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, February 4, 1999

• 1112

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we'll begin. We have a quorum, but two parties are not represented yet.

Our main item of business is pursuant to Standing Orders 92 and 108(3)(a)(iv) in relation to private members' business. We have the chair of our private members' business subcommittee with us.

While we're hopefully waiting for the other parties to arrive, I thought we could deal with other business. All parties were represented at our steering committee, the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure. If you would look at the third report of the subcommittee, which you have before you, it's designed to give us all some idea of what we'll be doing in the coming weeks.

Item 6 is today, and we're here now to consider the report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business.

Going back to item 1, the steering committee agreed that a week from today, next Thursday, we'll begin our study of the leaking of committee reports. We'll start with the clerk and some other officials, including the member of the clerk's staff who is responsible for the committee clerks. They will be here and we'll begin our discussion. Then, in the following meetings and days, we'll consider that.

I've asked—the other two parties know this, but I'll repeat it to anyone who shows up here—that this week and next week members who have suggestions for witnesses provide those suggestions to me. We'll be hearing from representatives of the press gallery, other representatives of the media, procedural experts, and people of that type.

Then, because we're supposed to set an example to all other committees—and we always do, George, don't we?

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): Always.

The Chairman: Thank you. The budget will appear fairly soon and the main estimates should be available soon after. In item 3 you will see we're going to invite the Speaker to appear before us on the main estimates, but there's another item on that at the moment.

In item 4, our other responsibility is with the Chief Electoral Officer, and we will ask him to appear. The suggestion there is that we will be inviting the Chief Electoral Officer relatively late because that meeting on the main estimates will lead into our consideration of the changes to the Canada Elections Act, which we understand will be the main part of our business for the rest of the parliamentary year.

• 1115

On item 5, it was suggested in our steering committee that in addition to the main estimates, because in this Parliament we've gone to some trouble to have departments produce them, we ask those who appear before us on main estimates to consider their priorities and planning documents and the performance review reports.

Are there any questions on that?

Next week we will start with meetings on the leaks. Then we'll go to main estimates and then the Canada Elections Act, when it's introduced into the House of Commons.

Randy White.

Mr. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford, Ref.): Mr. Chairman, whatever happened to the presentations we made on the changes to standing orders? If you recall, we asked for a number of changes. We had a long discussion here about it. It went somewhere with the steering committee, I guess.

The Chairman: That's a good point. We had the debate on the standing orders and it has been summarized. It's something that was not considered at the steering committee meeting. I'll discuss it with you and we'll see how to bring it in.

Mr. Randy White: That's my first question. My second question is on the report on televised committees that went to the House. I thought we were unanimous in our agreement on that, so where is it?

The Chairman: It was raised at the steering committee. I conveyed the steering committee's interest in it and we're waiting for a government response. It's my understanding that there will be one.

Mr. Randy White: Okay. Thank you. Will there be one soon?

The Chairman: There will be one.

Are there any other questions on this? I regret that the other two parties aren't present, but it's my understanding that there was a full representation of the parties at the subcommittee meeting. We will ask Lynn Myers to introduce and discuss the report we have before us.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

We had an excellent three-hour meeting yesterday. We went through the list in terms of private members' bills, as well as private members' motions. I have to tell you there were some very outstanding ones. At the end of the day, when we had to narrow it down to determine which four would be made votable, it was a tough choice because there were some excellent pieces of bills and excellent motions presented.

But at the end of that time we were able to determine that four bills and motions in combination would come forward, as well as under the new rules, where an individual has over 100 signatures...we were able to allow one of those to proceed as well.

If there are any questions, I'd be happy to take them now. If not, I would be happy to move that the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the committee's report to the House, and the chair present the report to the House at the appropriate time.

I would caution members of this committee, of course, that this list is confidential until it's made public in the House.

The Chairman: We will be discussing that a week from today.

George.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, in considering the bills or motions that would be votable, is consideration given at all to the matter of some of the motions being an expenditure of public funds? Was that considered by the committee? I know it's probably not the role of the committee to consider such matters, but was it discussed during those meetings?

Mr. Lynn Myers: There was a discussion yesterday with respect to the expenditure of funds, not so much as it relates to motions but as it relates to bills. So in answer to your question, yes, it does come up from time to time.

• 1120

Mr. George Baker: I wonder what is the position of the chair concerning this matter, and what is the chair's understanding of the position of the House as far as the admissibility of these motions is concerned?

Mr. Lynn Myers: I would ask Mr. Robertson, based on the criteria, to simply review what we as a committee look to on precisely this point.

The Chairman: Mr. Robertson.

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): With respect to motions, there are no restrictions with respect to financial aspects because the motion does not involve any government expenditure; it calls upon the government to take such action, which may involve expenditure.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I was using the word “motion” in its broadest sense, because a bill is a motion.

Mr. James Robertson: Sure.

The Chairman: I think James is going to come to bills right now.

Mr. George Baker: Okay, but a motion is not separate from the bill. I want to point that out, because we could have a motion as a resolution but not as a bill.

Mr. James Robertson: Right. I agree. I was referring more to what are designated as private members' motions.

With respect to private members' bills, the standing orders of the House of Commons were amended by this committee in 1994 to correspond more precisely with the Constitution Act. The Constitution Act says that no bill shall be passed by the House of Commons unless it has first received a royal recommendation where it involves the expenditure of funds.

It used to be that a private member's bill, like a government bill, could not be introduced without a royal recommendation being attached to it. That led to some problems, and the McGrath committee and other committees recommended that the royal recommendation be allowed to be obtained later in the process, because a lot of bills involved some direct or indirect expenditure.

Standing Order 79 was amended by the House in 1994, whereby the bill cannot be passed by the House, that is, it cannot receive third reading by the House, unless the royal recommendation has been obtained if it involves a public expenditure. However, there is nothing to prevent the bill being tabled and/or debated prior to that; it just would not be able to be passed and go on to the Senate without a royal recommendation being obtained, which can only be obtained by the government.

Mr. George Baker: I have one further question.

Most of the private members' bills that we see involve tax expenditures—charitable donations, any number of things. These are expenditures in most members' eyes. Certainly with the Auditor General these are expenditures. What is the direction given to somebody in your position as far as the interpretation of the rules and tax expenditures being an expenditure of public funds? Is there a distinction?

Mr. James Robertson: My understanding is that under parliamentary procedure the expenditure of funds must be a direct expenditure out of the consolidated revenue fund. If it is a reduction of a tax, then it is not considered to be an expenditure for purposes of parliamentary procedure; therefore it does not require a royal recommendation.

By the same token, the Senate cannot expend public funds, but it can reduce a charge on the consolidated public purse.

Mr. George Baker: That's quite a distinction, isn't it? Tax expenditures have long been a bone of contention by the New Democratic Party, and by the Reform Party more recently.

I understand what is being said here, and I think that is the correct interpretation, according to the Speaker's rulings I've see recently, but it certainly doesn't face up to what the Auditor General has proclaimed, which is that these are real expenditures of public funds. It certainly opens the door, and it provides members of the government with a difficult situation, because we're asked to vote on these private members' bills that could involve huge expenditures in the case of tax expenditures, which is a favourite vehicle for a lot of the private members' bills to expend public funds.

• 1125

I don't know if there's any way we can deal with this in another forum. A tax expenditure could amount to billions of dollars a year, yet we would be voting on it as a private member's bill. I can understand the distinction, but it doesn't hold water with the most recent definitions of expenditures of public funds, and it doesn't face up to all the Auditor General's reports going back to 1985.

Thank you.

The Chairman: Lynn Myers.

Mr. Lynn Myers: I hear what Mr. Baker is saying. In light of the fact that we're having another private members' business meeting to tie together some of the loose ends and the whole issue of private members' business, motions, bills and such in the next week, I wonder if we could add that as one of the items to think about and discuss as a subcommittee. Then I'll be happy to report back from that meeting to this group.

The Chairman: I don't think George is suggesting that. My thought is...and Randy's not quite with us at the moment.

Mr. Randy White: I hear everything you're saying.

The Chairman: Thank you.

George, what you raised is a question of the standing orders. We have a standing brief, and in fact a little bit more than a standing brief at the moment, to look at the standing orders. It actually fits into a review of the standing orders. So we'd be glad to hear from the subcommittee, Lynn, but on the other hand, I think it's a matter that should be considered by the committee as focusing on a particular aspect of the standing orders.

Mr. George Baker: I don't think it's a matter of the standing orders. I think it's pretty clear in the standing orders, and in all the precedents of Beauchesne's going back to Erskine May, that it is improper and illegal for private members' bills to involve an expenditure of public funds.

I think what our expert from the research staff is saying is quite correct. This is an incorrect interpretation being given to the standing orders by the Speaker, and that interpretation probably dates back to a ruling by the Speaker. Once the ruling is made, I suppose it is incumbent on all future speakers to not necessarily follow that ruling but to certainly reflect the spirit of the ruling.

But in doing so it places all government backbench members in a very difficult situation. It's fine to say we can't have an expenditure of public funds, but we're going to see, if that is the interpretation—and I know that is the Speaker's interpretation, because it's not what's in the standing orders, it's not what's in Beauchesne's, and it's not what's in Erskine May. We are faced with this dilemma.

As I interpret what the research staff has just said, what the Speaker is going on and the advice he is giving is absolutely correct according to the Speaker's rulings, but not according to the standing orders. I don't know. Perhaps this is the wrong forum in which to be bringing this up, but it doesn't alleviate the problem we're faced with, because we have to abide by the Speaker's ruling, which is incorrect according to the rules.

The Chairman: I don't think it's the wrong forum, but perhaps it's not the best time. I'll be glad to discuss this with you and see if we can examine the matter further. Are you comfortable with that?

Mr. George Baker: Yes, I am. It's just that I'm looking at these motions proposed by the Reform Party.

The Chairman: I looked at them myself while you were talking. I understand exactly what you mean. In that sense it's appropriate, but it's not something we can resolve at this meeting. That's my point.

Mr. George Baker: No, absolutely. I'm just bringing it up as a matter of interest.

The Chairman: Colleagues, are there any other comments? You've all heard Lynn Myers' motion. We've had some discussion on it.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Would someone care to move the item under other business I discussed at the beginning, that we accept the third report of the Subcommittee on Agenda and Procedure?

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): I so move.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chairman: Colleagues, we will now adjourn. We will meet a week from today, same time, same place. The topic will be the leaking of reports from committees.

Thank you very much.