mr. George Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, I wonder, all of the conversation so far has been specifically referring to this one standing order. Is that solely what we're talking about?

The Chairman: Mr. Baker, the material that was circulated included letters that mentioned election of the Speaker and a variety of topics. But this item appeared today and we've focused on it ever since, so we haven't got beyond this.

Mr. George Baker: We haven't gotten beyond this, but the entire question that was outlined by the clerk, of suggestions for changes relevant to a letter from Randy White, MP, is also under discussion.

The Chairman: Yes, in my view that letter happens to contain the basis of all of our discussions, but we're on one topic now.

Mr. George Baker: Okay, right now.

The Chairman: We're on one topic now, but I'd be delighted for someone to mention that letter, George.

Mr. George Baker: Yes, it's a marvellous letter.

Mr. Chairman, perhaps the clerk could make a comment on what I'm about to say regarding rule changes in general. As Mr. White pointed out, it's an opportunity for the committee to have a general discussion on increasing the role on the backbench, since most of these items address that need.

I wonder, Mr. Chairman, if the clerk could comment on what transpires in every other legislature under the British parliamentary system. That is, that an outside committee of academics and press people sit down and make recommendations on rule changes—mostly academics, political scientists, if you look at Britain or Australia or any of these places. And invariably, these changes that are promoted by these people looking at Parliament are usually accepted by Parliament and the legislature. It's led to all other legislatures under the British parliamentary system being drastically different from ours, in that the backbencher is in fact, as Mr. White points out, increasing his opportunity to have an effective role in Parliament, in that the rule changes that have taken place in all these other jurisdictions involve drastic rule changes for backbenchers' ability to ask questions during question period. It means that every motion comes to an end at the end of the day. It means that committees have far greater power and far greater responsibility to Parliament. In fact, the action moves to committees in most of these jurisdictions.

• 1200

I'm wondering if the clerk could comment as to whether this might be a good idea for members of this committee to recommend such a procedure for changing the rules and enhancing the position of backbenchers in the Canadian Parliament.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I'm about to throw myself on the mercy of the chair, sir. With Mr. Baker's background before he took an active interest in politics, I think he's going to understand why I may posture the way I'm going to.

The question is vast, in that it would certainly require a considerable amount of analysis about what has gone on in other legislatures. In terms of an approach to changing the Standing Orders, I know of no one model that exclusively relies on outside and academic input. I think the last comprehensive exercise we had that sought some of that was the McGrath exercise in 1985, the precursor of which was the Lefebvre committee in 1983, when retired clerks, academics, known political scientists and former members were involved in the process of input.

As far as I know, in the Westminster model of Parliament ultimately it is the standing orders and rules committee, it is the privilege and elections committee, it is the House procedure and administration committee that makes the decisions on the final recommendation and packages to the House. They may have sought input and they may have not.

As to the comment as to what is desirable in the world of the backbencher as to procedure, it's a difficult analysis to make across the Commonwealth. But if we're going to use Commonwealth models, just ranking it very quickly I would say that our House is more progressive than the Australian House of Representatives in that kind of perspective. It might be a little less progressive than Westminster in certain aspects, but there are unique items in our procedure, such as the designated votable item for private members' business. That's quite unique. So it's the varying degrees of different sets of standard orders that would shift the balance that you want me to comment on.

The Chairman: Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think what Mr. Baker has identified is the fact—and I think maybe, Mr. Chairman, you were fishing for it a little earlier—that this process of spending an hour and a half per suggested change to a standing order when we have, out of Mr. White's letter, probably 25 different things to discuss.... I don't know that this is going to work. I think we do need either a subcommittee or something perhaps a little less formal to start off. I think if you sat down over coffee you could kick around half the ideas that are bogus and the half of them that are really worth investigating. I think we could narrow it down fairly quickly.

The one thing that—

A voice: Will you give us a list? This is the only one I have so far.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Sorry, Randy.

Mr. Randy White: They're not bogus, but—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Let me choose a different word. Mr. Chairman, I think that you perhaps need to suggest to us another process to deal with the whole standing order change thing. I don't think this formal committee of the whole is going to be able to do this.

• 1205

I would like to get back to the one thing we are dealing with in some detail here, the change to the Standing Orders, which is ironically the one thing we already are doing in the House, and we even have trouble with that.

Mr. Kilger's comments are well taken that a small number of people should be able to force this actual standing up. The fact that the recorded division is already done—you are, for all time, by name, recorded in Hansard—is important if five have stood. But that's already happened. No independent can cause that anyway. So it's not as if the independent can cause this vote anyway. Any independent, unless there are five or more, can't do it. So there's already one level of security that isn't triggered until there are five.

Whether we use three or five, it should be a low number of people who can say they think it's symbolic enough, because they are already recorded. So it's symbolic enough that we need to all stand. It could be done with even three or five people. That's just a general comment.

This motion as you propose it would not preclude the application of electronic votes if we ever do get to that. In other words, if there is the first vote, and we all punch the button, we all have the votes up, then we could just move through this process. This means that now that all the votes are in we can apply those that perhaps give us the best of both worlds as far as speed and the electronic tabulation from before are concerned.

It would still work with electronic voting. Am I right?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Perhaps we could have a system, Mr. Chairman, where when independent members vote they get a shock of some kind if they don't do what the government wants or what the registered political parties want. This would be a great way of disciplining members.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I would just like to speak again for a moment to what seems to be on the table but which perhaps more properly should just be one of the elements we're going to consider in this entire review of the Standing Orders. If that can be made clear, then we don't need to keep talking about this today. We can talk about other things today.

This can be one of the things that we consider again further down the road after people have had time to reflect on the various positions put forward today on that. It is true that at the moment it takes more than one independent to cause a recorded vote to be taken. It's also a question of what rights there are now that are being taken away. There are certain rights that are not there now, and I'm not suggesting they be put there. It's obviously much more significant when you take things away that are there.

Seeing as the issue is enjoined by Mr. Bergeron, I would like to add that I ran as a New Democrat in the 1993 election. In the previous Parliament, members of the Bloc Québécois, with the exception of one member, didn't run as members of the party they tried to form in the House during that Parliament. Therefore, it's comparing apples and oranges as far as I'm concerned.

Are we agreed that the items set out in Mr. White's letter, which I think contains an excellent list...I don't find anything in there that is bogus or that we can get rid of easily or whatever.

Mr. Randy White: Thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It's certainly one basis for discussion. I've not been able to do this to this point, but I intend to submit a list of my own concerns. Frankly, many of them will be the same as Mr. White's.

What I find when I look over the list is that most of it is either the unfinished work of the McGrath report or recommendations by the McGrath report that were never adopted, like the question of committee substitution.

It was a recommendation of the McGrath report that people on committees not be subject to the whip. When they're assigned to a committee they cannot be pulled off that committee by their whip and they have to choose their own substitutes. This is pure McGrath. We wouldn't have the routine where if the witnesses actually persuade the government members that maybe the legislation is a bad idea and they begin to have independent thoughts, boom, they are off the committee and the goon squad comes in to make sure that everything goes the way it's supposed to.

• 1210

The idea of the McGrath reform was to prevent the goon squad routine. This is still a good idea if we're serious about the independence of committees and about the independence of members.

Some of the stuff that is on the Reform list is good. I just don't want anybody to think that it's new. It's been there before. The other items are very important in the sense that they address some of the more totalitarian changes to the Standing Orders that were introduced during the Mulroney years, which I presume the Liberal Party would like to change, because they so ferociously objected to them when they were brought in. I know that they were very sincere and I know that now this is the opportunity for all of us to work together to restore democracy to the House of Commons.

I'm looking forward to this discussion.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I certainly hope that nobody thinks this is a totalitarian committee. We let Bill Blaikie speak even if he's not a member of the committee, you will have noticed.

I hope you don't think that I try to steer this committee in any particular direction, but I do try to steer the committee. If you have noticed, at the beginning of each meeting I've tried to help busy members keep track of the eight or nine significant items with which we are dealing.

I think this has been a very useful discussion, because we're dealing with some of the fundamentals of the House of Commons. If we start talking about the Standing Orders, it's serious stuff. We throw out one suggestion and we have some of the most important people in the various caucuses spending a considerable period of time on it, which indicates how important that one suggestion is.

Let me take you back to when we started. It seems to me that it went like this. The committee met. We had received Mr. White's letter. We had received Mr. Caccia's letter on the election of a Speaker. We received the material from the Bloc on opposition motions. It was following an election in a Parliament that is quite different and we were having to make adjustments because of the five parties. In my view, the committee said this is important stuff and it's time to try again and look systematically at the Standing Orders. That's what we did. I sent a letter to all House leaders asking for input.

By the way, when that letter had gone, we had a discussion at one of our full meetings and we said that we should have some sort of process dealing with modifications to the Standing Orders. We said that at a regular meeting, about now—so we're on track in that sense—there would be a general discussion of this matter.

That's what this meeting is supposed to be, with a view—and I now think that this is a bit overly ambitious—that in early February we would have a roundtable discussion on the Standing Orders, bringing in experts. Some people were mentioned, including our clerk, who is already with us, but also former speakers, former parliamentarians, journalists such as Doug Fisher and people of this sort.

I remember that at the time we had some discussion of how manageable that was, given the schedules of all the members of our committee, but we said that would be the way we would go. Perhaps it would be a morning meeting and then an evening meeting, a round table of some sort. We can get to that a bit later on. Following that, we would begin discussion of specific standing order amendments.

That was the sequence we decided on and on which I am trying to follow through.

For example, if I might interpret this one very interesting item, my thought would be that if we carry on with this, our experts, or whatever, at the round table will receive the letters we have before us. We would see to it that they receive the transcripts of this meeting. We would see to it that they have the transcripts of previous meetings where standing orders were discussed so they have the flavour of this Parliament and this committee's thoughts about it. We will then proceed, and perhaps at the end there will be some revision of specific standing orders. That's the way I see it, colleagues.

I thought that we were doing it in that way because it's a serious business. This is not a casual business where you call a meeting of this committee, push something like this around and vote on it. By the way, there is absolutely no intention of that today, as you all know.

Is that process a reasonable one?

I already have a list. I have Randy White down from previously, I have Carolyn Parrish, and I now have Marlene Catterall.

Randy, were you going to address the process?

• 1215

Mr. Randy White: Yes, I was.

The Chairman: Could we just keep it to the process for a few moments? I think the committee wants to do something in this area. I'm trying to move us in that direction. So I'll go to Randy White, Carolyn Parrish and Marlene Catterall. If we can keep it to this topic, I'll be glad to go back to another list.

Mr. Randy White: Just on the process itself, I should say the list I gave this committee wasn't just a list I dreamed up. It is not bogus by any means. I think they were just unfortunate words by my colleague.

The fact is we consulted a large number of people, not just Reformers but people who had worked in the House prior to this who genuinely wanted to see changes in some things. I think they are all worth discussing.

I really don't have a problem with the process as you outlined it, Mr. Chairman. I was a member of this committee in 1994 when we went through all standing orders looking for some changes and we made some major changes to it. But I found the process then very long and at the end of it we were really sick of it all. I didn't think we were dealing in depth with some of the issues.

Therefore, if we keep the list almost as we have it today and just start dealing with those issues one by one if we have to, or with a general discussion first and then one by one, I think we could get through it to add more issues and lengthen this. It will be a long time before we get to the end of it.

The Chairman: Okay, it's Carolyn Parrish and then Marlene Catterall on the same topic.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: With all due respect, you say you consulted with lots of parties, but the list we have before us has a Reform flavour to it because that's where it came from.

I'd like to go back to the last Parliament, when we were asked as the committee of procedure and House affairs to review the business of private members. It took us six months. There was one representative from each party chosen because of his or her expertise and interest. We surveyed all the members. I would suggest if you were to put all these points out and survey all the members, you possibly wouldn't find, in a prioritized system, that every member found each of these as pressing as you're finding them.

My frustration is we could sit here for a million years and do this. I think large committees have a very hard time focusing. You should put this to a subcommittee that has one member of each of the official parties on it. They should do exactly what we did and have colleagues come in and survey them to find out what their interests are, not what the interests are of one party or one group. But let our colleagues, all 301 of them, prioritize the interests and have that committee bring the experts in and go about its business.

It's much easier to have five people settle down and get their teeth into a subject like this than to have this committee spend the next three years spinning its wheels on it. It took us so long, and we really didn't make a conclusion on the change of one standing order.

If you're going to review it, the McGrath committee is a good example. It made some suggestions that were implemented and some that were not. The McGrath committee made suggestions on private members' business. That was the starting point when our committee began. We came out of it with five to eight recommendations that hopefully will be implemented.

I really believe a good, solid working committee has to be much smaller and much more focused. Let it go off to do its business and then come back to us. I think every member of the House has to be consulted before the agenda's set. With all respect to Randy White, reading through this I'd say three or four of them are very interesting to me and the rest I couldn't care less about.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Mr. Randy White: Is it because they didn't originate from the Liberal party?

Mr. Carolyn Parrish: I wouldn't take that with any more strength than I would from any one individual in the House. One individual does not set the interests of a committee.

The Chairman: Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think when they emerge from the House leader of the party, they don't exactly emerge from an individual backbencher.

I agree with what Carolyn has said, but I think we need to look at any suggestions that have been brought forward for the consideration of this committee. But that doesn't mean we have to hold up everything while we have a comprehensive look at the Standing Orders. There are things that will come forward from time to time that are fairly straightforward. Either we agree with them or we don't agree with them, and we can deal with them.

• 1220

I think the draft before us today is an example. I'm frankly quite uncomfortable having a procedure being regularly used in the House nowhere referred to in the Standing Orders, and nowhere defined as to how it can and cannot operate. I hope we'll deal with that fairly quickly, frankly, however we end up doing it. I don't think every change to the Standing Orders has to wait until everything is dealt with.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm in your hands, but the procedure we designed I think was intended to end up with a way of dealing with this. I think we all knew this sort of thing would happen inevitably, if the whole committee tried to deal with it. But it seemed to me—and I have learned a lot; I'm a new member; I wasn't on the committee previously—that the idea of this forum, or whatever it is, is to give us this broad base. These letters are simply letters the committee has received that give some sense of direction. We then listen to people who are experienced in this area, and then proceed with a process that might be to look at them all or to take four or five items, and then perhaps form a subcommittee or some other route that was acceptable to the committee. That is the way I had seen it in my mind.

At this point in time we don't have a systematic basis for an inquiry. I think the forum might give us that. The forum might float up things that are particularly important that we can deal with in some systematic way, such as a subcommittee or some other procedure.

What do colleagues think about that? We have to deal with them systematically—I understand that. Let me put it this way. Given the procedure that we circulated and was accepted before, and given that we have asked the House leaders for their input on this matter, is it okay that we proceed in the way I have described? This material and anything else the House leaders wish—in fact I will write to the House leaders again—would be presented to a group of experts. We would have some orchestrated meeting in which we are involved with these experts, and then decide how we proceed on key items or general items for change.

Colleagues, is that agreeable? Let me look around. Ken Epp.

Mr. Ken Epp (Elk Island, Ref.): I sort of like Marlene's suggestion that we actually put this out to the members in the form of a questionnaire, and use their response in terms of seeing which ones we should do.

The Chairman: I don't often do this, but I'd like to speak to that. I understand the point of consulting the members, but at the moment we don't have a general statement. We do have something that has come from particular individuals, particular parties, Ken, so this is not systematic. I understand, from what Randy White said, that—

Mr. Ken Epp: But what I'm saying is that it could be systematic, so that we could—

The Chairman: My point would be that at the forum we would systematize it.

I'm going to go to Bill Blaikie and then Carolyn Parrish and George Baker.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think this concern of Carolyn's and Ken's and anybody else's can be met simply by adding on to what you have already described as the process to be followed—perhaps a letter from yourself to all members saying the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is reviewing the Standing Orders, and members are encouraged to put forward any suggestions or concerns they might have. Then we'd see what we got. I would be surprised if you'd get very much, but at least people would have been consulted.

The Chairman: Okay. Carolyn Parrish, and then George Baker.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Just to address the comment Mr. White made, if we had a list similar to this from one backbencher from the Liberal Party, I would still question whether it was important enough, from one person, to set the agenda for an entire committee.

Secondly, I would caution you about holding a forum. I sat on the joint committee with the Senate to look at a code of conduct, and it was insanity. It was a very good committee and worked well, but the difficult part was a lot of the reporters who came in. Of course reporters, remember, are not particularly interested in the smooth running of government. They're more interested in sensation and selling papers. Many of the suggestions we were getting from them would make your hair stand up.

I am just suggesting, Peter, be really careful. The business of the House evolves very slowly, and I think every member in the House needs to be consulted before an agenda is set—or at least the House leaders. I don't like the idea of having reporters come in and give us a whole bunch of theories that the other reporters will pick up and say “Wow, what a way to make the House work democratically”. What it really is set up to do is to completely split this place open. So please be very careful. I would much rather see a subcommittee do this, and I would much rather see a lot of very formal controls put on it so that it's productive.

• 1225

The Chairman: George Baker.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, the last truly in-depth study of procedure as it relates to the role of backbenchers and procedure in general was taken—and I don't know if the clerk will remember this, as he probably wasn't here at the time—in 1974. I was a part of that 1974 delegation that went to the mother of parliaments. We went to Great Britain.

Quite frankly, Mr. Chairman, I'm in complete disagreement with the clerk on his opinion of where we stand as far as democracies are relating to procedures in the House, relating to the power of backbenchers. In my former job, I was a chief clerk of a provincial legislature, and we had to rewrite our rules.

The 1974 trip to the British House was a real eye-opener. It's unfortunate that it took place at a time when we couldn't really report and have any definitive effect on the rules. You might want to discuss it in a steering committee meeting, but I would suggest you consider looking at the rules of these other legislatures simply because a great many of us who have examined this over the years happen to believe our Canadian House really has not kept pace.

Our legislature is perhaps the only one remaining under the British parliamentary system that still holds to the basic rules of Erskine May—never mind Beauchesne, but to Erskine May. The other legislatures have dramatically changed their rules, so they would be incomprehensible for members here in this chamber if they were to go to some of those legislatures and see a question period in which the first question goes to the leader of the opposition, the next question goes to a backbench government MP, and then it goes back to one over here, then another one, back and forth. And the powers of committees in those jurisdictions have also evolved to meet changing times. Our House has not.

Yes, we're pretty comfortable with what we have, but it would be a real good experience for MPs to have a look at what's going on in other legislatures in the world that have evolved from the British parliamentary system. It can be said that they have truly grasped certain basic rights of members of Parliament, so that members of Parliament never feel they don't have a voice. If they wish to, they can have an active voice in the committee system and in other ways in those parliaments.

I would suggest that you really give consideration to travelling to, looking at, receiving briefings from, and visiting those parliaments to discover things. I firmly believe you'd come to the conclusion that we are way behind. We're pretty comfortable in what we have, but we're way behind, and I think the only way we can really examine this is by travelling to those other jurisdictions at an appropriate moment when the House is not sitting, in order to really have a look at what's going on.

That's just my ten cents' worth.

The Chairman: Colleagues, again, I'm trying to respond to a very early expressed interest in a review of the Standing Orders. Most of the things I've heard today suggest that people want to look at the Standing Orders. The only question is how to do it.

The forum idea, which again has been around this committee now for some weeks, was presented as a way to get our heads around the sorts of things that George and other people have mentioned. We can get our minds around them, and we can then proceed to go on a Commonwealth tour or whatever it is we're going to do next.

On consulting with the MPs, again with your direction, I have no objection to that. I could mention that their views, like these others the committee has received, and the other information the committee has and what previous committees have done, will go to whomever it is we invite to this session.

• 1230

The forum is not going to be a decision-making session. I say that not to be dogmatic but just to see if you agree. The idea is it will bring some order to what we're discussing here. Then we move on to a subcommittee, a Commonwealth tour, or whatever it is.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'm still reflecting on process. Could we agree, then, that a letter will be sent to all members of Parliament, making them aware of the undertakings of the committee? Upon receipt of those we'll see what the numbers are, the range of them. At that time we can complete the process. We might find out we might want to break up into two subcommittees, one to look specifically at private members, another one to look at broader issues. I think if we at least get the input from our colleagues in this 36th Parliament—

The Chairman: And a reminder to the House leaders of our previous letter, if that's okay.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Fine.

The Chairman: Colleagues, can we—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Adjourn.

The Chairman: Well, I have a couple of items.

It's interesting that the committee is being driven by a non-member here.

Are you reasonably comfortable with that? Marlene Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Obviously this is going to be a big part of our work. Can I request that members of the committee be provided with the annotated copies of the Standing Orders?

The Chairman: Mr. Marleau, do we have sufficient copies of the annotated Standing Orders for members of our committee?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, we do. We're almost out of print, but we do.

The Chairman: Mac Harb, briefly.

Mr. Mac Harb: Mr. Chair, I would suggest that we adopt the proposal from the clerk for at least six months. At the end of six months we can have a look at it and review it in the meantime. At least we have something before us now to look at.

The Chairman: I think it becomes part of the package that is going to be dealt with, first in the forum, then by the process.

Mr. Mac Harb: So you wouldn't suggest we should adopt it at least for the time being.

The Chairman: Again, I have no sense of agreement on that, Mac, no.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: If Mac is moving a motion that we adopt this for six months, I'll second it.

Mr. Mac Harb: Yes, I'll move a motion.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Let's go.

The Chairman: Bob Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger: Again, I think we're cognizant that the chair earlier stated that we would not be dealing with an individual item. Some of our colleagues opposite ourselves have left. One official party is not represented at the table. I myself would hesitate to begin this process in this fashion.

The Chairman: Mac, would you consider withdrawing it?

Mr. Mac Harb: I withdraw.

The Chairman: Colleagues, is the letter to the registered parties acceptable?

I have one change from the Reform Party, Ken. Is that what you're going to speak to?

Mr. Ken Epp: I don't know if it's the same one as you have there.

The Chairman: Okay, colleagues. This is the letter now. Can we go back? The other important thing we're doing next time is review of the Canada Elections Act.

In the letter you have before you, the part that begins with the bracket, at about the middle, “for recognized parties”, we have a suggestion. It says “we intend to invite you to appear”. They suggest “the committee may decide to invite you” instead of “we intend to invite you”. That sounds reasonable to me. That's reasonable. With that change, is this letter agreeable?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: This will go to executive directors of parties, I presume. Given the time of year, are we really giving them enough time to respond?

The Chairman: Marlene, my sense is if we don't do it we're going to be so late in the year for ourselves.... I suppose if we get a letter pleading that it's very early, it's too early, and so on, we should do something about it. I suspect the parties know what their experience was in the election.

Can I leave it there?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just one concern. I understand the wisdom of saying “we may invite” instead of “we intend”, but perhaps we could amend it further, so it's clear that if we invite one recognized party we invite all recognized parties. At the moment, the way the change reads, it leaves open the possibility that we might invite some parties and not other parties.

• 1235

The Chairman: Would it be sufficient for you if I say that we intend to invite all parties? Is that okay? It's now on the record.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Okay.

Mr. Ken Epp: I'm just thinking that there may be a party that doesn't even respond. Then why should we invite them to the committee?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That's their problem.

Mr. Ken Epp: No, but then why should we do that?

The Chairman: We will invite them. They may or may not come.

Colleagues, this letter stands. On Tuesday we are going to meet. There may be a report from the private members' business subcommittee and we will finalize the rules for joint House and Senate committees. Is that okay?

An hon. member: Agreed.

Mr. Ken Epp: For clarification, what is the final sentence in this letter now? Did you decide to leave it the way it is?

The Chairman: The final sentence stays the same. “On behalf of the Committee, I look forward to hearing from you...”. Is that it?

Mr. Ken Epp: No, the one you changed.

The Chairman: Oh, for recognized parties. “The Committee may decide to invite you to appear...”.

This meeting is adjourned.