Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 9th, 2014

[Charles Walker]

That's a very interesting question. What our IT people and those who are involved with the current petition system have told us is that you know within 48 hours whether the petition is going to fly or not, whether it's going to get anywhere near the 100,000. So I think any petition that's dropped off after six months has in essence probably failed to attract the requited number of signatures to pique the interest of the petitions committee. So no, after six months it will fall off.

But we envisage that really well-supported petitions will reach the 100,000 well before that date and may well have a date set for debate before that six-month period ends. Obviously, there will be scheduling issues.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That answers the question. It doesn't effectively stall an issue for six months. The committee can look at it prior to the six-month period if there appears to be a large enough interest.

[Charles Walker]

Absolutely.

If a petition went on and secured under 50,000 signatures in a week, I envisage the petitions committee getting involved at a very early stage.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Right.

One of the problems that arises in Canada...and this must be true in your country as well. Although the U.K. is not a large country geographically, it's certainly a very varied country with a number of areas that were originally independent countries. We get regional issues, as you must as well. They would tend to attract a smaller number of petitioners.

[Charles Walker]

Exactly.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

To give an obvious example from our country, if we set a bar at 100,000, and there's an issue that is of desperate importance to people in Prince Edward Island, a population of 140,000, but it is of no interest to anyone else—we can imagine an issue like this without too much difficulty—it would be hard for it to surface.

Have you discussed dealing with this, and if so, what thoughts have you had?

[Charles Walker]

That's exactly why we want the petitions committee to be able to bring forward petitions for debate that fall well short of 100,000 signatures. Let's give an example. We are a much more populated country than you, obviously, and a tiny geographical region, but we still have parts of the country that not a lot of people live in. So let's say in Cumberland, in the north of England, there's an issue around fracking in a community of 30,000. If 15,000 or 20,000 of the 30,000 sign a petition expressing concern on this, I would sincerely hope the petitions committee would look at it very sympathetically.

Now, the chances are, to be honest, that the local member of Parliament would arrange debates on the floor of the House of Commons anyway, because obviously we all take an interest in what's going on in our constituencies. But that is why you do need that flexibility within the petitions committee to make sure that all voices are heard, not just the organizations that are best at marshalling those voices in the most densely populated areas, say London or Manchester or one of the big cities.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Right.

A potential advantage of what you're proposing that occurs to me is that there's a tendency in our country—I suspect in all parliamentary democracies—that the issues that get most thoroughly discussed in Parliament are those that happen to be of interest to people who live in swing ridings, but they aren't necessarily the issues that are top of mind for Canadians or British subjects if one were to look at them through a metric other than that of electoral politics.

By extension from the system you've had so far, and therefore with your new system, do you anticipate a different cross-section of issues? Can you cite any different issues that simply would not have arisen under the incentive system that exists for MPs operating in the purely representative portion?

[Charles Walker]

Members of Parliament are very good at bringing forward issues relevant to their constituencies. We have adjournment debates for half an hour in the evening after the end of business. I brought things forward from my own constituency around, for example, mental health.

I think this is another tool. It's not owned by members of Parliament. Of course, the current adjournment and backbench debates are promoted by members of Parliament. This gives our constituents a chance to come together to get something on the agenda.

Would it be helpful if I just quickly gave you a few examples of what we've had debates on in the House—four or five headings?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes.

[Charles Walker]

Here are some: holiday companies charging extra during school holidays; effects of welfare reform on sick and disabled people; stopping female genital mutilation in the U.K.; cervical cancer screening tests and the case of Sophie Jones; making Eid and Diwali public holidays; research funding and awareness of pancreatic cancer; ending the conflict in Palestine.

Many of those things, if not all of them, are extremely important. Without e-petitions, would they have gone unnoticed by the House of Commons? I'm fairly sure that at some stage in our parliamentary life they would have received a debate. Did e-petitions make sure that the debate happened earlier? Possibly they did.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Mr. Richards left on my speaking list.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

This question follows up on the list of topics you've had debates on. I'm curious about the format of the debates. Is there a certain length to the debate, when they take place? What follows from the debate that happens on these issues that you've had petitions on?

[Charles Walker]

The debates take place in our secondary chamber, which is called Westminster Hall. I'm sure your clerks can get videos of it off the parliamentary website to give you an indication and flavour of how it works. The debates are for up to three hours. They don't have to last for three hours, but they're for up to three hours. Interested members of Parliament, obviously, will take part.

Do ministers open up these debate?

[Huw Yardley]

They reply.

[Charles Walker]

Ministers reply.

In a debate on the main floor of the House you will get ministerial statements from the front benches. You have the government and the opposition at the start, and then with these three-hour debates around petitions, the front benches wind up at the end, normally with about 10 to 15 minutes for each side.

Really, these debates are very much an opportunity for backbenchers to express themselves and for the government to listen and respond in a concise way.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay.

So the debate takes place.... Outside the debate itself, is there any kind of response from the government, or does the debate and minister's speech in the debate constitute the government's response?

[Charles Walker]

I'll let Huw answer that.

[Huw Yardley]

Under the system that exists at the moment, the government gives a written response to any e-petition that reaches 10,000 signatures. The system the committee has proposed, with the petitions committee, proposes that the petitions committee might be able to take up any petition, whether a paper petition or an e-petition, that it thinks merits further action.

There are a number of things that it could propose happen, not just a debate. It might think that a petition that has not received a response from the government ought to get one and it can ask the government for one; or it might consider that the petitioners should come in and have the opportunity to give oral evidence to the committee, for example. So there is a range of possible actions that the petitions committee could take.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

And that's the current system you're speaking of now?

[Huw Yardley]

That's the system proposed by the committee. It's not the current system.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

What's the current system?

[Huw Yardley]

The current system is simply a government-run system, so the government has decided that at 10,000 signatures it will make a written response and at 100,000 signatures it will refer it to the backbench business committee that determines things for debate.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Wild Rose, AB]

Okay. Thank you.