Procedure and House Affairs Committee on April 9th, 2019

[Charles Robert]

It really depends on how the standing orders of other jurisdictions are written, whether there is a need to revamp them. Scotland, I know, does several editions of their standing orders virtually every year, and they're becoming quite complex. They may have to go back and change them, simply because they're always adjusting. That leads to a new edition.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Well, they're new.

[Charles Robert]

They're new.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I noticed that when I went to Scotland: a lot of their rules take the “best practices of”, but that's probably because of their newness. But I think it's far overdue for us.

You mentioned that one of the other things you want to do is clear up the writing to more of an active style of writing. Can you expand on that?

[Charles Robert]

The notion really is that it's easier to understand if you put something in the active voice as opposed to the passive voice. I remember once there was an exercise in the mid-eighties for the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and there was also some exercise in reviewing the rules of the Senate. The negative passive voice becomes a bit complex. It didn't really help to understand how the rules are meant to operate.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

The second part of that was that you referred to the index; that it would be immensely helpful.

[Charles Robert]

Well, when the project was actually done with the rules of the Senate, the index, which was originally 102 pages long, was reduced to 22 pages. The reason was that there was an integration of the marginal notes and the headers and subheaders that you find in the table of contents. That was used as a guide to create the index. As a result, it was simplified.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

I like that, too, because, being parliamentarians, we have other duties that take us to our constituencies and so on and so forth. I find that I'm able to catch up only if my flight is a longer flight and I can sit down with this stuff and try to absorb it. With the index, now I can do that in a much quicker fashion, so I strongly endorse that.

You mentioned the fall. I'd say, for committees as much as anything else, that the exercise of having an evening debate on Standing Orders, which usually follows shortly after the election, should come a little bit later to allow new members of Parliament to get more experience with the Standing Orders before making some substantial changes. Not everybody can be David Graham, for goodness sakes.

I think you're saying that's the place where the next one, following the next election, is—

[Charles Robert]

It's certainly an option for you.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

Obviously, it would be far more efficient if we chose that.

[Charles Robert]

Again, I'm here to be of help, but the decisions that you make are in fact your decisions.

[Scott Simms, Liberal, Coast of Bays—Central—Notre Dame, NL]

You're good. You'd be fantastic in a scrum. You know that, don't you?

Thank you, Clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, members.

We will break to go to vote and then come back.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Welcome back to the 148th meeting.

We'll give the floor to Mr. Strahl for seven minutes.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you for the opportunity to participate today. I am here on behalf of my House leader, Candice Bergen, to discuss the matter before us today.

I think that my characterization of this initiative will not be the same as Mr. Simms', who called it fantastic. In fact, I think it's putting the cart before the horse here.

As you know, when you were hired to the position, we were in the midst of a prolonged multi-week/month debate and dispute about the Standing Orders about who should be bringing forward changes, in what manner they should be considered, and whether there should be consensus, etc.

I'll go back to your testimony in February 2018, when you told this committee, “The commitment that I had made is that there would be no change to the Standing Orders”, and “understanding completely that no changes are being recommended through this exercise.”

You gave us “absolute guarantee that no changes would be made”, yet we have 70 changes here, which may meet Mr. Simms' description of being fantastic. I guess my primary question first of all is, on whose authority or initiative was this? Why did you take it upon yourself to change the Standing Orders? I would argue that is the purview of members of Parliament to decide if the Standing Orders need to be changed.

You referred many times to “we” throughout your presentation: “We decided. We did this.” Who is “we”, and who decided that this would be a good idea to pursue without having members of Parliament give you that charge?

[Charles Robert]

The initiative was my own. It was done with the idea—again, as I mentioned earlier—to be proactive in assisting the members.

The 70 changes you may be referring to are the ones in yellow highlights. We recognize that they represent changes, and that's why they are deliberately highlighted that way. We came across them when we were doing the revision.

In the end, nothing changes unless the members themselves want it to change. I'm here basically as a good-faith agent, trying to assist the members in giving them tools that I think are more readily accessible. I have no authority to do anything in any way that can be considered final. That rests entirely with this committee, and ultimately, with the House, because the Standing Orders belong to you.

Again, let me repeat: I am trying to be a good-faith agent, trying to give you tools that will help you do your job better.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

With respect, Mr. Clerk, again, in your February 2018 testimony, you said, “in the meantime, through negotiations and shared information, [if] the House leaders recognize there might be some value in rewriting the Standing Orders...it seemed to me that this would be a worthwhile project.”

Did you ever consult with the House leaders before embarking on this initiative?

[Charles Robert]

I consulted with their chiefs of staff.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

Okay, well that's news to me.

Again, I think that this is a cart-before-the-horse thing. It might be that what you have produced is worthy of adoption or consideration, but the way in which it was put forward I think is very concerning to us.

Mr. Christopherson, who is not here today but is an eminent member of this committee, said at that same meeting, “You start talking Standing Orders, and I mean the House owns the orders, not the Clerk's department.”

I again want to lay down that marker. I don't know what would now prevent a future clerk, or what prevents any part of the apparatus that serves members of Parliament, from embarking on similar good-faith initiatives. They may actually be done in good faith, but if they're not directed by members of this committee, members of the House, then I would argue that they are in fact counter to the very thing Mr. Christopherson stated, that this should be done on the request of the House.

Again, these are our Standing Orders. The Speaker constantly refers to the fact that he cannot act outside of these rules because he is a servant of the House.

I would ask, perhaps in another way, who else has been assisting with this? Have you been assisted through the government House leader's office or the Privy Council Office or the Speaker's office to undertake this initiative and to produce the document that we have in front of us?

[Charles Robert]

No one from any of those three you mentioned has directed any aspect of this project. Again, as I mentioned earlier, this was a good faith initiative on my own part. I would not have taken it this far had I not been in consultation with the chiefs of staff of the government House leader, the opposition House leader and the NDP House leader.

They understood what I was doing. No one told me, “No, don't go any further". The purpose is to provide assistance to the House. As Mr. Christopherson said, I fully recognize and realize that I have no authority to implement anything.

In the same way that we are now reviewing the members' orientation program for the period after the next election, we are trying to improve the service that we give to you. That was the only intent to this.

If you feel this is inadequate or inadvisable, it will be for you to tell me to stop, and I will stop.

[Mark Strahl, Conservative, Chilliwack—Hope, BC]

You're saying that there are no employees of the Privy Council Office seconded to assist you on this project.

[Charles Robert]

The individual you are referring to is on an attachment to us from the Privy Council Office. He was engaged because he had 10 years of experience in the government House leader's office under both the Conservative government and the Liberal government. The intent was, okay, you're a practitioner. You had to use these Standing Orders day in, day out. You're perhaps well placed to give advice as to how they could be simplified and reorganized so that when members are using them every day, they will be able to access them more easily.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Now, we'll go to Madam Trudel.

[Karine Trudel, NDP, Jonquière, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I know that I have big shoes to fill, those of Mr. Christopherson, who is absent today. So, I will try to do things properly and represent him well.

Mr. Robert, thank you very much for your presentation. For us, it is too soon to comment on the changes.

[Charles Robert]

Of course, this is presented to you as a draft. So you can decide whether you think it is acceptable or not. If other changes have to be made or a few provisions have to be restored in the current version, if that is what you prefer, it will be up to you to decide.

In fact, this proposal is there just to help you consider what you would like to do about the Standing Orders.