[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, June 6, 1995
.1110 
[Translation]
The Chairman: Order, please.
Today, our committee is looking at a draft agreement on Standing Order 98. The draft has been distributed to members. Are there any questions or comments on the draft? Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria (Glengarry - Prescott - Russell): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
[English]
I've been racking my brains a little bit in trying to find out whether there is anything in what we're doing that could create a harm notwithstanding our good intentions. Is there anything else wrong? Is there another reason why we should have kept the old rule? I can't think of one. I've talked to some people in the committees' branch.
The best intelligence of everyone is that this is simply a mistake, a leftover. It's a vestige of the past, and there's no logical reason in fact to keep the old rule, particularly in view of the two measures that we now have, one being the ability to defer generally and the second being the ability of whips to defer in addition, which has never yet been used, by the way. Third, of course, is the unanimous consent that we sometimes seek in order to do it.
All of these factors combined don't seem to suggest that there is any reason to keep it, but I'd be curious to see if our Clerk or our Clerk's assistant would have any other input for us.
The Chairman: Is there any comment from the Clerk?
Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Mr. Chairman, this particular Standing Order relates to a long period of evolution going back to the Lefebvre committee in the early 1980s, where private members' hour was stacked three hours on Wednesdays. That's all we did on Wednesdays. It returned to the three traditional days and now five, in the latest approach.
I think you're right, it's a bit of a vestige of events that led you there. The problem on the Fridays was the fact that it would extend the Friday sitting. The problem on Mondays is that when we moved it from the 5 p.m. to 6 p.m. slot to the 11 a.m. to 12 noon slot and you used the Standing Order to extend the second or third hour, there was no clean mechanism in the Standing Orders to say at what time we pick up the current Standing Orders in terms of extending the Monday sitting.
It's partly a hold-over of not wanting to extend the Friday sitting in the afternoon. On Mondays it's the difficulty of picking up at 6 p.m.
.1115
Mr. Boudria: Let's say hypothetically that we have my private member's bill and it's being debated on Friday and we're doing report stage. It has come back from committee. My private member's bill wants to proclaim November as child adoption month or something like that.
Incidentally, I have such a private member's bill, even though I'm never going to debate it because I'm the whip. It was left over from the days when I wasn't.
Let's say that it's now at report stage and it's being done on Friday. Under the old rule you just couldn't do it on Friday; that's all there was to it. Your name had to come up on another day. You couldn't switch with anyone else to make it a Friday or a Monday; that was unacceptable in the rule.
Now we would debate it on Friday.
What's the maximum time of debate at report stage and third reading?
Mr. Camille Montpetit (Clerk Assistant, Procedural Services, House of Commons): Two hours.
Mr. Boudria: That means that if it's Monday afternoon and we're doing this from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m. and after one hour we're not finished, we would simply continue until the end. Right? Or would the second hour take place on another day?
Mr. Montpetit: The second hour has to take place on another day.
Mr. Boudria: So from 1:30 p.m. to 2:30 p.m., and then it comes back whenever is the next turn.
Mr. Montpetit: Yes. The intent of Standing Order 98(4), and 98 as a whole, is to allow the House to extend the second hour provided for report stage on third reading to a maximum of an additional five hours. This is to be decided by the House during the first hour of consideration.
Mr. Boudria: The first hour at report stage.
Mr. Montpetit: In the first hour at report stage a member can move that when the item comes back for the second hour, that second hour be extended by an additional five hours.
Mr. Boudria: Does that have to be carried by a majority?
Mr. Montpetit: Yes. Let me double-check this. Is it 20 members?
The Chairman: Twenty members.
[Translation]
Mr. Boudria: If 20 members rise, then it cannot happen. Is that right?
[English]
I can't, for the life of me, figure out why on private members' hour you would want to have seven hours of debate at report stage and third reading.
Mr. Montpetit: It was put in the Standing Orders to provide for further debate if too many members wished to speak on it.
Mr. Boudria: Wow!
Mr. Marleau: This is going back to the McGrath report in 1985.
Mr. Montpetit: But it has never been used or attempted to be used.
Mr. Boudria: Would our amendment that we're proposing today still conserve that provision?
Mr. Montpetit: What happened with the Standing Orders when the changes were made was that, in anticipation of this second hour being held on a Friday, which would have the consequence of extending the Friday sitting for an additional five hours, the House decided to exempt Fridays for report stage on third reading, and also Mondays.
If Mondays and Fridays are now allowed for the second hour of report stage on third reading, then you come back to what existed before.
Mr. Boudria: Okay.
Mr. Montpetit: In other words, if the second hour is extended by an additional five hours and the item comes up for debate on a Friday, then the sitting will be extended by a maximum of five hours.
Mr. Boudria: First, it has never been used. Second, I guess it's there as further protection if we ever wanted to debate it. Well, first of all, I suggest that if they sit for an extra five hours on a private member's bill on any day, it is going to be hopelessly inconvenient, no matter what day. But it has never been used.
.1120
If we all agree, Mr. Chairman, maybe we should consider during our next round of amendments removing that provision if it's been there for years and no one has ever used it.
The Chairman: It has one other advantage, Mr. Boudria, that I think we're overlooking, and that is that if you extend it for five hours and then have a vote, the private bill is completed. Under the present rules, you're on the list forever and a day because you go to the bottom of the list after every hour or two hours total for the two stages.
Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): Up to five hours. It doesn't have to be the full five hours. It could be an extra hour without having the full five hours.
The Chairman: Right.
Mr. Boudria: Let's come back to my theoretical private member's bill. We're debating it on Friday; it's 1:25 p.m. Mr. Silye wants to speak to this private member's bill and his colleague wants to do the same. They can move to extend the hour so they can both be heard.
The Clerk of the Committee (Mr. Knowles): It can't be that same day.
Mr. Boudria: No, it would have to be the sitting before.
The Clerk (Mr. Knowles): It would be the previous sitting and the first half hour of the previous sitting.
Mr. Boudria: That's why it's never been used. You have to think ahead whether or not the next time you sit you'll need it; it's effectively a redundant Standing Order.
The Clerk (Mr. Knowles): Yes, that's right.
Mr. Boudria: That's why it's never been used. Okay.
I have no further questions, Mr. Chairman. I suggest that at some other point perhaps we consider removing that one. It borders on the absurd.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois (Bellechasse): So, as I understand it, by the time you realize that additional hours are necessary, it is already too late to ask for them.
Mr. Boudria: That's right.
Mr. Marleau: Maybe.
Mr. Boudria: That's why it has never been used.
Mr. Langlois: Mr. Marleau, I want to ask you this question because I haven't yet seen what happens to a private member's item once it has passed the committee stage. Compared to a government bill, how many hours of debate would there be at report stage?
Mr. Marleau: Generally speaking, when it comes back, it would be...
Mr. Langlois: One hour?
Mr. Marleau: ...two hours maximum for report and third reading.
Mr. Langlois: For both?
Mr. Marleau: Yes, unless that provision is used.
Mr. Langlois: At the present time, if it were on a Friday, would it be possible for a private member's bill to be put to a vote on the Friday?
Mr. Marleau: No, because the Standing Orders do not allow for any votes on Fridays. If the debate were to end on a Friday, the vote would be deferred to the following Monday evening.
Mr. Langlois: In this 35th Parliament, the tendency has been to have votes on Tuesdays and Wednesdays, when members are at work, that is to say when they are at the House as opposed to being in their ridings. You always have to get the consent of the sponsor as well as the whips, or only that of the sponsor, to defer...
Mr. Boudria: In order to defer the vote in an instance such as you describe, usually, all you have to do is get unanimous consent, and to date this has never been refused - although there is another mechanism which involves going through the sponsor and the whips. This is something that could be used if ever unanimous consent were refused.
Mr. Langlois: We didn't get it the other day with respect to Ms Jennings' bill. She wanted the bill put to a vote when she was there.
Mr. Boudria: Yes, indeed, but it was her private member's bill! As the bill's sponsor, she is the one who didn't want it deferred.
Mr. Langlois: So, neither you nor Mr. Duceppe could have deferred it?
Mr. Boudria: No.
Mr. Langlois: You needed to have her consent.
Mr. Boudria: Yes.
[English]
Mr. Silye (Calgary Centre): With respect to this issue we're discussing, I wanted to ask the clerk whether this amendment - I'm in favour of it; it makes sense and clears a few things up - actually takes away any of the rights of a private member or whether it enhances or clarifies the member's rights.
Mr. Marleau: It's a difficult question to answer.
Mr. Silye: Would a private member be shunted in favour of government bills and motions -
Mr. Marleau: No.
Mr. Silye: - or does the member still get the proper amount of time? It just allows the people who wish to continue debating and the member to continue at 6:30 p.m. on Monday nights. Then away they go.
Mr. Marleau: I don't see any advantage, disadvantage, or shift between government orders and private member's business - none whatsoever.
Mr. Silye: Thank you.
Mr. Marleau: I was having difficulty answering the question because I suppose that a member who is in a hurry to get his bill passed could be disadvantaged if another member invokes the possibility of extended debate. A member who wishes to raise the profile of the issue that he has put before the House would the be advantaged, yes, by using the existing rules. It depends on the issue and the context.
.1125
Mr. Silye: Mr. Chairman, I have a concern with you as the chair. Unless you have made an agreement with the steering committee, the way you're conducting this meeting is once again totally opposite to how you conducted the last meetings we had with the witnesses on MPs' pensions. At that time you invoked a rule of 10 minutes for the government, 10 minutes for the opposition, and then 5 and 5. Now it appears you're letting anybody talk just as long as they want. So I would like to know how you plan to run these meetings and what your rationale is for that.
The Chairman: The rationale is very clear, Mr. Silye. At the meeting previously, we had strict time limits on each of the witnesses. That was agreed to in advance. It was an hour and a half for the first witness and an hour for each of the other witnesses. In order to allocate the time equitably among the people who wished to participate in the meeting, and I was contemplating that many would want to ask questions of the witnesses, I suggested that we divide the time in a way that's common in other committees. That's exactly what I did, and the committee agreed to it.
Today I don't anticipate, with these witnesses, that we're going to have a contentious series of things. We don't have a time limit. We have all of today's meeting to discuss these issues. At the steering committee I indicated we'd do it again next Tuesday, if we didn't complete the work today. So I'm not putting time strictures on anybody, simply because we don't have time limits on these witnesses.
Mr. Silye: I would like to have one more clarification then, Mr. Chairman. Why, at the last meeting, after we agreed to listen to witnesses - and I might add, a restricted number of witnesses in one day - as per the time allocation you provided, as per the way we were going to do it, I guess - and I don't know whether the steering committee was informed of that, but you say it was and I'll take your word for it - did you, right away, after the witnesses presented some tremendous testimony and some good ideas, not allow the opposition parties to think about it before we went through clause by clause? We never agreed to go through clause by clause; you rammed clause by clause down at us, and we didn't have a chance to make some reasoned amendments. I'd like to know why you decided to do that. Was the steering committee aware of that and did the steering committee agree with it?
The Chairman: I don't recall that the steering committee met in respect of the proceedings on that bill at all.
Mr. Silye: So you arbitrarily decided that we go to clause-by-clause consideration.
The Chairman: No, I think the wish of the committee was that we proceed with clause-by-clause consideration.
Mr. Silye: Perhaps it was the wish of the government members of the committee but certainly not that of the opposition.
The Chairman: Yes, the official opposition was more than happy to accommodate on that occasion.
Mr. Silye: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Boudria: Can I get back to the issue that was before us? I want to ask not about 98 but about the Monday and Friday issue.
Under the present rule, if someone's private member's bill has now reached report stage and third reading he is, in fact, restricted to doing so on Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday. Monday and Friday are out.
Therefore, if I have a private members' hour and I'm ready for report stage and third reading, my chance of getting it is reduced by 40%, even if a colleague withdraws his bill on Friday. Let's say it was Mr. Hermanson, for the purpose of the argument, and he's going back to his riding on Friday and he can't do his private member's bill. The time could be free, but I couldn't use that time slot because the present rule says that Mondays and Fridays are out of bounds for report stage and third reading. Therefore, it decreases a private member's opportunity to get his bill passed by effecting this change because otherwise you could have Mondays and Fridays completely vacant, but someone ready and willing to do his report stage and third reading couldn't do it. Right? It has happened in the past that we've had Fridays on which no one wanted to use the private members' hour and we in fact adjourned without using it.
I'm not saying that, on those Fridays, we had a report stage and third reading ready, because I didn't check into it, but we have had days on which no one wanted to use private members' hour; is that correct?
Mr. Montpetit: Yes, it is correct, and not only for Mondays and Fridays but for any day of the week.
Mr. Boudria: I see this as helping so-called back-bench MPs, who are trying to get a private members' hour. At report stage and third reading stage, their opportunity of doing so is restricted; it's reduced by 40% for no logical reason, right now.
The Chairman: Part of the problem - and I'm going at this historically - is that when we increased both the number of votable items and the number of items on the order of precedence from, I think, 15 to 30, and doubled the number of votable items on the list or maybe slightly increased.... It was 20 to 30, wasn't it?
.1130
It delays coming back to the top of the list. This was done around 1991. It used to be that you went through the list more quickly and votable items came up more often, so they would get through the process.
Now they go to the bottom of a list of 30 instead of a list of 20. It takes almost a month or more to get back to the top of the list unless they are lucky and get a switch. You end up with votable items rarely getting through the entire process. It takes months to get out to a committee, come back from the committee, get put at the bottom of the list, get to the top for one day, and then come up to the top again a second time. It makes it very difficult.
While this rule doesn't help that, this isn't a particular block at that stage. It just lengthens the debate. It still allows a decision to be made.
Mr. Boudria: It helps in the sense that if somebody else doesn't want their private members' hour on Mondays and Fridays, a member at report stage can at least use the empty slot.
The Chairman: Yes, exactly.
Mr. Boudria: Before he couldn't do so, even if the space was empty.
The Chairman: Yes, in that sense we've cured a problem.
Is the committee happy with this draft report? Is it agreed Mr. Boudria moves that the draft report be adopted by the committee and presented to the House?
Motion agreed to
The Chairman: The second item on the agenda is the happy little question of petitions.
Mr. Hermanson, do you want to address this or do you want me to address it? We've discussed this, so if you would like to deal with the issue, I'd be happy to have you do so.
Mr. Hermanson (Kindersley - Lloydminster): Sure, I'll address it.
As you are well aware, anyone who has received petitions - and I think all members have received a number of petitions - knows if there is one error on one page the whole page is considered null and void and is not eligible to be a part of the petition. For instance, a name could be stroked off, or there could be one name that doesn't have an address with it, or whatever. These pages usually have anywhere from 15 to 35 names on them. You have to have 25 names for the clerk of petitions to duly register the petitions so members can bring them to the House.
It seems rather odd that if one mistake is made on one line of this petition the whole page is suddenly null and void. If three pages are brought forward with one mistake, why aren't all three pages null and void? It is one petition. It would seem certain that if there's a mistake in one line and it's not properly done, that name shouldn't count. It wouldn't be one of the 25 that qualify the petition to be certified.
I would suggest that we either clarify the Standing Orders or have some agreement that the clerk of petitions can certify if in fact there are 25 names that qualify, even though there would be one or more names that do create problems.
The Chairman: The word of the rule, Standing Order 36(2)(d) states that every petition shall ``be free of erasures and interlineations''. To put it narrowly, I think that stroking off a line will not count as either an erasure or an interlineation, if that stroking off is in the signature section, not in the words of the petition.
Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I need one clarification.
I think I agree with Mr. Hermanson. I just want to be perfectly clear. I think you're saying that if one of these names is incorrect or unacceptable for whatever reason, and if removing that name brings the number of names to below 25, you chuck it.
Mr. Hermanson: Certainly. But if it brings it down to 28 from 30 there are two mistakes.
Mr. Boudria: I didn't even know petitions were rejected for that reason. It seems to me to be eminently reasonable, Mr. Chairman.
Mrs. Catterall (Ottawa West): I have some concern about this.
As everybody knows, petitions are often signed because somebody else is signing a petition. You often look at a petition and say, oh, yes, Joe Blow signed this so this must be okay.
For instance, I'd be quite concerned if somebody signed a petition, persuaded 25 other people to sign a petition, and subsequently removed his own name, or if somebody got a signature from a person and used that signature to persuade others this was a good petition to sign, and then subsequently removed that name. This may seem a bit like nit-picking because in fact we have no way of verifying every name and address that appears on a petition in any case.
.1135
I'm less uncomfortable with accepting a petition, even though one or two names may be incorrect, because of some other reason. But when a name has been stroked off a petition I have to wonder about the validity of the petition. I think that was partly what the comments from officials were trying to warn us about. At what point does the validity of the petition itself come into question if there are changes? One or two names stroked off of a 50-name petition, sure. But if 10 of them are stroked off, is that still a valid petition?
Mr. Hermanson: The thing is that's a fraudulent action, I believe. That could happen in the case of a three- or four-page petition, where people could see someone's signature, whether it be a forged one or the actual signature, and other people will sign that page and subsequent pages, and then that name will be stroked off. If that was the case then we'd have to throw out the whole petition.
Using that rationale, there could be a petition with 1,000 signatures on it and if there was one error, then we should throw out the whole petition, and we're certainly not doing that. Just because someone is doing something wrong, whether it be fraudulent or misrepresenting -
Mrs. Catterall: But we have no way of knowing when a name is stroked off whether in fact it is fraudulent. What would be the reason for stroking someone's name off a petition after it's been signed by them and three dozen other people?
Mr. Hermanson: We don't know that if there are 1,000 pages either.
The Chairman: We don't know why anybody signed. This may be quite unreasonable -
Mrs. Catterall: I think we should be cautious and not simply say we will accept any petition regardless of the numbers of strike-offs.
Mr. Hermanson: I think that's why it's important the top of the actual petition, what is being petitioned, is not altered. If that is tampered with, then of course people may be signing something whose meaning has been changed through the alteration. As long as the petition itself, the petition to Parliament, is not in any way altered or erased....
Certainly everyone who signed their name knew or had an opportunity to know what they were signing. If someone put someone else's name on a petition, that's a whole other matter. There's no way of knowing whether that happens at any rate, because those names may not be erased and may not be the actual signature. That's an illegal act and it's not the case I'm bringing before the committee today.
Mrs. Catterall: I'm not sure what Mr. Hermanson is looking for. Is it just a blanket approval that any petition, regardless of the number of changes on it with respect to the names, is still acceptable?
Mr. Hermanson: If it has over 25 names.
The Chairman: If it has 25 valid signatures that haven't been stroked off and assuming it that meets the form in other respects, then it's fine. The fact of striking off one or more names on the petition does not invalidate the petition. In other words, the words, erasures, and interlineations will not mean stroking off names of petitioners.
Mr. Boudria: Perhaps Mr. Hermanson or the clerk could help us with this. Is this a common occurrence? Have we had names struck off? Obviously there's a reason that this is coming up this morning. I'm trying to understand it better. As I indicated before, I never even knew that a name that is improperly written, or whatever the criteria are that Mr. Hermanson described, would disqualify a petition. Maybe he could explain it. I don't want him to refer to a particular constituent, but maybe give us an example of what causes this.
Mr. Hermanson: I haven't researched, and I'm sure the clerk of petitions or perhaps our witnesses would be able to answer this question better. But I did have a two-page petition with 25 signatures on the first page and 15 or 20 on the second page, and there was one error. In fact, we noticed that there was an error. Somebody had just written a silly message in the line. Somebody saw this and they wrote nonsense. It was gobbledegook. We said there is an error on this page.
We took it back to the clerk of petitions and pointed it out. They had actually not caught this error because it didn't stand out like a sore thumb. Because that was an improper entry in the petition, we lost the 25 signatures. We had only the 15 and we weren't able to present the petition.
Mr. Boudria: It sounds like a lot of zealousness to me.
Mr. Hermanson: It is fairly common that you'll get a 10- or 15-page petition and there will be one page where there has been an error, an erasure, or a line stroked out. It is quite common. People make mistakes.
The Chairman: I've had three recently rejected because of that problem.
.1140
Mr. Silye: Does the clerk of petitions ever randomly phone? There is supposed to be the name and the phone number.
Mr. Marleau: No.
Mr. Silye: Why not? Don't we do an audit to see if it is legitimate?
Mr. Marleau: No, we have no such powers. We accept the petition at face value and do no research on it. It's submitted by the member of Parliament on behalf of the petitioners, and that's where our authority stops. It's just to review it against the body of the Standing Orders.
Mr. Silye: My position is that I'm obligated to present a petition, if it's done properly, on behalf of Calgary Centre constituents, regardless of whether or not I agree with what their petition says. As long as it's done correctly, I present it. I was not the instigator.
So you're assuming that the MP then should take the time to see if it's valid, especially if they have a concern with it?
Mr. Marleau: To some degree, the member has a responsibility in terms of the rules, but not in terms of the content of the petition. In terms of the rules, the member has responsibilities under the Standing Orders, but the content of petition need not -
Mr. Silye: What is the logic behind in denying a petition if...? I thought Mr. Hermanson was referring to names being scratched out because they spelt it wrong, or they couldn't...so they'd just stroke it out and do it again. On that basis, I agree with him.
But about this business of, if it says ``nonsense'' or ``this petition is stupid'' to me, why wouldn't the petitioner, as soon as they see that...? Maybe you're down at 24 and you have to go back to all those other people. Why would you not accept a petition if what's being stroked through is...? What's the logic behind not accepting petitions that have ``nonsense'' stroked through?
Mr. Marleau: I would simply agree that if it's a statement on the signature line that says ``I disagree with this petition'' and that was struck out, it might be a little zealous in terms of calling that an interlineation on the petition.
But we've had many cases. Those referred to by the chairman are just names that were stroked off - a different colour pen and the name has been struck through.
Mr. Silye: But if there's more than 25, why not still accept it?
The Chairman: That's what we're discussing.
Mr. Silye: I know.
Mr. Marleau: Because the practice up to this date has been to deal with the petition as a whole - free of erasures and strike-outs.
If you wish to amend the Standing Orders and say that the body of the petition shall be free of erasures and interlineations, that narrows it down to the concept Mr. Hermanson was mentioning, that you have signatures apposed to a piece of paper with an original text, guaranteed that those signature supported what is presented in the House.
Mr. Pickard (Essex - Kent): It seems to me that Mr. Hermanson's point is reasonably good. You're talking about a technicality that eliminates someone presenting a petition.
We are not judgmental on what that petition says. As members of Parliament, we represent our constituents, and over a technicality I don't think petitions should be limited. When we look at the responsibility of a member of Parliament, they do have the responsibility of presenting different ideas that have been collected within their riding, whether they agree or disagree.
It just isn't logical that someone would alter - and I think members should be encouraged not to alter - any petition that comes. If someone wrote a comment on it, I have some difficulty with somebody taking a pen out and stroking through it in the first place. I think that's what the rules may have originally suggested - don't alter something that comes through.
On a technicality, however, why should you limit the viewpoints of 50 other people in your riding? That's pretty restrictive. So if the text of the message in the petition is in no way interfered with, altered, erased, or covered up, then it would seem to me appropriate to present the signatures under that petition, and hopefully people wouldn't alter that in any respect. But if they do - if they write a comment or if they do something - does that mean any time you don't want this petition to come forward, you just put a message on the bottom of it and that wipes it out? I think it's a technicality that doesn't seem very good in a democratic society.
Mrs. Parrish (Mississauga West): We just heard from a math teacher. We're now going to hear from an English teacher.
.1145
I believe in certain standards. Again, I think this is the highest government in the land. I know I was accused of being élitist last week. I'm an English teacher. At what point do you accept it? If you have 27 names on a page and funny, silly messages to 6 cross-outs and a partridge in a pear tree, at what point are you going to say this is disgusting?
I agree, as a member of Parliament, when I initial the back of them that I take responsibility for that when I give it to you. It's our responsibility. If we want to do a spot-check on the validity of a petition, then we should do it, particularly if we don't agree with the contents of it. I tend to check. I call a few people and ask if they signed this and if they know what they signed. If they say yes, fine. It gets presented whether I agree with it or not. So to a certain extent it's my responsibility when I take ownership by signing the back of it.
I also am concerned, as Marlene is, about at what point you draw the line, not through a name, but say this thing is disgusting, it's a mess, and we really shouldn't be presenting it to the highest government in the land.
One cross-out, initialled - oops, I made a mistake, okay, but little messages all over it and, you know.... At what point does it look like a piece of garbage, and why should you accept it? I'm just worried about.... One name messed up, crossed out, initialled, I probably would have no difficulty with. But once you allow that slippery slope, what piece of garbage will we eventually accept with little notes all over it and 27 cross-outs?
I have no opinion on it. I'm just concerned as a very pragmatic and very picky, very detailed person. I like things to be neat. I used to type pages and redo the whole page because there was a mistake on it, so I'm compulsive. But I just want to agree with Marlene that I have some concerns about names being crossed out that inspired other people to sign it, and I'm also concerned that at some point the whole thing becomes a sloppy mess, and why are we submitting it to the government?
The Chairman: In the absence of any other comment, is it safe to say there is general agreement that the intent of the committee is that petitions that have names stroked off be allowed on, regardless of any other problems with the petition, as long as there are the 25 names? Is that the intent?
Mrs. Parrish: Can I ask a question? What about a comment - this petition stinks or...?
The Chairman: That's not the issue we're dealing with.
Mrs. Parrish: Right. I want that clarified.
The Chairman: We can ask about that after. Let's deal with the one issue.
Is the committee content that petitions that have names stroked off be allowed in? Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: No. I would be inclined to agree with that, and for another reason, and I think Mr. Hermanson touched on it earlier, or alluded to it.
The argument has been made by some, well, if a name is missing maybe you were signing it as an individual just because somebody else had. Well, if that's true, if you have a two-page petition, this other person may have signed on the first page and you on the second, and if you throw out the first page you're still tabling the petition without that key name to which you're attached or that you feel is important.
So for that reason alone that other argument I think has less validity, and therefore I think I have to agree that removing the name, providing that the criterion of the minimum number of names is still satisfied, would be all right in my book.
Now there's still the other issue. At what point does unacceptable material render a petition invalid?
The Chairman: Don, of course it's also fair to say that people sign petitions for various reasons, and sometimes they think they're signing one thing and they're signing another, and we don't phone them up and ask them if they're sure they meant what they signed and whether when they signed they read it. That happens a lot.
So I think that looking at motives as to why people sign a document, we have to take them at their face value. If they've signed a certain petition, I think we have to accept that they're there, regardless of who else may have signed and been stroked off.
If we're prepared to do that, I guess my question then to the clerks is, do we need a change to this rule, because it doesn't strike me that stroking a thing off is either an erasure or an interlineation. If that is so, will a resolution from this committee be sufficient to change the policy in the office, without going to the extent of amendment to the Standing Order on this point?
Mr. Marleau: The French of the Standing Order says rature.
The Chairman: A rature is a crossing-out?
Mr. Marleau: Yes.
The Chairman: It's not an erasure.
Mr. Marleau: Because of the wording of the Standing Order, I think it would require a change.
The Chairman: Okay. So can we have one drafted to reflect the committee's concern in a way that's suitable?
Mr. Marleau: Yes.
.1150
The Chairman: Now to answer Mrs. Parrish. Is there an answer for that? I don't think the comments on a petition invalidate them at this point, do they?
Mr. Marleau: I suppose it's a bit of a judgment call on the part of the clerk of petitions, as well, based on how messy it is - whether it's covered in jam, hot dog mustard, and everything else.
We've had cases in the past where there have been comments later on signature lines. They're just stroked out and they're accepted, but I take your point. At what point does the petition become undignified, if you like, for the House? There's only one way to deal with it at that point, I think, and that is for the clerk of petitions to have a discussion with the member and let the member, hopefully on recommendation of the clerk, make the decision if it's so undignified that it shouldn't be presented.
I would recommend that you leave that to a discussion between the clerk of petitions' office and the member involved. It could be a very critical issue and there might be valid reasons as to why a petition is messy. A lot of people went to a lot of trouble to submit this to Parliament, and there might be extenuating circumstances that would justify it.
Mrs. Parrish: If I may, Mr. Chairman, I was thinking more along the lines of somebody writing ``Pigs'' all over it, or -
Mr. Marleau: Or obscenities, or a series of obscenities.
An hon. member: Sure.
Mrs. Parrish: Not that anyone would call MPs pigs.
Mr. Boudria: It never happens.
Mr. Pickard: Any reasonable person....
Mr. Marleau: I have a point of clarification on the decision you've made about striking out names. A petition that has strike-outs would then be accepted so long as 25 names remained on the petition -
The Chairman: Correct.
Mr. Marleau: - without strike-outs. So if a member receives a petition with 29 names, none of which are struck out - I'm not impugning motives to anyone here - it would be fairly easy to get to 24 with a series of strike-outs.
Mr. Boudria: But on the other hand, that member could choose not to table it. It's the same thing.
Mr. Marleau: Yes, but if you get to below 25 with strike-outs, you would be getting a report from the clerk of petitions that says the petition is rejected as a matter of form. I want to make it clear that we cut it off at 25 remaining valid signatures.
The Chairman: I don't think it was ever the intention to change that rule.
Mr. Hermanson: We agreed there must be 25 valid signatures that aren't struck out.
The Chairman: Mr. Pickard.
Mr. Pickard: I'm not as quite a neat freak as some may be. My teaching experience did go well beyond that, too. I taught mentally retarded people and people who do not have the dexterity and skills that everyone else has, and you may find a lot of things scrawled on the papers they do. So the nature of one group may be very different from the nature of another, and how we can make some judgments of validity in those cases, I'm not sure. I really don't want to be the judge of that; if somebody else is going to set a rule, that makes it easier for me.
But there is another part I'm having some difficulty with. As a member of Parliament, what right do I have to reject the petition that has been officially given to me by constituents, one that is, in view of that required number, given to me.... I have some questions - I know we may fall back on references - but it's a viewpoint that's represented by a number of my constituents and I'm not sure how judgmental I can be about that either. Maybe Mr. Marleau can help me with this.
Mr. Marleau: By long established practice, going back to the origins of petitioning in Great Britain, a member has never been held compelled to present a petition he receives. The presentation of the presentation of such a petition, with which a member doesn't agree, although he or she may choose to present it, does not necessarily commit the member to the views expressed in it, as well as Mrs. Parrish.... But there is nothing in our practice, in the British practice, that compels a member to present a petition that has been submitted to him. It would be up to the petitioner to find an alternative supporter to present it in the Commons.
Mr. Pickard: But I'm seeing court rulings in Ontario at this present time that indicate there is a problem with petitions, and with councils and other groups rejecting viewpoints of petitions when they authorize certain actions from them.
.1155
I think our society is changing. I think there may be some real question following, for a member not to at least present the petition. I think there could well be challenge outside of Beauchesne's that could cause a problem for a member of Parliament as well.
Mr. Marleau: That's not impossible, but so far the House has maintained that it has control over its own proceedings and the manner of its proceedings and would not necessarily submit easily to a court challenge on those kinds of circumstances. Politically it's a different issue.
Mr. Pickard: The House could protect the member so the member wouldn't get into....
Mr. Marleau: Certainly if the member was harassed or intimidated for not presenting a petition or for presenting a petition, that would be a matter for the House to consider under contempt or privilege.
Mrs. Catterall: I still have some concerns about at what point names being removed from a petition really calls into question its validity. I would like to suggest that whereas five signatures being struck off a 30-name list is not significant, 50 names being struck off a 75-name list is significant.
I would like to propose that if we're proceeding in this direction we put a percentage limit on that. I know it would probably be neater and easier to just remove this whole provision, but I really have some hesitation about that if we want to preserve the integrity of petitions, and I think we do.
The Chairman: The problem I have with this, Mrs. Catterall, is you can take pages apart in a petition and staple them. I send them in and they come back restapled in different ways. Petitions are lumped together or separated and made into multi-petitions. If you can do that you can alter the numbers. So I'm very reluctant to get into a numbers game where there's interlineation.
I've sent in four and five petitions that have all been lumped together as one and stapled together because they all have the same subject-matter. But they have a different start page and they have different petition pages with just the petition at the top later on. You can play that kind of numbers game and you can have a petition with a lot of names stroked off, which is not a big problem. This isn't something that happens very often.
Mrs. Catterall: It's never happened to me in five years.
The Chairman: I know, it's quite rare.
Mrs. Catterall: I've been presented with thousands of names.
The Chairman: So I don't see it as a particular issue, except that both Mr. Hermanson and I got together and found we each had had some rejected recently because of this problem. It was one name on each of the documents in question; it was not a serious difficulty. If we go into percentages I think we're just going to unduly complicate the matter and lead people to start stapling them together, or pulling them apart to get the numbers right.
Mr. Boudria: If you could effect the change of the nature that Mr. Hermanson feels appropriate, then I agree with him. If we see at some point that this has ended up in some abuse we can revisit it again if it presents a problem. This committee isn't exactly remote or inflexible. We have effected changes very quickly.
Mr. Hermanson: I wish to make a similar suggestion to Mr. Boudria's. I guess my thought is that 99 times out of 100 one or two people, who didn't understand what they were doing, changed their minds or whatever, are negating the opinion of 20 or 30 other people who did everything properly and knew exactly what they were doing.
I agree with Mr. Boudria that if we see this is creating a problem we can certainly come back and review it. I'm certainly open-minded in that regard. I think we should undertake to change the parameters by which we accept these petitions and give it a chance. I don't foresee any serious problems.
The Chairman: We're only going to get a draft of a Standing Order at this point. Is that agreed? Are you happy Mrs. Catterall?
Mrs. Catterall: Yes.
The Chairman: The third item is emergency debates. Mr. Hermanson, you indicated you had some proposals you wanted to make to the committee on this subject, so the floor is yours.
Mr. Hermanson: I had the privilege to experience my very first emergency debate the other night. In fact, not only I but several of my colleagues reflected on that procedure. We thought we would bring to the committee for consideration some suggestions as to how that might be altered. Perhaps some changes to the Standing Orders could be considered by the committee or at least a paper done by Mr. Robertson to look into some of these suggestions.
.1200
After review of the emergency debate the other night, we felt that it certainly wasn't as effective and as focused as it perhaps could have been. It even seemed to be almost a bit irrelevant to the situation and to the institution. The debate seemed to be conducted with less than ideal focus.
There's no cross-examination allowed during the emergency debate process; there are no questions and comments. There is no method of summation or conclusion. What we had was an endless progression of monologues, often into an empty House, which seems rather odd if it's an emergency debate the Speaker has agreed to. It didn't seem to do justice to the subject-matter or to the abilities of the MPs who were debating the issue.
We've suggested, and I'm happy to bring to the committee, some thoughts for a better procedure in conducting emergency debates designed to focus the public and media attention on the issue at hand and arrive at some real conclusions.
When possible it would be nice if there could be more notice of an emergency debate. I recognize that by its very nature emergency is often very immediate, but if, for example, NATO was meeting in two days to consider Canada's involvement in a military conflict, we may have two days in which to prepare before we need to make the concerns of parliamentarians known to the Minister of Defence or the Minister of Foreign Affairs. So if there were more time, if it could be extended a day or two if that was applicable; that might be something the committee should consider.
We don't see any need for the debate to be extremely long. I think limiting the debate to three hours is not unreasonable. It would give each party sufficient time to register its position on an issue and get the point across. Of course, the House could by unanimous consent or by other procedure agree to extend the debate. I'm certainly not opposed to that. But ideally we would think the time for the debate should be approximately 6 p.m. to 9 p.m., certainly not 8 p.m. to 12 a.m., which isn't really relevant in light of the change in the adjournment hour from 8 p.m. to 6.30 p.m. So that's something that needs to be considered.
The gist of what I want to say, though, is looking at a different format for the debate and dividing the time somewhat differently. Here's a suggestion, and we're certainly open to some alternative suggestions. We could have possibly two speeches from the government making arguments in favour of the government's position, if they have a position, allowing 15 minutes for speaking and an equal time for questions and comments. If that is seen as too radical and we want to stay with the 20 and 10, certainly we're open to that, but we think it would be beneficial to see some debate back and forth on the issues rather than just monologue speeches.
Then after two speeches from the government there would be two speeches from the opposition critiquing the government position and offering alternatives, whatever the opposition wanted to project. If there were more than two recognized parties or if we wanted to make agreement for unrecognized parties to take part in the debate, we may need some extension in that time allowed. But again, it would be questions and comments as well. We think it's important to have a cross-examination the other way.
Then we think there should be a summation period. We would suggest a 10-minute summation by each opposition leader, followed by a 20-minute summation by the Prime Minister or senior minister. That way you have your heavy hitters at the end of the debate rather than launching the debate and having everyone sort of falling into line rather than having the ideas projected and the key people, the leadership in the House, considering those comments and those ideas and considering the debate that has gone on prior to that and then making a summation. Particularly then the government would sum up what their feelings are after the debate has taken place.
This gives meaning to the debate rather than having all the parties staking their ground and seeing whether everyone falls into line thereafter and their gradual loss of interest in the debate as it was the other night.
The Chairman: Is this 10 minutes each with questions or comments?
Mr. Hermanson: No, the summation we feel would be a -
.1205
The Chairman: A straight 10 minutes.
Mr. Hermanson: We think it would not only pique interest among the members, it would pique the media's and the public's interest as well to this new format. It certainly gives the government the last word, which they don't have at the current time, and it brings that interaction we've seen in debate at other times, something I think is very positive and constructive in the House.
The Chairman: Just to clarify, Mr. Hermanson, it would be two government speeches, a total of half an hour each, two opposition speeches, half an hour each, then three 10-minute speeches.
Mr. Hermanson: No. If there are two recognized parties, there would be two 10-minute speeches and one 20-minute speech by the government.
The Chairman: Oh, 20 minutes by the government.
Mr. Hermanson: Either the Prime Minister or the minister who is directly responsible. In other words, the government would get equal time with the opposition.
The Chairman: I see.
Yes, Mr. Boudria.
Mr. Boudria: I'd like to caucus this with colleagues a little bit more and with some of our staff procedural people before we go much further on it, but maybe there are things we should consider.
First of all, I don't think we should establish the format for emergency debate based on one emergency that has occurred. That doesn't necessarily stereotype all emergencies.
[Translation]
Here is an example. If there were an earthquake in China, or something similar - I don't wish one - the position of the government would not necessarily be in conflict with the opposition's. That may very simply be an opportunity for the House to express wishes. There would not necessarily be a conflict between both sides of the House.
We should not stereotype a conflict for all cases. What I am hearing seems to go along that line of thought, but that is not necessarily true in all cases. It is difficult to invent rules as if we knew in advance the scenario that will unfold in an emergency debate.
Moreover, I am wondering if we should give some thought to shortening debates, especially emergency debates. Is it always necessary to have 20 minute debates? For example, often, two parliamentarians will share the 20 minutes, ten minutes each, with five minutes for questions and answers.
Would it not be a good opportunity to give a more formal status to ten minute debates? After all, if we are dealing with an event that is causing an emergency situation and that we all want to talk, could we not do it right now? Why talk 20 minutes each? In cases like that, would five or ten minutes be sufficient? There are all those questions which I can think of while we are discussing this, and it's the first time I ever think about them. We could take this opportunity to use more innovative rules, as our colleague said, but with some modifications I can think of, always taking into account the fact that in emergency debates, the governmental position is not necessarily in conflict with the opposition's, with one side on the attack and the other one on the defensive, etc. It's more complicated than that.
Finally with regards to emergency debates, it may be a good oportunity to pass a measure similar to the one we have concerning private member's bills, in that the one moving the emergency debate could perhaps have himself the last five minute period to summarize his presentation. In other words, the member could come back and say that, after having heard us all, his opinion on the matter has not changed or that it is true that such and such parliamentarian was perfectly right to say such and such; the member could thank the House for having given him the opportunity to present his argument. I don't know exactly what you could say, but it may be good to have this sort of little wrapping up at the end. Those are the scenarios I can think of. We could perhaps find others.
.1210
For example, I like the idea of making changes and I propose that we stand this for a while and that we get back to it later, because the time has come to change the rules. However, I would also like to include some other ideas I've heard.
[English]
Mr. Pickard: I would have a different viewpoint on an emergency debate as well. The two that stand out in my mind were the debate on the Gulf War and the Exxon emergency.
Where we have one person standing and giving a party point of view, it does totally eliminate that member of Parliament who is strongly affected. As for the natural disaster, the Exxon debate, I'm certain that all parties agreed that something had to be done about tankers; what we do in those cases to clean up, what we do about future policies, and so on, all entered into it.
But very strong effects occurred to many members of Parliament who lived along the west coast of Canada, and I think each one of them had to have the opportunity to speak to that issue.
I believe that during the Gulf War the debate went on so that many members of Parliament had the opportunity to give their opinion. So I think using one example is a little dangerous in looking at where we're going.
On top of that, I do see the point that if one party has lead speakers - whether one or two is really irrelevant - and then there are two speakers from the opposition parties, we really restrict our Parliament to a very élitist presentation, a presentation by a very few. I know that sitting on the government benches, it could well turn out that the minister and the Prime Minister, the minister or a parliamentary secretary, would be those who alone speak for the government side. That means a tremendous restriction on all members of Parliament.
I have a real concern about that, because as you well know, and as we discussed things, not all members of Parliament agree. There are very local issues that must be raised with different pieces of legislation, different concerns that come forward in an emergency debate, or whatever the topic. So I guess my major point in this case would be that we have to be very open and we set the parameters of an emergency debate in accordance with what is happening at that particular time, but with a great deal of caution that we don't restrict most members of Parliament participating if they so desire.
I'm more concerned about being excluded. I assume that the main purpose of any debate in the House of Commons is to bring forth to the public the information that different viewpoints have and try to inform the public as well as we can. Otherwise, there's no purpose for our debates in the House of Commons anyway.
So by restriction, I think we do cut back my democratic rights as a member of Parliament to voice concerns of my constituents. I would be very cautious about limiting debate in many cases.
The Chairman: To clarify two of the short points at the beginning, as I understand it, if a member gives notice in the morning that he wishes to raise a matter of urgent importance and seek an emergency debate, the Speaker can put the debate over to the next day. He doesn't have to do it the same day. So the notice can be accomplished under the current rule.
Of course, the maximum under the current rule is four hours, but it obviously could be less. We tend to use the maximum.
Mr. Hermanson, you wanted to say something?
Mr. Hermanson: I just wanted to respond to a couple of items.
First of all, certainly the intent of this is not to spark a confrontation if there is no confrontation. I hope that wasn't the understanding that the members received. If there's confrontation there will be confrontation. If there's agreement there will be agreement. We will see in emergency debates that one opposition party will agree with the government and another opposition party may stand alone, or that the government may be opposed to both or all three and the independents may all be in agreement. We see that in ministers' statements. We see that in take-note debates and we see that in emergency debates. Certainly the intent is not to try to encourage confrontation. I don't think that is an issue, and certainly not to take away from members the opportunity to speak. If that is seen to be in here, certainly, as I said, I've thrown this out.
.1215
I like the word Mr. Boudria used, ``innovative''. I think we do need to be a little bit innovative in changing the dynamics of the emergency debate to allow that interaction. I think even Mr. Pickard would agree that the interaction we have in the House is probably some of the most useful debate in the House, and it certainly cannot be or isn't part of the emergency debate the way it is structured.
We're looking at 10-minute speeches with five minutes of questions and comments to see if that's adequate time. Sometimes it may be and other times it seems to be a bit acute. If you have a great address, 10 minutes may be long enough to make it. But perhaps five minutes isn't a long enough time to debate it or to have some questions and comments afterward. That's why we suggested the 15- or 20-minute slots. Certainly, it is not to limit debate. The more important issue is to have free-flowing debate and then some type of summation with some key people at the end, which is really missing right now.
In every debate I've seen to this point, whether it be take-note debates or the emergency debate, it starts off with ministers and leaders of the opposition or the key critic from the opposition and it sort of goes downhill from there. Everybody gradually loses interest and people take their names off the list. It seems to be rather less than it could be, is simply what I'm saying.
The Chairman: We're obviously not going to be able to make a decision today, because we have no quorum for that purpose, and I don't think that was the intention. I think the idea was to get discussion.
Maybe we could leave it until our meeting one week from today and take it up then because we have other rule changes, Standing Order 73 and referral of bills before second reading to discuss. I think Mrs. Catterall wishes to discuss discipline of members. So we can look at those perhaps next Tuesday and add this to the list.
May I throw out a suggestion on this? I suggest that we give the Speaker the power to fix the terms of the debate, because the format you've suggested, Mr. Hermanson, may be entirely suitable on certain occasions, while on others there may be a greater desire for more members to speak, even briefly, as Mr. Pickard has suggested in his remarks. The matter could be negotiated between House leaders once the Speaker has indicated his willingness to permit an emergency debate. Failing agreement between them, the Speaker could then fix the terms of the debate, including greater flexibility on length and starting time from the Speaker's perspective.
Obviously, in the case of the one the other night the House leaders agreed to move the debate to 6:30 p.m, I think in response to a request from you or your critic, who had put forward the proposal. It may be that this kind of an arrangement could be followed in future, or the Speaker could fix the time of the start after the normal adjournment of the House.
There might be willingness to put greater flexibility into the whole rule and into the times of speaking and so on, but putting speakers at the end is an innovative approach to this because it would ensure that people stayed for the debate which, as you say, doesn't happen now. The leads all want to get on early so they can go home. Then they don't have to listen to the rest.
It's certainly an innovative idea, but it might find more favour here than it would in certain other places.
If that's satisfactory, are members prepared to leave this to the next meeting and come back to discuss it?
On Thursday, we'll have the Chief Electoral Officer before us speaking about his long-term spending plans, whatever they call that document, his outlook document 1995-1998, which we're supposed to report on by the end of June. So perhaps members will want to look at that and come back with questions.
Also, the regulations promulgated under the Referendum Act, which have been circulated to members and which I'm sure you will find very interesting reading, are going to be the subject of discussion. Mr. Robertson has prepared a summary, a critique of the materials, that will be available to you tomorrow, I believe. I urge you to read that before you come to the meeting on Thursday.
.1220
The chief electoral officer will be here to answer questions, as will his legal counsel who drafted the referendum things, and I'm assuming it's a chance to clear that up.
We're entitled to make comments on those regulations as a committee. So if after reading Mr. Robertson's critique and no doubt your thorough reading of these impressive regulations, you have any comments you wish to put forward to the chief electoral officer, we're free to do that. That's the purpose of Thursday's meeting, so we'll resume consideration on procedural matters on Tuesday.
Mr. Hermanson: Before we leave that emergency debate - I realize maybe you already have - I wonder if perhaps Mr. Robertson could, taking some of your comments, Mr. Chairman, and some of the comments in my paper, suggest some formats or some tools that the Speaker could use. He could certainly bounce it off members of this committee and the clerk as to what changes might be required in the Standing Orders to permit these things so that when we come back and deal with this again we might have progressed another step further.
The Chairman: Sure. Agreed?
Mr. Pickard, do you have something to say?
Mr. Pickard: Yes, I was going to comment about the Thursday. It has nothing to do with Mr. Hermanson's point.
The Chairman: I think that's dealt with. We'll do that and go on.
Mr. Pickard: Thursday is a significant day in Ontario, and many members from that province may not be here in Ottawa. It is a possibility that they may be in the riding for voting and other activities that go on. I don't know if that's going to affect other members here or not.
The Chairman: We all want to do our part.
Mr. Pickard: It certainly is affecting me. I know some of the opposition may not look upon this as having a major affect on them.
The Chairman: Well, I'll be here in the morning, and I'm staying for committee work.
Mr. Pickard: I'm here in the morning. I don't get back to the riding.
The Chairman: Yes. Are there members here -
Mr. Malhi (Bramalea - Gore - Malton): Is it possible that we could have the meeting earlier than that, around 9 a.m. or -
The Chairman: So you'll be here.
Mr. Malhi: In the morning.
The Chairman: Yes.
Mr. Malhi: From 9 a.m. to 10:30 a.m.
The Chairman: Our meeting is at 11 a.m. Is that okay?
Mr. Hermanson: You might be able to substitute a couple of members with MPs from outside of Ontario.
The Chairman: We may. Let's wait and see.
I'd just like to get this done. If we leave it much beyond, we're not going to have any time to draft a report if we have to.
Mr. Pickard: I have no problem.
The Chairman: Okay.
Mr. Pickard: I just wanted to point that out because I thought it might affect some others.
The Chairman: I thought we'd be fairly safe doing it in the morning, but obviously if we don't get a quorum, we won't. But we're hearing evidence, so we may also hear the evidence with three members and then adjourn and not make any decision and, in effect, have a subcommittee that reports to the full committee the following week.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois: By the way, in view of this coming Thursday, I am desperately looking for any Liberal member ready to bet with me on election results in Ontario. I am looking for someone ready to bet $100 with me. I don't find anybody. If you could provide me with a list -
The Chairman: I suggest you make that request to the members of the New Democratic Party. They will surely have a lot of money for that!
[English]
I want to thank the witnesses for coming today. We always appreciate your assistance at these meetings. We'll see you next week if you're keen to come back. Thanks.
I declare the meeting adjourned.