Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 8th, 2018

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I guess we're being asked to make a recommendation, and obviously there's some information they might have that would help us to determine whether we're making the right recommendation. I don't know why we wouldn't do that up front rather than wait and see if there's a problem. To me, why create a problem if we're not certain?

[Charles Robert]

We seem to have dealt with point one of the options, but is there also a decision about point two, that you would permit the government to table responses to petitions only in electronic format?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

We were just discussing that, but Mr. Richards was saying that we might want to have PCO in to see whether there are problems with that recommendation.

[Charles Robert]

For the Privy Council dealing with a response, I don't think there would be any problem. The only thing that really matters is processing the paper petitions; but that's as paper petitions, not as responses.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

My thoughts on this are that if we're talking about an option, it's one thing. If we start to say it can only be done that way, then I think it's even more necessary that we would hear from them.

If we're talking about an option, it's a different story. I still think it would be good to hear from them, but an option at least allows some flexibility.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Graham.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

If you're permitting the government to table responses to petitions only in electronic format, you're permitting them. That's giving them an option. I don't see any problem.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

We're talking about two different things here. There was the option, and then the idea was raised that it would be the only way it could be done. That would be a different thing. If it's an option, it's less of a concern.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Let's keep the options open.

[Charles Robert]

The purpose of the presentation was to point out that the electronic format has tremendous advantages in terms of accessibility. The paper format is becoming, in comparison, a restrictive document. It is less accessible. It exists basically as a copy that's filed away, whereas having a document that's on a website is, in fact, if you like, a much more democratic kind of document in terms of its being accessible.

If the idea is to have a paper copy that is pretty well going to be a unique document unless its copied from paper to paper, I'm not sure that there's really.... It's really up to you, but it's a curiosity to wonder if it's somehow another curbing of the rights of members or the options that are available to you. Even as an electronic document, you can print it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is there anything that would be added by bringing in the Privy Council Office?

[Charles Robert]

Only if co-operation broke down, but I don't see that happening.

[Raj Saini, Liberal, Kitchener Centre, ON]

I think it's pretty clear.

[Filomena Tassi, Liberal, Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON]

Yes, it's clear.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Is the committee basically in agreement in recommending both one and two under this section?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

What's two?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you have the document? It says, “Permit the government to table responses...in electronic format.”

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Permitting the government response.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Permitting it, yes, rather than requiring.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay, we'll turn to rules for paper petitions. This goes back to the point Mr. Nater was making, so I'll let him open the discussion.

[John Nater, Conservative, Perth—Wellington, ON]

It was really just a question. What challenges would be presented if we allowed leger-sized paper or other paper, not legal or letter-sized paper?

[Charles Robert]

I don't think the challenge is significant, but sometimes petitions come in the form of postcards—I've seen that—and they've sometimes come in sheets. Who knows, they could even come on some sort of huge roll. I've seen one petition that a member tried to bring in with a wheelbarrow just to demonstrate how many signatures had been brought in, but I didn't really get a chance to look at what the format was. There are other things they might want to use, just to demonstrate the kind of companies or whatever that are supporting it; they could use logos, other trademarks, symbols, or anything of that sort, and the question really is that in the past that's always been forbidden. Now do you want to open it up and just simply become a little bit more relaxed about it? It would be the same with paper size.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Let's go through each of these. There are three different items here: first of all, a) would we allow non-offensive, non-partisan images or logos to appear on the page or on the reverse of a petition?

Blake.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

My thinking on this is what is the need to have these things on there? Are we going to start going down a road that we don't want to go down? Then someone has to determine what's non-offensive and non-partisan. Is there really some need to have logos on a petition? I can't imagine what it is. That just creates a task that I think is.... I wouldn't want to be put in a place of having to make those decisions about what's non-partisan, what's non-offensive, when there's really no need to have it on there. If there were some reason to have a logo on there, that would be different.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

David.