Evidence of meeting #102 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was petitions.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
NDP
David Christopherson NDP Hamilton Centre, ON
Thank you. I would like to thank everybody for their responses, the cards and the flowers. It was much appreciated.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We missed you.
Good morning, and welcome to the 102nd meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. This meeting is in public.
We have some guests. We have the petitions committee from the Moroccan government, and the head of the delegation, Ms. Halima. Welcome very much. It's great. We would never have expected a petitions committee from Morocco to be here today as we discuss petitions. It's very exciting. We don't have a petitions committee ourselves. That's very interesting.
Before we resume our consideration of the email system, we'll proceed to the election of the second vice-chair. I'll turn it over to the clerk to run the election.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Andrew Lauzon
Pursuant to Standing Order 106(2), the second vice-chair must be a member of an opposition party other than the official opposition. I'm now prepared to take motions for second vice-chair.
Mr. Nater.
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
It has been moved by Mr. Nater that Mr. Christopherson be elected as second vice-chair of the committee.
Is it the pleasure of the committee to adopt the motion?
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
11:05 a.m.
The Clerk
I declare the motion carried and Mr. David Christopherson duly elected as second vice-chair.
11:05 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Congratulations. That was a hard-fought campaign.
With respect to the committee's review of the e-petitions system of the House of Commons, members will recall that we first met on this subject on November 7. At the time, we asked the Clerk to provide us with a list of issues to consider, which members received on April 10.
You have two documents: one is on those potential options from the House, and the other is suggested recommendations from Project Naval Distinction. To assist us, it's great to have Charles Robert, Clerk of the House; and André Gagnon, Deputy Clerk, Procedure. I know you are very busy. Thank you for being here.
The provisional Standing Orders governing e-petitions that came into effect at the beginning of this Parliament remain provisional until such time as the report from this committee is concurred in by the House. Hopefully, we can do that report today
Monsieur Robert, it would be great to have some comments from you to open our discussion.
11:05 a.m.
Charles Robert Clerk of the House of Commons
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for the invitation to again address the committee in its review of the House of Commons e-petition system. As you can see, and as you mentioned, I am accompanied by André Gagnon, the Deputy Clerk of Procedure. He and I, mostly he, are prepared to answer questions following the presentation.
At my last appearance, members raised a number of issues about e-petitions, as well as paper petitions, and the ways to enhance processes for both. The committee asked me to highlight aspects of current systems that could be considered as part of its review.
We have compiled a list of these in the document that has been shared with the committee. They are based on concerns raised by members and by the public over the past two years. Please note that these are not meant to be an exhaustive list of options. Members may wish to raise other issues or proposals, which the administration of course would be responsive to. For example, there may be a desire to have the rules for electronic and paper petitions more closely mirror each other.
However, for the purposes of today's presentation, I wish to focus on four areas where enhancements were identified in the case of e-petitions, and two areas identified for paper petitions.
The first issue with e-petitions has to do with the timeline for signatures. Standing Order 36(2.2) provides that each e-petition is open for signature for 120 days. This can impede the use of an e-petition to raise time-sensitive matters quickly.
To address this, the committee could agree to shorten the deadline to 60 or 90 days or to provide greater flexibility to petitioners in selecting a deadline. For example, they could be asked to choose from several options with the possibility of extending the chosen deadline if needed. Alternatively, petitioners could be given the option of closing the e-petition to signatures once the threshold has been reached. In all cases I have mentioned, Standing Order 36 would need to be modified.
The second issue has to do with the number of signatures required. Again, Standing Order 36 states that an e-petition must have 500 signatures to be certified; for paper petitions, it is 25 signatures. To date, approximately 70% of published e-petitions meet this 500-signature requirement.
The committee may wish to maintain the 500-signature minimum or consider adjusting the threshold to allow the certification of more petitions. Some lower number could be selected all the way down to 25 that would match the minimum for paper petitions. Any adjustment would require a change to Standing Order 36.
The third issue has to do with the requirement that an e-petition be supported by five individuals. This stipulation was instituted as a filter to limit frivolous or offensive petitions. The obligation to have five supporters has led to some other problems. These include mistakes in the email addresses, or one of the potential supporters not responding in a timely way.
In cases where a petition includes the names of only five potential supporters out of a possible 10, some e-petitions have been unable to proceed further when one individual did not respond, or was later found to be ineligible. Should the supporter requirement be retained, there are certainly technical improvements that could be made to the system to provide users greater flexibility and to avoid some of the issues described.
However, in light of the additional burden this places on petitioners, as well as the role that members themselves play in the process, the committee could decide that the requirement for support from five individuals is an unnecessary step, and instead allow e-petitions to be submitted directly to members. This would not require a change to the Standing Orders.
The last issue dealing with e-petitions is the use of the term “sponsor” in relation to members. It was suggested that the term may be misleading and could be perceived as support for the petition. The role of members in the process could be made clearer by changing the term “sponsor” to something more neutral, like “presenter”. This new term would reflect the fact that members are simply agreeing to allow the petition to proceed and are willing to present it to the House if, and when, it is certified.
In the report that led to the creation of the e-petitions system, the committee expressed a desire that both paper and electronic petitions, along with the government's responses, be available electronically. Given the volume of paper petitions, this was not possible in the initial phase of the project. We believe that paper and electronic petitions, as well as the government's responses, could be available electronically in the near future.
It is important to stress that in order to implement this next phase, the House administration would continue to work in close collaboration with the Privy Council Office, which is responsible for coordinating the government's response to petitions.
Preliminary discussions with PCO have revealed a number of issues. First, given the resources and effort that would be needed to support two different formats of petitions, allowing responses to be tabled only in an electronic format would allow for a more efficient process. The responses would be available to members more quickly and shared more easily. It would also have a positive environmental impact, considering the paper generated by the hundreds of responses presented each year.
This change in practice would also be a useful pilot project toward greater use of electronic tabling and dissemination of sessional papers, including answers to written questions. In light of this, if members wish to move in this direction, further negotiations would be required with the Privy Council Office to develop a system that would allow for the secure electronic tabling of fully accessible documents.
Last, in terms of paper petitions, there continue to be some rules and practices that some regard as unduly restrictive. For example, there are rules about images and logos, address formats, and the size of paper used. If the committee wishes to allow for more paper petitions to be certified and presented to the House, it could agree to simplify some of these rules.
Thank you, Mr. Chair, for this opportunity to speak to you about this subject, and André and I would now be prepared to respond to any questions you may have.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you very much.
How I would propose we proceed is to go through on an open format, going through each of these recommendations to see what the committee's thoughts are on the practicality of what we're recommending. It's good that we have the witnesses here.
Is that procedure okay with people?
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Okay, let's go to the document you've all received. The first one is related to the days that a petition is potentially open.
Does someone want to open the discussion?
Mr. Graham.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I don't know the way to go about this, but on 120 days, I understand your point about it, that it's untimely. Couldn't the sponsoring or representing MP or whoever is creating it specify how long it is? If they don't make the signature threshold, it's not qualified in any case. So if they say “30 days”, then so be it. Is that feasible?
11:15 a.m.
André Gagnon Deputy Clerk, Procedure
It's really up to the members of the committee to determine how that number of days could be determined or identified. Among those things, it would be for the member to identify the number of days that would be required, or for the petitioner to determine how many days could be useful.
At the same time, there could be other possibilities. Let's say a petitioner identifies 30 days and there are 445 signatures after 30 days. Could there be a possibility of getting an extension, for instance, to 60 days, or things like that? These are a part of the possibilities that exist.
There is importance to having a deadline, however, and it really has to do with the personal information gathered. The fact is that when you have a deadline, the petition will be closed at that point, and eventually all of the information related to it will be disposed of. That's the important part of having a deadline for petitions.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Okay, so you could say that if you have achieved your 500 signatures within 30 days it can be closed. The moment it achieves its 500 signatures under 120 days, by 30 days it could be closed, and at 120 days, if you're not there, then it's disqualified.
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Is everybody okay with that, or do you have other ideas?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm not certain I understand exactly what you're suggesting. You're saying that it closes when it reaches the threshold?
11:15 a.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
If somebody makes it in less than 120 days, as a choice, when you get to your 30 days and you have 500 signatures, then you can close it. Or when it gets to 500 signatures, it's closed after 30 days, if it's punctual and they want it to be timely. Otherwise it's left at the standard 120 days.
I'm just throwing that idea out.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
I'm still not certain or clear about it. I have no trouble with someone's having the ability to choose their deadline, but there needs to be a deadline, because I think people build campaigns around these things. To say that when it reaches a certain threshold of signatures, no matter what the deadline is...that wouldn't be something I would see as desirable or acceptable. I think people build campaigns around these things, so if it's unpredictable and they don't know when it will end, I think that's not an advisable thing. If we're going to allow people to make a choice, whether it be 120 days or some other number, or we could set a multiple choice—
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
Blake Richards Conservative Banff—Airdrie, AB
—of 90 days, 60 days, 120 days or whatever, and maybe there are three different options, but there still needs to be a deadline that everyone knows so they can build their campaigns around it and stuff like that.
