SMEM Committee Meeting

SUB-COMMITTEE ON PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS OF THE STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

SOUS-COMITÉ DES AFFAIRES ÉMANANT DES DÉPUTÉS DU COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, March 23, 2000

• 0906

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.)): Good morning.

I understand we have a quorum, so certainly your chair is looking forward again to learning from you people of experience here around this table, and I realize we have considerable, or more than considerable, experience here at this end—on both sides of me and looking down to these three members.

Mr. Harvey may show up. The whip's person was just here. Mr. Jordan is not feeling well. If he's out golfing, or if he's outside at all, I certainly will never forgive him.

Now we do have an agenda here in front of us. I believe Bibiane is going to report on...or are we going to discuss when we could have a meeting to...? When is this draw happening?

The Clerk of the Committee: Today.

The Chair: Today. And then following that draw for x amount of numbers, we of course will need to set up a meeting to have those members appear in front of us. We'll go from there to discuss the status of this 100-signature procedure.

Would you like to fill us in on the draw?

The Clerk: The draw is taking place today at 1.15 p.m. in room 238-S. There aren't many openings for votable items at the moment, and the subcommittee has 10 days to meet to decide on votable items. I think the 10 days are up around April 6, so we could meet on Wednesday, April 5, and report back to the House on April 6. I think by that time there will be five or six openings for votable items.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Are you saying we should meet on April 5?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: That's a Wednesday, is it?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: That sounds good to me. I was worried that we would try to meet next week, because I'm not going to be here. But that's good. I don't have to find a replacement. You'll have to put up with me after all.

The Chair: Well, perhaps we could meet next....

[Translation]

The Clerk: We could meet in the afternoon of April 5. Since we will be drawing 15 items today which will be deemed votable, we will be hearing from the 15 sponsors of these bill. It would be nice to hear from all of them at the same time.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): We could certainly aim for that.

The Clerk: Indeed.

[English]

The Chair: And what should we discuss? I'm just asking here whether we should be discussing what time, if we're going to focus at all on that goal, we would be starting—at 3.15 p.m. or something?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Well, 3.15 p.m. is okay for me.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, the earlier, the better. You say we have 15 witnesses?

The Clerk: Yes.

The Chair: I think it's good to hear—you know, rumours float—that there aren't many slots for votable items, but there are some. That's good, and I'm glad to hear it. It would seem a little bit different if there were no slots.

• 0910

Mr. Bill Blaikie: By then there will be a couple, right?

The Chair: I understand that this is probably not the time for this other business, but it's related to this. Everything went according to schedule when the clerk scheduled our members for their private members' bill or motion, but as you people know...and then all of a sudden, for whatever reason, there is not even always somebody available. That then backs it all up, and they wonder why.

Have we any other...? So that probably projects when we might meet—at that time.

James, is there anything else on that?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): No, I think that's fine. Bibiane can go ahead and start scheduling the witnesses as soon as the names are selected today.

The Chair: Okay. So should we now proceed to enter discussion on where we're going with the 100 signatures? Would you like to....?

Mr. James Robertson: Maybe I can just give a brief introduction to the 100-signature procedure. This procedure was recommended by the subcommittee at the end of the last Parliament, just before the 1997 general election. This subcommittee tabled a report regarding a number of proposed changes to private members' business.

There had been frustration expressed by some members that even though they had widespread support, their items continued not to be selected as votable.

To address that concern, the subcommittee proposed that if members were able to demonstrate that they had widespread support—and I think 100 members was considered to be quite widespread support—they would at least be put on the order of precedence and be entitled to one hour of debate in the chamber.

The decision as to whether or not that item should become votable would rest with this committee so that the selection criteria would continue to be applied.

As I say, that report was tabled just before the election and it wasn't implemented or even discussed by the parent committee, Procedure and House Affairs, prior to the election.

After the election, in addition to the fact that there were new members and five recognized parties, the report was referred back to this committee and the committee was asked to review the report and decide if they still wanted the recommendations to go forward.

This committee made a few minor changes to the report, including that particular recommendation for 100 signatures, but essentially the report was sent back to Procedure and House Affairs. Procedure and House Affairs approved it. It went into the chamber as the thirteenth report of Procedure and House Affairs, and I believe that was in December 1997.

It sat on the order paper there even though a number of members expressed support for the report, particularly the 100-signature procedure.

The government House leader, Mr. Boudria, also indicated his general acceptance of most of the recommendations, although not all of them—or he had some questions about some of them—but the report was not concurred in or adopted by the government.

Then on a motion of a Reform member during private members' business to seek unanimous consent to adopt the report, to concur on the report, it was adopted by the House. The report was then implemented, and the changes to the standing orders were effective as of February 1999. The motion by the Reform Party occurred in November 1998, I believe, and it was unanimous that the report be concurred on. So the changes came into effect last February.

Then at the beginning of the new session in October 1999, it was also in effect, of course. That was when Mr. Bryden's bill was the first one in the queue with 100 signatures. It was placed on the order of precedence. At the beginning of February, Mr. Chatters raised a question of privilege relating to Bill C-206, which had been made votable, and the Speaker referred the matter to Procedure and House Affairs for review. That committee held a discussion with the Clerk of the House, Mr. Marleau, on two occasions and they were discussing the 100-signature procedure.

• 0915

There was fundamental disagreement I think among members as to whether the 100 signatures signified support for the specific bill or not, and the discussion was whether in signing the document you were saying you would vote for it, you were seconding it, or whether you were merely saying you wanted it placed on the order of precedence and debated in the chamber.

There were also other issues. For instance, I think Mrs. Parrish raised the fact that originally there was no limit on the number of 100-signature items that could be placed on the order of precedence at a time. I think when the new subcommittee looked at it they added that there should only be one at a time. The idea of this I think was that it be an experimental idea to be tried for a while and see how it works. There may also have been a concern that if you didn't put a limit, a large number of the spots on the order of precedence would be taken up by these 100-signature items. Her point I think was that by only allowing one at a time, and because making that votable does not take away a votable spot from anyone else, it ends up almost automatically becoming a votable item. The two cases we've had, Bill C-206 and the one in the previous session, were both made votable by the subcommittee.

In any event, the full committee had a discussion of these issues and was unable to resolve them. They did do a report to the chamber, which was tabled last Friday and which formed the basis for the Speaker's ruling on Tuesday regarding Bill C-206.

So that is not really an issue at this point in time. The question is, how should the standing orders be changed or amended to clarify what the procedure is? There seems to be some uncertainty or ambiguity, and there need to be some changes or recommendations to clarify what the procedure is, what it means. Because the full committee could not come to a consensus or agreement, they have delegated it to the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business.

The Clerk of the House, who did appear on two occasions, has provided draft standing order changes. Very briefly, there were two options being considered. One would be to consider the signature as merely asking that it be put on the order of precedence and debated. You're not saying you support the specific issue; you just think it's an issue that is worthy of discussion. The other option is to make it similar to seconding. There is already provision for up to 20 members to second a private member's bill or motion. That would be replaced by this 100-signature thing, and it would be more along the lines of your saying that you support and intend to vote for the bill or motion. This would presumably involve a higher standard before people would be willing to sign the bill or motion.

I guess the subcommittee will have to decide what it wants to recommend on this. In light of that, the subcommittee may want to invite Mr. Marleau again to discuss it or to discuss the options, or it may feel it has enough information to make some recommendations on its own.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: In the clerk's recommendations, if the 100 signatures were understood to be 100 seconders, would it not be possible to preserve the 20-seconder mechanism for those bills that are selected through the normal lottery? So they're not mutually exclusive, is what I'm getting at.

Mr. James Robertson: No, they're not. I think the 20 seconders has no procedural significance. If you look in the Order Paper, you can see that certain bills and motions have been seconded by people. It's listed on the Order Paper, but it doesn't make any difference in terms of this subcommittee's decision.

• 0920

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, I understand that. All I'm saying is—

Mr. James Robertson: No, I agree.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I take it from what you said about the way these have been drafted by the clerk, that one would “replace”, I think was the word you used actually.... All I'm saying is that it needn't replace it. They could exist side by side.

Mr. James Robertson: I think the idea of deleting the current provision for 20 seconders arose out of the discussion, and perhaps it was felt that having two kinds of seconding might lead to some more confusion. I think the reason why the standing order was worded the way it is, which is talking about members who are in support of the item, was to distinguish it from the already existing concept of seconding. Maybe that is what has led to some misunderstanding or confusion as to what it means when you are signing in support. Are you supporting, and is support less or more than seconding? But, yes, there's no reason why the two couldn't co-exist.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: There should be something after the verb “support”. It should be either that you support the bill in motion, and that seems to me clear in terms of having the seconding function, or you support having the item appear on the order of precedence and being debated and available for being selected as voted. It is clear what you're supporting if you say “support having it on the order of precedence”, etc., whereas if you wanted to use the language of support in the way that was the equivalent of seconding, then perhaps you could even use the language of seconding as opposed to support.

I have to confess I'm of two minds on this, but my concern is that I think if we have the weaker definition, or if we have the lower standard for signing the 100 signatures, we're going to get all kinds of motions, because it doesn't mean anything. You can sign onto anything and say “I don't support it, but I think it's a good idea to debate it”, because who's going to object? There will be a lot more pressure on members to support it, because the member who's trying to get the signatures will be saying “You don't have support it, but what's the matter with debating it? What's the matter with you? Are you a jerk? Sign.”

So I think the consequence will be that we'll be inundated with 100-signature private members' bills and everything will become the same. The purpose of the mechanism, which really is to select out from a whole lot of bills a handful of bills that have this significant measure of support and which therefore should be considered by the committee, will have been defeated.

The Chair: Madame.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Could we know how many members have bills backed by 100 signatures? I believe the number is higher than we originally thought it would be. I know for a fact that many deals have been made and that members undertook to sign off on one of their colleagues' bills in exchange for their support of their own bill. I agree with Mr. Blaikie who recommended that a commitment to sign should signal one's intention of formally supporting the subject-matter of a bill or a motion.

Although it would be entirely appropriate for us to decide about this, I think it might be interesting to ask members who have tabled bills backed by 100 signatures to share their experiences with us. Perhaps they could relate the problems they encountered and how they went about tabling their bill so that we have some idea of what's involved. It would be useful to get their perspective and find out what they prefer. Do they want 100 members to say that they feel it's important to debate a subject, or do they feel it's more important to have 100 members formally support a bill? I'd like to hear how they feel about this.

• 0925

The Clerk: The list that I have already contains the names of nine members, including Mr. Bryden.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I imagine all parties are represented on the list.

The Clerk: Yes. I jot down the date as the bills come in. The bill that will replace Mr. Bryden's is first on the list. Therefore, I will add the next bill on the list to the order of precedence. Only one item at a time can be dealt with.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'm wondering if we could ask these persons to come before the committee to share their experiences with us.

The Clerk: I could certainly ask them.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That might prove to be interesting.

The Clerk: No doubt it would be interesting to have them come and relate their experiences to us.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: If I may interrupt, I think a number of members have considered the 100-signature route, but given the fact that there are already a number in the queue, they have realized that their chances of ever getting put on the order of precedence through that mechanism are probably slight, so they don't pursue it. They figure they have as good a chance with the draw as they do with the procedure, but we can certainly contact the members who have filed those and solicit their input.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We end up with a draw amongst the 100-signature bills.

The Chair: Just before we go to Mr. Chatters, on that, and you people have had the experience, but I'm amazed at the members—speaking about our own party—who have not read and have not asked or have not listened...and probably still others who are starting to assemble or are looking to move towards the 100 signatures.... They still think they're going to be right there tomorrow, type of thing.

Mr. Chatters.

Mr. David Chatters (Athabasca, Ref.): I find it inconceivable that someone would sign a bill as a seconder on the basis of a summary, or in fact on the basis of what the member told them. I thought when someone came with a bill, as Mr. Bryden did when he was looking for support for his bill, that the content of the bill is what we were seconding and it was important.

I agree with Bill. If you simply are signing 100 signatures to debate a concept in the House of Commons, that's meaningless. It loses all meaning. Why tie it to a private member's bill? If you can get 100 members in the House who want to debate a topic, why not just have a debate on that topic?

Specifically, in private members' business, I think you're seconding the bill based on the content in that bill, and that's what I found offensive when the content of that bill changed from the time I signed it until the time it came to the House. So I think it's important that we stay with the concept of seconding the bill.

The Chair: Mr. Harvey.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey (Chicoutimi, PC): I agree with my colleagues. This wouldn't be in keeping with our parliamentary tradition. It isn't right to support a bill in such a casual fashion. Lending one's support to draft legislation is an important gesture. A bill shouldn't just be left on one's desk in the House of Commons. I've refused to sign certain papers under these conditions.

Unless I'm wrong, the issue here seems to be a desire to fast track a bill, to disregard the order and the random draw. This procedure should not be viewed as the same as authorizing the fast tracking of a bill. We can't support a bill like this in the House simply by signing it. That makes no sense at all. I think it needs to be spelled out clearly in the Standing Orders, Mr. Robertson. This looks to me to be a fast track measure to ensure that the bill is debated. We need to debate the subject matter of a bill before we can decide whether or not it warrants our support, and trying to fast track the tabling process shouldn't be an option. This would be indicative of total disregard for all parliamentarians and would make no sense whatsoever. This needs to be clearly stated in the Standing Orders.

After meeting with our party critics and our colleagues in caucus, we could then decide whether a bill deserves our support or not. Members shouldn't simply sign a document allowing the sponsor of the bill to have it debated merely because he collected the signatures of at least 100 of his fellow MPs. That would be a superficial, and even risky, move. One of the great features of our parliamentary system is that traditionally, things move slowly and there is some merit to this.

• 0930

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: Mr. Chair, I don't know if that's one of the issues we're addressing in connection with this, but was there not also a concern about the way in which you get your 100-signature bill in, in that there was this rush of people camping out? Is that part of where we are on this?

Mr. James Robertson: That is certainly part of the problem, and it raises a number of issues. First of all, if—

Mr. David Chatters: It's like trying to get Rolling Stones tickets or something.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes, that's true. You could have members and their staff camped outside the private members' business office.

That raises two issues, I guess. First of all, there's the currency of the signature. In Mr. Bryden's case, leaving aside even the fact that his bill had been changed, he had signatures that were gathered two years before he tabled it in this session. One suggestion that came up was that the signatures would have to be in relation to the bill number, so that he would not have started collecting signatures until C-206 was actually tabled in the House and had received a number in this session. Also, he could not have recycled or reused signatures from a previous session.

The reason for not making such a provision under the existing standing order is that between sessions the membership remains the same. Arguably, for a member who has signed something in one session, his or her position is consistent and should remain the same in the next session. But that does lead to the problem that at the beginning of a second or third or subsequent session you could have this unseemly rush to get it tabled at the beginning. That would be avoided if you did it on the basis of the bill number, because he could not have started collecting signatures until it was tabled, and then he would take more time.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes, that makes sense.

Mr. James Robertson: The other point was that...I've lost my thought, sorry.

Mr. David Chatters: It'll come back.

Mr. James Robertson: It'll come back.

Mr. André Harvey: I have a little remark. I have another meeting at 10. It's only to be fair with you if you have an urgency, but at 9.55 a.m. I must leave.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Just on that, I must say it's difficult for us. We could come up with some kind of recommendation, but I know there were certain government members who had very strong feelings about this, yet there's no one here, with the exception of the chair. We could go through all of this, but there are certain members with strong views on this, and we're not having a dialogue with them if they're not here. I know they don't necessarily agree with what we tend to be coming to a consensus on, so it's somewhat pointless.

[Translation]

The Chair: Madam.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I'd simply like to verify something. Ever since the Standing Orders were amended to allow for the tabling of bills with 100 signatures, I make it a habit of mine, as does Mr. Bergeron who sits on the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, not to support any bill so as not to find myself in a conflict of interest situation. Assuming that I were unable for some reason to attend a sub-committee meeting, I would select as my substitute a member who has not supported the bill on the table.

I wonder if the other members of the sub-committee have adopted a similar approach. When I sign a bill and throw my support behind it, I've made it publicly clear that I am favourable toward this initiative, and this puts me in a rather awkward position.

• 0935

I'm throwing this out for you to consider, Mr. Chairman, but couldn't we debate this at some point in time and come to an agreement? I'm uncomfortable with this procedure. If five members are seated at the table and four have supported a bill bearing 100 signatures, then the contents of the bill won't even be discussed.

[English]

Mr. André Harvey: I don't think we have the right to support the bill if we are on the committee.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: If I can digress for a moment, we haven't made any definite decisions about this yet and I'd like us to consider the matter more carefully.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: I've remembered my earlier thought.

The other suggestion was that the signatures be dated and that there be some kind of sunset clause. After a year or eighteen months or whatever, the person would have to go back to make sure the other person continued to support the item. That would be another way of ensuring that people's views don't change over time. The other advantage of saying the bill would have to have a number in the current session would be that it could be used to prevent changes being made to that bill subsequent to it being tabled. The member could go around and could table a new bill, rather than seeking the unanimous consent of the House to substitute a new text, as Mr. Bryden did.

[Translation]

Mr. André Harvey: Getting back to Ms. Dalphond-Guiral's question, do you think it's possible, Mr. Chairman, to sit on the committee and, at the same time, be one of the signers of a bill? I think there should be some provision to exclude us from doing that.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: There's nothing to prevent a member of this subcommittee from signing that bill. It is up to him or her. But the subcommittee could make a recommendation or a suggestion to future members that, given the procedure, particularly if it involves seconding, members of the subcommittee or their substitutes should not be people who second the bill or motion.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I think that's a good idea, especially if you're on this committee. It saves you from having to sign all these bills.

Mr. James Robertson: There's another question, too. If we're having a fairly high standard of support and you're seconding the item, is there still a need for limiting it to one at a time on the order of precedence? And should the decision still rest with the subcommittee as to whether or not that should be votable, or should it become automatically votable? If you have 100 seconders, should it be given three hours of debate automatically or should it still rest with the subcommittee?

The Chair: It sounds like that would make a difference as to how high the standards were.

Bill.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I know there is some disagreement as to the original intent, but largely speaking, I think most people thought that when they signed it, they were signing it in a way that was closer to seconding than just.... The original recommendation was that even though it had the support of 100 members, it was still up to the committee as to whether or not it would be votable. I would be open to having more than one go on the order of precedence, but I would still want to reserve the right of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business to determine what is votable. I wouldn't be in favour of releasing or giving up that right.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: We would do this mainly when there weren't many slots available. It becomes extremely frustrating. If there are two slots available and two bills have the requisite 100 signatures, then there's a problem somewhere.

[English]

Mr. James Robertson: I was just wondering whether or not we needed a limit on the number that could be on the order of precedence at a time. The problem is that right now there are nine items that have, or allegedly have, 100 signatures, although whether it's 100 seconders or 100 other people is maybe not as clear. Do we want nine items put on the order of precedence? Would they be in addition to the 30, or would they take away some of those 30 spots that are currently there? Do we want to say that the first three or five could be put on and then the others have to wait until the other ones drop off?

• 0940

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I don't think you can put them all on. I think you could expand it to two or three, but not any higher than that.

The Clerk: This is why it's taken so long to have another draw since last October. There were nine reinstated bills and motions added to the list of 39.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But they weren't all 100-signature ones?

The Clerk: No. That's just to tell you that with an added number of about nine items, it takes longer to go through the whole list.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Had we never had a break, had we never come to the end of the session, that would have happened anyway because they would have continued.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: When a draw is held, the same number of slots aren't always available. Shouldn't we be thinking in terms of selecting a percentage of items with 100 signatures and not in terms of an actual number? We could agree on 25 per cent or 33/13 per cent. There could be certain advantages to that. It's something to think about.

Mr. André Harvey: It's not a bad idea. Instead of substituting all of the motions backed by 100 members, a percentage of these could be put into the general pool. The suggestion has merit and deserves our consideration.

[English]

The Chair: It sounds like the percentage is not a lot different from the number anyway, perhaps.

Mr. James Robertson: I was just going to say that the interpretation the table officers gave to the current standing order is that making it votable does not take away an opening from the other 30 that are selected in the draw. At the beginning of a new Parliament you select 30 items, 15 bills and motions, of which 10 can be declared votable. The 100-signature item could be made votable, but by making it votable there are still 10 other openings.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It would be 11.

Mr. James Robertson: Yes. In fact, what happened at the beginning of this session was that we had 30 items. We selected nine of ten to be votable and we also selected Bryden's Bill C-206 to be votable, or we agreed that it should be votable. The subcommittee agreed.

Certainly each time there's a draw we could have one of the spots taken. The question then would be whether the 100-signature item should have to compete against the other 15 items for an opening for a votable item or whether it should be outside of that. One can argue it in different ways.

On the one hand, if you have an item that has 100 signatures or seconder supporters, it might be difficult, if it meets the criteria, to not make it votable, which works to the disadvantage of the people who are selected in the draw. At the same time, if you make more than 10 items votable, you're extending the amount of time it takes to work through the order of precedence.

The Chair: If we make some progress, should we be looking at inviting Mr. Marleau? What are your thoughts on this?

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: I think we should hear from the sponsors of the bill before calling in Mr. Marleau and take stock of the situation. Otherwise, Mr. Marleau might have to testify twice, once before we hear from the sponsors, and again afterwards.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I'm not sure who you want to hear from.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: The members who sponsored the bills.

[English]

The member who presented 100 signatures before Marleau.

The Chair: Can I ask this question—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: All of them? All the ones we—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Well, we can't ask for all of them.

The Chair: These nine members who—

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There's quite a lot.

• 0945

The Chair: Of these nine members who have 100 signatures filed, can I ask how many...? Before we invite them or consider inviting them, I'd like to see if there are several parties. I'm hoping there are several political parties represented.

The Clerk: I think there are. I don't have the list.

The Chair: No, but I would hope—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I just wonder whether inviting them.... I made the same point in the standing committee when they wanted to hear Bryden on this. I don't know whether or not it sort of personalizes the thing and whether we're better to try to deal with it conceptually.

The Chair: I'm not sure either.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: If we invite them, we're going to get a whole variety of different interpretations.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: It's important.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. Well, I'm just not sure that's all that helpful.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That's precisely why we should hear what they have to say. It's not a question of personalizing things. Basically, the incident with Mr. Bryden led us to update some provisions that needed to be clarified. I think this would be a positive step. Each time we clarify matters, we improve the quality of the work. Therefore, this doesn't present a problem for me.

Mr. André Harvey: Mr. Chairman, there are two things that we need to consider. First of all, 100 signatures is not indicative of widespread support for a bill. That should be made quite clear. It's strictly a procedure for fast tracking a bill onto the order of precedence.

Apparently, we're not very happy about the fact that bills signed by 100 members take up all of the slots reserved for the 30 motions and bills. May I make a suggestion? Before we invite nine members here, perhaps our clerk could present us with a summary which could serve as a framework agreement. We could point out that we do not support the bill by adding an important nuance to the text. We could then stipulate that one third of the slots are available for bills signed by 100 members. Otherwise, we can dispense with the draws because all members will prefer to collect 100 signatures and be done with it. I think we need to consider these two things.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: There's something I don't quite understand here. If a signature does not signify formal support, like the support given when a member rises in the House to support a bill, then I fear that we will be inundated with bills. I think any support should be viewed as official. It doesn't take forever to read a bill, although one must read it carefully to grasp its true meaning. If a member decides to sign bills just like that, we will no longer have any control over the process.

We need to clarify the meaning of signing a bill so that our sub-committee doesn't find itself in a position of having to deal with very uneven bills. I get the impression that my colleague thinks otherwise and feels that we should support all bills that seem of any interest.

Mr. André Harvey: The point seems to be to jump the queue rather than gain significant support for the bill.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: That seems to be the crux of the debate.

Mr. André Harvey: When one lends his support to a bill before it is even debated, that support is not very strong. Sometimes, the ensuing debate changes a person's perspective.

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes indeed.

Mr. André Harvey: It's ridiculous that the mere fact of signing a document left on the corner of a desk in the House of Commons could signal formal support for another member's bill and a commitment to vote for that initiative. I'm not prepared to operate in this manner. I thought we agreed earlier that this was strictly a fast track procedure.

Now we have to decide whether the bills supported by the signatures of 100 members should take all of the spots reserved for motions and bills. Your point is well taken, Ms. Dalphond-Guiral. I'd simply like to see them take up one third, or about ten, of these spots.

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: In an ordinary proceeding, you can vote against the motion you seconded. You're not bound.

Mr. David Chatters: Yes.

Mr. James Robertson: I think the clerk has explained that when you second a motion, you are saying that in its current form you are supporting it and you are preparing to vote for it, but during the course of the debate you could change your mind.

• 0950

So there are almost three levels. You could even have a third and higher level of supporters who are committed to voting for the item. That would be quite contrary to our parliamentary traditions.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: But how can you do that, have them sign in blood?

The Chair: I should know much more about this, but with regard to the nine items that have 100 signatures, over what period of time have they arrived? You were saying we're going to have a growing number of these. That's why I ask over what period of time these nine have been presented.

[Translation]

The Clerk: Mr. Bryden submitted his list on February 1, 1999 and it was used in October, during the second session. I also have other lists that were submitted during the last session and that were used again in October. The list was associated with a specific bill that had not been selected and that had not been placed on the order of precedence. It was stricken from the Order Paper. Since the House did not make a ruling on this bill which was not deemed votable, the member resubmitted a bill bearing another number during the second session and used the same list. The lists were compiled during the first session. We are currently checking the lists to ensure that the members who initially supported the bill are still serving in the House of Commons and that they have not been appointed to the Senate and so forth.

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: Does a member have the option at any time to remove his name from the list of seconders, or supporters, or whatever they are? Once you sign it, are you there until the bill is dealt with?

The Clerk: It's never answered, but if he wanted his name removed, I'm sure he would tell us or tell the member of Parliament.

Mr. David Chatters: Because as long as the bill doesn't change in its substance, then I think it's reasonable that you leave it up to the person who signed it, if he changes his mind, to remove his name. If the bill changes in substance, then that's a different issue.

Mr. James Robertson: When the standing order was introduced and drafted, there was discussion about what would be the procedure for showing that you had 100 members in support. One suggestion was that, like the 20 signatures, the member would be required to send a letter to the private members' business office saying, for instance, I support or I second such-and-such a bill or motion.

Certainly under that procedure a member could then send a follow-up letter saying they've changed his or her mind, or they feel there have been changes, or something has been done that no longer leads them to support it.

That was felt to be administratively unwieldy. If you start getting hundreds of letters going in, you may not be sure what motions they're in connection with. That was why the form was developed that members basically sign, which looks similar to a petition.

Although it's not happened and there is no specific procedure, I would assume that if a member changes his or her mind for any reason they could notify the private members' business office, the sponsor of the motion and bill, and ask that their name be deleted.

As Bibiane says, Sheila Finestone had signed some of these things. She subsequently became a member of the Senate and therefore can't be considered as one of the 100 members. In Mr. Bryden's case, he had more than 100 members, so losing a couple didn't affect, theoretically, his 100 signatures. Other members, if they just had 100 signatures and one or two of those members resigned, died, or were appointed to the Senate, would have to go out and get more signatures.

The question would arise, though, does that affect their place in the queue, if there's a queue waiting to go onto the order of precedence, if you're restricting it to one or two at a time?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: This is so complicated it just reinforces my view that we never should have adopted it in the first place.

Voices: Oh, oh!

• 0955

Mr. James Robertson: Perhaps what I could do for the next meeting is try to summarize in point form the main points that have been made today. The question then is, do you want to hear from this clerk first, or do you want to invite the other members, or would you like us to write a letter to the nine members who have these items asking that they submit in writing any comments or suggestions they have?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Why just the nine members? Why not people who signed? Why not every member, say?

Mr. James Robertson: Well, we could do that.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You know, lay out the problem and the things that have to be decided. Most of them won't reply anyway, but then they won't be able to complain that they weren't consulted. Give them a couple of weeks to respond. We could even say that if there are some who want to come before the committee and give their point of view, fine.

Mr. David Chatters: Enter your name in a draw.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Some of the nine may want to respond and there may be some members who don't have a bill but who have a strong opinion on this. If we're going to start to hear members, I think we should.... We won't have that many, I don't think.

The Chair: What agreement do we have for Mr. Blaikie's thoughts about informing everyone? It sounds like that's what he's saying.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Why don't we get a draft letter from Jamie that could go to members that summarizes the kinds of things we need to decide? There have been at least a half a dozen different questions on the table here today.

The Chair: It sounds like we're agreed.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Then once we sign off on that letter, it could go to all members. We'll see what kind of response we get and we'll go from there.

The Chair: Okay, we have unanimous consent on that. Good.

I know you're most organized and will remember to tell Mr. Harvey, but at this moment, just in case he leaves, could we inform him of the date we decided following the draw today?

[Translation]

The Clerk: First of all, I'd like to know if you want the committee members to meet beforehand to consider the draft letter. In my view, it would be difficult to discuss this letter as well as votable items at the same meeting, unless we discuss the letter during our in camera proceedings on April 5.

Mr. André Harvey: Alright then.

[English]

Mr. David Chatters: Sure.

The Clerk: At the same time?

The Chair: We could do that 15 minutes before we start the hearing.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Sounds good.

The Chair: Any other business? Thank you. We meet tomorrow.

The meeting is adjourned.