Evidence of meeting #148 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 changes.
A recording is available from Parliament.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
If I understand correctly, we have received nearly half the chapters. How long do you think it will take you to provide us with the rest of the amendments?
Clerk of the House of Commons
It is now mid-April. So that may happen toward the end of June. You will have a more complete draft. It will depend on the jurilinguists' work schedule, as they are essentially the ones who ensure that the French and the English are fairly consistent.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Okay.
I would still like to know whether this will be for the next Parliament.
Clerk of the House of Commons
It's up to you. It is brought to your attention, and that is all.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
So members will have to decide whether to discuss this issue in the House of Commons to amend the Standing Orders.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
So that could happen during the next parliamentary session or the next Parliament.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Okay.
So, after it has been referred to committee, it will be debated in the House.
Clerk of the House of Commons
You will decide what to do with this, in the end.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
So we will decide on the provisions of the Standing Orders if our committee has to consider them and vote on them.
You say that you have consulted leaders' offices.
Clerk of the House of Commons
In the beginning, I consulted leaders' offices. I provided them with a few drafts to find out whether they agreed with my objective and whether I have kept my word not to amend Standing Orders without letting you know.
NDP
Karine Trudel NDP Jonquière, QC
Okay.
If we decide to amend the standing orders, will we need unanimous consent of the parties recognized in the House or will majority suffice?
Clerk of the House of Commons
Once again, I assume that most members will prefer there to be consensus. In the past, adopting changes to the Standing Orders has sometimes been based on the consent of a majority. When, in the early 1970s, time limits were set for debates on bills, that was adopted by the majority. The opposition was opposed to that because it did not want time limitations to be imposed on it in debates at various stages of bills.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Just before I go to the next speaker, I will say that we have a special guest in the audience, Mr. Derek Lee, who was almost the dean of the House when he left in 2011 after 23 years. He was elected in 1988. He wrote a book called The Power of Parliamentary Houses to Send for Persons, Papers & Records: A Sourcebook on the Law and Precedent of Parliamentary Subpoena Powers for Canadian and other Houses.
The member for Victoria—Haliburton at the time in 1999 said that he fell asleep reading the title, but I told Derek that I thought that Scott Reid and Mr. Nater would be quite interested, as they're academics in this area.
Welcome, Mr. Lee. It's great to have you back on Parliament Hill.
Now we'll go to Mr. Bittle.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you so much.
I'll be splitting my time with Mr. Graham.
There are just a couple of points that I would like to make. I apologize to our witness. There will be a question at the end, but I will make a couple of points.
It really is unbelievable that the Conservative opposition whip would come down and try to make this a partisan issue, not having been to this committee once and not having heard from the witness before, with a public servant who has had a good record in Parliament. He has brought forward no issues of substance—not one.
This is an issue that has been brought to our attention on a number of occasions, and the Conservatives did not raise their concerns. Yet for him to come down here and attempt to attack the credibility of a respected public servant is just on par with what we've seen from the Conservatives over the past many years.
Mr. Strahl has come here to pick a fight for reasons that we don't know. He has come with pieces of information. He has come explicitly at the behest of the House leader, but clearly has not spoken with the individuals who have been in communication with the witness. He's just come to pick a fight, and that's shameful.
This is a committee that runs into issues and has healthy debates, but it's a committee that works very well together. I know from the practice of law that there's a plain language movement to try to make things more accessible. You can really tell the difference between a judge's written decision now versus one that you read 20, 30 or 40 years ago, even at the highest levels. The issues haven't gotten simpler; it's about making the law more accessible to the public, making it more accessible to the clients.
Here's an objective to make our Standing Orders more accessible, not only to parliamentarians but also to the people of Canada. This is a complex issue, not necessarily one that can be undertaken by a single member of Parliament, and yet you come here to pick a fight. That's unbelievable.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
The Conservatives want to laugh about it, and I guess that's their right. Again, having not raised these concerns about it, they think this is funny. I guess this is on par with what they do and how they want to operate.
My question, Mr. Robert, is this: When was the first time you brought the notion of the plain language changes to the Standing Orders? When was the first time you brought it before this committee?
Clerk of the House of Commons
I can't recall precisely. I'm not sure if I mentioned it in the hearing I first had after my certificate of nomination was given to the government. If it was not on that occasion, it would have been at the very next appearance I had before the procedure and House affairs committee.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Did you hear any concerns from any of the chiefs of staff to the House leaders when you presented your plan to them or updated them on any progress you were making on the issue?
Clerk of the House of Commons
One of them expressed some.... He didn't express concerns, but raised questions to make sure that if this were to go forward, there really would be no substantive changes to the rules and that the commitment that I was making was, in fact, being upheld.
Liberal
Clerk of the House of Commons
As explained in the documents that were circulated, if you go to the annex, the final document that was given to you, there are a series of changes that are in yellow. I think they're also yellow in this text. They are things we have discovered.
For example, we suggested that you delete the dinner hour, because you don't observe one anymore. We suggested that you recognize the holiday in May as the Victoria Day holiday, as opposed to the day for celebrating the birthday of the sovereign. Things of that sort were also suggested. There may be some that are more substantive.
There is one that is more substantive, which deals with royal assent by written declaration when the House is sitting. It's something that's been overlooked.
It's been put in, but we discovered these sorts of changes during the course of the rewrite. We wanted to make sure that the commitment was respected, so we deliberately highlighted them.
Liberal
Chris Bittle Liberal St. Catharines, ON
Thank you.
I'll turn it over to Mr. Graham with the comment that changing the name of the holiday and not changing the fact that we observe the holiday does not seem to be a substantive change worthy of questioning the credibility of a public servant about.
I'll give the rest of my time to Mr. Graham.