Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2007

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Okay. I don't want that one tabled.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

You're way ahead of us, and we appreciate that very much.

Let's move to that report, then. Before us now, from Mr. Preston, we have a third report. This is the report, I believe, we had tabled the last time on the criteria. We've discussed this at a previous meeting and sent it back to the committee.

Mr. Preston, I'm going to let you introduce it.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I'll give it another try.

We were originally charged by the Speaker to come up with a way of preventing the conflict that arose between Monsieur Nadeau's bill and Madame Bell's bill when they collided after the fact. We couldn't deem them non-votable because until they had both been voted on in the House they couldn't be deemed non-votable. We've now tried to put together criteria that could allow bills to be made non-votable at the subcommittee as we're refreshing the order of precedence. So the first part of this report is that the committee can determine items non-votable at the subcommittee meetings, the non-votable pieces.

The second part of this report is about changes to the standing order, on how we could then reconcile or come up with a way of making it so that someone didn't lose their opportunity to have a private member's bill if their item was deemed non-votable.

I have to thank both the clerk and deputy clerk, and Madame Picard had some very good input at the last meeting to try to change some of these things to address some of what was talked about at this committee. So I'll leave it at that and try to answer the questions, and with the extra witnesses here today, perhaps we can say we might have accomplished this.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Do our witnesses have copies of this? Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Preston.

Are there any comments at this time? I'm not seeing any comments.

I saw Madame Redman's hand go up first. So I'm going to go to Madame Redman, Madame Picard, and then Monsieur Godin.

Madame Redman, please.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Thank you.

I'm perusing this yet again. I guess I still have concern about the third bullet. I think I expressed this the last time, whereas one is preceding them in order of precedence. I don't know if it's more fair to let people read through the report before we start discussing it.

I don't know the line in the sand or how you decide which hurdle you go over, but I do know that if I have a private member's bill and I can persuade members of my own caucus or members of another party to trade it up, then I would feel disadvantaged to be precluded from putting that motion forward and having that opportunity to cross the threshold, whatever we decide it is, merely by the fact that there's something else in the order of precedence.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

I've found a solution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Okay. Let's let Madame Redman finish so we can have the full comment.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm all yours for solutions, if there is one. But that's my concern with this bullet.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

The order of precedence is determined by lottery, so there's an equal chance for all as to how the order of precedence is determined. The vote on non-votability, if there is such a term, occurs before such time as a trade could possibly take place. So if you're worrying about being able to trade into a position, that can't happen until after the non-votability is determined.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

But the non-votability is determined by the order on the precedence paper—

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

Yes, as we refresh the order of precedence.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

—which doesn't necessarily mean that the bills would come to the House in that order. It has been decided somewhere else that my motion is now non-votable, even though I could trade it up and get it to the House before something that was sitting there on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Maybe I can throw in—and I'm sure I'm just as confused—that it seems to me that once it's on the order paper, it then would be deemed non-votable. It could not be traded up at that point. That bill would be done. It's deemed non-votable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]...a determination from PHA.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Right. So it's deemed non-votable.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

It's frozen in its slot. Should it rise to the top but still not be resolved at PHA, it automatically drops to the bottom of the list and will keep until it's ultimately reported by PHA.

[Joe Preston, Conservative, Elgin—Middlesex—London, ON]

That's my thought. The solution does work.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That's exactly what I was thinking.

Madame Redman, I'm looking over to our expert witnesses, too, and I think we're all in agreement now that this solves Madame Redman's problem.

Madame Redman, could you explain again for our witnesses your concern, and then we'll see if we can get the solution to be correct? Then we're going to go to our next speakers. I want to delay the topic because we have other people who have concerns.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I'm sorry I'm not seeing the solution, but I know Paul Szabo is very cognizant of how private members' bills work.

I also know that if my name is drawn and I put my motion or my bill forward and say that this is the one I want to have, and there's something else on the order paper.... Are you saying it has to be deemed votable or non-votable before it ever reaches the light of day in the House? Why couldn't I trade it up to somebody higher on the order of precedence?

[Audrey O'Brien]

First of all, you put it on the order paper, and it is on the list of private members' items, which is sort of ad infinitum. It's only when they come out in the lottery or in the replenishment of the order of precedence that they actually become a tradable item. You can't take it from the netherworld and bring it into the order of precedence. Once it's on the order of precedence, it becomes the purview of Mr. Preston and his colleagues on the subcommittee to decide on its votability. Nothing happens to it until that report on votability or non-votability is complete.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

My understanding is that currently, at that juncture, this criterion does not exist. For instance, pick Kelowna. If I have a Kelowna private member's bill and there's something similar to it, would it automatically now be voted non-votable, or would it depend upon whose bill got discussed first in the House? At that point in time, whoever was lower on the precedence in the order paper would then be deemed non-votable because they would be too similar.

[Audrey O'Brien]

That's right. If you have two similar items and you have an item that has, by good fortune and trading and what have you, come up and been judged votable and is now proceeding, but you have a very similar or substantially the same item coming behind, then that will be non-votable.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

But it would be later in the process. My point would be, if we get to the House and I'm number 15 and somebody else is number 8, and I'm able through good luck or persuasion or whatever to get mine to go up to number 6, I'm still deemed votable at this juncture without this change, am I not, until it has received an hour of debate and worked its way through the system?

[Audrey O'Brien]

No—

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

It really is Standing Order 86(4), which deals with items as they come forward—and that's even before they get onto the notice paper: if there are two items that are substantially the same, the one that was introduced later is no longer eligible and is returned to the member and doesn't ever appear on the notice paper.

Ms. Redman is talking about a situation where the items have passed that hurdle. Then the subcommittee comes up with a decision that says that maybe these are so substantially the same as to be identical; then they talk about votability.

So one issue is whether or not they can appear on the notice paper. The other issue is the votability. That's the route coming through Mr. Preston's committee and for which there is a report.