Evidence of meeting #144 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 signatures.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, Stephanie.
I sensed from your presentation that there's one item the committee could discuss and make a decision on, and that is what happens at dissolution. At the moment, you said that paper petitions can carry over, but electronic petitions can't.
12:30 p.m.
Deputy Clerk, Procedure
Paper petitions can be recertified. As for all the electronic petitions, they cannot. They're moot on the day of dissolution.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
If this committee was in favour of making them equal either way, would that require a change to the Standing Orders?
12:30 p.m.
Deputy Clerk, Procedure
Most probably it would just be a report to the House. Having that report adopted would be sufficient. It's not right now in the Standing Orders. It was in the report that was adopted by the House in the last Parliament.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Do committee members have a view on that? Paper petitions can be carried over; electronic petitions can't. It would make sense to have some symmetry. It would make sense to have them both either yes or no, I would think.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have a question about that.
On the issue of paper petitions, there are no dates on them, so you don't know when they were from. We just recertify them because there's a petition. You do know the date when they are created as an electronic petition, so there's always been the question of one Parliament binding the next one. Is there any impact of that with this question? Do you see it as one Parliament binding the next one, or is the petition such a separate issue that it doesn't fall under that precedent?
12:30 p.m.
Deputy Clerk, Procedure
That could be easily understandable, in the sense that if there's a change in government and one of the issues that is part of a petition from the previous Parliament has nothing to do with the next Parliament—because the new government decided to proceed otherwise—then it would be—
12:30 p.m.
Principal Clerk, Chamber Business and Parliamentary Publications
Or it deals with a bill, which would no longer be before the House.
12:30 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Perhaps the middle ground could be that the petition would still be available on the website and available for somebody to adopt, as opposed to automatically carrying over. I don't think it would require any rule changes to do that.
Is that something that you could do without a rule change? The website could simply say, “These are orphan petitions because Parliament dissolved. If you'd like to claim one of them as opposed to starting it afresh”—because it's already been translated and things—“click here”.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Is that something that requires us to direct it, or is it something you guys can just do?
12:35 p.m.
Principal Clerk, Chamber Business and Parliamentary Publications
As André mentioned, the previous committee in the last Parliament issued a report on how to set up the e-petition system that was very prescriptive. One of those clear directives was that at dissolution, the site was to be completely deactivated. All of those signatures were to be closed and there was to be no further action taken on them. I think to change that, which was a clear directive, would probably take another clear directive to us.
They're not necessarily orphaned either, I would say. If a member is very much championing a particular cause and is involved or associated with a petition, which may or may not be the case, but sometimes is, and that member is re-elected, it may not really be orphaned. That member may still very much care about that issue and may still want to present the petition, or there could even be someone in their constituency who wants to do it. They're not necessarily orphaned, although some will be, because there are members who won't be returning to the next Parliament.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I think it makes sense to lose the signatures. If somebody really wants that petition to go forward, there's nothing stopping them from taking the text and resubmitting it, if the text is still available.
Would an incomplete past petition still have the text available on the website, or is it clearly gone?
12:35 p.m.
Deputy Clerk, Procedure
The issue at this point is the question of the signatures.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
The signatures have to go. I think that's okay, in my opinion.
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
When it's electronic, and let's say it's past 120 days.... I specifically ask the question because I have a petition that I have chosen not to submit for a response because I'm looking for a right time to table it. If the House rises on the 21st, that petition is now gone, whereas if it was a paper petition, that petition would still hold, correct? Is it because the signatures on that are supporting that petition after it's been verified, and then it's lost?
12:35 p.m.
Deputy Clerk, Procedure
The difference is that the paper petition can be recertified, which is not the case for—
12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Is it because the signatures are there that it can be recertified?
12:35 p.m.
Deputy Clerk, Procedure
It's because that's the practice that has always existed.
February 28th, 2019 / 12:35 p.m.
Liberal
Majid Jowhari Liberal Richmond Hill, ON
Okay. It does not have anything to do with the fact that the signatures are there that it could be recertified; it's a procedural matter.