Evidence of meeting #10 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was advice.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you, Chair.
Thank you very much for your presentation. It was very interesting.
I'm finding that my former experience as a house leader in the Ontario Legislature is both helpful and unhelpful. It's helpful because it gives me a sense of the dynamics, but unhelpful because a lot of the details are different. So I'll run with an assumption, and it's based on a different set of standing orders.
Help me understand the difference between a standing order and a resolution of the House.
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
It depends on what kind of resolution you're adopting. A resolution may be just to congratulate somebody. It's an expression of opinion of the House. This would be a resolution. But if it's phrased in such a way that it has permanence--for example, this House considers that it is a violation of its privileges to be prorogued for longer than such and such a period of time, in grandiose words that the British Parliament might use--then it would be clear from the resolution that it was intended to go on, that it wasn't just temporary.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you.
The resolution in that context, that it's meant to go forward, would it be printed in the Standing Orders? Would it be an addendum to the Standing Orders, or does it exist in its own world?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Normally it would not be. It would just appear in the journals of the House. But the House is free to do what it wants. It could add it to the Standing Orders as a separate item. The British normally just adopt and it's in their journals.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Not the same effect because they're resolutions of things that they won't do or that.... For example, there was a resolution of the British House--and I forget how many years ago it was adopted--saying that they won't consider it a matter of privilege any more if the debates of the British House are published, made public. They just won't entertain a question of privilege about that. That was adopted years ago; it's still in effect and it's not in the Standing Orders. It's that kind of thing: this is the way we're doing that.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Would the ability of a member of the House to claim their privilege rights be the same procedure? If you feel your rights are violated currently under the Standing Orders, there's a procedure to stand up, make the point with the Speaker, and appeal to the Speaker for some resolution.
I'm just trying to get a sense if they carry exactly the same.... It's something new to me. Do they carry the same relative weight vis-à-vis members' privileges and actions that they can take vis-à-vis those two? Or do the Standing Orders have a slightly different status because they're the Standing Orders?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
I haven't seen anything in the British writings that would indicate that they raise points of order about this kind of thing.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
So hypothetically, if you had something in the Standing Orders versus in a resolution, members wouldn't lose any rights. There'd be nothing lost between the two. You could still claim your rights under the resolution, the same as you could under the Standing Orders. They would have the same relative weight.
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
Well, they would be the House's rights, not the individual member's. It's Professor Heard who recommended this approach. As I mentioned, I've sent a reference to your clerks and researchers so they can share with you one of the British documents that says it was a House of Lords committee that recommended they do this kind of thing. Basically it's trying to create a new convention saying this is how we're going to operate in the future, this is how we see things as operating. Enforcement is always difficult with these things. That is, it's a difficult question. Basically you're setting down a principle and you expect people to follow it.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
If you went with disincentives and they were carried in Standing Orders, I think we know what that means. If they were carried in resolutions, they'd have the same status?
12:45 p.m.
As an Individual
If you're going to have disincentives, I would put them in the Standing Orders. I wouldn't put them in a resolution.
12:45 p.m.
NDP
12:45 p.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Okay. Thanks.
I don't have a lot of time left.
You mentioned the advice that the GG receives. As I understand it, the Prime Minister meets with the GG and gives advice on the matter that's before the two of them.
Maybe you know about this. I had heard that letters were sent from the official opposition and the other two opposition parties. Either one document was sent or three documents were sent earlier on, in another circumstance, advising the GG. This was when the coalition was coming together. There was an affirmation from the three leaders to the GG saying here's the scenario that exists, please keep it in mind. I've now been told that was never even put in front of the GG, because the Constitution provides that the advice comes from the Prime Minister and doesn't provide for advice from the opposition.
Can you clarify that for me? And secondly, depending on what you say about that, how is a resolution or a standing order of the House put in front of the GG if it isn't put there by the Prime Minister of the day?
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
When the Speaker is sworn in, when he appears before the Governor General in the Senate, one of the first things he does is claim the usual rights and privileges. One of those is access to the Governor General at all convenient times. There is a convention, if you will, that the Speaker of the House, when speaking and acting for the House, can meet with the Governor General at any time and inform her of things. He can advise her in that way.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
12:50 p.m.
As an Individual
When he goes into the Senate after he's first been elected, at the opening of a new Parliament, he claims the usual rights and privileges of the House, including access at all convenient times.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
