Evidence of meeting #2 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 41st Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was senate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
December 8th, 2011 / 12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
How long was the current version of Bill C-377 available? It says the first reading was on December 5. So it would have been on Tuesday....
Obviously I feel quite convinced about, and am not changing my opinion of, the votability or constitutionality of the bill. But I do think that Mr. Toone has a point about the length of time. If there were a constitutional problem, I suspect it would have been of a somewhat technical nature requiring that we not merely look at the words of what was actually a very generally worded section of the Constitution, but also at the jurisprudence of it. It's a good point that maybe we do need to give ourselves a bit longer—not much time, but it's worth thinking of.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I've already spoken on that. Can we agree on how much time that…?
Why is it that we only.... Frankly, it only showed up on the private members' bill website yesterday.
NDP
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think there's another, deeper question here that relates not just to how long in advance we get the bill, but also to how we can know what our analysts' views will be. Until we get here and begin to discuss it, we haven't had an opportunity to actually consider what angle they're coming from and whether to debate for or against that particular view. I think that's another point and I'm not sure how we get around that.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I concur with that as well. That one has always been a source of some frustration to me.
I think the cause of it arising today, after it came out a couple of days ago, is the inadvertence of those of us who sit on the procedure and House affairs committee, as we simply look at how we can deal with it quickly. Is there space available where we don't have a meeting and can take the time that procedure and House affairs normally uses for the meeting? I think we've been basing it on our own convenience rather than ensuring there is a proper review.
I take partial responsibility for that and share it with everybody else on that committee. I think that's probably where the fault lies as much as anywhere else. If we establish the practice of giving ourselves a decent amount of time, that would be a first step anyway.
Conservative
Committee Researcher
I just have one comment, and it's on the whole process. This is just to bring something to your attention, that the analyst has no opinion.
When the order of precedence is constituted, there are 30 bills or motions added to it. No debates can take place in the House of Commons before the subcommittee has looked at every item and made its decisions. At the beginning of a new Parliament, especially in a new Parliament, because there are 30 items to look at, there is a lot of pressure on staff to look at all of the bills and motions. Members want to meet very soon so that debates can take place in the House of Commons. Until there is a report from the subcommittee, there will be no debate in the House of Commons.
If you build in a timelime or delay within the system, you have to keep in mind that at the beginning of a Parliament, the start of private members' business will be delayed.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I guess one way around that would be to make the time shorter from the beginning of Parliament until that first selection is made, which may put a new member at a disadvantage, after just arriving here on the Hill and having the responsibility of getting a piece of private member's legislation ready. I think that's part of the delay as well.
Committee Researcher
Yes. I don't want to speak on their behalf, but the law clerks also have many legislative proposals to draft. They may have some issues as well.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I'm sure they would.
In general, I think we've agreed that we'll try to make more time. From here on, we do have more time. We don't have quite the rush. Once you've received the next 15, maybe we could give ourselves a week with the material, or at least four or five days. So I think in principle we've agreed and we'll try to operate under that assumption—without firm guidelines, if we're okay with that as a committee. We'll agree philosophically that we want more time.
Is there anything else?
The meeting is adjourned.
