SMIP Committee Report
If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.
The Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons has the honour to present its
FOURTH REPORT
INTRODUCTION
1
Pursuant to its order of reference
from the House of Commons dated Thursday, November 28, 2002, as extended by an
order of the House dated February 27, 2003, the Committee is pleased to report
as follows.
2
The Committee was appointed “to
consider and to make recommendations on the modernization and improvement of
the procedures of the House of Commons.” Chaired by the Deputy Speaker of the
House of Commons, Bob Kilger, M.P., its membership consists of the House
Leaders and the Caucus Chairs of each of the officially recognized parties. The
establishment of the Committee followed a debate in the House of Commons that
was held on November 20 and 21, 2002 on proposals for modernizing and improving the
procedures of the House.
3
The Committee has built on the work of
the first Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the
Procedures of the House of Commons in 2001. That Committee’s Report, which was
tabled in the House on June 1, 2001, and adopted on October 4, 2001, contained
26 recommendations, including numerous amendments to the Standing Orders of
the House of the Commons.
4
The task of modernizing and improving
the procedures and practices of the House, however, is never complete. The
parliamentary system is not static. It is remarkably vibrant and resilient,
being adaptable and responsive to changing needs and demands. We must continually
review and evaluate how we do things, and determine whether our rules and
practices are adequate to meet our needs. The composition of the House of
Commons, the number of recognized parties, and the experience of Members will
all affect how the chamber operates. Parliamentary
history and traditions are important, but outmoded practices must give way to
modern procedures. Procedural reform in a parliamentary democracy is an
on-going process, and is characterized by evolutionary development, rather than
radical change.
5
Parliamentary reform is a
much-discussed topic in the House of Commons and among Parliamentarians. The
Committee had no shortage of proposals for change that had been raised in
debate in the House, by members of our caucuses, by academic observers, by the
media, and by others. We encourage this on-going dialogue, which we view as
healthy. We respect the interest and concern shown by Members on all sides on
questions relating to the reform and modernization of the House of Commons, and
we have been guided in our deliberations by the deep responsibility we feel
toward our colleagues and the institution.
6
We are at an
important junction in the history of the Canadian House of Commons. Many
of the Members of the House have significant parliamentary experience and
familiarity with our procedures and practices. This collective expertise is
relatively unusual in recent Canadian political life, and creates new
challenges and opportunities. It means that many Members have ideas and
proposals, and the Committee has had the benefit of all of these before it in
its discussions. While we have not been able to agree to as many of them as we
would have liked, we are confident that these ideas will continue to circulate
and be discussed, and may well come to fruition in the future.
7
The Committee’s order of reference –
like that of its predecessor – required that the any report be adopted by
unanimous agreement of all members. We believe that this is desirable for meaningful change, as parliamentary
reform is best achieved where there is consensus and all-party agreement. While
this may, of course, mean that change is more difficult and may take longer to
achieve, in the final analysis, we believe that it results in stronger and more
viable reform. The requirement for unanimity has meant that on a number of
issues, recommendations were not possible; by the same token, on some issues
the members of the Committee have compromised and worked toward achievable
solutions that reflect our differing interests.
8
It should be emphasized that there has
been a remarkable degree of agreement, and shared concerns. While we may not
always agree on the nature or causes of problems – or of the solutions – we
have attempted in this report to recommend changes that we believe will improve
the House and the work of its Members. All members of the Committee are
committed to the institution of Parliament, and to the importance of the House
of Commons as central to our democratic form of government. Obviously, the
interests of government Members differ from those of opposition MPs; and, among
the opposition parties, there are variances based on traditions, culture, size,
and other factors. In the course of our deliberations, we have, nevertheless,
had respectful and useful discussions, as we have tried to convince each other
of our proposals, or argued against other propositions.
9
The principles and objectives that
were enunciated in the Report of our predecessor Committee continue to be
relevant: “There is a general desire to re-assert the pre-eminence of the House
of Commons, and increase its effectiveness and efficiency. Members want to
increase the accountability of individual Ministers and the Government as a
whole, and increase the opportunities for parliamentary influence in the
legislative process. There is a feeling that individual Members of the House of
Commons need to be empowered, and the role of the Speaker, as the servant of
the House and its spokesperson, enhanced. A balance needs to be achieved
between the Government’s interests in implementing its legislative agenda, and
the Opposition’s interests in questioning and criticizing the Government.
Similarly, other competing interests need to be reconciled, such as the
inevitable tensions between individual Members and their parties, and between
the chamber and its committees, to name but two. Parliamentary debate should be
enhanced, by creating opportunities for more meaningful dialogue and increasing
the relevance of the parliamentary processes. Members want and need to take
advantage of the opportunities afforded by new technologies. Procedural rules
should accord with the practices that have developed, and should be responsive
to modern conditions and requirements. Time is a valuable commodity in the
House of Commons, and needs to be used wisely.”
10
In undertaking
its deliberations, the Committee reviewed developments in provincial
legislatures and other Parliaments. Particular attention was paid to the United
Kingdom, including the new Scottish Parliament, and Australia. Members of the
Committee travelled to these Parliaments, where they met with Parliamentarians,
procedural clerks and other staff, and other persons to discuss elements of
their systems. Members were impressed with the range of parliamentary reform initiatives
in other countries. This exchange of experiences and procedures was an
invaluable experience. We in Canada share a common
parliamentary heritage, having inherited it from Westminster, but we have
moulded it to our own federal state and circumstances. We
saw many interesting developments that are worthy of consideration in assessing
the future of the Canadian House of Commons.
11
Other Parliaments
have borrowed ideas from us, and we gained valuable insight from seeing their
operations. In some cases, seeing how other legislative bodies work has
confirmed our view that our procedures are best suited to our needs, and we
have developed rules that are preferable. In other cases, what works well in
other systems would not necessarily be appropriate or applicable in ours.
Nevertheless, all members of the Committee benefited greatly from the
comparative experiences.
PRIVATE
MEMBERS’ BUSINESS
12
The Committee devoted considerable
time at the outset of its work to the issue of Private Members’ Business. This
has long been a source of controversy to many Members of the House, and evaded
satisfactory reform. The existing procedures had been developed as a result of
recommendations of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedures (the
Lefebvre Committee) and the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons
(the McGrath Committee) of the early 1980s. That system, while a vast
improvement over the previous one, had ceased to meet the expectations of many
Members, and there was a general consensus that serious changes were required,
but little agreement on precisely what those changes ought to be.
13
The 2001 Special Committee on the
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons
deferred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on the issue
of Private Members’ Business. That Committee, and its Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business, did a great deal of
preliminary work on the issue of reforming the procedures, although final
agreement evaded the members.
14
Accordingly, the first priority for
this Committee was to re-visit the issue of Private Members’ Business, and
considerable time and energy were devoted to this topic. The Committee’s First
Report, which was tabled in the House on February 20, 2003, set out the basic
procedures that were agreed to by the Committee. Subsequently, on February 28,
2003, the Committee tabled its Third Report, which contained the amended
Standing Orders regarding Private Members’ Business. These were
implemented on a provisional basis beginning
on March 17, 2003, for one year or until the end of the Second Session of the
37th Parliament, whichever shall first occur. Copies of our First
and Third Reports are annexed as Appendix A to this Report.
15
The basic elements of the revised
system are that all eligible Members of the House should have at least one
opportunity to present a private Member’s bill or motion
during the course of a Parliament, and that all of these items should be voted
in the House after two hours of debate. The much-criticized selection process
of the old system has been replaced by much more limited and objective criteria
of non-votability, together with appeal mechanisms to protect the interests of
Members. Various minor changes were included in the package. The new system appears to be working well, and
the Committee expects that the House will be in a position to assess its
success at the end of the trial period. As with any new
procedure, new and unexpected developments can occur, and much depends on the
goodwill of Members and their willingness to try to make the system work. It
would be unfortunate if filibusters or other procedural tactics were used with
respect to Private Members’ Business, either in the House or committee, so as
to distort or undermine the operation of the new rules.
TECHNOLOGY
16
One of the underlying themes of the Committee’s
deliberations has been the opportunities afforded by new technologies. Many of
the proposals for reform rested on technological changes and possibilities. The
predecessor of the Committee recommended that the administration of the House
of Commons proceed with the plans for enhanced use of technology for the House,
its committees, and its Members. We believe that considerable progress has been
made in this regard, and the Members are increasingly receptive to
technological changes.
17
One of the exciting developments has been the Chamber
Technology Infrastructure Project. In June 2000, the House of Commons
administration asked that Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC)
be approached to fund the replacement of the existing technology infrastructure
in the House of Commons chamber as part of the Long-Term Renovation Program.
The current technology in the chamber, which was introduced in 1978, was reaching
the end of its life expectancy.
Accordingly, to avoid progressive
decline of service levels, replacement of the existing audio and television
broadcast system was required. New
technical systems will ensure continued high service levels, deliver improved
sound and image quality, and provide the foundation for future services and
applications.
18
PWGSC agreed to include such a project
as part of the Program, and the House is now ready to proceed with the project
which is scheduled to begin in the summer of 2003. It is critical that the
House take advantage of the physical access that will be provided during the
implementation of this project so as to put in place during this construction
phase all the elements of a basic infrastructure to allow for the evolution and
development that can reasonably be expected in the next few years. The House
must take advantage of this summer’s work to put in place the basic wiring that
might be required to implement future decisions, so the work involved will only
have to address implementation of an already existing potential rather than a
revamping of the infrastructure itself.
19
Again in
an effort to capitalize on this project, while replacing the existing
technology, the House can ensure that several other on-going requirements are
addressed. These include providing a wireless interpretation system for special
events; updating the simultaneous interpretation system in the galleries;
installing a new sound system to accommodate the unique acoustical properties
of the Chamber; providing new consoles for sound interpretation; and installing
the infrastructure to meet possible future needs (such as electronic voting).
20
The
implementation of these changes will be in two phases. Phase 1 – to be
completed during the summer of 2003 – includes the following components:
(a) Wireless
simultaneous interpretation (SI) system for special events: For special events in the chamber, chairs are
placed for guests in the centre of the chamber floor and behind the Members’
desks in the east and west aisles so a wireless SI system will provide enhanced
access to interpretation on those occasions.
(b) New television broadcast camera infrastructure: The installation of a new television broadcast
camera infrastructure will deliver better views of Members, improved camera
coverage, better coverage of the galleries and reduce the safety hazard caused
by the position of several cameras.
(c) Possible
connectivity at each Member’s desk: Phase 1 could also provide for the
installation of a new data network that will bring data connectivity to each
MP’s desktop. This requires an AC power
source at each desk.
21
Phase II – to be carried out during the summer of 2004 –
will entail the following items: a new sound system; a sound reinforcement
system; new consolettes; new simultaneous interpretation for the galleries; new
consoles to support simultaneous interpretation; and an electronic voting
infrastructure.
22
A prototype Member’s desk has been built to demonstrate the proposed design of the
Members’ desktops required to provide power and network connectivity. This prototype was demonstrated to the
members of the Committee, and no changes
to the design have been proposed. While wireless technology is currently
used by many Members, and may become the norm over time, considerable use is
also made of laptop computers. Their use in the chamber does raise concern in
the minds of some Members, who would prefer that Members focus on the speeches
and business of the House. Like many other legislative bodies, however, we
permit the use of laptop computers in the chamber. It is, therefore, logical to
facilitate this further by providing Internet connections.
The Committee
recommends that connections to the services of the Parliamentary Precinct
network be made available to Members in the House of Commons chamber.
23
The Web Broadcast of Parliamentary
Proceedings on the Parliamentary Internet Site is another initiative that the Committee
wholeheartedly supports. The Committee was approached
for its approval to proceed with the launch of the ParlVU service to the
public and make the televised proceedings available on the Parliamentary
Internet site.
24
In 1977, the House of Commons became
the first legislative body to televise its proceedings. Gavel-to-gavel proceedings of the House of
Commons are now broadcast live across the country and viewed by more than
1,000,000 Canadians each week. The
Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission (CRTC) has
recognized that the House of Commons proceedings are “vital to the public
interest and an important part of the Canadian broadcast system”.
25
Currently CPAC (the Cable Public
Affairs Channel), in partnership with the House of Commons, broadcasts Chamber
proceedings live and televised committee proceedings on a delayed basis to its
cable and satellite affiliates across the country. The House has two committee rooms permanently equipped for the
televising and broadcast of committee proceedings. The televised proceedings
are also broadcast live within the Precinct via the Parliamentary Television
Network, and live video feeds are made available to members of the
Parliamentary Press Gallery. The audio of all public committee meetings is
broadcast on the Parliamentary Radio Network across the Precinct, and live
audio feeds are made available to members of the Parliamentary Press Gallery.
26
The House of
Commons proceedings, in partnership with CPAC, are broadly available in both
official languages to the Canadian public through cable and satellite
broadcast, but because of the existing technical and regulatory framework
supporting the broadcast of parliamentary proceedings, they are sometimes made
available to viewers in either French or English only. The Commissioner of
Official Languages has recommended that the House of Commons “ensure the right
of members of the public to access televised public debates in their preferred
official language.” The House of
Commons has done everything in its power to make the proceedings available in both
official languages, and the web broadcast of proceedings demonstrates its
continued commitment to making them available in both official languages as
widely as possible.
27
At its meeting of
November 27, 2002, the Board of Internal Economy gave its approval for the
House to proceed with preparation of the infrastructure for launching the ParlVU
service to the public. At the time, the
Board also concluded that the Special Committee on Modernization and
Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons would be the ideal forum
for considering the project in further detail, and referred the project to the
Committee for consideration of the proposal as part of its consultations on
parliamentary reform.
28
With the beginning of the fiscal year,
and as approved in the Report on Plans and Priorities for 2002-2003, the House
administration has proceeded with the establishment of the infrastructure to
support delivery of ParlVU to the parliamentary Internet site. ParlVU is a service for carrying live
televised parliamentary proceedings from the Commons chamber and two committee
rooms, and the live audio from all public committee meetings, via the
parliamentary websites. The listener
may choose to listen to the English, French or floor audio. The development and launch of the ParlVU
service to the Parliamentary Precinct has provided the basis for the live
streaming environment on both the Intranet and the Internet.
29
Today legislatures across Canada and
abroad are broadcasting their proceedings on the Web as a way to allow for
greater visibility and public access. Prior to the launch of the ParlVU service
to Members, a pilot phase was carried out to assess its technical performance
fully and to obtain user feedback, and is now in a position to provide several
services:
(a)
Live webcast of the Chamber proceedings: Currently CPAC provides live gavel-to-gavel
coverage of Chamber events. The live
webcasting would support the House of Commons’ ability to provide Canadians
with access in the language of their choice.
(b)
Live webcast of the televised committees: Currently CPAC shows the televised
committees when the House is not sitting.
The live webcasting would provide real-time access to the Canadian
public who wish to view committee proceedings as they take place.
(c)
Live webcast of the audio of non-televised committees: The proceedings of non-televised but public
committee meetings are available to listeners in the Parliamentary Precinct via
the FM network (and now via the Intraparl site). The live webcasting would provide a new service to the Canadian
public, who could listen to the proceedings of non-televised committees as they
take place.
30
The Committee views favourably the
introduction of the web broadcast of parliamentary proceedings on the
Parliamentary Internet Site.
The Committee approves the launch in the
autumn of 2003 of the ParlVU Service to the
public via the Parliamentary Internet site.
The ParlVU service will carry the
live televised parliamentary proceedings from the Commons chamber and two
committee rooms via the Parliamentary Internet site. The Committee also
supports making the live webcast of the audio of non-televised public committee
meetings available as part of the ParlVU service to the
public.
31
Some
Members have expressed concerns about the Parliamentary Public Site not being
as user-friendly as it could be. Web publishing is an art, and continues to
evolve. As this website is a joint
venture of the House of Commons, the Senate, and the Library of Parliament, we
strongly encourage them to work together to make it as accessible and informative
as possible.
32
The Committee also considered a
proposal regarding the filing
by electronic means of motions and questions. We believe that this is a logical
and desirable development. It will assist Members as they will not have to
physically sign and deliver documents, and will be able to do certain work from
their constituencies. It should also minimize time delays, duplication and
mistakes as the electronic text will be capable of being immediately inserted
in the appropriate places. At the same time, the Committee is conscious that
appropriate verification systems be instituted – these could include encrypted
electronic signatures of Members or
passwords for filing. We believe that the Journals Branch of the House
of Commons can develop the appropriate policies so that this can be introduced
in the autumn of 2003.
The Committee supports the electronic filing of notice of motions
and written questions with the Journals Branch of the House of Commons, subject
to the development of verification protocols.
DEBATE
33
At
present, Standing Order 74(1)(a) provides for 40-minute speeches by the first
three speakers at second and third reading of government bills. This is a
lengthy period of time, which is seldom required. The Progressive Conservatives and NDP
have also long argued that this rule was developed at a time when there were
only three recognized parties in the House, and that it is unfair to the third
and fourth opposition parties.
34
Members
of Parliament strongly endorse the exchange of views that results from the
question and comment period following speeches, particularly at second and
third reading of government bills. Accordingly, the Committee has agreed to
replace the 40-minute speeches at second and third reading with 20-minute
speeches, followed by a 10-minute question and comment period.
The
Committee recommends that Standing Order 74(1) be amended as follows:
74. (1) Unless otherwise
provided by a Standing or Special Order, when second reading or third reading
of a government bill is being considered, no Member except the Prime Minister
and the Leader of the Opposition shall speak for more than:
a) twenty minutes if the Member is the first to speak on behalf of a recognized party in the first round of speeches;
b)
twenty minutes following the first round of
speeches, if that Member begins to speak within the next five hours of
consideration;
c)
provided that, following the speech of each
Member made pursuant to section (a) or (b), a period not
exceeding ten minutes shall be made available, if required, to allow Members to
ask questions and comment briefly on matters relevant to the speech and to
allow responses thereto; and
(d) ten
minutes if a Member speaks thereafter.
35
Members were favourably impressed with
the use of a count-down clock in the Australian House of Representatives. This
allows speakers to quickly know how much time they have remaining. There was
considerable discussion among members of the Committee on the desirability of
introducing such a clock in the House of Commons. Some members are concerned
that its use would be too rigid, and that flexibility and discretion on the
part of the Chair must be preserved. Concerns were also expressed over who
would be responsible for activating the clock, what the repercussions would be
if it were not activated at the appropriate time, and how to handle
interventions or interruptions during speeches. At the same time, there does
appear to be a general feeling that it would be useful to Members to know when
their speaking time is drawing to a close. A count-down clock, or some other
system, could be used to assist Members in this regard. The Clerk of the House
is investigating what systems are available, and it is hoped that a change
could be put in
place for the autumn. Suitable consultations will have to be conducted with the
House Leaders and Members of the House.
36
Members of the Committee also support
the suggestion that portable lecterns be available for the use of Members
when speaking in the House. In some legislative chambers, a despatch box is
available at the Table for the use of the Prime Minister or Ministers when
addressing the chamber. In the Canadian House, we have individual desks, and
the idea of speaking from a fixed point does not arise. Nevertheless, Members
often have speaking notes, and frequently pile books up to make a substitute platform on which they can place their
papers. The Committee believes that it would be more convenient and becoming if
portable lecterns were made available upon request.
The Committee recommends that portable lecterns be available
in the House of Commons for the use of Members when speaking.
PETITIONS
37
The right to
petition Parliament for the redress of grievances is an ancient remedy, which
can be traced back to the origins of Parliament in its judicial guise in the
Middle Ages. The “modern’ form of
petition – addressed to Parliament, drawn up in prescribed manner, usually
dealing with public grievances – developed in the seventeenth century. In
Canada, provisions for petitions (long a feature of pre-Confederation
legislative assemblies) have always been part of the written rules of the House
of Commons. The rules adopted in 1867 were somewhat expanded in 1910, and
operated without substantial modification for some 76 years. Starting in the
immediate post-Confederation periods, an extensive body of practice began to
build, resulting in a collection of form and content requirements which were
not codified in the Standing Orders but which had to be met in order for a
petition to be acceptable to the House.
38
The McGrath Committee made several
recommendations intended to clarify the rules relating to petitions, to promote
uniformity in their presentation, to ensure their receivability as to content,
and to provide guidelines as to form and petitioners’ signatures. In 1986, the
House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders based on these recommendations.
While there have been minor changes to the Standing Orders regarding petitions
since 1986, the procedure has remained largely unchanged, although the number
of petitions present has increased dramatically. The Report of the 2001 Special Committee on the Modernization and
Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons noted that various
technical requirements for petitions have evolved which often constitute traps
for the unwary. The Report recommended that, while certain basic parameters
must be respected (such as the rules regarding the prayer for relief and
technical format and requirements), the requirements should be loosened and
simplified.
39
Accordingly, the Committee reviewed
the existing rules and requirements for petitioning the House of Commons. We
were guided by a desire to simplify these requirements, and avoid rules that
could not be justified or which unnecessarily complicated the petitioning
process. The Committee is recommending revised requirements as follows (with
the changes shown in bold):
(a) That certification be granted to
petitions even though the text of the prayer does not request a specific
action.
(b) That certification not be granted to
petitions that contain improper, disrespectful or unparliamentary language.
(c) That certification be granted to
petitions even if they are addressed to the Government or a Minister or a
Member.
(d) That the minimum number of 25 signatures with
addresses be maintained, although wording would be added to deal with the
situation of persons who do not have a fixed address.
(e) That certification not be granted to
petitions containing appendices or attachments.
(f)
That
certification not be granted to petitions containing some names that are not
original signatures but are either written by someone else, photocopied or
printed.
(g) That certification be granted even if the full prayer is not shown
on every sheet, so long as the subject-matter is indicated.
(h) That certification be granted even when petitions call for the expenditure of public
funds.
(i)
That
certification not be granted if the prayer does not ask Parliament to take some
action within its authority.
(j)
That
certification not be granted if some signatures or addresses are not written
directly on the petition but are pasted or transferred on.
(k) That certification not be granted if it is
not on paper of usual size.
(l)
That
certification not be granted if the text of the petition has been altered or
comments added.
The Committee recommends that Standing Order 36 be
amended as follows:
36. (1) Prior to presentation, the
Clerk of Petitions shall examine all petitions, and in order to be presented,
they must be certified correct as to form and content by the said Clerk.
(2) In order
to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, every petition
shall:
(a)
be addressed to the House of Commons, the House of
Commons in Parliament assembled, the Government of Canada, a Minister of the
Crown or a Member of the House of Commons;
(b)
contain a clear, proper and respectful prayer which
may call for the expenditure of public funds;
(c)
be written, typewritten or printed on paper of
usual size;
(d)
be free of alterations and interlineations
in its text;
(e)
have its subject –matter indicated on every sheet
if it consists of more than one sheet of signatures and addresses;
(f)contain only
original signatures and addresses written directly onto the petition and not
pasted thereon or otherwise transferred to it; and
(g)
contain at least twenty-five signatures from
persons other than Members of Parliament and, where the signatories
have a fixed place of residence, their addresses.
(3) Members
presenting petitions shall be answerable that they do not contain impertinent
or improper matter.
(4) Every
Member presenting a petition shall endorse his or her name thereon.
(5) A
petition to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the
sitting of the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
(6) Any
Member desiring to present a petition, in his or her place in the House, may do
so on “Presenting Petitions”, a period not to exceed fifteen minutes, during
the ordinary daily routine of business
(7) On the
presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be
allowed.
(8)(a)
Every petition presented pursuant to this Standing Order shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Ministry, which shall, within forty-five days, respond to
every petition referred to it; provided that the said response may be tabled
pursuant to Standing Order 32(1).
40
The Committee also notes that in the 2001 Report, an
important change was introduced to Standing Order 39(5)(b) regarding written
questions, whereby if the government does not respond within the prescribed
45-day period, the failure to answer is referred to the appropriate standing
committee. The committee is required to meet within five days to investigate
the delay and to report the matter to the House. This procedure has had to be
resorted to on a few occasions. Its presence in the Standing Orders, however,
has had a salutary effect, in that it encourages Ministers and departments to
comply with the timelines and requirements in the Standing Orders. The
Committee believes that a similar procedure should be available in the case of
government responses to petitions, although we are proposing that this rules be
introduced for a trial period of one year only.
(b) If such a petition remains
without a response at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the
matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to
the appropriate Standing Committee.
Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee
shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure
of the Ministry to respond.
41
One of
the great successes of the new Scottish Parliament, in the view of many, is its
petitions system. Members of the Committee who visited Edinburgh were impressed
with how this operates. Not all of its elements are readily transferable to the
Canadian House of Commons. One interesting innovation, however, is the
development of a system for petitions to be signed and filed electronically.
This mechanism ties in with recent discussions about e-democracy and e-consultation
by parliamentary committees, and, in particular, the initiative of the Subcommittee on the Status of Persons with Disabilities of the
Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons
with Disabilities in this Parliament.
42
The
Committee believes that an electronic petition option should be permitted.
Clearly, there are a great many details to be worked out – including whether
electronic petitions should be accommodated on a parliamentary server or
website; how petitions will be submitted for posting and accepted (presumably
under the sponsorship of a Member); how electronic “signatures” are to be
verified; when such petitions are to closed off; and so forth. We believe that
petitions should continue to be presented in the House of Commons by a Member
of Parliament, and that the form and substance requirements for electronic
petitions should be comparable to those for traditional petitions. The
Committee requests that the Clerk develop options and a proposal for electronic
petitions, for submission to and approval by the Standing Committee on
Procedure and House Affairs.
The Committee recommends the
development of a system for electronic petitions, in consultation with the
Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
FINANCIAL PROCEDURES
43 The Report of the 2001 Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons proposed that the Leader of Opposition, after consultation with the leaders of other opposition parties, could select two sets of Main Estimates per year, which would each be considered in Committee of the Whole for up to five hours. The purpose of this process is to encourage a more meaningful examination of the Main Estimates, and confirm the financial oversight role of the House of Commons. While there were some initial difficulties, this process appears to be working well. Nevertheless, we believe that some fine-tuning is desirable. We are recommending that instead of the usual 20-minute speeches, these sessions should comprise 10 minute speeches, followed by five minutes of questions and comments. We note that the 10 minutes should be a maximum. It should also be open to a Member to use his or her time to ask a series of questions; in this case, the Member, having indicated the intention to do so, would be able to use the entire 15 minutes for questions and answers. Moreover, the order and rotation of speakers should reflect the proportional representation of the recognized parties in the House. The total time for this examination of the Estimates will be changed from five hours to four. We believe that these changes will encourage more give-and-take, and facilitate an exchange of views.mittee recommends that Standing Order 81 be amended as follows:
81. (4) In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal
year for every department of government shall be deemed referred to standing
committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall
report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not
later than May 31 in the then current fiscal year, provided that:
(a)
not later that May 1, the Leader of the Opposition, in consultation with the
leaders of the other Opposition parties, may give notice during the time
specified in Standing Order 54 of a motion to refer consideration of the
main estimates of no more that two
named departments or agencies to committees of the whole, and the said motion
shall be deemed adopted and the said estimates shall be deemed withdrawn from
the standing committee to which they were referred. Notwithstanding the provisions of Standing Orders 28(2) or 38(5),
on any day appointed for the consideration of any business under the provisions
of this section, but in any case not later than May 31, consideration of the
main estimates of the said department or agency shall be taken up by a
Committee of the Whole House at the conclusion of the adjournment proceedings
or, if taken up on a Friday, at the conclusion of Private Members’ Business,
for a period of time not exceeding four hours. During the time provided for consideration of estimates
pursuant to this paragraph, no Member shall be recognized for more than fifteen
minutes at a time and the Member shall not speak in debate for more than ten
minutes during that period. The fifteen
minutes may be used both for debate and for posing questions to the Minister of
the Crown or a Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of the Minister. When the Member is recognised he or she
shall indicate how the fifteen minutes is to be apportioned. At the conclusion of the time provided for
the consideration of the business pursuant to this section, the Committee shall
rise, the estimates shall be deemed reported and the House shall immediately
adjourn to the next sitting day;
44
The
report of the 2001 Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of
the Procedures of the House of Commons included a recommendation for written
notice of an opposition motion on an allotted day. It was brought to the
Committee’s attention that this amendment does not make allowance for notice of
such motions during an adjournment of the House where the first day back is
designated an allotted day. To remedy this, it has been proposed that the
Standing Orders be amended to allow notice of opposition motions on an allotted
day to be given and included in the Notice Paper issued prior to the
return of the House. The Committee believes that this would be a sensible
change.
The
Committee recommends that Standing Order 81 be amended as follows:
81.
(14)(a)(i) Written notice of an opposition motion on an
allotted day shall be filed with the Clerk of the House not later than one hour
prior to the opening of the sitting on the day preceding the allotted day, and
the Speaker shall read the text of the motion at the opening of that sitting
and shall indicate whether the motion is one that shall come to a vote pursuant
to section (16) of this Standing Order.
(ii) Notwithstanding section 14(a)(i)
of this Standing Order, when an allotted day is designated for the first or
second sitting day following an adjournment provided for in Standing Order
28(2)(a), written notice of an opposition motion may be filed with the
Clerk in conformity with Standing Order 54(2).
45
Various proposals have been made to
review and amend the Business of Supply, and the government’s projected annual
expenditures or “estimates.” Many Members of the House, and other commentators,
have expressed dissatisfaction with the current system, whereby considerable
amounts of public money are authorized to be spent without adequate scrutiny or
accountability. This is a complex subject, and clearly the deficiencies are not
readily remedied.
46
The Committee reiterates that
parliamentary committees should take their responsibilities under the estimates
process very seriously, as an important component of their oversight functions.
They should regularly devote the necessary time and energy to fulfil their
functions in this regard. We note that the Australian Senate appears to have
developed a very high-profile and effective system of reviewing government
estimates. The Committee also understands that the Subcommittee on the
Estimates Process of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and
Estimates is currently looking at these issues, and will be making
recommendations shortly. We await this report eagerly, and we expect that all
Members will continue to look for ways to make the estimates process more
meaningful and satisfactory. We do note a concern that two of the recognized
parties in the House of Commons are not represented on this Subcommittee, which
we feel is unfortunate, and a departure from the usual practice that committees
and subcommittees should reflect the composition of the House, and, in effect,
operate as a microcosm of the chamber.
OTHER MATTERS
47
Concerns have also been expressed
about the difficulties experienced by some committees in obtaining the
attendance of Ministers at meetings. The Committee notes Ministers’ attendance
at committees should be a priority, and every reasonable effort should be made
to respond favourably to such invitations.
48
Concerns continue to be expressed that government and
ministerial announcements regarding legislation or policies, are increasingly
made outside the House of Commons. While this is by no means a recent
phenomenon, it continues to be a source of irritation. The Committee wishes to
reiterate the comments made in the 2001 report of the Special Committee on the
Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons with
respect to the making of government announcements in the House of Commons. In
that report, the Committee
recommended that the Government make greater use of Ministerial Statements in
the Chamber whenever possible and that the House Leaders be advised in advance
of these statements, and amended the ordinary daily routine of business
to facilitate ministerial statements with respect to government bills that are
introduced in the House.
49
It is important that more ministerial statements and
announcements be made in the House of Commons. In particular, topical
developments, or foreseeable policy decisions, should be made first – or, at
least, concurrently – in the chamber. Ministers, and their departments, need to
be encouraged to make use of the forum provided by the House of Commons. Not
only will this enhance the pre-eminence of Parliament, but it will also
reiterate the legislative underpinning for governmental decisions. While we
recognize that not all announcements will be made in Parliament, it is
important that more of them be made in this setting.
50
The Committee believes that the
Standing Orders should be amended to provide that if a Member fails to appear
for an Adjournment Debate, there will be a penalty. In such a case, the
adjournment notice of the Member should be removed, and the Member will loose
his or her opportunity to raise the matter during the Adjournment Proceedings.
The Committee recommends that Standing Order 38 be amended as follows:
38(2)(a) No matter shall be debated during the thirty
minutes herein provided, unless notice thereof has been given by a Member as
provided in Standing Order 37(3) or 39(5)(b). No debate on any one matter raised during this period shall last
for more than ten minutes.
(b) When notice has been
given pursuant to Standing Orders 37(3) and 39(5)(b) and the matter is
not taken up during the time provided pursuant to paragraph (a) of this
section, the notice shall be deemed withdrawn.
51
The Report of the 2001 Special
Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House
of Commons proposed that Take Note debates be regularized. The topics are
agreed upon following discussion among the House Leaders, and suggestions arise
from a number of different sources. A suggestion was received from the Hon.
Charles Caccia, P.C., M.P., on behalf of the Chairs and Executive Secretaries
of Parliamentary Associations, regarding the creation of more opportunities for
the House to consider inter-parliamentary and international affairs. The
Committee feels that parliamentary associations should be encouraged to make
requests for Take Note debates on issues of importance or issues on which they
have reported to the House as a result of their activities.
52
With respect to delegated legislation,
proposals have been made that Members be advised of the pre-publication of
draft regulations. We note that, as of April 5, 2003, the Canada Gazette
is available on-line, and the Government House Leader has indicated that he has
asked officials in the Privy Council Office to ensure that Parliamentarians are
made aware of these new developments. The Committee encourages the development
of systems to ensure that the House and Members are made aware of the
pre-publication of draft regulations. With respect to the statutory
disallowance procedure, the Committee notes that Bill C-205 is presently before
the House of Commons.
53
A number of the proposals for
parliamentary reform that were considered by the Committee deal with the
onerous and conflicting demands on Members of attending the House and
committees, while performing the myriad of other duties and functions expected
of a Member of Parliament. Concerns were expressed, for instance, regarding the
proliferation of committees and subcommittees. This contributes to difficulties
of attendance, and means that some Members, especially from the smaller
parties, are required to serve on several committees. While there were no clear
solutions, the members of the Committee feel that this is an area for concern
for all Parliamentarians. We all believe that important and useful work is done
on parliamentary committees, and we do not want this to be compromised. We are
also concerned with the toll that this can take on the workload and health of
Members.
54
The Committee recommends that the Clerk of the House be
authorized to make necessary editorial and consequential alterations to the
Standing Orders.
A copy of the relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meeting No. 16) is tabled.
Respectfully submitted,
Bob Kilger, M.P.
Chair