[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]
Tuesday, March 18, 1997
.1106 
[English]
The Chairman (Mr. Paul Zed (Fundy - Royal, Lib.)): Good morning. We are calling to order the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
The orders of the day for the committee are a report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business on the selection of votable items.
I'm pleased to see our colleague Mrs. Parrish here. I understand, Mrs. Parrish, you have a presentation.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga West, Lib.): First we're going to present the report of the subcommittee on the three votable items that have been selected. We've selected three bills.
The first is Bill C-226, an act to amend the Criminal Code to remove self-defence in particular cases. It's not summarized well here, but there was a case presented to us where someone took a knife over to confront someone. The person threw a box at them, or something, and then they stabbed them. So there's a very intricate wording there that's a loophole on self-defence. So we thought it would be interesting to debate it in the House.
The second one is Bill C-232, an act to prohibit the export of water by interbasin transfers.
The third one is Bill C-345, an act to provide for the limitation of interest rates on credit cards. We thought you'd be particularly interested in this, Mr. Zed.
The Chairman: I want the record to show that I had no knowledge of that.
Mrs. Parrish: I know.
We present these respectfully to the committee for approval. We selected no motions, although spaces for two motions were available, so I assume there will be another draw.
The Chairman: Thank you.
Is there any comment on Mrs. Parrish's report? There being no comment, are you ready for a motion on the question?
[Translation]
Ms Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval Centre, BQ): Are you the person who's going to support Mr. Bhaduria?
The Chairman: Mr. Bhaduria?
[English]
Mrs. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Mais, oui...the third one.
The Chairman: Well, I'm a country person, and we'll wait and see what happens when it hits the city of Ottawa.
There is a motion that the report from the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business be adopted as the fifty-ninth report to the House and that the committee present the report to the House. Is that the motion?
Motion agreed to
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You've severely limited my presentation by telling me I only have ten minutes, but I'm going to try to get as much as I can.
Mr. Langlois, Mr. Frazer, and I have worked for four months. As you know, every year there's controversy over private members' business, the way the bills are selected, how many are votable, and sometimes it's just a member who has lost out because their bill didn't get selected. But generally there have been very consistent reviews of how private members' bills are selected and made votable and various other circumstances that surround it.
As you notice from the report, we've included a background section. It shows you refinements that have occurred since Confederation, and it seems to be something that is done every couple of years. So your instructions to us to do this again was very timely.
We have included a summary of our recommendations on the first page and a half. Very quickly, I'd like to walk you through some of the rationale behind these recommendations.
Again, I want to point out that this committee is made up of three people who consistently have been sitting on this committee for a long time. François has been on there since 1993, and he has a very valuable store of experience so that much of what is here is again very carefully fine-tuned and we all agreed on it. The committee had no difficulties coming to consensus on this. I want to make sure you understand that.
.1110
The first recommendation is more a technical one than anything else. Right now, when we have bills drawn, there are 30 allowed to sit on the Order Paper; 15 are bills and 15 are motions. Often, when we are deliberating, there's space for one bill, three motions. It's very artificial. The amount of time it takes to debate it in the House is the same; it's actually irrelevant to distinguish between motions and bills. We feel it's important in the draw to maintain the 15 and 15, but once they get to us for selection purposes, we would like the flexibility of saying this time we're going to pick all motions or all bills, as we just did. We're not going to artificially plug them into a limited space.
Our recommendation in number one is that we amend Standing Order 92(1) to remove the provision that not more than five motions and five bills may be designated as votable items, and to provide that not more than ten items from the order of precedence still remain votable. In other words, at any given time you could have eight bills and two motions, or another combination of such. It gives a lot more flexibility to the committee and it also gives us an opportunity for a really fair hearing.
We often have five excellent bills come forward. We're told we can only pick one. It's really frustrating for the committee and for the presenters, because they've lost their spot in the lottery.
The second recommendation is the most dramatic, I feel. The most frustration experienced by MPs is this whole concept of a lottery. It's a very difficult concept for those of us who are movers and shakers and like to sort of take care of our own destiny. We feel very frustrated that you can sit in that drum for months and months and never get drawn. Your little circle is not heavy enough. So we suggest that we amend the orders to allow items outside the order of precedence that have been jointly seconded by 100 members of the House, including at least 10 members from two recognized political parties. And all that does is get you on the order of precedence.
So the next time we call a meeting and we say there are 15 items coming before us, one of those items by virtue of the fact that the MP has a bill or a motion that's acceptable to 100 people in the House from at least two parties, a minimum of 10 from each party, can come before the committee. That doesn't mean we're automatically going to make you votable, but it's going to be very difficult not to when you've got 100 people seconding a motion. All that does is take you out of the lottery by virtue of hard work. You've got to approach 100, probably 200 people, to get 100 to agree to second it.
That is our most dramatic recommendation. The hard workers among us will get out there and they'll be very busy, but that's fine. It doesn't guarantee that they're votable; all it does is guarantee that they're heard at an appropriate time.
The third recommendation is that for the purposes of the draw and the selection of votable items, an item of private members' business on which a recorded division has been deferred now be considered to be on the order of precedence. What happens now is, because of the voting system in the House, we have the full debate for three hours, then the vote on it is deferred to a convenient time when other items are being voted on. Sometimes, when we have our draw in the middle of that, that piece is still sitting there as a slot that's taken. Once it's gone and deferred as a vote, it should no longer be holding a space. We could then select another bill to fit into that space.
We've had frustrations in that we've come to a committee where we can only pick one item out of 15 presentations. The people presenting feel the futility of it. If we can say it has been discussed for three hours in the House and has been moved on to a deferred vote, then we can select a replacement for it when we meet. That's our third recommendation.
The fourth recommendation: The subcommittee recommends the Standing Orders be amended to require that a committee to which a private member's bill has been referred must within 60 sitting days - that's about four months - report the bill to the House with or without amendments, or with a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill, or request that additional time be provided to the committee for studying the bill. If no bill or report is presented by the end of 60 sitting days, the bill should be deemed to have been reported without amendment.
Consistently we've had MPs come to us and say one of the difficulties they experience is that once a bill has been voted on in the House it is the property of the House, it's no longer the property of the member, and it goes to a committee, where it languishes sometimes for a year and nothing happens to it and it just dies a natural death.
What we're saying now is that because it's the property of the House, after 60 sitting days the committee that has it has to come back and tell you what's happening to it - it is either going to be amended, they don't support it, and so on. There has to be some report to the House to get rid of this frustration that people are experiencing, that somehow the committee system is blocking their work. If we hear nothing within 60 sitting days, it's deemed adopted without amendments. That will encourage most committees to keep an order of these things and not let them sit there unaddressed.
.1115
The fifth one: The subcommittee recommends the recorded divisions of private members' business begin with the sponsor of the item - which is what we do now - if he or she is present, and then proceed beginning with the back row on the sponsor's side of the House and the back row on the other side.
This is to stress again that government ministers and frontbenchers, leaders of opposition parties, really shouldn't be telling people how to vote on private members' bills. We looked at the idea of doing it alphabetically, but everybody tore their hair out and said this is not possible. It was too cumbersome, it was too difficult, and it pointed out the absence of a member in the House when the name was called and no one stood up. So we thought, just to stress that it belongs to the backbenchers, it belongs to the private members, the supporter or the presenter of the bill votes first, then his or her side of the House starting in the back row and then work down. It's not logistically difficult. The clerks told us it is doable. What it does is get rid of the frontbenchers voting first and gets the backbenchers taking precedence.
I don't know if you like that one; I personally love it.
The sixth one recommends that Standing Orders be amended to provide that during the first 30 sitting days after a prorogation, whenever a private member when proposing a motion for the first reading of a public bill states the said bill is in the same form as a private member's bill that he or she introduced in the previous session, if the Speaker is satisfied that said bill is in the same form as at prorogation, the bill should be deemed to have been considered and approved at all stages completed at the time of prorogation and stand, if necessary, on the Order Paper.
This is the same thing the Honourable Herb Gray did when we prorogued this time. All this is doing is ensconcing what he did in procedure. We're saying from now on if the House prorogues, as long as the bill is not changed, is exactly the way it was, it comes back at the same stage. All we're doing is confirming what Mr. Gray did.
The subcommittee's seventh recommendation is that the House of Commons appoint, by resolution, a law clerk and parliamentary counsel of the House of Commons who would be responsible for the provision of legislative drafting services for members.
Apparently this was the practice in the past and was dropped. What this does is to ensure, when you're drafting legislation for a private member, that it's totally non-partisan and the drafter of the legislation is totally responsible in a private client-lawyer situation with the member who's having the bill drafted. Again, there's a fuller explanation of it if you look at page 10.
It respects the nature of the solicitor-client relationship. It's desirable to re-establish the office of law clerk and parliamentary counsel for the House of Commons, because the officer could be appointed by resolution of the House and would report directly to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
When we talked to the people who do the drafting for us, this is something they brought up as a difficulty they're experiencing.
The last recommendation of the subcommittee was that priority be given to the drafting of private members' bills for members who have not previously had a bill drafted during the session of Parliament.
We have some very lucky duckies who have 16 pieces under drafting at all times that keep getting pulled. They're very prolific. There are also some people who have one particular bill - that's all they've come up with over a four-year term in office - and they're being told they can't have their bill drafted because everybody is too busy. So what we're saying is if you've had a bill before the House, you've had it drafted, it's been aired, then you go to the bottom of the list in priorities if there's a waiting list for having bills done. We think that private members' bills shouldn't be the sole vehicle of people who are lucky enough to just keep ramming more bills through.
I would like Mr. Frazer and Mr. Langlois to add any comments they feel I've missed out on. This was a rush presentation. I had a really glorious one ready.
The Chairman: It was an excellent presentation.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Oh yeah, you just like it because it's short.
The Chairman: Mr. Langlois and then Mr. Frazer, please.
[Translation]
Mr. François Langlois (Bellechasse, BQ): I will be very brief. Ms Parrish mentioned that we had been working for over four months. The report is the result of a consensus we reached, and Ms Parrish underlined very well the consensus reached by the subcommittee. Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Merci, monsieur Langlois. Mr. Frazer, please.
Mr. Jack Frazer (Saanich - Gulf Islands, Ref.): The only comment I'd have to make, Mr. Chairman, is with regard to the first recommendation. Mrs. Parrish says we could select either five bills or more bills or motions. What was implicit there but wasn't said specifically was that the bills or motions would be selected on whether they are the best items on that list we're considering.
.1120
We've had it happen that we've had eight bills to consider, only one of which we can select. On that particular list...I remember it specifically because there were some very good bills on it and we simply couldn't deal with them. Some of the motions were perhaps not nearly as strong as the bills were, but we had no option. This is why that recommendation was made.
The Chairman: As your chairman, I think I speak for all members when I say that this piece of work is of very high quality. On behalf of the committee, I want to thank the subcommittee for their excellent presentation. They've done a first-class job.
I think all of us at this table, as members of Parliament, recognize the importance of continuing to empower MPs. Speaking for Mr. Gray, I know he'll certainly be very anxious to look at some of these important issues.
On that point, before we move an adoption of the motion, here's what we could perhaps do after the motion gets passed by our committee and gets into the House. We could go back to our respective parties - at least the respective parties that are represented here - and canvass our members, letting them know about what in fact is being recommended to ensure some crazy problem doesn't develop as a result of this.
Not that I distrust the work that's been done by the subcommittee, but I really would look to do it as a consultation more than anything, because as a result of that consultation I think it would give the government House leadership an opportunity to do its formal consultation with its House leader meetings. Presuming a consensus develops from that, we would then work on implementing the necessary changes and on the drafting. I think we'll need another meeting of the whole committee.
As your chairman, that is how I propose to do it.
Madam Parrish.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: As the chairman of this subcommittee, I'd like to say that we work on consensus, and I'd like to see this adopted on consensus. I don't want to see it rammed through. I'd like to see it received today so that it can then become a quasi-public document and can be discussed among our colleagues. Right now, it's not a public document.
I'd like to move its receipt, and I would like your assurance that once full discussions are held it will come back to this committee for clause-by-clause or for a look at it, because it is by no means perfect.
And I overlooked this earlier, but I also want to thank the clerk, Diane Diotte. She's a very patient lady and did a very good job for us. And I think Jamie is a miracle worker. He does the best reports in the world. I think he should be congratulated. It's an excellent report.
The Chairman: You ought to give him a raise.
Some hon. members: Oh, oh!
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: You could do that too.
I speak for the three of us when I say we really want consensus to work all the way through, and we don't want anything precipitous to occur today. If we could move receipt of it with your guarantee it will come back in a reasonable time for discussion and passage, we'd be delighted.
The Chairman: Those of you who know me know I don't give guarantees, but you know that when I deal with things it's done expeditiously. I will agree to meet with Mr. Gray very soon on this subject.
Equally, let me impress upon other colleagues at the table that they should meet with their respective party leaders and leadership teams, because obviously we work on things as teams. With respect to the Reform Party and the Bloc, you would meet with the various members of your group and ensure a consensus develops. Then I will call another meeting of the full procedure and house affairs commmittee to go through this report and the summary of the report on a clause-by-clause basis.
Mrs. Parrish, I think you will also want to receive some input from the Speaker's office and the clerk's office and have their people look at it.
I see the clerk sitting there and hopefully nodding to indicate that he would be interested in looking at the information contained in this report.
I know you've already had an opportunity to have some preliminary conversations with them, but this would just ensure that logistically everything that's recommended works. I'm prepared to commit to do that expeditiously.
Do we have agreement, then, that the report in relation to the orders of reference from the committee in relation to the question of votable items and the process at committee stage be moved as a motion, that we receive it and that the report be adopted as the committee's 60th report to the House -
Some hon. members: No.
.1125
The Chairman: No. I'm sorry, we're just going to receive it.
An hon. member: So moved.
The Chairman: On the question, yes, Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan (Winnipeg North, Lib.): Before we vote on that motion to receive, perhaps the chair would allow some questions so that when answers are given by the committee all the committee members who presented it are here, as the chair is here, and I have a few questions to ask for clarification.
The Chairman: I think that rather than open the meeting up to anything broader than receiving the committee report at this stage, I would respectfully request.... If it's a clarification of some of the recommendations, I think we could take a minute to do that. But we have the clerk waiting and we have other business. I think we've all just got the report. But, Dr. Pagtakhan, I don't want to cut you off.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It's just the recommendations, just the immediate questions, not any detail, such as recommendation number two. If in fact all the people who introduced the bills happened to succeed in getting all of those bills to have that number of signatures, would the number then create such a magnitude that it would become unmanageable? Has that been considered by the committee or the subcommittee?
The Chairman: Very quickly, Carolyn.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: What this says is that if it's 100 signatures, you get to be at our next committee meeting to be debated. If four people manage to get 100 signatures and come there, then they will only pull 12 bills out of the lottery. You'll always only have whatever we normally have, about 15, to be perused.
We talked about that. I think getting 100 signatures is going to be a very onerous task, and I don't think you're going to see a lot of bills coming through that way. All that's going to do is that instead of pulling 15 bills out of the lottery, we have two people with 100 signatures, then they get two spaces before our debate at our committee, and we only draw 13 from the lottery.
The Chairman: So effectively what you've done is introduced a fast track if somebody has the populist will of the House.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: Right.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I realize that.
My question, Mr. Chair, is assuming that everybody succeeds in getting 100 signatures, does the subcommittee have any contingency plan as to how to handle that overload?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: I think what we might do, with respect, Dr. Pagtakhan, is to try it for three months. If that in fact happens, then we're going to have to come back and talk about it again.
The Chairman: So it's an implementation question, but it's a good point. Thank you for that, Dr. Pagtakhan.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: On item four, within 60 days, does the clock stop when the committee starts the study of the bill?
The Chairman: I don't think so.
Mr. Jack Frazer: No, it would be when the bill passes second reading and is referred to committee. That's when the clock starts.
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: That's when the clock starts. The clock stops 60 sitting days after that. So if you start deliberating the bill at a committee on the 59th day, that doesn't stop the clock.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I realize that. That's why I wanted a clarification. Do you then envision that every bill submitted to the committee would be completed in terms of a study of its merit? Within that period of time, knowing that a committee also could have some other functions, what contingency plans do you have in case you may not honestly finish a study of a bill within those 60 sitting days?
Mrs. Carolyn Parrish: What you do within 60 sitting days is come back and report on your progress, say we're at this stage, we need more time, and then the time is granted. What we're looking for is simply a status report after 60 days. We don't want them disappearing.
The Chairman: Dr. Pagtakhan, the problem is that I'm starting to get a show of hands from a lot of other people who are interested. I'm not trying to cut you off. In fairness to the members of the committee, I said I would receive the matter. There's a lot of other consultation that needs to occur. The matters you're raising are valid and interesting and important clarifications, but I think that at the moment I don't want to get into any more substance on this.
Mr. Strahl.
Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East, Ref.): In that vein I agree with you. If we're going to receive this, let's just receive it, study it, consult and do our work. But there's nothing in receiving it that precludes us from either proposing amendments or requesting clarification down the road.
The Chairman: Exactly, and that's why I think Dr. Pagtakhan's points are excellent ones that need to be checked. That's why I don't think we're ready to report to the House and to give drafting instructions because maybe something unplanned or untoward or something crazy happens as a result of getting it presented. Knowing Dr. Pagtakhan, he can already find a couple of issues that need to be addressed. So on that basis, we don't really need a motion to receive.
.1130
Again, our heartfelt and deep gratitude to Mrs. Parrish, Mr. Langlois, and Mr. Frazer for their great work and obviously their judgment in choosing Mrs. Parrish to present so eloquently and so quickly and in such good time. Thank you very much.
The next item on the agenda, colleagues, is the committee's mandate under Standing Order 108. I would invite the Clerk of the House and Mr. Monpetit, the Clerk Assistant, to present themselves to the committee.
Colleagues, as a quick background, there were a couple of irritations that happened a few days ago on the subject of 108(3)(a)(iii) in relation to the procedure and practice surrounding questions during Question Period. As your chairman, I had done some consultations among us, and it was agreed that we would call the clerk, Mr. Marleau, and Mr. Monpetit to present to us some information as it relates to that. The committee members may wish to make some interventions and have discussions.
Mr. Clerk, could you please proceed.
Mr. Robert Marleau (Clerk of the House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I believe that the precise point was about the guidelines that have been proposed by various speakers, particularly as they apply to anticipating an order of the day. There was a point of order raised by Mr. Williams to that effect, asking the Speaker to at least review that matter. It led, I believe, to what you just summarized.
Perhaps I might just explain to the committee where that concept comes from. Question Period in its origins was never formalized. It wasn't part of the Standing Orders. Just as the orders of the day were called in the latter part of the last century, the Speaker allowed certain questions to the ministry. It wasn't a right, it wasn't a rule, it was just done. Over time, particularly through the 1940s, it became more formalized, and in the 1950s quite formalized, so that almost an hour was taken up with these questions.
Speakers always gave guidelines, and they were more in the nature of opinions than rulings. The one about anticipating an order of the day finds its root in the concept that if you're about to go on to orders of the day when this period took place, then you ought not to take up the time of the House asking questions about the imminent debate. That was the issue, plus the fact that the questions were deemed to be urgent and therefore if you could within minutes address the issue in debate then it wasn't that urgent to be raised with the ministry. That's the concept.
Where we are now in 1997 is that speakers, going back to Speaker Jerome in 1975, have tried to soften that guideline as much as they could. Indeed, Mr. Stanfield, as leader of the opposition, on the very next day following the presentation of a budget asked very specific questions about the budget. Speaker Jerome, much like this Speaker and speakers just before him, sort of said, ``I'm in a bit of a quandary. We're not supposed to anticipate the orders of the day. We're on the budget debate.'' It was almost word for word what Mr. Williams used in the House in an exchange with the chair. And the chair ruled the next day that for the budget he would stretch the rule and allow general questions about the budgetary policy of the government, even though the House might be debating the budget that day.
Mrs. Sauvé also made a statement to the House on that very point along the lines that while the guideline is there, she felt that she ought to err on the side of allowing members to ask more questions than to hold them back.
I think the issue is now somewhat different from that under Speaker Jerome and Speaker Sauvé. What has become a practice, and indeed occurred yesterday, is that at 3 p.m. or after Question Period the government can choose either by agreement or by exercising its prerogative, as is provided for in the Standing Orders, to change the order of the day. So yesterday, for example, we were on the copyright bill in the morning. If questions on the copyright bill had been asked during Question Period, particularly on specific clauses of that bill, the Speaker might have said, ``I'd caution the honourable member that we're now getting into the debate that the House is entertaining today''. Yet at 3 p.m. we went on to Bill C-82.
.1135
Often, whether there is agreement among the parties to exchange the business or whether the government is exercising its prerogative, the chair and the table are advised sometimes quite late in Question Period. So you can see yesterday made me.... I have to focus when I come before this committee, sir.
The Chairman: Before all of these proceduralists, you mean.
Mr. Marleau: Yesterday made me focus specifically on a different issue that has evolved, where the chair is in a worse quandary not knowing that the business at 3 p.m. might change as compared to the business that was there before the House.
Then there's the fact that television was introduced. And if Thunder Bay is on fire - I use this as an example - and on the supply day, that day the opposition has chosen to debate, granaries are on fire in Thunder Bay, for 45 minutes on that day you, ladies and gentlemen, have to make believe that you can't ask questions about that. I'm not so sure that the public out there understands why that is so.
So on a supply day, even though the opposition sets the subject of the day, sometimes
[Translation]
it is a topical news item. It is a subject considered urgent by the media and the general public. What happens is that because it is the topic of the day, it is not discussed during the 45 most-watched minutes of the House proceedings.
[English]
I don't want to venture an opinion. I make that comment as one that I think we get from people who don't quite understand sometimes our procedure, that somehow everybody is talking about it, and for 45 minutes that day members are not allowed to raise it.
I think it has evolved to a stage now that it's becoming a pressure point on both sides of the House. Sometimes the ministry is just as eager to answer the question because they have information, maybe breaking news, between one o'clock and two o'clock. Sometimes in briefings the minister may have learned something and wants to inform the House and may choose through a question in Question Period to do so. So I think it cuts both ways in terms of how from time to time it becomes a matter of frustration on both sides of the House.
I'd leave it there for questions, Mr. Chairman.
The Chairman: Thank you very much, Mr. Marleau. that was very informative, and it's not as deep as I thought it might be.
Mr. Speaker and I have had some conversations. I want to thank Mr. Speaker for bringing this matter up, and I'd ask if he wouldn't mind leading off with some questions.
Mr. Ray Speaker (Lethbridge, Ref.): In terms of the property of the questions in the House, the official opposition gets questions one and two, and then we as the third party get question three. It is our time in the House. That property is sort of ours at that point in time. Leaving it open as to determining what question is asked should be the right, then, of those two respective parties or any other arrangements that may come into the House in the future. That's how I'd see it at the present time.
Say I'm the leader of the official opposition and choose to ask about the topic of the day and waste my time doing it. Then I guess I've used my property that way.
Are there any negatives to that argument?
Mr. Marleau: There are only if one wishes to concede in the absolute that Question Period is opposition time. It certainly has evolved over time as being dominated by the opposition.
Mr. Ray Speaker: And further down the line, to government.
Mr. Marleau: I mean, you get one kick at the cat on a different day, and you choose this or that. Really, the prerogative is yours, I believe.
Indeed, I believe it was Speaker Sauvé who went one step further about Question Period and said asking a question became more than just a privilege; it became a right. So it has evolved to a slightly different status, but I don't think there has been general consensus that it is the exclusive property of the opposition.
Mr. Ray Speaker: So the duty of the Speaker would be in terms of language, length of question, and more that kind of thing in terms of the presiding officer, rather than this bit of a judgment question he has to make with regard to the order of the day.
.1140
Mr. Marleau: Yes and no. The House never really pronounced on all of those other guidelines. The issue of hypothetical questions, for instance, is still...because you know that sometimes hypothetical questions start with an ``if'' but end with a fact and then it's difficult for the Speaker to judge the whole question out of order as hypothetical.
So there are things like that, which haven't been pronounced by the House and which go beyond just the quorum, but certainly the issue of urgency...I think that is in part what you address. If you want to ask a question that is typically non-urgent, it's a question of information. Then I think it's getting harder and harder for the chair. Certainly since the 1940s, I believe, the chair has not even tried to address the issue of urgency of the question.
The Chairman: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.
[Translation]
Mr. Langlois, please.
Mr. François Langlois: I'd like to ask a question about Bill C-71, Mr. Marleau. You will recall that during a discussion day, Mr. Duceppe asked Mr. Dingwall a question about a clause in the bill. He maintained that if the bill were passed, the clause in question would prevent the broadcast of the Grand Prix of Australia. Mr. Dingwall's answer seemed to contradict that view, and the Speaker gave the floor to a third person in order to change the subject, and said exactly what you said a few moments ago.
Since the precedents were established on the basis of guidelines or opinions, without there being any provision in black and white in the Standing Orders of the House, how would we go about informing the Speaker that the House would like to broaden the audience for urgent or topical issues - assuming that there is a political will for change?
Mr. Marleau: I think the conventional method, Mr. Langlois, would simply be for this committee to draft a report stating that there is consensus among members of Parliament that the Speaker allow greater latitude when issues of this type are being debated. I think the Speaker would act accordingly.
I don't even think it would be necessary that the report be passed by the House. If there were a consensus among the three parties on this subcommittee - we're talking about guidelines and not about rules - I think this expression of political will is all the Speaker would require.
Mr. François Langlois: Thank you.
[English]
The Chairman: Mr. Kilger.
Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont - Dundas, Lib.): I want to thank Mr. Marleau and Mr. Montpetit for their participation at this meeting, because I think events of the past week, particularly as they were experienced in the questions of Mr. Duceppe on Bill C-71 and those of our Reform colleagues on section 745, demonstrated clearly that the guidelines by which the Speaker was directing Question Period.... He was doing, I think, the right things under a guideline from another era.
Following the testimony of Mr. Marleau, I think we can see clearly from both sides of the House that in today's environment, in today's politics, it would be good to change that guideline or get rid of the guideline. That would really allow the opposition and the government to respond to the questions of the day without any restriction. I think it would certainly take the Speaker or the occupant of the chair out of a very difficult situation. I think it would be an enhancement of our parliamentary institution and of the business of the House of Commons.
The Chairman: Thank you, Rey, and thank you, Mr. Kilger.
As your chairman, I'm hearing some consensus developing.
Mr. Marleau, let me put the question back to you. If you were on this committee of the House and were hearing some consensus for removing that impediment to asking questions on the orders of the day, how would you propose that the committee proceed?
Mr. Marleau: I would propose a very short report to the House that simply states something along the lines that the chair allow the greatest possible freedom to members and disregard the traditional guideline on anticipating an order of the day.
Mr. Ray Speaker: You referred to that section. Is that 108(3)(a)(iii)? Would we be deleting that from the -
Mr. Marleau: No. I think it's the guideline as expressed in Beauschesne's citation 409.12, which says: ``Questions should not anticipate a debate scheduled for the day, but should be reserved for the debate.''
The Chairman: Okay. As I interpret the clerk's suggestion, then, an amendment to the Standing Orders isn't necessarily required and that in fact as your committee chair I would instruct our researcher to prepare a short report.
.1145
Perhaps that report could get circulated to members in advance of the Thursday meeting, and at the Thursday meeting we could adopt the report and presumably put it into the House by Friday.
Is there a general agreement before I proceed with this?
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: It is not now in the standing order. Is that right?
The Chairman: No.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: This committee is reflecting a view that presumably will change a precedent of the House. Is that right?
The Chairman: It's not necessarily changing a precedent, but it's changing a guideline.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: But the guideline has emerged as a precedent of the House. So my question is, what precedent are we establishing by a committee? I would like to ask the clerk, what precedent are we establishing as a committee of the House, changing a precedent of the House?
Mr. Marleau: You have the Standing Orders, you have the body of parliamentary precedents, which are set either by decisions of the House or speakers, and you have practices. I think what we're talking about here is a practice that has evolved since the turn of the century on how speakers try to manage questions in Question Period. So the precedent you would be creating, if you like, is a change in that practice, with an expression to the chair to disregard interventions by him or her on matters anticipating the order of the day.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: Mr. Chair, for greater clarification, it is then very clear from your testimony that this committee's recommendation to change a practice is not changing a precedent of the House.
Mr. Marleau: No. It's an evolution in the practice.
Mr. Rey Pagtakhan: I just want it to be recorded very clearly.
Mr. Jack Frazer: Mr. Chairman, I think it means we're demonstrating flexibility, which is the strength of air power.
The Chairman: Spoken like an air force man.
Colleagues, then it's agreed that we would ask our researcher to prepare a short note that would form part of her report and would go back.... And not prejudging it but presuming it to be reflective of this meeting, we'll receive it on Thursday and then report to the House in due course.
Mr. Ray Speaker: If we could take something into our caucuses tomorrow, just to read it to them, that would be appreciated.
The Chairman: Jamie has heard that - if it's possible, remembering that it's just a draft, because it wouldn't want to presume to judge what this committee would do.
Mr. Ray Speaker: It's just so I can get it, and the members -
The Chairman: That's all right. You just want to get your members involved. I knowMr. Kilger and Ms Catterall and the members of the Liberals will want to do the same, and no doubt the Bloc.
I want to thank the witnesses very much on behalf of the committee. I appreciate, as always, your interest and cooperation in trying to make the House work better.
The next meeting, colleagues, is Thursday, March 20, when we will be considering the main estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer. Presumably we would also have this report, but the main item of business would be the estimates of the Chief Electoral Officer.
Mr. Bob Kilger: Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make you aware to add the name of Joe Fontana to our delegation for members' services, along with Ms Catterall, for the subcommittee.
The Chairman: Okay, Mr. Langlois' subcommittee.
Merci. Thank you. We're adjourned.