Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Nov. 9th, 2017

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

This is something I worked on as a local government representative for 10 years before I ran for election. It was something that I supported Jean Crowder on when she had her own private member's bill along the same lines in the previous Parliament. It was a significant election campaign item in my community, and my team has been working for almost two years to build us towards the point of this debate.

If we lose this appeal and if we also lose the secret ballot vote in the House of Commons, I still have the ability to have a one-hour debate on a non-votable item. I also take comfort in the fact that the minister has heard the call on both coasts, and there's lots in the minister's bill that would move us forward.

The minister's focus on penalties and criminalizing abandonment have a lot of parallels with your former colleague, John Weston, who tabled his own private member's bill in the dying days of the previous Parliament. Criminalization of the problem is not something I've ever heard coastal communities ask for; however, our community sees that we've had an impact.

It's still conceivable that I could pull another PMB out of the air, but this is certainly the issue that resonates most strongly with my community, and we've had a failure of federal action for over 15 years that I would like to be part of remedying.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Okay. I wanted to ask that question just to be sure. You provided a very complete response, but I felt I had to ask the question just in case you had not thought it through as well as it turns out you have thought it through. Thank you for that.

I have one last thing here. Since I have a landlocked constituency, this is not a particularly important area for my constituents, but I am very concerned about the way we deal with private members' business. I want to make sure that we are very careful to preserve its integrity going into the future, and not see clever ways emerge at the hands of the government, be it the current government or a future government of which I might be a part, to shut down private members' business. I didn't like that sort of thing happening when my party was in government, and I don't like it now. I want to ask this question.

Again, this is for you, Sheila, but perhaps even more so for Peter: do you have any recommendations to suggest—you could give them either now or at a future point—with regard to the rules governing private members' business going into the future? The ones we have now are 15 years old. It may be time to give them a tweak in order to ensure that private members' items in parallel situations are better protected.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you for the question.

I know you've been a very strong defender of private members' right to bring forward legislation.

I think there is a bit of a loophole here. The intent of having that clause was to ensure that private members would not try to piggyback on a government bill. The loophole that's created is that the government brings in afterward.... In this case, Ms. Malcolmson's bill goes on the order paper, in the order of precedence, and then suddenly there is a government bill on it. That's a loophole that allows the government to do by the back door what they can't do by the front door right now. The intent of private members' business was always to allow the integrity and the prerogative of each of us as private members.

The House administration and the analysts are obliged to follow what exists now, which is that loophole. I think we need to be more explicit that the intent was not to have government come in and try to push aside a private member's bill, but rather to ensure that the private member didn't jump in on top of a government bill. The intent was to keep those two items separate.

It's a bit of a loophole now. We have now seen what problems can develop from it. A positive decision to overturn the subcommittee decision today would send a good signal to the government. Ultimately, we need to perhaps make some changes to the standing order to make that even more explicit.

Clearly, the historical trend over the past few decades has been to give more power and ability to private members to have votable legislation. I think that's in every Canadian's interests.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

We have to keep going here. We'll go to Mr. Christopherson quickly, and then I have one thing on committee business for our next meeting.

Go head, Mr. Christopherson.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

You mean my equal time now?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Good. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, as much as possible I'm not seeing this as an NDP colleague, but very much trying to see it as Mr. Reid does: this could be anybody, and it's a question of members' rights.

I came from 13 years at Queen's Park, the largest province in Confederation. We didn't have this. When I got here and found out this idea of votable, I was like, “What? You mean somebody else gets to decide whether what I want to do gets put to a vote?” In large part, that's why you come here: it's to make sure you're going to have an impact.

The whole concept blows me away, and in the nearly 14 years I've been here, this is the first time it has come to rear its ugly head in saying to a member that they can't have their bill come forward.

I ask colleagues to stand back and look at it that way and not necessarily as a government or an opposition member. The appeal procedure is there for a reason. Mr. Julian has gone out of his way to remind us that no one, including government, should be able to do through the back door what they're not entitled to do through the front door. It's a basic tenet of how we do our business here.

I don't fault the analysts. They did their job. Now we have an opportunity to do our job. We're not bound by any of that. There's an appeal process for a reason, and if we take that decision today, then Ms. Malcolmson will get her full rights. If we don't, it will go to the House, or at least she has that option, and the House could say they're going to give Ms. Malcolmson her rights. The fact that we had the analysts do their job is not meant to be the end of the line.

I urge colleagues as much as possible to not start going back down the ugly road of deciding whose issues deserve to be debated and voted on. Each of us should have that sovereign right. Few sovereign rights are left to individual members in this system. This is one that I think collectively we need to work hard to preserve.

To round out my comments, Mr. Julian, there was a comparable bill at the subcommittee, Bill C-364, from the member for Terrebonne, and apparently they made the right decision on that one. If you take the circumstances and apply that thinking, it should leave us with a different conclusion here, which is to allow the bill to be voted on.

I ask Mr. Julian to explain quickly what that argument is from his point of view.

[Peter Julian, NDP, New Westminster—Burnaby, BC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Christopherson.

As I mentioned in the presentation, Bill C-364 touches the same subject, amending the Election Act, as Bill C-50 and Bill C-33, so there's a bit of an inconsistency between two decisions with bills that have subjects that are similar to the subjects of government bills but are being treated in a different way.

As I said earlier, and I can't stress this enough, the intent of providing more scope for private members' business, as Mr. Christopherson said very eloquently just now, has always been to open the scope for each of us as a private member. It has nothing to do with whatever party we're affiliated with. It has much more to do with our rights as members.

This committee has always been the committee that has stood up for the prerogatives of members of Parliament. You have a very important role to play in that regard. This is, I think, a key circumstance, in that there's a bit of a loophole and that's why you're being asked in a sense to hear this appeal and make what I believe would be the right decision, which is to make Bill C-352 votable, because I think it meets all the tests. It certainly meets the intent as well of where we have evolved on private members' legislation, and you're the ones who can come to the defence of private members' legislation with this appeal that Ms. Malcolmson has brought to your attention.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you very much to the witnesses.

We'll consider this matter.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

When do we make the decision, Chair?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

That's my question. We could do it now or we could do it the first meeting back. We have committee business as the first thing on the agenda.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Okay.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

It would seem reasonable to ask what is preferable from her point of view.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

What is your preference?

[Sheila Malcolmson, NDP, Nanaimo—Ladysmith, BC]

I appreciate the question, and through you, Mr. Chair, I would be very grateful for a fast decision. My bill comes up for debate. My time slot is December 6. Time is moving very quickly. Especially if I am to make alternative plans and develop another private member's bill, I would very much appreciate having the riding week ahead to do that work.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

If government members want a little time to think through where they are going, I would rather get a positive answer in a couple of days than a negative one today.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

Because we have a break week, it's a significant amount of time.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Oh, does that cause that big a problem? I'm asking...I guess it's Sheila.

All right. It looks like it's coming now. Okay.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Do you want to do it in public?

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Shall the report of the sub-committee be concurred in? We'll have a recorded vote.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

We're past the time we had said, but we're not really adjourned until the majority of us say we are adjourned. Do we have time for a couple of comments?

That's not a good sign.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

All right. Can we call the vote?

Shall the report of the sub-committee be concurred in?

(Motion agreed to: yeas 5; nays 3) [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

What were you saying, Mr. Chair? I couldn't hear you. I couldn't hear you because there was some noise.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The sub-committee decision was upheld.

I have one other thing for the committee. In the second week when we come back, the Tuesday is already set, but the Thursday is not set. Thursday is a better day for your member to do the baby report, the report on kids. Could do that on the Thursday instead of the Tuesday, because she can't make the Tuesday? Is that okay?

That's okay. We would finalize that report at that time. Then one possibility is that it would only take an hour.

At the Tuesday meeting I know we will be determining the future witnesses for our report on the debates commissioner. This is just a suggestion from me. One suggestion for witnesses that came from the minister was to have the political parties. In the second hour on Thursday, to give the clerk time to get witnesses for that close to the Tuesday meeting, we would ask the parties to come as witnesses on the debates commission.

Any thoughts on that?