Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Let me just interject, too, that I think Madam Redman is talking about that timeframe when, if somebody is sharp enough, when they're moved up off the no man's land onto the order paper—out of the lottery, and they're there--they might be able to recognize that their bill actually does resemble somebody else's and make a flip in that day or two before Mr. Preston's committee has a ruling.

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

That's not possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Now we have the thing clarified, and our clerks are saying it's not possible.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

They can't move, not until we get a report from the procedure and House affairs committee.

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

Right. We do the report before that's possible.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

So, then, if two were deemed to be similar and one were to be ruled not votable, it's the one that's further down the list.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Exactly.

[Audrey O'Brien]

And that has been picked by the lottery.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I'm convinced that this solves the problem.

Madam Redman, how are you?

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

Maybe I'm being obtuse on this, but my understanding is that the Speaker had asked for direction.

You reach a point in time where you have the two bills before the House. One has been debated, and you have to go back to the other person and say, “Your name is still here. Do you have another bill you want to discuss?”

I'll ask one more time. The proposed amendment before us moves that process closer to the beginning, and without this, I think it's a fairer system, granted that you have to be drawn and you have to be on the order paper. But currently, determining whether or not a bill is non-votable comes later in the process. So you can have two substantially or roughly similar bills on the order of precedence, and it's not until...I don't know whether it's the first hour of debate or the third hour of debate that you then go back to the person with the second bill and say, “I'm sorry; it is non-votable at this point.”

[Audrey O'Brien]

That was the problem the Speaker wanted the committee to address. I think this proposal does solve that. That is to say, it's not a first-hour thing, and then you jump up and you're ahead, and so forth and so on. As soon as you see the light of day on the order of precedence, there has to be a decision on votability.

[Karen Redman, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I am clear on this, and I think this solves something for the Speaker. I feel this disadvantages members, so I don't support it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I'm going to come back to you, I'm sorry.

I have our analyst. Did you want to add something very quickly?

[James Robertson, Committee Researcher]

I'd like to clarify.

The background was, of course, that the two items went forward—Mr. Nadeau's and Ms. Bell's. The criteria say that a matter must have been voted on for a criterion 3 to apply. At the time they were put on the order of precedence—it was at the beginning of the session—neither had been voted on. Neither one could be ruled out of order on the criteria.

The subcommittee saw the two items and said they were identical, but they had no grounds on which to rule either one out of order. The result was that both went forward as votable. As Madam Redman says, either one could have come to a vote first, but whichever one came to a vote first, the second one would have been ruled out of order. As Mr. Lee rose on a point of order, the Speaker took it upon himself to allow an opportunity for the committee to work out a solution, but that would not necessarily be the same solution in all cases.

In another case, the second person might well have had one or two hours of debate, their item would be ruled out of order, and that person would be left with no remedy. That was why the Speaker suggested the procedure and House affairs committee and the Subcommittee on Private Members' business try to solve the situation so he didn't have to become involved. That was what led to this particular solution.

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

Surely the Speaker could have just ruled it out of order and it's gone. He's looking for a remedy for the situation, so we don't have to rule somebody's private member's business out of order and then not have any other choice.

[James Robertson]

The other concern that was expressed by the members of the subcommittee was that if a member had two hours of debate on motion one, if it was ruled out of order and they were given a chance to substitute another item, they would end up getting more than one opportunity to have an item debated in private members' business. You could have an item debated for an hour or two, and then because somebody else's issue has been voted on, you get to substitute at that point. You bring forward another bill or motion and you get another one or two hours, which would allow that member greater opportunity than other members are given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

All right. Let's continue. A little bit further discussion, and then we'll see where we're going.

Madame Picard, did you have anything further, please?

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I want to clarify the change with regard to items declared non-votable.

The proposal sought to allow a member who already had an item on the Order Paper to keep, when that item is determined to be non-votable, the item's priority in the order of precedence. So, if the item has been found non-votable because a similar bill has already been tabled or because the matter has already been debated in the House, that member will have, if he or she already has other items on the Order Paper—some members table a number of items—five days to decide which item will be debated or whether they want to appeal the committee's decision before the House.

Should the non-votable item be the only one in the member's name, nothing changes. If members decide to bring forward another item, they will have 20 days to prepare it and then it will move to the bottom of the order of precedence. We felt that this was fairer.

Given what happened with Ms. Bell, we realized that there was a problem. Consequently, to resolve this problem, I think that the committee members and their research staff were unanimous in saying that this was the way to proceed. We felt that it was fairer for the members and it was the best solution so as not to penalize them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Monsieur Godin, you're next.

Colleagues, I will note we are circulating another document. Again, I apologize for all the paperwork today, and bear with us on this. The document in front of you looks more like a flow chart on how things proceed as a result of a member submitting a private member's bill. Please have a look at that as we continue this discussion.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I don't know whether we have forgotten something. Mr. Szabo may be able to tell us how he manages to have two bills in his name in the House of Commons and one in the Senate.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but we can sponsor a bill in the Senate, and that bill gets priority ahead of a private member's bill. If the same member can sponsor three bills in the House of Commons, would it not be preferable to give priority to private member's bills rather than to a Senate bill? Right now, a member may have three or four bills in his or her name.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Godin, I'm going to interject, if I may. I see that as being truthful, but it might be a matter for another discussion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I don't have a problem with that. However, I think that this matter deserves further attention.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I don't see this as being connected. You are correct, but I think it's outside our discussion on how we deal with private members' bills that are deemed non-votable. Perhaps we'll want to talk about that at some point, but although you are correct--and I see other colleagues agreeing with me--it's not germane to this discussion.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So it's, you're correct but you're not correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

No, you are correct; it's just timing. You're correct, but not today.

May I have any other comments on this, or are we ready to call the question? I can appreciate that some members are not in agreement, but it appears that some are. If there are no other comments on this issue, then I want to call the question on this report.

Is it agreed that the committee adopt this report?