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.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I'll use them wisely.
I appreciate Chris's point, but I'm going to go back into the substance of it.
You mentioned the members' orientation program, back at the beginning. When we had the members' orientation in 2015, we had this wonderful meeting in room 237-C, where everybody was invited and they said, “Let's go to the chamber.” I'm just going to propose that you use the bells to call the new members in. Put that on the record somewhere, so that it actually happens.
Have clerks proposed changes like this in the past?
12:15 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
I was part of an effort to do that when I was in the Senate.
12:15 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
It did happen. In fact, the experience that we had was that.... It was an initiative that was proposed initially by a Speaker. When his term ended, the project was continued and eventually the rules committee decided that yes, this was probably something worthwhile. They became actively involved in doing it. What mattered and what encouraged them to actually undertake this was that a working draft had been prepared for them.
This is not fun work. It is actually challenging to try to do this. It's not something that even in 1984-85, when the McGrath committee was sitting.... It's not a fun thing for the members themselves to work on revising the Standing Orders. It's more manageable when you have something to work with and you can review and decide that you don't like something so you change the language, or it's not good enough, or you don't think it belongs here or it should belong elsewhere.
If there's any value in trying to update the Standing Orders, you really have to be working with a model that you can accept, reject, change, or whatever you'd like to do.
12:15 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell
Thank you, Mr. Graham.
Before we go on, I see we have another guest, Mr. Paul Szabo. By the time he left the House, he was sort of like Kevin Lamoureux; he had spoken over 2,000 times—more than anyone else.
Welcome back, Paul.
We'll go now to Mr. Nater for five minutes.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Thank you Mr. Chair and thank you Mr. Clerk.
Speaking of the McGrath committee, it was a matter that I studied fairly intensively when I was at grad school. I happen to be close personal friends with the chief of staff to the McGrath committee. I'm sure he would have some fascinating comments on this process.
I want to start by asking you about your original appointment. Was this rewrite of the Standing Orders ever discussed during the appointment process?
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Secondly, I want to talk about the consultations you've had with the chiefs of staff to the House leaders of the recognized party. Would you be able to provide us with any documentation of those consultations with the chiefs of staff?
12:15 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
I could probably give you the dates of the meetings, because I normally note them. I could probably try to recall some of the conversations. That would be about it.
12:15 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
We would appreciate that.
I want to follow up a little bit. You mentioned the first time the concept of the rewrite of the Standing Orders was mentioned in this committee. I just want to point out that it was in response to a question from our side about rumours that we had heard about the secondment of a PCO official to your group to work on that.
The first response in this committee was actually in response to our questions on the secondment.
I'd be curious to know how much staff time has been used on this project thus far.
12:20 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
I would have to do a calculation to find out. I am sure there are several people who have been involved. We began perhaps a year ago last January to undertake this project.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Who have been the key people working on this project? Is it the seconded officer from PCO?
12:20 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
The seconded officer is in charge of the project, at my request.
12:20 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
There have been several senior procedural clerks in the table research branch. Then, as I mentioned earlier, there are several jurilinguists who are involved in the Law Clerk's branch.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
Another question I have has to do with the annotated Standing Orders. Would it not have been simpler to create a new draft of the annotated Standing Orders, to explain the Standing Orders, rather than going about a rewrite of the Standing Orders themselves?
12:20 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
The annotated Standing Orders went through a second edition a few years ago, but the purpose wouldn't have changed the text of the Standing Orders, and that really was the driver of the project. The annotated Standing Orders would have perhaps simply given you a more up-to-date account of how the Standing Orders have been used.
The objective, really, was to change the text—again, to make it more accessible. The intent is visible, I think, when you compare the current table of contents with the proposed table of contents. In the current table of contents, it's virtually a blank page. In the revised Standing Orders' table of contents, it's an analytical content that actually helps you to identify the precise rule—and subsection, in some cases—that you might want to consult. That, again, is a proactive initiative on my part to be of assistance to the House, and to all members.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
You mentioned something about recognizing the names of the holidays we celebrate—changing it to Victoria Day, from “a day fixed for the celebration of the birth of the sovereign”. This was raised during the previous Parliament, and there was not a consensus among the recognized parties to make that change at that time. Therefore, even with something that seems relatively simple or innocuous, there are reasons that certain parties may have, whether it's for the dinner-hour concept or the date. That's one of the reasons I think it's essential—as we've always talked about—that there be consensus when dealing with the Standing Order changes.
I wanted to get another point in, though. How much time do I have, Mr. Chair?
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
John Nater Conservative Perth—Wellington, ON
With any changes that have been proposed, or that may be proposed in future iterations.... Just last year, we celebrated the release of the third House of Commons Procedure and Practice edition, by Bosc and Gagnon. I'm curious to know whether anything in this will require a rewrite of that almost brand-new book.
12:20 p.m.
Clerk of the House of Commons
We can provide you with a comparative table. If you decide to accept these Standing Orders, we can provide you with a concordance that would allow you to track back to the Standing Orders that were previously numbered in a different way. That was done in the House and the Senate when we were going through a transition period, so that members would not find it too difficult to access the information.