Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 6th, 2014

[Craig Scott, NDP, Toronto—Danforth, ON]

I think Rick Mercer was behind that. That is an example of something that would obviously be frivolous.

One of your safeguards is that by the time it gets to 100,000 signatures, 10 MPs must have decided to endorse it, in the sense of endorse the fact that there should be debate. I assume they don't necessarily have to say that they agree with the content; it's the debate.

I don't see any requirement for this to be cross-party or at least from two parties or at least from one party and have one independent. At the moment you're happy with the idea of 10 MPs, and it doesn't matter if they are all from one party.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Again, this is what the committee should decide. I think 10 MPs is a large number and more than in other places. If it were found to be too onerous, then you could always reduce it at a later time, but I think you should err on the side of caution.

On the Doris Day petition, because I do get that a lot, talking about e-petitions all over the place—and Rick Mercer made it famous, unfortunately—that would never make it to the website. It's a hypothetical idea that Parliament, the House of Commons, a minister, or a member has no ability to change, so it's outside the authority of these bodies and it would never make it on the website.

I'm trying to give you an idea. I think it's a great example, and I do have concerns that people will put anything they want up on the website and it would make a mockery of this place. They would never hit, and only serious issues will make it to the take-note debate, if that's where we go with this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's super. Thank you.

Mr. Hsu, you're up, and thank you for coming to the committee today.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't think I have substituted on PROC before. I've testified, but not substituted.

It's a pleasure to be here today. I'm also glad I'm here today because I am looking forward to what comes out of your motion, Kennedy.

I want to note that Tom Lukiwski brought up a couple of tough topics that I thought were important.

Do you think it makes sense for this committee to get an informal stamp of approval from the Privacy Commissioner for the process of how to deal with the information that is needed to verify a petition's signatories?

You can imagine there are people willing to pay for that information, so there's certainly an incentive to accidentally sell it. I'm not saying that anybody would do that, but there is a need to protect that information. Does it make sense, do you think, to ask the Privacy Commissioner to say this is their process for getting rid of the information so it can never get out?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I think it's a great idea, and thanks for the question.

The thing is to try to get this petitioning system right by talking to other jurisdictions, but also talking to experts from within the country. I think that's a great choice for a witness, if the committee has time, to get solid advice. Especially as we move into this era of big data we hear about all the time, the privacy of Canadians is paramount.

Again, the idea here is not that this would be a tool for mining data, but it would be a tool for Canadians to access the House of Commons in a small but significant way to enhance democracy and catch up with other countries.

I think it's a great idea to get that. Of course, the Privacy Commissioner would talk to other jurisdictions that already use this. They might also have some insight on how this works in practice.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

My second question is also related to previous questions. It's about sponsorship.

I've always had this policy. I wrote it down pretty soon after I got elected that I would present to the House in the usual way any petitions submitted to me by my constituents, whether or not I agreed with them. I think that's pretty important because it's important to my belief in how we should be representing our constituents.

My concern, and I think this concern can be addressed, is there's always this confusion—and I think people have a different understanding of what it means for a member of Parliament to stand up to present a petition. There are, I think, a significant number of people who believe that means the member of Parliament supports the petition. That's why I felt I had to write things down and be very clear.

Do you think it's necessary to state very clearly that a member who sponsors a petition does not necessarily support it? Where in the e-petitions process would you do that? For example, if this e-petition process were set up and the petitioner did come to me as their member of Parliament, because the petitioner was my constituent, I feel I would be obliged to be the sponsor, but I don't want to have this big page somewhere with this petition, and then the words “Sponsor: Ted Hsu”, unless there's another line that says Ted Hsu is sponsoring this petition because it was started by his constituent and he has a duty to do that, and he doesn't necessarily support this petition.

Would that be an appropriate safeguard?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

There are a couple of examples.

In terms of explanatory notes, websites and other jurisdictions have space not just to list the petition and sponsor but they often include other statements, videos, or things, so the sponsoring MP might be able to have a statement or something regarding that, or there could be a blanket statement that covers that.

It's interesting because I actually have the same policy on petitions, but that might be something we'd have to reconsider. I'll use an extreme example here just to illustrate the case. If somebody from the public—and this actually happened in another jurisdiction—said that we would like to declare July 16 Hitler day, which wouldn't break the rules of the House necessarily and may go forward, the question is, would you as an MP sponsor that.

That is where this check is actually very important, because it is your reputation as an MP who would initially say, “Would I sponsor a petition that calls for a Hitler day?” If somebody did in the House and say it got 100,000 signatures, which I don't think it ever would in Canada, but just say it did, then 10 additional MPs would have to say, “Yes, I agree we should debate this.”

I don't think that would ever happen. I don't think anybody in this room, despite a blanket policy if it was from a constituent, would sign that.

That is such an important check. It shows our role as MPs how seriously we take these things. Again, it's an extreme example and it may not be to my benefit because now you're thinking about that, but it does illustrate how we as MPs act as a very strong filter in this particular system, and maybe in a way where we don't currently do as much on paper petitions.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I think you're correct in saying that before a debate takes place, there should be a large number, like 10 MPs, sponsoring it. It makes me think that for a sort of less ambitious petition there should be an option for a member of Parliament to actually state online, “I have a duty to sponsor this because it comes from my constituents, but I disagree with this petition.”

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Sure.

[Ted Hsu, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Right up front, I could just refuse to sponsor the petition, I suppose, but I also have this feeling of duty to my constituents to make sure that if they want to petition their Parliament, they can through their member.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

That's a choice individual members would make. It would be fairly easy to put a place on the website for an MP to have an additional statement.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll go to Mr. Lukiwski, for a four-minute round.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Kennedy, you mentioned that the threshold of 100,000 people would require signatures of 10 members of Parliament to then trigger perhaps a take-note debate. Right now on paper petitions only need 25 signatures are needed to require the government to make a response.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Right.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

If a petition came in with less than 100,000 signatures which didn't trigger debate, have you given any consideration to a minimum threshold that would require a government response?

The reason I ask that is I assume that if we went to a system of e-petitioning, it would be far easier to gather signatures than it is currently.

Should the threshold be raised from 25, and if so, what do you think that threshold should be? Have you given that any thought?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Yes I have. I actually have consulted on this. I agree that 25 is too low in terms of having an e-petition online and requiring a government response. I was thinking more in the neighbourhood of 1,000 signatures. Again, that is a fairly high threshold. It's 20 or 40 times the current level. However, that is something that is probably overly conservative in the sense that it would probably reduce the number—

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Can you repeat that? I love it when people up there say that.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

I don't mind if you think this is a Conservative idea. That's fine with me.

Again, that would limit the amount of work that would be placed on the departments that have to answer these, but it wouldn't stop this from being relevant.

The current paper-based petition system would continue to work as usual with the 25 and I see those as very localized. Somebody comes to your office and says they want a new bridge or something, and you get to 25 signatures and read it in the House. The electronic petitions would probably be national in scope, but it would be very good for dispersed groups.

I think of first nations or small businesses that are spread out across the country that don't have a chance sometimes to come together and bring their issues here, especially if they don't have the lobbying resources that other groups have. It makes a lot of sense to try to bring this in, especially in very large geographic areas. When you think of northern constituents trying to sign paper petitions, it would be quite difficult I think.

Again, this would facilitate the groups that may have been left out to be brought into the process.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I imagine that's something the committee could consider, what the minimum threshold should be, but I'm glad you have given that some thought and checked out other jurisdictions.

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Absolutely.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

There are several jurisdictions you have already identified, the U.K., the U.S., Australia, and perhaps others that currently use the e-petitions model. Is there any particular model from any jurisdiction that you would like to see the Canadian model based on?

[Kennedy Stewart, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

A modified version of the U.K. system seems to be.... Our institutions are really modelled after the U.K. institutions, and the great thing is that the behind-the-scenes work is also similar to ours. When we talk to the U.S., their system is so different. The “we the people” petitioning system is based out of the President's office. They don't have clerks. They have managers. If you go to the U.K. system, it's easy to see that if somebody gave us advice from there, we would be very familiar with how things work behind the scenes.

There are a few differences. For example, I mentioned the backbench committee. We don't have one. We would have to find some kind of substitute, and that would be, perhaps, the signatures of 10 MP sponsors. That's where I would definitely start.

I have talked to the House leader's office over there, as well as a few other organizations that would be happy to provide that information to you, if you'd like to call them as witnesses.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Super, thank you.

We'll go to Mr. Christopherson, for four minutes, please.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Thank you very much for being here, Mr. Stewart. I want to congratulate you on doing what you can to bring Parliament, kicking and screaming, into the new millennium. It seems to me it's an obvious thing. This is not a question of whether this is going to happen; it's really a question of when and what it will look like.

They couldn't quite get there in 2003. They started to define it, but they couldn't bring themselves.... I don't know whether this is the time or not, but one would hope. But that time is coming and quite frankly, the whole aspect of how we do business will be analyzed over a very short period of time, I think, as we go through this transition period from sort of the old world to the new world.

I want to go straight to something that I have to get past. Right now, 100,000 signatures and 10 MPs can command the floor of the Canadian House of Commons for three hours. Is a take-note debate three hours?

[A voice]

One hour.