Evidence of meeting #78 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 million.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Superintendent Jane MacLatchy  Director, Parliamentary Protective Service
Robert Graham  Administration and Personnel Officer, Parliamentary Protective Service
André Gagnon  Deputy Clerk, Procedure
Daniel G. Paquette  Chief Financial Officer, House of Commons
Michel Patrice  Deputy Clerk, Administration
Stéphan Aubé  Chief Information Officer, House of Commons
Andre Barnes  Committee Researcher

1:10 p.m.

Some hon. members

Hear, hear!

1:10 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Good afternoon. Welcome back to the 78th meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. For members' information, we are in public.

Pursuant to Standing Order 92(2), we are considering the second report of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business, which was deposited with the clerk of the committee on Monday, November 6. The subcommittee recommended that Bill C-352, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act, 2001, and to provide for the development of a national strategy on the abandonment of vessels, be designated non-votable.

Today we are happy to be joined by the bill's sponsor, Sheila Malcolmson, MP for Nanaimo—Ladysmith, who will explain why she believes the bill should be votable. Ms. Malcolmson would also like Mr. Julian to be part of this presentation, if that's okay with the committee.

Okay.

I'll start with you, Ms. Malcolmson.

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Thank you, Chair, and thank you to the committee members for agreeing to hear my appeal.

I know you've had a long day already, and I really appreciate your hearing my argument that my private member's bill, Bill C-352, be deemed votable.

Because I've raised this issue 80 times in the House since being elected, I'm guessing that you already understand the imperative to act on this issue, so I'm not going to describe it. I would like to start our presentation by turning to New Democrat House leader Peter Julian. He'll be able to talk a little bit about the history of PMBs and some of the process part, then I will make the technical comparison, arguing that the government's bill and my bill are not in conflict.

1:10 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

I also want to thank you, Ms. Malcolmson. We are very happy to have an opportunity to speak with you today about why Bill C-352 should be votable in the House of Commons.

Since your committee is in charge of all the prerogatives of Parliament, the decision you have to make is important.

There are three main arguments I would like to put forward at the beginning.

First off, as you will see, Bill C-352 is in fact quite a different piece of legislation from the government bill, Bill C-64, and therefore should not be considered the same question as Bill C-64, which is currently on the Order Paper.

Second, the subcommittee was incorrect in applying the criteria to Bill C-352 because it was similar to Bill C-64 at the same meeting where it applied different criteria, it seemed, to Bill C-364, which was declared votable, despite being on the same subject and amending the same Canada Elections Act as Bill C-50 and Bill C-33. There's an inconsistency there.

Third, allowing the subcommittee decision to stand is allowing the government to violate the separation of private members' business and to let it do through the back door what the rules were designed to forbid through the front door: to deny individual members their right to vote on their preferred item of private members' business.

As we all know, government bills are subject to party discipline. Private members' bills have been the exception to this, and in our bible, which is O'Brien and Bosc, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it is clear that these rules were developed over decades, leading to a system based on the following fundamental characteristics: each member should have “at least one opportunity per Parliament to have an item of Private Members' Business debated” and voted upon, and “each item in the Order of Precedence would be votable, unless the sponsor opted to make it non-votable.”

The basic premise for PMBs is that government business is fundamentally different from private members' business. This premise was put in place to protect individual initiatives from members against the power of majority governments, including the power to try to knock off a bill.

Now, to emphasize the differences, the House has many rules built in to reflect the separation of government and private members' business. Amendments to private members' motions can only be moved with the consent of the sponsor. PMB recorded divisions, as we know, are done row by row in the chamber, and not by party. The lottery is designed to exclude ministers and parliamentary secretaries from PMBs, and if the committee makes a decision and it is appealed, the appeal is done by secret ballot on the floor of the House of Commons. The only other time this arises is when we elect a Speaker at the beginning of Parliament.

I would like to pass the microphone back now to Ms. Malcolmson, who will explain why Bill C-352 is so different from Bill C-64.

1:15 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Thank you, Peter.

There were two bills, Bill C-352 and its predecessor, which I tabled as Bill C-219 in February 2016, just a month after we had been sworn in. Then I reintroduced a new version of it in April 2017: Bill C-352. It's very skinny. The government's bill, tabled 10 days ago, Bill C-64, is much more hefty. That's my first point of comparison.

I will show you how these two bills are not redundant and how they are not contradictory. I urge you to deem my private member's bill votable.

There are a number of points of comparison.

With regard to national strategy, Bill C-64 is not a national strategy. The word does not appear once in the legislation. The government's briefing notes make that clear as well. It's not a national strategy; my bill is all about developing a national strategy.

The next comparison is with regard to royal recommendation. Bill C-64 requires the appropriation of public revenue and, as such, has received a royal recommendation. My bill does not.

With regard to penalties, in Bill C-64 there's a compliance and enforcement regime that is extensive. It creates a whole new set of violations and penalties for abandonment of vessels. My bill does none of these things. Arguably, my bill would make it easier to actually enforce those penalties in Bill C-64.

Another related point of comparison is enforcement tools. In Bill C-64, there is a whole suite of tools for enforcement provided to the Minister of Transport, a number of fines. My bill does none of these things.

With regard to enforcement officers and the justice system, they're also very different. Bill C-64 creates powers for enforcement officers, for the Transportation Appeal Tribunal, for the justice of the peace, for the Attorney General. Bill C-352 does none of these.

With regard to receiver of wreck, my bill designates the Canadian Coast Guard as the receiver of wreck. This was the same in Jean Crowder's bill in the previous Parliament, which a number of members of the government supported at that time. In the government's bill, that's not the approach. Bill C-64 keeps it as a multi-jurisdictional approach and keeps the receiver of wreck within the umbrella of the Minister of Transport, so again they are different approaches, not duplicative.

With regard to consultation, in my bill the Minister of Transport would consult with stakeholders and coastal people to discuss the development of a strategy. That's not envisioned in Bill C-64.

With regard to international conventions, Bill C-64, the government's bill, would implement the Nairobi International Convention on the Removal of Wrecks. My bill requires the government to assess the benefits of acceding to that convention. Again, they're compatible, not duplicative or in conflict.

A vessel turn-in program is something that coastal communities have been requesting for more than a decade. On the model of the cash-for-clunkers program, this would be a way to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels. Bill C-352 has that as one of its key elements. This bill has been endorsed by the Union of BC Municipalities and, across the country, by at least 50 different coastal organizations and harbour authorities. That is not a part of Bill C-64. Again, they're completely different. Bill C-64 does not legislate that.

In order to deal with the backlog of abandoned vessels, my bill has a number of measures that would legislate to address the backlog of what Transport Canada says might be thousands of abandoned vessels. Bill C-64 does not have measures to deal with the backlog, so again they're not in conflict, not contradictory, but arguably compatible.

A fund for vessel disposal modelled on what Washington state implemented 15 years ago is not addressed in Bill C-64, and the transport minister's briefing notes make that very clear. A fee associated with vessel registration going into a pool to deal with emergency removals is not something that is in Bill C-64. It is in my bill.

Amendments to other acts are another point of difference. Bill C-64 amends other acts, including the Navigation Protection Act, the Oceans Act, the Canada National Marine Conservation Areas Act, the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, the Customs Act, and the Transportation Appeal Tribunal of Canada Act. My bill does none of these things.

Turning to review mechanisms in Bill C-64, there's a review proposed on the fifth anniversary of the day the bill comes into force. That would be to the committee of the Senate, the House of Commons, and/or of both Houses of Parliament. My bill only requires the transport minister to prepare and table a report to Parliament.

There are many more points of comparison. I haven't run through them all. I just hope that is sufficient to convince you that these two bills are distinctly different. They're not contradictory; they're arguably compatible. They have the same big-picture aim, but the House can absolutely hear both of them, and I sincerely believe the minister's bill would do better with mine in place.

I urge you to reject and overturn the subcommittee's ruling and I urge you to rule that my abandoned vessel private member's bill C-352 be deemed votable.

I'll turn it back to my colleague, Peter Julian.

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

Thank you very much, Ms. Malcolmson.

Just to wrap up, as you've heard, these two bills do very different things in different ways, and therefore should not be seen as the same question in the PMB criteria.

As I mentioned earlier, I question the decision of the subcommittee based on another decision they made in the same meeting, approving Bill C-364 from the member from Terrebonne, concerning election finances. This bill, like Bill C-33 and Bill C-50, amends the Elections Act. All these bills have an impact on election financing rules. If simply being on the same subject makes Bill C-352 not votable because it shares a topic with Bill C-64, why is Bill C-364 votable though it shares a topic with Bill C-33 and Bill C-50?

In this situation, the bill that came first was Bill C-352. It was tabled on April 13 of this year and it was placed in the private members' order of precedence on October 25 of this year. Bill C-64 was introduced in the House on October 30, almost a week after Bill C-352 was placed in the order of precedence. That's why I submit that the government is using procedural rules to do through the back door what they cannot do through the front door. To protect the intent of Parliament, the prerogatives of Parliament, and the rights of an individual member to a votable item in private members' business, you should overturn the decision of the subcommittee and make Bill C-352 votable.

1:20 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Thank you, Chair, for your consideration and to the committee for your attention.

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Thank you very much.

I'll just give about three minutes to each party for any questions or comments, starting with Ms. Tassi.

1:20 p.m.

Liberal

Filomena Tassi Liberal Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, ON

I would like to thank you for coming here today. I appreciate your passion on this subject matter, and the work you've done.

As chair of that committee, I'll just explain its decision. I think there were about 15 PMBs on the list that day, and the committee really deferred to the comments that were raised by the analyst.

I wonder if we have the analyst's comments. Can we read those comments? Of all the bills that were presented, that was the only one for which the analyst's comments were given, and those comments—which we're going to hear in a minute, along with other colleagues who were at the committee—were essentially the basis upon which the decision was made.

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

Chair, if I could suggest, we've read the blues, so I understand the rationale. If the members choose to reserve the time for questions, I certainly welcome that.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

It would be less about procedure and more about the subject matter itself. Being east coastal by nature and by birthright, it is something that we're struggling with in a major way. The thrust of your bill is something I deeply respect, by the way.

One issue, though, is about national strategy. You're saying Bill C-64 doesn't explicitly state it's a national strategy, correct? Do you feel that's not built into it? In other words, what makes Bill C-64 not comply with being a national strategy?

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

The words “national strategy” are not mentioned a single time within the bill. The words don't appear there, but they do appear in mine. The minister's briefing notes describe what the government is taking on as a national strategy, and this is mentioned within one of 15 items that the government is doing.

The government itself does not describe Bill C-64 as its national strategy. My bill calls on the government to adopt a national strategy. Arguably, I might say that the minister's been listening so well to me over the last year and a half that this might be one of his actions. He's just skipped over this part.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Well, good for you, if that's the case, but again, I don't see how Bill C-64 fails as a national strategy, even though it doesn't explicitly say it. We may have a difference on that one.

There are two other very interesting points. Your initiative, your bill, calls for an analysis of the Nairobi convention, which I've read, whereas Bill C-64 calls for a wholehearted acceptance of it. I think that's a valid point. You talked about the Washington state measures and the contributions therein, but the government also contributes, as well as the private sector. Is that correct?

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

In the Washington model, there's a fee associated with vessel registration that creates a pool of money to deal with emergency response. As well, some U.S. federal Superfund money for dealing with toxic sites was also put into that model.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Right. That's the government part of it.

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

That's part of it, but again, my legislation calls on the government to talk with stakeholders, provinces, and territories and to partly use the model of polluter pays, but then to also fix vessel registration so that you're able to get the user's money into the fund and be able to track down the responsible owner. The minister's bill does none of those things.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Okay, that was my question. That fundamental system that makes the Washington state model distinct is not captured in Bill C-64, in your opinion.

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

That's correct.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

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

Okay, that's it. Thank you.

1:25 p.m.

Liberal

The Chair Liberal Larry Bagnell

Mr. Reid is next.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Thank you.

Sheila, assuming your bill were deemed votable, when would it come up for debate?

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Sheila Malcolmson NDP Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC

December 6 is the first hour of debate.

1:25 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

Okay.

My understanding of the way the rules work is that if your item is deemed votable—I stand to be corrected, by the way, but I believe this is correct—and then the government moves its bill first, yours gets pushed off the agenda because it has been found to be on the same subject matter, and you don't get a chance to submit another item.

An obvious scenario that occurs to me is that the government could, between now and then, simply move the beginning of the debate on its bill. That would be the end of your bill, and you'd have no chance to go back and prepare another item, whereas if your item is deemed non-votable, you do have the chance to prepare another item of private members' business.

Have I understood that correctly? That probably should be directed to Peter rather than to Sheila, but I just wanted to ask if I got it right.

1:25 p.m.

NDP

Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC

You are right on the result, less so in terms of the cause. If this committee chose to uphold the subcommittee decision and make this a non-votable item, the appeal would go to the floor of the House of Commons, and that's where the secret ballot comes in. Every member of Parliament has a secret ballot right to then vote on making the PMB votable. If that vote were then lost on the floor of the House of Commons, Ms. Malcolmson would not be able to replace her bill.

Stemming out of this decision, whether or not to appeal to the floor of the House of Commons determines whether or not there's an ability to put in a replacement bill.

1:30 p.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON

I have to ask the question. Being aware of this, you are in danger of finding yourself without any item at all. I'm assuming that's a risk you're prepared to take or you wouldn't be here, but I just wanted to ask the question overtly.