Evidence of meeting #132 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 pps.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Would you also be able to provide us with maybe a Coles Notes version of the Speakers' rulings of the past? I suspect table research branch may be close to having already done that, but—
12:55 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
We would certainly be able to assist the committee with that, and I'll communicate with Andrew on that.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
That would be worthwhile.
I always want to thank our researchers who've done exceptional work, and they've provided us with the useful information of past precedents and different cases where similar types of things have occurred.
I wonder, from your perspective and your knowledge, have specific precedents occurred in the past that we should be particularly mindful of when we're drafting our report.
12:55 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
I'm not sure. I think they had a similar look and feel. It depends on whether you felt—or at the time it was felt, given the particular case—that the communication went too far in the assumptions. Let's say that the communication had been issued the day the bill was introduced at first reading. Parliament is looking at this bill and it's going to be passed and everything is just taken for granted.
That perhaps is an example that would go too far, but if it's now in the second chamber and it's already at third reading and we anticipate that royal assent will be some time in the next week or so, that's a different situation. That's why I think the chronological element becomes a nice bit of a safety catch. You don't go too far in assuming what the final version of the bill will be. You certainly know what the first version of the bill will be, but not necessarily the final version. That's what's going to be critical to the public interest.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Certainly, we have a lot of international comparators that we often turn to as well as domestic with the provinces and territories. Certainly, different jurisdictions deal with this type of issue differently. The U.K. has its own way of dealing with it.
Do you have any thoughts on how we might go about this when we're comparing it to international comparators? I'm thinking about the U.K. in particular, and how they deal with an issue such as this. Do you have some thoughts on that?
12:55 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
I think the one you should be asking this question to is Andre Barnes, who did the research paper on this with respect to comparative analysis. With respect to the United Kingdom, he points out that there are no cases or matters similar to the very one that is engaging this committee, based on the 24th edition of Erskine May. That could be for all sorts of reasons. That doesn't necessarily mean the point of view that's taken here is either less credible or more credible. That's really a decision that belongs to you.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Perhaps we should all travel to the U.K. and talk to them about it.
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, Mr. Nater.
As an academic, I'm sure you read Mr. Barnes' report of all the precedents, but he has a couple of words to add to that report.
12:55 p.m.
Andre Barnes Committee Researcher
I'll just update the committee, because the document said that we hadn't heard back from the U.K., Australia or New Zealand. They were in touch, and they did say that they don't have a similar precedent. They wouldn't consider it to be in contempt there for whatever reason. They were surprised that it was here.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Of the two facets that we talked about then, are you saying that the Westminster system relies on the individual member as a breach of Parliament as opposed to contempt of the whole joint?
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Do you know what he's saying? If this isn't an issue in New Zealand, Australia or Great Britain, this isn't an issue.
1 p.m.
Liberal
Scott Simms Liberal Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL
Another study, I feel.... No, I'm just kidding.
1 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON
That's not a bad thought. We're getting to the end of this Parliament. It means that it's an opportunity that rarely exists for us to be able, potentially, to have some space to deal with some of the more abstract questions that may face us. Mr. Simms may have pointed to something we should consider doing.
1 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
We'll bring that to the subcommittee on agenda sometime, Mr. Simms.
Thank you, all.
Thank you, Mr. Robert, for being here for both sessions.
This meeting is adjourned.