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, December 11, 2001

• 1104

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, if we could begin, the order of the day is, as you know, to study the votable items pursuant to the order of reference from the House. This is the day we've been working toward for some time, and I hope we can focus a good deal of our attention on it.

Jay Hill.

• 1105

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

I feel a bit uncomfortable bringing up this point of order when not all the committee are here, especially the committee members who are also members of the subcommittee on votable items.

I'll start out by making a motion that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs make Bill S-22 votable. Obviously, I'm speaking in contradiction to the position I took at the last two meetings when this issue came up.

I'll start out by saying that perhaps I and maybe all the subcommittee were remiss in not speaking to the sponsor of the bill, Senator Lowell Murray, and to some of the other senators. I have had the opportunity to do that over the past two weeks, to talk to Senator Murray and to eight or ten other senators. One thing that became apparent, Mr. Chairman, is that most senators aren't even aware that their bills go before the subcommittee. They were under the impression that basically, once a bill passed the Senate, it just came here and was automatically granted votable status. They were a bit surprised at what had been transpiring.

As I say, I had the chance to sit down with Senator Murray and speak about his bill specifically and the fact that it had already been before Parliament—albeit a past Parliament—a couple of times and had been judged non-votable.

I think that in hindsight it would have been helpful had Senator Murray not chosen the member of Parliament for Dufferin—Peel—Wellington—Grey to make his pitch at subcommittee. Since he was the same individual who had brought forward that bill on a couple of previous occasions, you can imagine why we might have jumped to the conclusion that it was an attempt to circumvent the system.

I've been assured by Senator Murray that this is not the case. In fact, he has a neighbour who bent his ear about the need to designate this particular breed of horse the “Canadian horse”, and he's taken an interest in this subject.

With that, Mr. Chairman, I do have a couple of suggestions I would like to put on the table in addition to the motion.

The Chair: I don't want to interrupt your flow here, but if I could, I'll lay down some ground rules for this thing.

Bill S-22 is an important matter. I do understand that. We now have representatives of all parties, and we're talking about Bill S-22. But given the time and the calendar and given the energy we've put into this votable item, if we're going to deal with Bill S-22 now—and I'm in the committee's hands—I would like to do it briefly. Then we can get on to this item we have in good faith been trying to work on, the business of whether private members' items should all be votable.

Jay, please make your two points briefly. Then, colleagues, I'm in your hands. My intention is to try to keep this brief and call a vote.

Mr. Jay Hill: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and I will make it brief. As I say, I could go on at some length, but I won't.

The first suggestion I would make relates to the fact that according to my conversations with senators, there is obviously a lack of communication between the two Houses regarding private members' business and the process we use in our House. I think it would be helpful if we communicated with the Senate to ensure as much as possible that it is not the case in the future and that there is not this assumption on their part that their bills are automatically made votable.

I would also suggest that we have greater discussion about the votability of Senate bills and the fact that they use up time in the House—even though they don't use up a votable slot—as part of our overall review of votable items, which we are undertaking right now. Furthermore, I suggest that we consider convening a meeting with the Senate to address the issue of private members' bills from the Senate, given the limited time we have in our House.

The Chair: Colleagues, you have heard the motion. As chair, I'm more than willing to consider the matter of communication in general and the matter of a possible meeting to deal with this topic. I would suggest that at the next steering committee meeting we raise that. I will raise it. It sounds fine to me.

Is there any other comment on this?

I'm going to call the motion that our decision on Bill S-22 be rescinded, or words to that effect.

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Colleagues, if I could, I'll move to the order of the day. What I would like to do, as usual—

Mr. Geoff Regan (Halifax West, Lib.): On a point of order, does this mean that S-22 is now votable?

The Chair: It is now votable, yes.

Mr. Michel Guimond (Beauport—Montmorency—Côte-de-Beaupré—Île-d'Orléans, BQ): Did you vote on that, Geoff?

• 1110

The Chair: That was what the vote was. We rescinded our decision on the previous motion.

Mr. Geoff Regan: The question was, do we also need another motion to—

The Chair: Do we need another vote? No. It means that it's votable.

Could you take out the chart and the briefing notes? There are two sets of notes—and I'm sure you've read them all. If you could, look at the chart and the notes that are called “Private Members' Business Proposal for Discussion—Notes”. My suggestion is that Marie-Andrée Lajoie take us through the chart as we look at these notes.

Yes, Cheryl Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant (Renfrew—Nipissing—Pembroke, Canadian Alliance): On a point of order, I think there was some confusion over the voting on that. We were rescinding the motion, and we weren't really clear on what that question was.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz (Yorkton—Melville, Canadian Alliance): The point is, the fact that we rescinded the motion doesn't mean it's automatically votable. Maybe we should have clarified that before we voted.

The Chair: I apologize. Maybe I rushed it too much. That's what it meant. We'll do it again.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: Thank you very much.

Now again, if I could, my suggestion is that we work with the chart here, the draft two chart, ébauche deux, and the notes here. In French,

[Translation]

it's “Affaires émanant des députés, Proposition à l'étude—Notes”.

[English]

My suggestion is that Marie-Andrée walk us through the chart as we look at those notes.

Geoff Regan.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I promised to have a translated version of the proposal I brought in a couple of weeks ago. I have it in both languages now, and I'll ask that it be distributed, please.

The Chair: And we have Geoff Regan's proposal, which is summarized in these notes. The full version is being circulated.

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chair, there was a concern brought up in relation to my proposal about the question of people who wanted to bring forward ideas rather than an actual, fully prepared bill to avoid legislative council being used in advance. My answer to that would be that we have Standing Order 68(4)(b), which allows a member to move that a committee draft a bill that does the following. It's achieved that objective already, in my opinion.

The Chair: That's good.

Mr. Geoff Regan: I was saying that a concern was raised about my proposal to the effect that it did not provide for ideas that weren't fully formed into a bill yet, this to avoid the question of legislative council and all the time. But we already have Standing Order 68(4)(b), which provides that a member can move that a committee draft a bill that does the following. That mechanism exists and allows you to have a motion that all those... You can have all motions subject to 68(4)(b) be votable, for example. That's one way to do this.

The Chair: Okay, and Marie-Andrée, you could feed that into your discussion, I think. Marie-Andrée, we're in your hands. Will you take us through?

And colleagues, be sure that it's the draft two chart you're looking at, ébauche deux.

Marie-Andrée Lajoie.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie (Principal Clerk, House Proceedings, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

What we have tried to do in our proposal, as much as we could, is amalgamate ideas that have been discussed here over the past few weeks. We tried to streamline things a little. As everybody knows, it's a complicated subject, one that has a long history, and we didn't feel we wanted to put too many options before the committee because it can get very confusing.

• 1115

We haven't worked on language yet. We're working at fleshing out a proposal at this point, so that's what we're reflecting on. Some of the stuff we haven't included that could be included are the question of some items not being votable and the limit of one item per MP per Parliament, and so on, but they can be added later on.

Before we go to the chart, the first premise is that all items are votable. This is kind of the central question, from the order of reference. It addresses concerns from many of the proposals we've heard. All bills, including Senate bills, will be considered for referral to committee before second reading.

Finally, in addition to the bills and the motions, you have a new form called a legislative proposal. This is basically the same idea as a bill and is drafted with the help of legislative counsel, but doesn't take as much time and can be put on the list for the draw much faster. They are all votable.

I think it's easier if we go to the chart first. Step one is essentially the same. A member decides which vehicle he or she wants for his or her proposal to go in. If it's a bill, you get assistance from legislative counsel. If it's a motion or a legislative proposal, you get assistance from either the journals branch or the legislative counsel. It is sent to the journals branch for notice, as usual. After the notice period, if it's a bill, it's introduced by the member in the House. If it's a motion or legislative proposal, it's available for the draw.

After the draw, all the drawn bills, legislative proposals, and motions are placed on the order of precedence, and they're all votable. The other items remain on the list. So that's a lot like what we have now, except for the legislative proposal part.

All items have two hours of debate and then come to a vote. So in the case of votable items where you now have three hours of debate, we've reduced that to two hours. But we've augmented it by one hour for the items that usually weren't voted on, so we kind of cut it in the middle.

If by the vote the item is negatived, then it is dropped, as per the current procedure. If it's adopted and it's a legislative proposal, it goes to the committee for consideration. In that process, legislative counsel advises the committee. The member sponsoring the legislative proposal comes before the committee, and at some point the committee asks legislative counsel to draft a bill.

We're still fleshing out how this will work, but we can have a procedure that when the bill is drafted the member can introduce the bill in the House and it will be deemed referred back to the committee for clause-by-clause consideration.

The Chair: That's not on the chart. The point is it means, as I see it, the member, in the legislative proposal route, gets the hit, if that's the right word, in the House of Commons in the same way as he or she would have earlier in the process, if it were a regular bill.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: That's right.

The Chair: So it would go in the legislative proposal box, if you were filling in all the details there.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Absolutely. The committee may recommend not to proceed with the bill, the way you have it right now. If it's a bill, it's exactly the same process. The committee considers clause by clause, and it comes back to the House eventually.

The Chair: By the way, the committee can't kill a bill.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: In the proposal, the committee can report not to proceed with the bill.

The Chair: That's right, but the House will then make the final decision.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: That's right. That's what we suggest in the proposal.

The Chair: Okay, thank you.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: On some of the advantages of this or some features that guided our discussions, first the House doesn't vote on the second reading of a bill; it votes on whether the legislative proposal goes to committee for further study. It is quicker, because the member doesn't have to work through the drafting of a piece of legislation before being able to put something in for the draw.

• 1120

Of course, when you get something to committee, either a bill or a legislative proposal, before second reading or before it's been approved in principle in the House, there's a wider range of amendments that can be proposed to that item, because the House hasn't approved it, in principle.

That may help negotiations bring a consensus around a subject matter, so it will be acceptable to a larger number of people. In a sense, it is somewhat of a departure from what we have, but we retain the draw or the order of precedence, the one-hour debate, and then you tumble down to the bottom, and so on.

So we keep part of the procedure we have in the motions and the bills and we add the legislative proposal to the mix. It's a departure, but we still keep some of the fundamentals of private members' business as it is.

On the recommendation not to proceed, if I go to page 2 of our notes, the drafting, the notice, and the introduction remain the same. The number of legislative proposals in the draw have to be determined by the committee. So if you have 30 items that can be drawn, it can be 10 bills, 10 motions, and 10 legislative proposals. We have two hours of debate for everybody, which kind of evens out the number of hours. It's a little bit higher, because everything is votable and everything has two hours. The bill, as I said, is referred to committee before second reading.

Finally, if the committee recommends that the bill not proceed, then the House votes on that. If it's carried, the item is dropped; if it's adopted, the bill goes back to the committee.

[Translation]

We talked about a transition period. We would have a transition period where there would be some kind of parallel or dual procedure, where any bill already in progress would go forward according to the current procedure, and with subsequent draws, we would go ahead with the new procedure.

There is something which the committee might want to discuss as well. Perhaps we should decide whether we want a temporary procedure, which could apply for one session, some kind of a trial period.

That's roughly what we debated. It's actually a proposal for discussion. To a certain extent, it summarizes what was said in committee. We are trying to keep the whole process as simple as possible.

[English]

That's it, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

The Chair: Thank you very much, Marie-Andrée, and thanks to your colleagues.

[English]

I have Jay Hill, Cheryl Gallant, Jacques Saada, Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not sure if I'm quite clear how this legislative proposal differs from a motion. It's just sort of a recommendation for future legislation. Can you just explain the intricacies of how they differ?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: I think they would probably be a little more precise, in the sense that with the help of a legislative counsel, the motion could be that a bill be developed along the following lines. Legislative counsel could advise as to what exactly needed to be put in, in a short form that would encompass what the bill should cover. But it wouldn't involve the whole drafting of the bill.

A short answer would be that it probably would be a little more involved than a motion.

Mr. Jay Hill: So it would be something in between a motion and a fully developed bill.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: It would be shorter. It would be something we could package.

The Chair: Jay, could Jamie comment, please?

Mr. James Robertson (Committee Researcher): At present, with private members' motions, once they're adopted by the House, no further action is required by the House. It calls upon the government to do something. It's a resolution of the chamber, and there's no further action.

• 1125

The legislative proposal motion, though, does require the committee to study the subject matter and to decide whether a bill should go forward. A private member's motion that the government deplore genocide would still be available to members, but if you wanted to bring in a bill making genocide illegal, that would be a legislative proposal.

Mr. Jay Hill: But there are some motions now that direct certain things to happen.

Mr. James Robertson: If you called upon the government to bring in a bill, that would still be a resolution of the chamber.

Mr. Jay Hill: Or for a committee to study such-and-such, or... Motions also do that, but not necessarily, is what you're saying.

My other question, Mr. Chairman, is with the timeframe. It says here “All items drawn and placed...would be entitled to up to 2 hours debate”.

One of the things I and others have been grappling with is that there are times when a motion—or, I'm assuming, even this legislative proposal if we went ahead with it—would be pretty cut and dried. People would be either opposed to it or for it after an hour's debate. I notice that even when Mr. Marleau was promoting this idea of a legislative motion—he called it—he proposed that a vote be held after 55 minutes of debate.

One of the things we're all grappling with is the limited amount of time we have for private members' business. I wonder, when you have it in this proposal that it's “up to” two hours, who would make that assessment if it could be done, that a vote could be done after only one hour—or is that indeed an option?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: It is indeed an option. The committee would have to decide the amount of time each item would have. If they're all votable, would it be acceptable to all members that their proposal be debated only one hour in the House before going to committee? It's entirely up to the committee.

Mr. Jay Hill: So are you suggesting, or is the paper suggesting, that it would be the subcommittee on votable items that would make that assessment, or does the whole committee?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Well, it could, but I think it should be part of the proposal that all items have one hour or two hours of debate.

You need criteria to decide how long or how short a debate should be, and I think you're going back to some of the other discussions you had. It's cleaner and clearer if the time is decided.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just want to fully understand. It is envisioned, then, that there would be a set of criteria. If your bill, your legislative proposal, or your motion met certain criteria, it would get one a one-hour debate and be put to a vote, would it?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: No. Everything would have one hour or two hours of debate. It's always a maximum of two hours. The debate can collapse at any time in the questioning part.

Mr. Jay Hill: Oh, I see what you're saying.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: The suggestion we're making here is that it could be a two-hour debate, which allows for going up one time and going down another.

The Chair: Before I go to Cheryl, I'd remind you, colleagues, that the clerks are not suggesting this. The clerks are interpreting things they have heard in the committee to the best of their ability, so it's not something they're promoting, right?

Cheryl Gallant.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: Mr. Chair, I'd like to confirm that the committee will not be able to veto the will of the House on the vote. It will come back to Parliament if they decide not to put it forward.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: If the committee recommended that the bill not be proceeded with, it would be taken up in the House without debate. The House would vote either to concur in that committee report, meaning that the item would be dropped, or reject the committee report, which would mean that the item would go back to committee.

Ms. Cheryl Gallant: So what it does is allow the government an opportunity to whip the members a certain way in the vote, and we do lose that spontaneity.

Thank you.

[Translation]

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

Mr. Jacques Saada (Brossard—La Prairie, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, it's more a question than a statement.

I'm only talking of Senate private bills. Could we consider having some kind of special treatment for those bills since they have been through a much longer parliamentary process than private members' bills?

• 1130

For instance, the sponsor of the bill could be asked to confirm that his bill does not result from a private member initiative taken in the course of the last Parliament, in order to make sure that there is actually some sort of... We're working under a code of honour, aren't we? Would it be possible to consider requiring any Senate bill to come with a declaration by its sponsor stating that the bill is not the result of an initiative taken by a member of Parliament in the course of the last Parliament?

Would that allow us to settle the problem? That's what I am wondering. I don't have any preconceived idea about that, about the answer. I really want to know your opinion about it.

Ms. Marie-André Lajoie: When a bill goes from one house to the other, when it has been adopted in one house and sent to the other house in the course of the legislative process, it would be very hard for this house to impose something like that to the Senate.

Mr. Jacques Saada: What I am trying to do is this. We all want to avoid the Senate becoming a step one can use to get round the problems that a member could face when he wants to introduce a private member's bill. In that regard, we're trying to find some kind of formula, because we realize that the bill has gone through a full legislative process in the Senate. I would like to know if, in theory, that could be acceptable. We will see afterwards if, technically, it could be workable or not.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: It will be for the committee to discuss that. I think that, technically speaking, it would be something difficult to do. I would think it's certainly more an issue of communication between the two houses than a matter of procedure.

[English]

The Chair: Carolyn, is yours a point specifically to this? If you would, please.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): I just read in The Hill Times yesterday, and Senator Milne is preparing a census bill to come through, exactly what we turned down as a votable bill. Senator Chalifoux is preparing a Louis Riel bill. These are bills we've turned down in the House, and they're coming forward. The Canadian horse bill has been turned down before.

You've opened up a Pandora's box. You're going to have Senate bills coming through all the time. The senator is going to swear on a Bible that he didn't know it had already been through the House, and you're not going to be able to argue with a senator. You can't fix this.

The Chair: Can we leave that?

Marie-Andrée, it seems to me this is something that's best dealt with within the meeting we are likely going to have with the Senate. I'm not convinced it affects this chart or our consideration of it.

Again, I'm in your hands, but what I would like to do is get us to some point today so we'll have made some decision on these changes we've been batting around for months.

Now, Jacques, I don't want to—

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Can I stay on the speakers list for—

The Chair: Absolutely.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: I just wanted to add that with Senate bills, if all proposals or bills are votable, then you're not facing a choice with respect to voting on Senate bills. You would vote on every Senate bill just as you would vote on everything else, where the Senate bills are added after the 30 and would—

The Chair: It's a significant wrinkle, but I definitely think it's a wrinkle.

Colleagues, if we could, let's move on to the next speaker. Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): Mr. Chairman, if you'll just indulge me a bit, I'll briefly go over the history of this issue.

As some members may know, there was a time prior to about 1984 that no private members' bills were votable and they were... The only way a private member's bill or motion ever got to the House was if there was unanimous consent—not unanimous consent to make it votable, but unanimous consent that the bill or motion would be passed. There was never, as far as I can remember, unanimous consent to make something votable before actually having a vote. It either went through that way or it didn't go through at all, generally speaking—and that was very rare.

That was why it was a victory at the time to set up the process we have now, where some private members' items are deemed to be votable and are brought to a vote. That was a big improvement in the way we dealt with private members' business, because obviously that was the source of a great deal of frustration. If people feel frustrated now that not everything comes to a vote, you can imagine how people felt when nothing came to a vote. Things were just talked out for the one hour, and then they proceeded into parliamentary oblivion.

• 1135

What we tried to do at that time, when we were considering whether or not to make all things votable—or what to make votable, or what kind of process to have—was related to the fact that we still needed some kind of a filter, if you like, some kind of discretionary power. That would have to exist somewhere in order for the House not to be seized of items generated by private members, having no control as to the quality of what the House was seized with or the appropriateness of what the House was seized with.

That's why I'm here today, Mr. Chairman, basically to say that I commend the clerk for all the work done here, but this still does not solve that problem. When I look at this, I see a House that will be besieged with votes on things we'd rather not be voting on and committees that will be seized with bills and legislative proposals they'd rather not be seized with.

I promise you, as sure as I'm sitting here, this will be a nightmare. Two years from now some other poor souls will be sitting here saying “God, how can we undo this? It's just not working.”

The only way it will work—and I say this to everyone, as everyone will have a role to play in this—is if instead of the rule of unanimous consent, which existed prior to 1984, which was used to... That was a very small filter, and hardly anything could get through it. Then we opened it up a bit. What you will go back to here—there's a very real possibility of this—is that the government will have to use its majority to force discipline on this process.

It won't be an all-party thing for people who like to think about a non-partisan or all-party process by which we could deal with this...which is appropriate to private members' business. Basically, as soon as you create this kind of monster, the only way to apply discipline will be through the government majority. That will have different political effects for everyone, depending on where they're sitting in the House.

For the government members, it means you guys will end up voting against all kinds of things, and you're going to have a lot of fun explaining to your constituents why you voted against them. Members in the opposition may have a bit of fun with that from time to time, but in the end we will end up with a process unlike the situation as it is now, where private members' motions or bills that are selected have a certain kind of status. They've been selected in this non-partisan way, and therefore even the government has to treat them with a certain kind of sensitivity, although sometimes it's clear the cabinet or even the government has made a decision.

But we also know that there are occasions where either these things pass, the government is divided, or there's division between cabinet and the backbenches, sometimes even within the cabinet. I'm not sure how that happens, but it does.

I'm saying we run a very real risk here of downgrading the status of private members' business and making it something that basically has to be managed by the government, as it was in the past, only differently.

Not everything is as it seems. I know there is a tremendous desire on the part of a lot of members to, I presume—I've experienced this over the years—make everything votable, as if this is somehow parliamentary nirvana. I'm telling you that it will not be. It will turn out to be the metaphysical opposite.

I plead with members to keep that in mind. I know we're under instruction from the House to draft a workable proposal, but we can always go back and say that we didn't feel that there was one that was appropriate. We have that kind of freedom. I just think we will create a situation that will not only be unworkable but in the end will subvert what a great many people have in mind when they think of this.

• 1140

The Chair: Thank you, Bill. I really appreciate it when we have someone who can use five-syllable and six-syllable words and we all understand what they mean.

Garry Breitkreuz and then Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: With all due respect to the last speaker, we've already passed this discussion and I think it's time to move on.

We also must remember that there hasn't been a single bill that's been been passed in this Parliament, so at least we have a bit more hope in this process of moving things forward.

I have some questions for our expert.

Mr. Geoff Regan: [Inaudible—Editor].

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, right. But the government has taken ownership of that, even though it was an opposition motion.

The Chair: That's true. Let's carry on.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I have about four questions here. I was wondering how in this process non-votable items would be dealt with. If a member is drawn and does not want their item to be votable, would that be deemed a one-hour debate and then dropped from the Order Paper?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: We could work that in, definitely.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I think that's something we should address, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Yes.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: And will there be priority given to members who haven't previously in this Parliament had the issue they want to bring forward dealt with? Is there some way in the draw to give precedence to those members who have not yet had an opportunity to bring forward a motion or bill in this Parliament?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: We didn't put it in the proposal, but, again, it's up to the committee to decide if there's a—

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I thought there was a consensus at the committee that we do that. Mr. Chairman, I think that's something we should decide as well.

The third concern I'd like to raise is the one on time limits. I think there should be a time limit for once the House has made a yes decision—if it's a no decision, of course it's dropped—a time limit of say 30 days to draw up a bill and refer it to the committee. Then maybe have another time limit of 60 sitting days—these are sitting days I'm talking about—for the committee to deal with the issue.

Also, the Marleau proposal had something in it that I thought we had agreed on, that the resulting bill would have to be within the four corners of the motion. That's something I think we'd have to discuss and deal with here, Mr. Chairman.

The last thing I was wondering about is whether we have to include something in our Standing Orders that would address the criterion we presently have that says:

...bills and motions should concern issues that are not part of the government's current legislative agenda and which have not been voted on or otherwise addressed by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament.

Then we won't keep doing the same thing over.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Yes, certainly.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to not have the same issue dealt with over and over again. Is that maybe something we could address, the standing order?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Absolutely.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I guess that's five, not four things, that I've raised. Otherwise, I think there's general agreement on what's been proposed.

In order to clarify it, I think we should maybe deal with those five things, Mr. Chairman.

The Chair: Marie-Andrée Lajoie.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: There's already a time limit for committee study of bills.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: It's 60 days, is it not?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Yes, 60 days, plus 30. So that could be addressed.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I would like to maybe include that in the Standing Orders, just to make sure that's clear.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Yes. Staying with the four corners of the motion could also be considered.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes, I think that's important. Otherwise, this whole process could become meaningless.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: The same thing for your last point.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes.

The Chair: This is some of the arithmetic that goes with any change of this type, but it seems to me there are other things that...not ought to go in the legislation but estimates of how much committee time it might take.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Yes.

The Chair: Another one would be some sort of prediction as to which committee or committees would be most burdened. For example, my sense is that the justice committee might find itself totally overwhelmed. It would be possible to look back at the nature of bills in the system and see where they would go, if we used this. I think it's a lot of arithmetic.

• 1145

Marie-Andrée, I'm assuming these are things that require work.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Yes, absolutely. In order to do that work, it is important for us to get a sense from the committee as to where we're supposed to be going with this. Those are all items we can pursue in the proposal.

The Chair: You're here for a sense of direction.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: That's right.

The Chair: Okay.

Carolyn Parrish and then Bill Blaikie.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm only hoping I haven't given Mr. Breitkreuz the wrong impression. I have never been in favour of this, just so you're very clear on that.

I am not anywhere near as experienced or multi-syllabic as my colleague across the table.

The Chair: Multi-syllabic how?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I have pretty well immersed myself in this business for five out of my eight years here, and I disagree with the comment that private members' bills never see the light of day. Mr. Guimond's bill on tools for mechanics was in the budget yesterday, although it may not be as much as he wanted. The waiting period on apprenticeships for EI was also in there. So they find their way in, and it's actually amazing that it's opposition stuff that finds its way in. We backbenchers have been screaming in caucus for years on these things and get nowhere.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: Do you have a point of order?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Yes. I think that's a key point that needs to be made, that this is an advantage to backbench Liberals.

The Chair: That is not a point of order.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'd like to point out to you what I've said before—you're going to have to indulge me for a minute, because I really want to get this off my chest—that none of us have the staff or the budget to do the research necessary to vote intelligently on hundreds of private members' bills a year. None of us have the staff or the budget. So it's going to become an issue of lobbying and whipping by party, which it isn't right now.

The issue of time in the House and time in committees is going to be overwhelming, as Bill has said. If I gave you a list of the bills and motions that have gone through private members since September—I won't bring it here because names would be attached to it—you would be shocked and amazed at some of the junk that comes there, literally. I'm sorry if I'm brutal. To spend time in the House discussing it simply because some private member thinks it's a good idea is offensive to the solemnity of the House, as far as I'm concerned.

I think the committee business will be taken over by this. When we had such fussing over the 100-signature rule and that whole thing had to be reversed, that's nothing compared to what's going to happen with this. I think it's an Americanization of our system, where all bills will be generated by private members eventually, and that's not a system I particularly want to see. I think you also know that in the United States, lobbying by large corporations—for example, a pesticide company—pushing to get private members' bills on the floor, lobbying the hell out of all the MPs... It's going to be a nightmare. It's a system I don't want.

I don't want to get into the Senate bills again, because I am almost distraught about what just happened to this committee. But we'll get into that later.

I would like to move a motion, if you'll accept it:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs report to the House changes to the Standing Orders for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable, cannot be achieved.

The Chair: We have a motion, colleagues.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm doing this because I believe in the process. I've spent a lot of time on it, and Bill has spent years on it. It works, and it's been refined to the point where it's a very workable process. I care very much about it. If all bills are votable, it will become a big morass for everything to go into and nobody will pay any attention to it. It will be whipped votes and it will destroy the system.

The Chair: As I say, I have a motion. I also have a list. I'll go to the list first, if they want to speak on the motion.

The list at the moment is Bill Blaikie and Jay Hill. Do you want to speak to the motion, Bill?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I had initially raised my hand about something else.

The Chair: As I say, I'll go to this list first and I'll come back to the list if we get past this.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I could speak to the motion if that would be permissible.

The Chair: Yes, please.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: One of the virtues of the motion as it stands is that it would put us out of our misery of trying to find a proposal that makes everything votable, because the reference that we have from the House assumes that there is a workable proposal. It doesn't really treat the matter as to whether or not it's intrinsically a good idea to have everything votable. In other words, it treats it as if it's just a kind of workability problem.

• 1150

What we're having here among ourselves is a debate about workability, but also about the intrinsic value of it, and they tend to merge. It's not clear, because at a certain point, even if you could make an argument for the intrinsic value of voting on everything—which I wouldn't make, but others might—even if you adopt that, then you have workability problems as to some of the things we've just discussed.

So it's really up to the committee to decide whether they're at the point where they want to make this kind of decision—to stop working on this. I would certainly be in favour of the motion, I think, but for obvious reasons: because intrinsically I don't think all private members' business should be votable if we have no filtering mechanism; and secondly because I don't think it would be workable, for the reasons I outlined earlier. People will have to make their own judgment.

But I can certainly see some wisdom in making this decision now. You can have meetings and meetings and you won't come up with something that will be workable. So save yourself a lot of time and effort.

The Chair: Jay Hill, then Geoff Regan.

Mr. Jay Hill: Well, I was on the list for general debate, but I would, Mr. Chairman, speak against the motion. I believe we should be able to come up with something that's workable. I'd even be willing to accept something on a trial basis, I guess, to see how it works. I defer to people like my learned colleague beside me here with the experience, but with all due respect to him, I don't think there's been a time in the past when it's been tried, to have everything votable.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: We haven't tried mass suicide either.

Mr. Jay Hill: I'm not sure there's a direct comparison between the two.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Yes, but we can always give it a shot, you know, to see how it works out.

Mr. Jay Hill: Okay, you go first. You go first.

Anyway, Mr. Chairman, I'm speaking against it because I don't think we've finished exploring the motion from the House to come up with a workable solution. I think we're partway down that path. I believe if we're going to continue down that path, as you and others were suggesting, then we need some more research done as to what would be the likely outcome: if we did this, this is what would happen; are we going to be overloading specific committees...? I think that would be good research for the committee to have at our disposal as we proceed with the discussion of this motion from the House.

The Chair: Geoff Regan, then Garry Breitkreuz.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Before we all drink the parliamentary Kool-aid, Mr. Chairman.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Geoff Regan: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask, I guess... We have the sword hanging over our heads telling us we have to have this done by a certain point, and that's an argument for supporting the motion. I guess my question is, if the motion is passed, does it prevent the committee from discussing this issue at all in the future?

It seems to me we have it open to ourselves to determine our own agenda and to have discussions, if we find ourselves moving any closer toward an agreement. I'm sort of asking myself, should we table this and come back in January to discuss it—or Thursday, for that matter—or should we pass the motion and then maybe we might still find some chance of going...?

The Chair: No, on that, I'm assured that one of our basic mandates as the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is the Standing Orders. We can discuss and open matters on the Standing Orders whenever we wish. So we could do it that route; it would simply be a matter of the Standing Orders, Geoff. That's the technical answer to your question. Okay? Are you fine with that?

Mr. Geoff Regan: Yes, I am. And I thought Mr. Blaikie's arguments were quite persuasive.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: May I speak to that point?

The Chair: On that point? Yes, please.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would be willing to put an amendment to my own motion or a tag on the end: “at this time”.

The Chair: Garry, you're on the list. Do you want to hear it?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Well, let's hear what it is.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I would add the three words at the end of my motion: “at this time”. It would not close the door; it would say we cannot report back on this “at this time”.

The Chair: Okay, it doesn't close the door anyway. But you've heard that point. The point is, “at this time” gives an indication that the door might be easier to open than it would be otherwise.

• 1155

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Carolyn, would you be willing to put a time on that, such as February...?

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'm sick of this whole subject.

The Chair: Garry, you're on.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Many things have been raised in regard to the whole issue. As Carolyn said, I don't have the staff. But that's the case with every vote that comes before the House: you have to go by the legislative summary—the executive summaries you have prepared for you by the experts in that field—and that's how you make your decision. So a lot of these arguments that have been raised I don't think are valid, Mr. Chairman.

Something else that's being assumed is that all the motions will be votable. They won't all be votable. We will not have the committees inundated with a lot of extra work. To give the impression that this is somehow going to increase the work for the committees beyond what they can handle is a paper tiger.

Now, I had the sense we were very close to an agreement, and for us to suddenly vote this out of existence means we have to start all over again. I think we have something workable and we're very close to it already. To suddenly go back on this I think would be regrettable in the extreme.

I would like us to get an agreement on some of the basic things we're very close to here and give the staff working with us here and supporting us the green light to prepare this over the break and bring it back to us in February. I think that is the way to go, Mr. Chairman.

If we're this close, to suddenly derail the whole process I think is really a disservice to Parliament. Parliament has made it clear they would like to have things changed in this area, and we should try to make an honest effort at this committee to do it. I don't sense that's happening here today.

The Chair: I'll go to Paul Macklin, and then if I can I'm going to call the vote.

Paul.

Mr. Paul Harold Macklin (Northumberland, Lib.): One of my concerns with respect to this matter is that I understood when we were developing the thoughts on this issue that there would always be a screening process. Now I'm getting the impression there wasn't a screening process being worked into this proposal, and I'd like some clarification on that before we go further.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: What kind of screening process would you like to see?

The Chair: Marie-Andrée, can you respond to that about the screening?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: If we take, for example, a legislative proposal, the legislative counsel would obviously propose something that is constitutional and within the jurisdiction, but otherwise, as far as votability or length of time for debate are concerned, there are no criteria in the proposal.

The problem is in something like this you can't, on the one hand, say everything is votable and then add criteria. We had to start with the premise that everything was votable. We did that. We could have started with a different premise, if you wanted.

Mr. Paul Macklin: Based on that, obviously I would find it difficult to go forward with the proposal that's before us. I therefore would be supporting the motion.

The Chair: Jacques Saada.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Mr. Chairman...

[English]

The Chair: Jacques, if you could be brief, I'd be grateful.

[Translation]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Yes. I tend to support Carolyn's motion, but there are still two problems that have not been settled yet. First, there is the fact that the subcommittee has a power of recommendation only. So there is always a possibility that the committee itself makes decisions which are at the opposite of what was recommended by the subcommittee. I think that could create a problem, because we saw what happened in that regard today and some time ago.

Second, are we going to consider on an equal footing the issue of private bills coming from the Senate, or are we going to give a more specific thought to what comes from the Senate? Those are the two points I wanted to make.

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Basically, it will depend on the committee. In the proposal, private bills coming from the Senate are dealt with in the same way as private members' bills, that is to say that all items are votable.

Mr. Jacques Saada: But what about Carolyn's proposal now? We do have a motion, don't we?

Ms. Marie-Andrée Lajoie: Yes. I don't think that the issue of Senate bills is implied in that motion.

• 1200

[English]

Mr. Jacques Saada: Well, that's the point I'm raising too, because I don't want to be caught, every single time a Senate bill comes up, having to decide and change my mind and go through all kinds of routes to deal with it.

The Chair: I want to comment on that again. In regard to the Senate issue, we had tacit agreement to have a meeting on that topic with representation from the Senate in some way.

It's Jay Hill, then Bill Blaikie.

Mr. Jay Hill: I just want to point out, in reference to Mr. Macklin's comment about the screening process, I think that is the big problem right now.

We have these criteria, and when I design a bill or motion and have it drafted, I try to have it meet those criteria. Then you find out that the subcommittee on votable items doesn't like it, so they don't support making it votable.

To me, if you're going to have criteria, everything that meets the criteria should be votable, or why the hell bother having criteria?

What I sense is that the subcommittee, of which I am a part, despite its claims to the contrary, ends up passing judgment on whether the motion or bill that has gone through the lottery—if you're lucky enough to have your name drawn—meets our standards of being worthy of a vote or not. And therein lies the problem. If it meets the criteria, however many criteria there are, it should be made votable.

I don't see how you can have it one way or the other. You either throw out the criteria and say this select group of people is going to be judge, jury, and executioner of all private members' business—because that's what's happening now—or you have criteria and make everything votable if it meets the criteria.

The Chair: Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Of course, Mr. Chairman, somebody has to decide whether it meets the criteria. Criteria are not self-evident. I don't know how Mr. Hill's problem can be overcome. Somebody has to decide what meets the criteria, and that's what the committee is for.

Mr. Jay Hill: Then they should have to explain themselves.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Do you really think you could have a process in which the committee would be constantly explaining itself to members of Parliament as to why they chose this and why they didn't choose that? It would be unworkable.

The Chair: I'm going to call the motion—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I originally raised my hand on another matter, but perhaps it may not be relevant, depending on how this motion goes.

The Chair: You were the first on the list that was left when this motion...

I'm going to call the amended motion, and I'll read it:

That the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs report to the House that changes to the Standing Orders for the consideration of Private Members' Business, including a workable proposal allowing for all items to be votable, cannot be achieved at this time.

An hon. member: Could I have a recorded vote?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 9; nays 4)

The Chair: Should this be reported to the House?

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: I'd like a clarification on that. Were we not given instructions with a certain time limit on when to report to the House—the proposal?

The Chair: We have until April 12. But on the other hand, that is the time limit. I don't see any conflict, Garry, to be honest with you, between reporting now or on April 11.

Mr. Garry Breitkreuz: Will this come back to us then from the House? What's the procedure?

• 1205

The Chair: The procedure now, assuming I'm directed to report this to the House, is I'd report it to the House of Commons, and that would be it. The way it's phrased, it can be raised again at this committee at any time.

Jamie advised me that if the House wishes, it can send it back to us; or, as I said, given the phrasing, even without this phrasing, we can raise it again at any time at this committee.

Now, colleagues, should I report it to the House?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: I will so report to the House of Commons.

Bill Blaikie, do you have something else?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: No, that's all I wanted to say.

The Chair: Carolyn Parrish.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I was assuming we were going to carry on the discussion.

The Chair: Thank you.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You made the wise decision not to, so I take my name off.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I am very seriously concerned about the reversal today on the Senate bill. Just as we've been told that if we don't make all the bills votable there may not be reciprocal courtesy in the Senate, I have a feeling if we don't pass them all we're going to be threatened with reciprocal carryings-on in the Senate. So I would like to tender my resignation as chair of the private members' business subcommittee to you and to the whip. Obviously I have failed in convincing you of the business that comes out of that committee, and I would ask you to appoint someone else.

The Chair: I would point out, I don't... Does the committee technically appoint such a person?

The Clerk of the Committee: Yes.

The Chair: Yes, we do. The committee does.

Carolyn, I'd like to say to you, it's hard for me to accept that. I want to say to you on behalf of the whole committee that these years you've put in on the subcommittee are greatly appreciated by those of us who follow such things. I'm sure the whip will hear of this and will consider it. I deeply regret the fact that you've seen fit to do this. I hope you'll participate in our meeting with the Senate on this particular issue. I'd be most grateful if you would.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I will. This is not a fit of pique; it's a seriously thought out thing.

The Chair: I do know you well enough to know you would not be making this step so publicly without that.

Colleagues, don't you agree? I think Carolyn over the years has been an excellent chair of that subcommittee, under the most difficult circumstances.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: According to Jay Hill, that was good.

The Chair: We'll proceed with that. Now, can I—

Mr. Jay Hill: I resent that.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I resemble that remark, said Mr. Hill.

The Chair: Before we conclude, there are a couple of things. I am quite willing to have a meeting on Thursday morning, but I would suggest we decide not to.

Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I'll be here.

The Chair: I will be here too.

Agreed?

I would then suggest that after we adjourn today, we proceed as follows. On the Tuesday after we come back, the steering committee will meet. So we'll consider the Senate matter and other outstanding matters we have, and on the Thursday of that week we'll call in Mr. Kingsley again. Agreed? Then following that, we will do whatever the steering committee decides.

Colleagues, we're adjourned. I wish you all compliments of the season. Thank you for an excellent session, and I look forward to being back here again after the break.