HAFF 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]

Tuesday, February 15, 2000

• 1105

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order. I see a quorum, at least for the purpose of hearing evidence.

I want to welcome the clerk, Mr. Marleau, and Mr. Corbett, the deputy clerk, on the issue referred to the committee by the Speaker of the House in connection with what we are calling the “100-signature rule” for private members' business.

Welcome to both clerks. We will, of course, value your input and advice to us as we consider what, if anything, we may wish to do in reporting to the House or in recommending changes to the Standing Orders or procedures governing private members' business.

Unless there is objection, colleagues, I would ask the clerk to review for the record the essential facts that gave rise to the question raised in the House. I know the Speaker has reiterated most of those facts in the statement he made in the House, but I thought it would be useful for our record to have a concise statement of those. Once we've done that, we can ask Mr. Marleau or Mr. Corbett for their comments, if they have any, and then we'll go to questions.

Is that okay?

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Can I just clarify the scope of what we're going to be doing here? The Speaker's reference to the committee was fairly narrow in scope, and rather unspecific.

Does that leave us free to examine the full scope of anything related to this Standing Order? The Library of Parliament report lays out a fairly broad spectrum of a number of issues that might be considered that don't relate to the specific issue raised with the Speaker. I presume, though, the committee, having it in hand, can do whatever it wishes.

The Chairman: Ms. Catterall, the Speaker did not make a final ruling on the matter raised by the honourable member. I think he's looking for some guidance from this committee as to how he could or should dispose of the issue.

For that purpose, then, I believe we have to look at the 100-signature procedure and associated issues, reach our own conclusions here, and then report back to the House with the best advice we can give to the Speaker. He then will make a ruling that may or may not impact on the position of the bill in question, Mr. Bryden's bill.

We're going to look at first the facts and then at the 100-signature rules. Hopefully we can cobble together something intelligent for the consumption of both our colleagues in the House and the Speaker.

I would ask Mr. Marleau or Mr. Corbett, then, to review the essential facts.

Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): I'd be pleased to do so, Mr. Chairman.

If I may, I'll just remind the committee of the chronology of events—how this started and why you're here. At the tail end of that, I'll maybe pose a couple of questions.

For instance, by way of beginning, what does 100 signatures mean, or what does one of those signatures mean when they do total 100? I believe that's a quick summary of the Speaker's comments in the House.

This goes back to October 1997, when Mr. Bryden introduced his bill to amend the Access to Information Act, then numbered Bill C-264. Meanwhile, in November 1997 the thirteenth report of this committee relating to private members' business, which was presented in the House, provided for this procedure and was subsequently concurred in on December 5, 1997.

• 1110

In mid-June of 1998, Mr. Bryden requested the unanimous consent of the House to substitute part of the text of Bill C-264 with revisions. He had advised the House of his intention to substitute the text, and unanimous consent was granted. So the bill was in fact reprinted, as per the unanimous consent given by the House, with the changes to the legislation that Mr. Bryden had made.

Subsequently, by February 1999, the first of those bills ever to hit the Order Paper was put on the order of precedence. That was Bill C-306, an act to amend the Bank Act, by Mr. Discepola. That's been the only one.

On October 14, 1999, after the prorogation of last September, Mr. Bryden reintroduced his bill. It was read a first time. The bill had attached to it the required 100—actually, 112—signatures, and therefore it was placed on the order of precedence as provided by Standing Order 87(6).

Mr. Bryden appeared before the subcommittee on private members' business on October 28, and by report to the House on November 3 last fall, the bill was declared as a votable item in the order of precedence.

Then last week, on February 7, Mr. Chatters, having given notice of a question of privilege, raised the entire issue or concern about signatures in support of a bill that had substantially changed since the time he had given his signature in support for that bill to get on the order of precedence.

Essentially, the Speaker ruled that there has been little debate, little discussion in this committee or elsewhere as to the meaning of these signatures, and was seeking guidance from your committee.

In that argument, Mr. Gauthier also made the point, I believe, that he felt a member, in granting his signature in support, is supporting the specifics of a bill as compared with the process or the bye it gets to get on the order of precedence.

That's essentially it.

The Chairman: Okay.

Colleagues, are there any questions having to do with the facts? We're dealing only with the factual sequence that gave rise to this. I don't yet want to get into policy or intentions or anything like that.

Your questions, then, should be directed to Mr. Marleau on any factual issue that needs to be clarified before we proceed.

I see several hands going up. I'll go to Mr. Hill first and then to Ms. Parrish.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

First of all, thank you, Mr. Marleau and Mr. Corbett, for appearing today, endeavouring to help the committee work through this issue.

I think the fact I'm concerned about specifically, since that's the part we're dealing with right now... As I said earlier in the other meeting, when we were trying to decide what witnesses to call before the committee, I didn't really want to see it get down to this specific incident. I felt this incident was just an example, really, of what can happen if we don't clarify the policy or the process.

Since we're dealing with these specifics, however, I think it is germane to the overall issue that unanimous consent, as you stated, was given that day. Mr. Chatters has admitted that he was in the chamber that day, but the real crux of the problem, as I see it, is that Mr. Bryden stated—and I don't have the exact Hansard quote in front of me—something along the lines that only minor technical changes had taken place with his bill.

Therein, I think, lies the issue we're grappling with. If you sign, as one of the 100 signatories, to fast-track a bill through the process, and that bill is subsequently changed, what constitutes substantial change and what constitutes minor improvements to the bill? Does your signature still stand, without any onus being on the individual member to return to those 100 signatories and get their confirmation that they still wish to sign on to support the bill?

I guess those are the facts I'm trying to get to—

• 1115

The Chairman: Okay, you're now getting into the policy and the intentions. If there is an element of fact you wish the clerk to assist us with, just put that to him. You've asked the clerk to verify the wording used by Mr. Bryden when he got consent from the House.

Mr. Jay Hill: That and the fact that unanimous consent was granted, Mr. Chairman, and he referred to that. I just want it clarified: based upon what did he get unanimous consent?

The Chairman: Okay, let's ask the clerk.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Bryden sought unanimous consent from the floor. His statement is in the Hansard at page 8084. Essentially, he stated that some people had noticed flaws and some technical difficulties in a few areas and requested to substitute the text of the bill for the revised bill. The words used were: “They have noticed some flaws and some technical difficulties in a few areas...”.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Anything else, Mr. Hill, on there?

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I'm not sure whether it's appropriate or not, but I'd be interested... I certainly respect both gentlemen appearing as witnesses and the experience they have in the chamber, and I would want to pose the question: In the judgment of the gentlemen, would the changes to the bill constitute some technical difficulties?

The Chairman: I appreciate what you're doing, and you're not stopped from raising this issue later, but I just want to deal with the facts now.

If there are any questions dealing with the facts, let's take them up now so that we have the complete set of facts. Mr. Hill will undoubtedly want to ask that question later.

I'll go to Ms. Parrish on the factual envelope.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Thank you.

Mr. Marleau, I have both reports in front of me. As you recall, the committee on private members' business looked at recommendations and made a set. The House went into an election, and we came back and did a revised report.

I'm looking at the two recommendations. In the first one it says: “The Sub-committee recommends that the Standing Orders be amended to allow items”—plural—“outside the order of precedence that have been jointly seconded by at least 100 Members...”.

The second one was in response to concerns many people brought up that you might get six through at once, which I still don't see any problem with, because nowhere in either of these reports does it say if you've been seconded, it automatically means those people are supporting your bill. It merely means, if you read the background, that they think it's worth debating. And secondly, nowhere does it say the committee will automatically deem it votable. It in fact goes into great detail saying the committee will treat it as all other bills.

I guess my question is, once a bill is presented in the House on first reading as a private member's bill, as Mr. Bryden did, with or without his signatures, it then becomes the property of the committee to decide whether it's votable or not. Just confirm that for me before I ask you another question. I doesn't automatically mean it's a votable bill. It only means it doesn't have to go into the draw.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Oh, no. Clearly it does not automatically mean it is votable. It only gets a bye onto the order of precedence.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: When this second report was written, with recommendations from staff, we changed it to one item at one time. Instead of having six bills come through with a hundred signatures and they still go into the fight as to whether they're votable or not, we've now made that one item. That's very significant. It almost looks as though—and I've asked—there have not been any bills with signatures come through that haven't been made votable. So what it does is it almost guarantees votability, because you've restricted it to one at a time. Does this further complicate that whole problem?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, I don't think it further complicates it. No doubt for the subcommittee looking at which items should become votable, the one hundred signatures bring some weight to their consideration. But at the same time, the other standing order provides for members to jointly, up to a maximum of twenty, second an item. There's a specific standing order that says the committee shall not take that into consideration.

• 1120

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's right. Is it very clear to you, Mr.—

The Chairman: Ms. Parrish, you're getting into—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, I'm going to ask just one more question. It's very specific.

The Chairman: If you have a question about the background facts, I'm going to ask you to please put it.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Okay.

In both of these reports, is it very clear to you that with 100 people seconding it, what it technically means is they think it should go under the order of precedence, it should come out of the draw, and then it has to take a life of its own on whether it's votable? It doesn't necessarily mean those 100 people are supporting the thrust of the bill; it merely means they're supporting taking it out of the draw and putting it on the order of precedence. Is that your reading?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Because I will tell you that was my intent when I wrote the report.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Part of the difficulty we have is your statement in the evidence of that committee. That was your view. It was only access to the order of precedence.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: That's right.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Standing Order 87(6)(a) as drafted, however, reads:

...including at least ten Members each from a majority of the recognized parties in the House, who support a specific item, sponsored by the Member...

I believe therein lies Mr. Chatters' question to the House on what was meant by the words “support a specific item.” That's confusing.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Let me just interrupt you for a second. It says right in here, “and if enough members feel the item should be debated”. It's not that they support it; if they feel it should be debated, then this alternative procedure could be invoked.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's in the report, yes, but not in the Standing Orders.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: Well, you see, what happened in the Standing Orders was that it was—

The Chairman: Ms. Parrish.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: All right. Whoops, whoops, sorry. I'll get back into it.

The Chairman: We have a Standing Order and we have the report. There's obviously a variance between the two.

I'll go to Mr. Blaikie in the hope of a resolution of some facts.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I hope you'll extend to me as much liberty as you extended to the former member.

The Chairman: I'll try.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: My point with respect to facts is that we have a dispute as to the facts, which is at the heart of one of the elements of the problem we have here. Some people see the changes on which Mr. Bryden sought to get unanimous consent in the House as technical changes and therefore not politically significant. Other people, even though they may not have seen them as non-technical and politically significant at the time, have come to see them that way and have come to regard the changes as having been more than technical in their nature.

With regard to your insistence on the facts, we don't really know. We don't have a fact—i.e., that these were technical changes. We have opinions about whether these were just technical changes or whether they were in fact significant changes in the bill that would have warranted Mr. Bryden going back to his 100 signatories.

Most people feel that signing the thing is a form of support, not just because it's in the Standing Orders, but because that's the general feeling members have had. We want to change that, fine, but I think it is a fact that most members feel that if they become one of those 100 signatories, they are extending some kind of substantive support to that particular bill or motion and aren't just saying they feel it should be debated.

I just wanted to make that point, because I think it doesn't completely represent the facts, if you like, to say these were just technical changes. Even if you look at what Mr. Bryden said in the House himself, he talked about certain flaws, and flaws are in the eye of the beholder. What we're seeing as flaws might have been virtues of the original bill in the eyes of other people. When the flaws were corrected, it became a different bill and was therefore not the kind of bill that some of the people who signed on might have wanted to continue to support.

• 1125

The Chairman: Thank you. That's a useful reference to what happened when the consent was sought in the House and the bill was altered on consent.

I have a question in relation to the facts leading up to this. I gather that Mr. Bryden obtained the 112 signatures in the previous session of Parliament. Is that correct? Did he make use of those 112 signatures in that first session? The facts as outlined here don't show any use of the 112 signatures. It says he obtained the minimum 100 signatures.

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, he did not use them. In the chronology of events, the introduction of his first bill preceded the adoption of the 13th report of this committee. So his bill, by the second session, had caught up to the changes in the rule, a minimum of 100 signatures.

The Chairman: He didn't use them in the first session. Could he have used them at some point? Could he have gone to the clerk's office and said “I have 100-plus signatures”?

Mr. Robert Marleau: After the adoption of the 13th report—

The Chairman: Correct.

Mr. Robert Marleau: —at any time he had achieved the required number of signatures, he could have gone to the Journals Branch and filed his notice, yes.

The Chairman: But he did not.

Mr. Robert Marleau: No.

The Chairman: So the first time the signatures were used was in the second session.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's right.

The Chairman: Could you indicate to us how much time had elapsed between obtaining the signatures and using the signatures?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It's difficult for us to know, and I think for Mr. Bryden it was probably a work in progress in terms of how these signatures built up to 100. The standing order is totally silent as to when a signature becomes stale-dated, if at all.

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: —

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can't say for sure. He filed on October 23, but he could have had them for a couple of weeks. He could have had them for a month, as far as we know.

The Chairman: Would it also be accurate to say that all of the signatures were obtained and in the box before he altered the text of his bill?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can't answer that. I have no idea.

The Chairman: It is possible that some of the signatures were obtained after he altered the text of his bill.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, it's possible.

The Chairman: Did the document containing the signatures make reference to the bill number? It's not clear at this point. We don't know.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I didn't bring that documentation. I can get you an answer, but they're all either signed on the face of the bill or the form attached thereto. So it was the document that was either signed or supported.

The Chairman: All right. So when those signatures came in, when he used them, you took possession of the document with the signatures.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's correct.

The Chairman: And you still have possession of that document?

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's correct.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: In the private members business office, and we could certainly...

The Chairman: If a member purported to recycle the signatures later, he or she would not be able to because you have possession of the signatures. He or she might have a photocopy, but there is only one original document of signatures.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's right.

The Chairman: At least thus far that's all we seem to have.

Okay, thank you.

Are there any other questions dealing with facts? Monsieur Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): I would like to come back to the question just asked by the chair. Obviously, there is not much jurisprudence here because this standing order was only recently adopted. In your opinion, should we make some distinction between the act of obtaining a signature and the act of using it, as the chair wanted to do through his question? As I understand it, a signature is obtained with the intent of using it. One doesn't obtain signatures just for the sake of it, but with the intent of using them to get the bill onto the order of precedence.

In addition to the factors pointed out by the chair, does it make a difference whether the signatures required are obtained before the bill is amended or after the bill is amended? I think it does matter.

• 1130

In your opinion, should some distinction be made between the act of collecting signatures and the act of using them?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, that distinction could prove indeed to be important. To date, a member has no obligation to follow up on a votable motion or bill that he wanted to put forward for consideration under private members' business. Take a member who obtains 99 signatures, then changes his mind and decides not to proceed with his votable bill or motion. You asked me whether a member who obtained the required number of signatures would be obliged to proceed with his bill or motion, either by withdrawing it publicly, or withdrawing it among his colleagues. A procedure obliging the member to proceed one way or the other could be established. People who have provided their signatures might be expect to see a result or they might at least want to know what happened. In that sense, the distinction may be appropriate. But that decision rests with the committee.

[English]

The Chairman: Okay, that's good. I'm now going to recognize members on the issues involved.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just before we do that, I want to raise one more issue.

The Chairman: Of course, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: If you could, Mr. Marleau, can you confirm something for me? It came up in the last round of discussions, comments and questions. I'm going to read what it says about halfway through Standing Order 86.1:

...if the Speaker is satisfied that the said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, notwithstanding Standing Order 71, the said bill shall be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages...

So the onus is on the Speaker to confirm that the bill is in the same form. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Only if it has gone to a subsequent stage.

Mr. Jay Hill: So it's not clear in that regard. Standing Order 86.1 doesn't apply at this stage, is that what you're saying?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Bryden reintroduced his bill at first reading. It had not progressed in the previous station to a subsequent stage to qualify for reinstatement, and therefore it did not qualify for the Speaker's verification of whether or not it was identical to what was adopted at a subsequent stage in the previous session.

Mr. Jay Hill: So that might be a glitch we need to correct.

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, Mr. Bryden reintroduced at first reading of the bill. He did state, I assume for clarification's sake, that this was a bill he had introduced in the last session. He was starting afresh at first reading because the bill had not progressed any further in the previous session.

Mr. Jay Hill: My point is this: Since we're dealing with facts here, is it not a fact that at that stage, since this Standing Order didn't apply, the Speaker was not required to confirm that it was in the “same form”—to use the wording that's in the Standing Order?

Mr. Robert Marleau: It wasn't necessary for the Speaker to verify the text of the bill.

Mr. Jay Hill: We just had to take the member's word for it that it was in the same form?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, we had to take the document that was being introduced in the House as being the document the House would proceed with.

The Chairman: I think the point the clerk is making is that there was no need to verify the text of the bill because it was not being reintroduced using the standing order you've referred to.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It wasn't being carried over.

The Chairman: No, it wasn't being carried over, it was simply being introduced as though it were being introduced for the first time.

Mr. Jay Hill: That's what I'm saying. This standing order doesn't apply to that process.

The Chairman: Mr. Bryden did not rely on the carryover provision of the private members' business rules.

Mr. Jay Hill: I guess what I'm pointing out, Mr. Chairman, is that there is a similarity here in a sense. Even though this standing order doesn't apply, what we're looking for is some way to ensure that if a member stands up and says the hundred signatures should apply, there is some assurance that, when he says it's in the same form as when the people signed supporting his item, it actually is in the same form. One of the ways in which we could accomplish that would be to have the Speaker have to confirm that.

That's the long way of getting around to what I'm trying to say on this.

• 1135

The Chairman: May I introduce another question? It's relevant to that.

Do we know whether or not Mr. Bryden changed the text of his bill between the point in time at which he got consent to alter the bill and when he reintroduced it at first reading? Did he change the bill again, or did it stay the same? Do we know?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I personally have not looked at the two versions, but the law clerk has, and it's the same version that was altered by unanimous consent.

The Chairman: Okay, so to the best of our knowledge, Mr. Bryden did not change the bill between the end of the first session of the Parliament and when he reintroduced it in the second session. It was the same bill, and the only time it was changed was when he got consent from the House in the first session.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That's correct.

The Chairman: Thank you.

On this factual envelope, Mr. Bergeron? Okay.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: The two comments we have just heard imply that there is probably a deficiency in the Standing Orders. Under that particular deficiency in the current Standing Orders, could a member for practical purposes obtain 50 signatures before prorogation and another 50 after prorogation, in a new session, and add the second 50 to the first 50? Would all those signatures be valid, and could he introduce his bill in the same way as if he had obtained all 100 signatures in the same session?

Mr. Robert Marleau: My office does not check the quality of signatures. The sponsor of the votable bill or motion is accountable for them to his colleagues and to the House, who would be responsible for determining whether this would be acceptable or not. The issue of determining the extent to which a so-called similar wording is fundamentally different from the wording a member thought he was supporting at the time of signing could of course be a matter of debate.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: But for practical purposes, so that I can have a brief and accurate answer to my question, in your opinion, would it possible for a member to collect 50 signatures before prorogation, prepare an almost identical version of the same bill after prorogation, introduce it again with 50 additional signatures, and have it included in the order of precedence?

Technically, can this be done under the current Standing Orders?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, technically it could be done.

[English]

The Chairman: Let's put our heads together and see if we can shape this.

Mr. Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you.

Mr. Bryden didn't have to use the carry-over provisions because he didn't introduce it. He reintroduced it at first reading. That's what it amounts to. But he did use the new bill with the old signatures—or do we know that?

Mr. Robert Marleau: He used the altered bill by unanimous consent with the signatures he submitted.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Right. In other words, in order to get that moved ahead and onto the order of precedence, he used the signatures he gathered in the last session on a bill he didn't introduce until the new session.

Mr. Robert Marleau: He could have gathered some of those signatures within this session, since it was October 23. We don't know that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It seems to me that's obviously one issue we need to settle, especially if you're going to use this argument that you can reintroduce it at the same stage, because this is going to happen now that we're into this process. We have to understand; we have to have some rules on when you gather the signatures, because you're likely going to end up with people asking to do this into the next Parliament.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I would like to clarify that point, if I may, because I think it's important before we go down that track.

The committee may wish to look at finding some way of stale-dating signatures—if they survive prorogation, can they be used in a subsequent session?

• 1140

As for the issue of reinstatement at a certain stage, assuming Mr. Bryden's bill had reached third reading but had not passed in the previous session and he had reinstated, the signatures are totally irrelevant at that stage. The bill is in full possession of the House, has progressed within the rules, and the signatures have long been left behind. To be reinstated, the bill would have had to progress.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Apples and oranges.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I want to clear that up: the signatures are irrelevant in a reinstatement context.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The thirteenth report of the committee that was adopted by the House did make a recommendation that the said bill be in the same form as the private member's bill that he or she introduced in the previous session. I realize that didn't happen, but this whole thing is part of the same recommendation that included the 100-signature idea.

It does seem to me that we were in a conundrum. If we allow people to gather signatures on one bill and allow them to be put forward to jump the order of precedence on a second bill that somebody, even one of those 100 signatures, feels they no longer support, it's not in the same form. To ask for unanimous consent when there may be as few as five or six people in the House doesn't allow the 100 people, who presumably took the time to look at the bill before they signed on it, any idea that this is coming.

This is Mr. Chatters' argument: What you've done is signed your name to something you wanted to see advanced quickly and in good faith said that's what you wanted to advance. Then the sponsor of the bill changed it in whatever significant way so that some of the people wouldn't support the bill any further.

It does seem to me that it's unclear in the Standing Orders, but we do need to settle that. You can't have the Speaker ruling on the same form as at prorogation and then introduce 86.1, which talks about the same form as prorogation, and then have this one exception that you can still jump the queue and it doesn't have to be the same form as at prorogation. In fact you can change it significantly as long as you have consent of the House, because those 100 people have signed on to a totally different document from what came before the House.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think it was Mr. Chatters in his presentation who used the words “the magic of unanimous consent”. It still becomes a decision of the House and it stands. The issue of whether the signatures should survive prorogation or whether a member should start fresh with new signatures is an important one for you to address.

Again, I want to stress that reinstatement is not related to signatures. A bill may have had 100 signatures in the previous session and made it all the way up to second reading. In the subsequent session when a member rises and wishes to reinstate that bill, he is reinstating second reading of that bill, the stage at which it was left in the previous session. The signatures only got it onto the order of precedence, allowed the progress in the previous session. Now, at reinstatement, he or she is talking about whatever stage the bill was at. How it got to that stage at reinstatement is—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I understand that. If we wanted to make it clear that bills that received 100 signatures must be in the same form in order to be reintroduced with those signatures, is it relatively easy to do in the Standing Orders? Is it just a standing order change that we can insert in here, in the same package?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, that's very simple to do.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It does seem to me that's exactly what we're faced with. I realize all the stages, that once it's introduced the House takes ownership and all that stuff, and then the unanimous consent proceeds. The problem we have here is a very specific case of someone saying “I want to use those 100 signatures on my new bill, not my old bill, but on my new bill, and I'm just assuming they're all going to support it”.

To me, for the House to say it's unanimous consent because 100 people's signatures are deemed to have been signed onto the new bill is a giant leap of faith. It may be the magic unanimous consent, but it's just not right.

The Chairman: I think we've clarified now that this is not a reinstatement issue at all. It is not necessarily a reintroduction issue at all. It is an introduction after a bill has changed, after it has signatures. I think that's the sequence.

Mr. Bergeron, then Mr. Blaikie.

• 1145

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I want to be absolutely sure that I have correctly understood the answer you gave the chairman a moment ago. If I understand correctly, the bill introduced in the previous session was simply reintroduced in this session. It is the same bill.

Then there was a request for unanimous consent to introduce some amendments, and a new bill would not have been quite the same as the one introduced in the previous session.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Absolutely. No, not really. Chronologically speaking, Mr. Bryden introduced the first version of Bill C-264. Then, unanimous consent was given to replace some sections of the bill with others. The bill slowly worked its way through the legislative process during the first session. Then, at the beginning of the second session, Mr. Bryden introduced again the previous version of Bill C-264 in first reading which by then had become Bill C-206. At that point, under a new Standing Orders requiring 100 names, he had the bill put on the order of precedence under the heading Private Members' Business.

So he didn't make the change at the start of this session; it happened during the last session, even before the bill was put on the order of precedence. When he introduced it at the start of the second session, he stated that the bill was the same as the one he had introduced during the last session, that it was the same kind of bill as in the last session, and he invoked the Standing Order referring to the 100 names. The change happened at the beginning of the legislative process in the last session.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, it seems to me we have two issues here. One is the question, when a bill is reintroduced in a new session, whether or not the signatures carry over, even if the bill isn't altered in some way. That is not settled, if you like, in the Standing Orders.

Second, if a bill is altered, even if in the opinion of the member it's only a technical alteration, is there some obligation on the part of the member to re-seek, if you like, the signatures? Or is there some obligation on the part of the House to have a procedure that either compels members to re-seek those signatures or provides some kind of information to the people who have given their signatures so that they know not just that the bill is being altered, but in what way it's being altered?

What happened here was there was no provision for this as a new thing. Everybody understands that. It's not a question of neglect or anything; it's just a question of not being able to anticipate all the many quirks and quarks of the House of Commons. But we do have this situation now, and it seems to me that what happened was inadequate. You can't by unanimous consent deem people to support something they don't necessarily support. That's what happened.

We have to come up with a standing order that prevents that from happening, even if it makes it more difficult for the members who have obtained a hundred signatures to proceed, even if it means they have to go back in some way or another. It could be by notifying all the people who have signed on that the following change is intended to be made, and if they on that basis wish to withdraw their support for the bill, then they should follow the following procedure, blah, blah, blah, whatever. I don't think it's all that difficult, what we need to figure out here.

Perhaps we could ask the table to come back with a suggested revision to the Standing Orders that would address both these problems, and then we would actually have on the table a proposal whose adequacy or inadequacy we could address. But at the moment, it seems to me we're condemned to listening to each other for a long time and still not having anything in front of us that we could adopt.

• 1150

So I would make the recommendation that we ask Messrs. Marleau and Corbett to come back, either soon or at a subsequent meeting, with a recommendation. Then we'd have something we could actually do.

The Chairman: Okay. I think we have to help the clerk focus on what we'd like him to do.

Now I have other interventions—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: If I might just—

The Chairman: Sure, Mr. Blaikie, go ahead.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Part of the recommendation is... It's not just tabula rasa here. I'm saying that recommendation should reflect the will of the committee—if in fact it's the will of the committee—that there should be some procedure that would notify members of an intent to change the bill and give them an opportunity to either maintain or withdraw their support, and that this procedure should precede any action in the House to seek unanimous consent. In fact, we might want to look at whether or not the unanimous consent aspect of this should be part of it at all, or whether there shouldn't be just some other procedure that people go through in order to make this happen.

The unanimous consent that Mr. Bryden sought was sort of twofold: to carry the signatures forward, and to change the bill. But he talked only about changing the bill, and the signature thing happens without anybody really consenting to it. So I wish the table well when they might be down to drafting these standing orders. But there's clearly a hole there that we have to fill.

The Chairman: Okay, your remarks have been helpful.

Now there are other interventions from—

Mr. Jay Hill: If that was in the form of a motion, I second the motion.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: It was a recommendation without making a motion. If we could debate the motion, then the debate on the motion could be the instructions...

The Chairman: Colleagues, undoubtedly we're going to ask the clerk to come back to us with recommendations. But the clerk will need some direction from around the table, which is what we're doing now. We don't have to stop at Mr. Blaikie as if he's just found the answer. He has framed quite properly two focuses for us that are important and very useful. I just want to make sure we've got all the bases covered here.

There's nothing to prevent Mr. Blaikie or anyone else from moving a motion, but I think we'll end up getting to home plate almost as quickly in any event.

Now, I have interventions from Ms. Parrish, Mr. Bonin, and Ms. Tremblay.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I would like to begin by saying how ironic it is that the first and second reports were passed through this committee and not implemented in the House voluntarily by the powers that be, if you will all recall, because there were some questions and concerns. The Reform Party, with unanimous consent of the House, actually had it implemented into the Standing Orders in its flawed state.

So it's interesting that we're sitting here today trying to hassle out a few of the concerns that apparently the cabinet had before they were going to bring it through as a recommended form.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: At least we have that.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: So it's gone full circle, guys.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We wouldn't have anything otherwise.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: I don't want to rush into any motions, because I think this requires a hard look, and I tried to bring up a few of my points before. Some of the changes made here don't seem to be working well. I think the intent of it was lost in the gamesmanship of getting 100 signatures. A little technical point—he had 112. So if one or two people fell off the list, he still had his 100.

Once the bill is in the House, has gone through the committee and been deemed votable, it's the property of the House. It could then be sent to a committee and the same amendments could occur that Mr. Bryden made.

I really think we have a tempest in a teapot here. I would love to see the 112 people read every word of that bill carefully so that before they signed it they knew the exact wording of it. I'd just caution that while I hate to admit the administration was correct, I think the reason they were hesitating to introduce this is that we had a few wrinkles in here that weren't cleaned up completely.

• 1155

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Were these the wrinkles, or were there other wrinkles?

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: There are other wrinkles too, I think.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes. I want to give them that much credit.

Ms. Carolyn Parrish: No, I don't think they anticipated this one at all.

But I would really like us to proceed very slowly on this. I would like to have lots of time for Mr. Marleau and Mr. Corbett to make a studied look at this thing and come back with some thoughts. If we start whipping motions around, we're going to end up with the same problem we have here the next time some little quirk shows up in this report.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bonin, and then Ms. Tremblay.

Mr. Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Our colleagues have identified weaknesses and flaws or maybe even loopholes. I can't dispute any of the comments that have been made, and I see a desire to correct that. But we are here today to assist the Speaker of the House in a decision on the existing standing order.

To talk about correcting it I think is wise and we should put it on the agenda at a future meeting and do that. But based on the existing standing order with the loopholes, the flaws, and the weaknesses, I sense that the bill should be allowed to go forward. Then we should correct the flaw.

The Chairman: Okay.

Ms. Tremblay.

[Translation]

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): I find Mr. Bonin's proposal rather strange, since you don't want to create a precedent when solving a problem. I never thought I would see a situation such as this which creates a precedent resulting in the committee's hands being tied. Why make changes in all the other cases when nothing was changed in the first one?

For my part, I want to ask Mr. Marleau a question to be sure I understand the situation. Mr. Bryden got 112 names in support of his bill; he amended the bill and then tabled it in the House, where it got to third reading, right?

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): No, you haven't...

[Editor's Note: Inaudible]

Mr. Raymond Bonin: You don't agree. You don't have all the facts.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: Wait a minute.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Bryden tabled a bill, Bill C-264.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: He then received unanimous consent to amend the text.

Mrs. Suzanne Tremblay: But did he already have the 112 names?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Perhaps. He may have had some. I know he was in the process of getting those names. I don't know how many he had. He only introduced the bill in first reading again in the second session when he had 100 names.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: The paper we were given and which we have before us states clearly that the list of names can be used in another session, since the Standing Order says nothing to the contrary. It doesn't really matter whether he used the 112 names or not.

But as Mrs. Parrish said, we still have a real problem. A group of 112 people have come out in favour of the bill which most of them probably haven't read, and all of a sudden some would wake up and realize that it's not quite the same bill as before. So now they're objecting.

This system has always been a little defective. There have been problems, which we already discussed, but now we see the failure in the system. I personally feel we should call for the suspension of the Speaker's decision until the issue is settled. In fact, this is basically what the Speaker has asked us to do; he wants the committee to shed light on the matter since it is so complicated. So I think this committee should do its job before the Speaker is to rule on the issue.

[English]

The Chairman: There would appear to be quite a bit of time before Mr. Bryden's bill works its way up the order of precedence. If, as Mr. Bryden's bill gets near the top, we haven't completed our work by that time, we could easily directly communicate with the Speaker or report to the House asking that the matter be dealt with in some particular way. But I think we can probably finish our work quickly enough to deal with Mr. Bryden's bill.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Mr. Chairman, on a point of information, are you suggesting that we should look at the standing order and make changes retroactive, or are we dealing with the existing standing order?

The Chairman: We're dealing with the existing standing order. We may not wish to recommend any changes to the standing order. We don't know where we're going to end up until we finish the analysis.

• 1200

Mr. Raymond Bonin: So what prevents us from making a recommendation based on the existing standing order?

The Chairman: There's nothing to prevent us from making a recommendation.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Do you want it in the form of a motion?

The Chairman: No. There's no need to tie the hands of the committee at this point. I think we're moving in the right direction.

Mr. Strahl and Mr. Hill.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Thank you.

Do we perhaps need a motion, as Mr. Blaikie already proposed, that we give some direction to the clerk to come up with a suggested change to the Standing Orders?

For example, I would recommend that we pass something along the lines that we ask the clerk to draft a standing order that reflects the idea that those bills receiving 100 signatures must be tabled in the House in exactly the form as they were when the members originally seconded the bill. I'm sure we could draft that.

It's two separate issues, as has been brought up already. The Speaker has asked us to deal with Bill C-206 and also to recommend changes to the Standing Orders. We can't deal with the idea of unanimous consent in the House. Once something is in the House, it can be changed by unanimous consent because it's in the process and the House takes possession of it. All I think we really need to do is to ensure that any bill to which somebody signs their name is introduced in exactly that form into the House, and if afterwards they get into the change, then I guess it is the duty of the House and people to be vigilant on that.

The Chairman: Okay, so your suggestion is we focus on the integrity of the signature process.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes. It still wouldn't prevent someone from tabling a bill with 100 signatures and then asking for unanimous consent; it's just that everybody would be aware that one thing you can't do is to change it before you table it. After it's tabled, though, anybody can stand up any time, as happens in private members' hour, and say “I'd like to change these three clauses”. I've done it myself on a private member's bill. It's not uncommon to do that. But then the House has possession of it.

I think the only problem we have is with the 100 signatures, isn't it, or am I missing something?

The Chairman: Then you would include typographical errors in the types of changes you could not make. Once the 100 signatures are on it, are you saying there can be absolutely no changes?

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Maybe if it is in the same form... Could I have a definition from the clerk? What does the Speaker say when it is in the same form? Does that allow for typographical errors? The Speaker must rule on that because of this other standing order. What does “in the same form” actually mean?

Mr. Robert Marleau: When the Speaker uses that standing order in terms of the reinstatement, he has a text from the previous statement to work with the new text being introduced. So it's a fairly simple exercise and is usually identical. “In the same form” could mean you might have moved around the clauses or that sort of thing, but they're roughly identical.

The issue here, though, is how does the Speaker or the clerk or the Journals Branch audit the process so that the signatures the member carries to you and to Mrs. Parrish in the same bill are in the same form before he acquired both signatures? I think we would be into a very difficult process in terms of the paper trail.

If I may, I think the point Mr. Strahl makes and the one Mr. Blaikie made are relevant to your discussion. You're having a conversation on content versus process, or content and process, and I think any direction given to us to assist you in drafting standing orders has to answer the question of what the signature means. Does it mean content, or does it mean process?

In terms of seconding motions, there's new language in this standing order that has caused the Speaker to pause. When a member seconds a motion, any motion on the floor, he or she is then barred from moving an amendment to that motion. The rationale for that is that it implies that the member supports the content to put it before the House for the purpose of debate. But that member may vote against it. He or she may be precluded from amending it, but at the end of the day and all of the proceedings thereon, the member may still vote against the motion he or she seconded.

• 1205

We also have twenty signatures as a form of seconding. I think that has been rendered somewhat meaningless in terms other than saying twenty members are interested in getting this on the floor for debate.

Now you have a hundred signatures, but the wording used is not “seconding”, it's “support a specific item”. I think what the committee has to cope with here is to decide whether the question of the hundred signatures was along the lines of what I believe Mrs. Parrish was arguing. All a member does in assigning his name to a particular item is allow it to go from the list outside the order of precedence to the order of precedence. It's already in the possession of the House if it's a bill, because it has had first reading. As a member I may not truly support this specific item, but I want the debate. Therefore, I will sign for it and get it on the order of precedence. Or, as a member, I truly support these specific items and I want to be on record as voting for it.

So if it is process, then it's simple and it's a minor change to the standing order. If it's content and verification thereof, then I think it's quite complex.

The Chairman: Just to recap for our members, you have introduced three separate concepts for our consideration. One is the basic concept of seconding a bill. We wouldn't be reinventing the wheel, because the concept already exists; we know what it means and we know what it does. The second concept is supporting the content of the bill, which the current standing order seems to incorporate with or without details. And the third concept would be support for the pre-empting of the lottery, support for the idea that the bill would not be subjected to a lottery and that it would be put on the order of precedence. Have I got that right? Those are three separate concepts that can be applied to whatever we're dealing with here on the front end.

Thank you.

Mr. Strahl, and then Mr. Hill.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I appreciate that clarification, and I think it sounds good. The question then is what happens if we change the process to say you had to gather your hundred signatures after the bill was tabled in the House, or after it received first reading. At least then you'd have a number on the bill and you would have the thing in front of you.

It is true that you make an assumption—all of us do when we sign on to one of those signature pads—that with this draft bill, there's an expectation that it's going to come in that form, but it doesn't have a number on it yet. Is that correct?

Mr. Robert Marleau: When it's introduced for the first time, no. It's a notice.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, so you've signed your name onto a draft bill that looks like the one you think is going to be introduced. I don't think it would get past the spirit of what's already been passed in the House to say that once you've tabled the bill at first reading, it's given a number; then, if you can get a hundred signatures on it, it jumps onto the order of precedence. You'd then get around all this question about when you gathered the signatures. You've gathered them after it was tabled in the House, and during this Parliament you can take two years to do it. It doesn't matter, because the bill can't change once it has a number.

Mr. Jay Hill: Or until the session ends.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Would that solve it, or do we still need the idea of whether it's supported or seconded?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, I think you have to clarify whether it's supported or seconded, but even if you wanted to ensure greater integrity of the process in terms of what you were asked to sign and what ends up on the order of precedence, you could even delay its transfer to the order of precedence by a notice period of one week or two weeks. In other words, an asterisk is on the Order Paper saying that this bill now qualifies for transfer to the Order Paper within ten sitting days. All members who have signed this bill have an opportunity to get a copy, verify it, and satisfy themselves that it's what they supported, and it could go across only after that period of notice.

There are ways of building a sense of feedback, if you like, for the members who sign, rather than just have it come in at the moment of the member's choice, walking into Journals Branch with his hundred signatures.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to finish this off from my perspective, then, the problem that I see with allowing someone to second or support either one—a certain motion or bill—and get it on the order of precedence is that with our other standing orders there is an understanding in the House that the seconder of a motion can't move an amendment. It's implied that you supported the original motion, and therefore you can't amend it.

• 1210

It does seem to me that we would get around that concern and be more consistent if we said table the bill in one form and then gather your signatures on that bill, Bill C-206. You can't change it. It doesn't have second reading, it doesn't have anything, until it's either drawn or gets a hundred signatures. There can't be any unanimous consent to change it; there can't be anything until it hits the floor of the House. So we would get around this idea of either supporting or seconding if the bill were tabled first, because people would say they're supporting that bill. If it comes back later and unanimous consent changes something, that's the House's business.

Would it not preclude the possibility of changing it between the gathering of the signatures and the House taking possession of it, because it would be after it becomes a numbered bill? We would preclude this idea that anything could change until such time as it actually hit second reading.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I don't think it will give you the sense of security and the sense of feedback you're looking for, because a member could introduce a bill at first reading, have it outside the list of order of precedence, spend the next 18 months gathering signatures, and, at the moment of his or her choosing, transfer it to the order of precedence, and you'd be just as surprised.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: But it would be in the same form you signed on to.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Yes, of course, because it's in the possession of the House at first reading.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, so it can't change. My point is that because it can't change, at least you don't have to stand there ever vigilant and worried about a unanimous consent motion, because it can't have a consent motion until it either gathers 100 signatures or gets drawn in the lotto.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Then you'd be writing standing orders that say that any bill read a first time and altered by unanimous consent does not qualify for the 100-signature process or that any bill altered at first reading stage, if you want to make it in that sense, and in other than the form it was introduced in cannot be transferred to the order of precedence, something like that.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I think the two changes that would fix this problem would be that you have to table the bill and give it a number, and any bill that's altered at first reading doesn't qualify for the 100 signatures. That way, because it has been tabled in the House, everybody knows what you're signing on to. If you want to change it, you're free to do that. But on the 100-signature thing, you're just into the draw like everybody else. So then everybody knows they're signing on to Bill C-206 exactly comme ça. Then if it changes, that's fine, but you can't use your 100 signatures there. Is there a problem you see?

Mr. Robert Marleau: No, that's doable. But you'd also have to deal with going from one session to the next session to clean that up.

The Chairman: With respect, what you haven't dealt with is if a bill is introduced at first reading, the member commences getting signatures and takes a year to do it, but at month six the member decides he has to make a small change in the bill by unanimous consent. The member gets unanimous consent to alter his bill, which is almost what happened in this case, and then the signatures come in later. The bill has been altered by unanimous consent. So you're suggesting we should have an absolute bar to unanimous consent bill amendments.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: No, at that stage.

The Chairman: After first reading.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Somebody can say “I have the wrong date on this bill”, or “I meant to use this word, and I got the word wrong, but I got 100 signatures. I'm going to get it on the order of precedence, and as soon as it comes up, I'm going to correct that mistake by unanimous consent.” But everybody knows they've signed on to a bill in a certain form.

Of course it's always open to the unanimous consent of the House to change a bill at any stage, and we can't stop that. The problem we have here is the way it was introduced, on the assumption that the people seconding it approved of the changes.

Now, if they aren't there in the House, if their party doesn't do an analysis of the bill, or if nobody is paying attention, that's just the luck of the Irish, so to speak. But the rest of it is not. It's something you signed on to. This would preclude people from signing on and the guying saying “Thank you very much, now I'm going to add the words `at the minister's discretion' and table the bill and assume that you agreed to that.”

• 1215

The Chairman: But, Mr. Strahl, you haven't solved the problem of the bill being introduced at first reading. Let's say it's Bill-242 and the mover of Bill-242 is still collecting signatures. Before he or she gets the 100 signatures, he wants to drop the “the” out of clause 6, and he moves it in the House. There's no rule that would or could prevent that member from doing this. And the signatures, of course, haven't even come into it yet, because they don't get used till later, when he or she decides they want to move it to the order of precedence.

Mr. Jay Hill: But we just discussed that with the clerk, Mr. Chairman, and he said you could draft in something that says you would be exempt from using that process if you change the bill. All you do is word that in there.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So it would be at the discretion—

Mr. Jay Hill: Then it's the member's choice—

Mr. Chuck Strahl: The member's choice and the discretion of the member.

Mr. Jay Hill: If he chooses to change his bill to drop a “the” or to insert something, then he knows that he or she will not be able to utilize the 100-signature process.

The Chairman: I'm sure the clerk will think that through.

Mr. Marleau.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Mr. Hill summarized roughly what I said, but all is not lost for the member seeking a change. At that point, the member would be required to return to the House within 48 hours, reintroduce a new bill, and change the word “the” in that bill. That bill would get a new number, and then could proceed under the 100-signature process. The member is delayed 48 hours, rather than the expediency of unanimous consent. So it's not a dead-end avenue for a member who is caught with the bill in which he or she may want to make changes, but there is a slight delay of notice and reintroduction.

The Chairman: But would the member not have to go out and re-obtain the 100 signatures then?

Mr. Jay Hill: Exactly. That's the whole point.

The Chairman: Based on what you're suggesting, it wouldn't be just 48 hours. The member would have to go out and re-obtain all the 100 signatures.

Mr. Robert Marleau: You're talking about a bill in which he made changes by unanimous consent, assuming he has not yet got signatures for that and then plans to get them after you've made changes.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just to be fair, as an example of a private member's bill I brought forward once on the peacekeeping act, there was a flaw in the bill, and I know full well there was a flaw because as we got into the system and it sat on the Order Paper for three or four months, people got hold of me to tell me there was a flaw in one of my definitions. I could have withdrawn the bill, but I didn't; I just said I'm going to leave it there and I'll fix it in the House. And that's what we did.

All we're saying is that if you want to use the 100-signature thing, in respect to the 100 signators, it's best that you either leave it as is and fix it later, which is what I did with my bill, or if it's serious enough you withdraw the bill, make the changes, re-table it, get the new number on it and get your 100 signatures.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: I want to make the point that my colleague across the way, Mr. Bonin, did correctly identify that we have another separate issue, which is the issue that really brought this to the attention of the committee, this flaw if you will, and that is what to do with Mr. Bryden's bill.

I want it on record that I don't agree with him that simply because there was a flaw in the existing Standing Orders, therefore we just allow his bill to proceed. Before we arrive at that decision, which might be the decision of the committee, I don't think it's a foregone conclusion. And before we arrive at that decision, I would like to have some debate as to—and this was the point I made right when we started the meeting—what constitutes support for a specific item. Because that is word for word the way it is as it currently exists, which was Mr. Bonin's point, that we'd have to deal with the current Standing Order 87(6) as it's currently worded in relation to Mr. Bryden's bill and the process he followed.

So for the committee to make a recommendation to the Speaker, which is part of what we've been asked to do, I think we need to have a debate on that aspect, as well as the debate we're having today, which is how to fix the problem for the future.

The Chairman: Seeing no other interveners, the clerk has had the benefit of our interventions and we've had the benefit of his. Before going further, I want to thank our research and clerk for the valuable document they prepared preliminary to the meeting that helped us all get started on this.

• 1220

I should point out to colleagues that if it is the view of the committee that we wish to recommend a course of action that would impact on Mr. Bryden's bill, then it would be pretty much a necessity for us to hear from Mr. Bryden. That is my view. It would be unfair to do otherwise. So we'll just keep that in mind. At this point there are no recommendations, or there haven't been any expressed views here that we wish directly to impact on Mr. Bryden's bill, although there may or may not be an indirect impact. I don't know.

As we move on here, do colleagues see a need to invite other witnesses? Seeing none, your chair does take the view, however, that we might have to hear from Mr. Bryden, depending on how colleagues evolve this.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It does seem to me that two members have been caught in a situation here and that what we're trying to do is to clarify the Standing Orders to make sure that doesn't happen—until something else comes up, and then it will happen and we'll do it again. I personally would like to hear from them their views on how this could be clarified.

The Chairman: Sorry, but whose views?

Ms. Marlene Catterall: The two members involved: the one whose bill it was and the one who was in fact a supporter of the bill.

The Chairman: Well, they may be able to provide some information at some point.

Mr. Marleau, do you think we need more information here on this, or do you have enough to cobble together some suggestions for us?

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think we now have enough from the debate you had on content and process to at least attempt a couple of drafts—on either side, for that matter—that you could look at.

As to the standing of Mr. Bryden's item, I would just like to draw to your attention that it still stands in possession of the House, on the Order Paper, pending the Speaker's ruling, so that it's a little more than just his item. He cannot withdraw that item except by unanimous consent at that point, and at this point as well. So as you ponder what the Speaker might or might not do with this, it is still very much in the possession of the House.

The Chairman: Yes. All right. I'm assuming that under the current circumstance, Mr. Bryden's bill could not be exchanged. In a leapfrog situation, I assume he's going to simply allow the thing to evolve without doing any switching.

Mr. Robert Marleau: The Speaker has given specific instructions that it not be exchanged until the committees have had an opportunity for it to come up.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Monsieur Marleau, is it fair to ask you for past practice of the House on the issue I raised and the Bloc disagrees with—that we should deal with this issue on the existing standing order? Is it past practice of the House to change a standing order and apply the new conditions to issues that occurred before the change?

Mr. Robert Marleau: By consent the House can do whatever it wants.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Yes.

Mr. Robert Marleau: That has happened by unanimous consent.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Okay.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I think that ultimately that decision will be taken by the Speaker himself in terms of what committee light can be shed on this and what he will deem to be a fair manner in dealing with the item that's being contested. I think that's about as far as I can go.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: But if someone challenges his decision, he will have to explain what he based it on. If he bases it on the standing order, I guess the House could hold him to the standing order in its existence at the time it occurred. Is that fair to say?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Normally, barring any practice precedent, the Speaker will try to make an interpretation of the standing order. In this particular case he sought the advice of the committee because it is new, and because it is a process that is dear to private members—this was not a government issue versus an opposition issue—he would prefer to hear from the committee. But yes, by practice, generally the Speaker will go to the wording of the standing order. He certainly won't innovate the wording without some guidance.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: So you wouldn't ask the committee to recommend a change to the standing order to accommodate his decision? In all fairness, we would expect that the decision would be based on the standing order at the time of the occurrence. Is that fair?

Mr. Robert Marleau: The committee's light on this is going to have some impact, I think.

• 1225

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Therefore, if that's the wish of the committee, the committee would have to make any changes retroactive.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: We can just make recommendations.

The Chairman: At this point all of this is hypothetical, I believe.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: No, it's very practical.

The Chairman: Of course it's practical if something comes to pass in the nature of what you've suggested, but at this point we are looking at solutions to the standing order ambiguities and the procedure.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: That's what we've been asked to do.

The Chairman: It's quite possible that something could come up that would impact on Mr. Bryden's bill, but we can cross that bridge when we get to it. We wouldn't cross the bridge before we heard from Mr. Bryden. Our main objective is to deal with the Standing Orders, not to deal—

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Yes, Mr. Chair, I agree, and the bridge that I think we should cross is the order of the day that we have before us. It's clear that the Speaker of the House is asking about the interpretation and administration of the provisions of Standing Order 87(6). That's what it says right here. He is not asking for us to interpret future changes that may occur. He is asking us to interpret the existing standing order. That's why I think my point is clear. We should deal with the standing order at the time of the occurrence.

The Chairman: Mr. Bonin, you have failed to note that there is no allegation that there has been a breach of the rules. The suggestion is that the rules as drafted don't work perfectly, so we're not going to spend time interpreting rules that we've acknowledged don't work perfectly. We're trying to fix them to make them clear.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: I did say there were two issues here.

The Chairman: Okay.

Mr. Hill—and I think that would wrap things up.

Mr. Jay Hill: I don't know whether the clerks will be called back before the committee as we deliberate over this. I think all of us do recognize that there are two issues to deal with. If, as Mr. Bonin suggests, we do end up dealing with the issue of what to do about Mr. Bryden's bill and the fact that it has been fast-tracked onto the order of precedence with the hundred signatures under the existing Standing Order 87(6), I want to go back to what I originally said at the start of the meeting. Put the clerk on the spot and ask him if he has an opinion on what would constitute “support a specific item”, which is the way 87(6) is worded.

Mr. Robert Marleau: I can only draw the analogy with the concept of seconding. You would be at risk as a member if, in signing a bill, you were binding yourself to vote for it all along the way. It just runs against the grain of the process of debate. That's why I lean toward process rather than content. It seems to me that the whole idea of debate is for the exchange ideas and concepts, and maybe to bring amendments to a concept that makes it acceptable to you even though you weren't supportive going in. Or you can continue to support it through that process even though it has changed substantially.

The Chairman: Your chair can't help but offer a sidebar here. It is my clear recollection that there's a provision of the Criminal Code that prohibits or criminalizes anyone binding a member of Parliament to vote one way or another on a particular item, so surely signing the signature list does not bind one to vote or support a particular bill. That could be a hypothetical criminal offence. However, I'll just leave that aside. I'm sure we're not dealing with that issue.

Okay, we'll continue with Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill: Just on that point, using the concept that I think was the one you used—that of seconding—as you pointed out earlier, if a member does second a motion in the House then they are prevented from seconding an amendment. I would presume from this that you are therefore supporting specifically that motion.

• 1230

Mr. Robert Marleau: You're supporting it in the form in which it is being submitted by the sponsor for debate.

Mr. Jay Hill: Right.

Mr. Robert Marleau: You're precluded from amending it directly, because it is in its initial form acceptable for you for debate. You may vote for or against amendments. You may end up voting exactly against that motion without any alteration to it as a consequence of the debate. Seconding is not a guarantee of a member voting for.

Mr. Jay Hill: But I'm not talking about voting, which is where you're going with this, that you're binding an MP to vote. What I'm talking about is that if you're going to use the analogy of seconding in connection with these 100 signatures, a member who signs on under the existing Standing Order 87(6) is saying, or has said, that they support a specific item.

My point, then, is that if you use the analogy of the seconding, they cannot support amendments. If the individual stands in his or her place in the House and says the bill is in the same form, then the signature should stand. But if the bill is not in the same form, it's not the same specific item, then that member could hardly have used their signature, or have intended to use their signature, to amend something they had already signed on to.

Mr. Robert Marleau: Well, amended by the member before a process in the House, I agree with you. But the standing order is written for process in the House, which is that I'm going from one list to another. The member supporting that concept is one thing; the member supporting the content of the item is the other.

If you go with the process, you can still vote for or against, or amend or not amend, or support or not support any amendment through the process. All you did was support that member in going from list A to list B and getting a faster track to debate. That's one analogy.

The other, however, is that if you're saying it is content, then the point you just made about alterations, certainly prior to the process beginning, is very pertinent. But at which point are you going to declare yourself as a member no longer supportive of the proposition because the House has altered it in a fashion that you would not have supported had it been introduced that way?

So for me it's whether you are going to wait until it's in the Senate before you make a public announcement that you no longer support this bill because it's totally different from what you supported at the beginning. It probably is a lot simpler for members to focus on process than on content, and focus on the fact that what you're supporting is debate of the issue, whether you're for or against it.

Mr. Jay Hill: But getting back to Mr. Bonin's point that we should probably be dealing with the existing Standing Order 87(6) in relation to Mr. Bryden's bill, the question I'm asking you is, in your opinion, does the way it's presently worded—“who support a specific item”—imply that the signator is supporting the process, or does it imply that the signator is supporting the content?

Mr. Robert Marleau: Members have interpreted it both ways in the argument following Mr. Chatters' point on the floor of the House. You can read it both ways. Some members felt that they were duped. They didn't use that language, but it was the fact that they thought they were supporting process, and then all of a sudden they were supporting content, and vice versa. That's why the Speaker felt he couldn't rule right away without some guidance from the committee.

Mr. Jay Hill: So you don't have an opinion. I'm asking you for your personal opinion, and you're talking about what happened in the House. I know what happened in the House; I was there.

I hate to put you on the spot, but it's only out of respect for your experience, Mr. Marleau, that I'm asking you to try to help me on this. What is your opinion? The way it's worded—never mind what different members think the process was—when they sign that, what does their signature mean? That gets back to your original question way back at the start of the meeting today. What does their signature mean? Does it mean that they merely wanted that individual's bill to be fast-tracked, to help them through the process and get it onto the order of precedence, or does it mean that, yes, they support that specific item—which is the way Mr. Chatters and I interpret it—that they actually, specifically, as though they had seconded it, support the content of that bill?

Therein lies our dilemma as to how to deal with Mr. Bryden's legislation.

• 1235

Mr. Robert Marleau: If I were to give you my opinion based on my experience and the practice of the House, the concept of supporting a specific item in terms of content is new to our process. From that you can deduce that I would interpret it as seconding and not as supporting the content.

The only form of support of content that I traditionally have interpreted as support is when a member casts yea or nay. For everything else in between you have the opportunity to change your mind, from notice to seconding to amendment to the question being finally put, and at that moment you may choose not to vote.

So my opinion would be to read the body of those standing orders against the past practice, which is seconding. But that may not have been the intention at the time. What I'm allowing for is for the committee to come to the conclusion that you want to go down that road, and that's your choice.

The Chairman: That has been very helpful.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: Just to add to what was said—

The Chairman: Make it real short, Mr. Bonin.

Mr. Raymond Bonin: —if we use the issue of process, it's not uncommon to second a motion in order to force a vote and to vote against it. For instance, in municipal councils you can't reintroduce for a year. We must have a provision like that here that you can't reintroduce once it's voted down. I can see getting 100 signatures to force a vote to vote it down so that it's not reintroduced. Sometimes the timing is perfect for that. I think it's very clear in our procedures that it's not support, it's process.

The Chairman: It's clear that Machiavelli still lives.

Having said that, I'll just indicate to members that the business for our next meeting will be our draft report on election issues arising out of our consideration of Bill C-2. That will be for Thursday.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: I have a point of order. Just for clarification, the clerk has indicated he is going to come up with two or three proposals for us to consider, which I think is a good way to go. That's part A of the Speaker's request.

As far as making a recommendation on the other part is concerned, which is on Mr. Bryden's bill specifically, do you have a time for that, or are we just going to put it off until further notice?

The Chairman: I think we should ask the clerk to come back with a road map for us. In that context it may become apparent to members whether we should or shouldn't give further guidance to the Speaker.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: So we'll wait until then.

The Chairman: I think so. That would be best, in my view. Thank you.

The meeting is adjourned.