Paul Zed

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 98 and 99.

Question No. 98-

[Committees Of The House, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, with leave of the House, I move that the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs tabled in the House today be concurred in.

[Industry, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 53rd report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, regarding the membership of the Standing Committee on Justice and the associate membership of the Standing Committee on Finance.

If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 53rd report later this day.

[Government Response To Petitions, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's responses to 50 petitions.

[Order In Council Appointments, February 12th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to table in the House today, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments which were made recently by the government.

Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110(1), these are deemed referred to the standing committees, a list of which is attached.

[Standing Orders Of The House, February 11th, 1997]

That is not true.

[Standing Orders Of The House, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, as we open this debate I would ask members to bear in mind that this is the first hour of consideration on this item. I encourage members to refrain from making quick judgments one way or the other. As straightforward as the motion may appear and as my hon. colleague who moved the motion would understand, the motion entails the removal of an authority which our predecessors undoubtedly with good reason saw fit to delegate to committees. That is the authority to decide that a bill would not be reported back to the House and equally that a report to the Chamber was not necessary.

That is not to say that the proposal is without merit. On the contrary, I believe it may find support from all sides of the House. I only wish to draw my colleagues' attention to the seriousness of the question that is before us. Let us take a moment to examine this motion.

The motion proposes a carte blanche requirement that committees of this House report back all bills referred to them for consideration or that they submit a report with a recommendation not to proceed further with a bill. Clearly, this would impose a new restriction on the freedom of committees to determine issues before them.

If I understand it correctly, it would also tie the hands of a sponsoring member who, having succeeded in moving a bill to committee, discovered that it was substantially or politically flawed and wished to withdraw it. Under the terms of the motion, that member, the very person who brought forward the idea, could not secure the committee's agreement to set the item aside. No, as today's motion now reads, the committee would be obliged to prepare a report with its incumbent costs. Once submitted, that report could be subjected to a concurrence debate using up still more resources and precious time. Alternatively, it is not too difficult to imagine situations where a committee might insist on reporting a bill back to the Chamber despite the sponsor's wishes.

Do either of these scenarios represent the intent of the sponsor of this motion? What would be the impact upon the other private members' bills?

By its very nature, if adopted this motion will increase the number of committee reports and very possibly the number of bills reported back from committee. In the absence of other balancing changes to private members' business procedures, this gives rise to the possibility of a situation developing where once a session is under way and committees begin reporting bills back to the House, bills at report stage and third reading would block the access of private members' bills to the order of precedence for extended periods. I trust that this was not our colleague's intent.

This motion also leads to consideration of another well known but little acknowledged difference between private members' and government bills, namely, the level of scrutiny to which each kind of bill is subjected.

Each of us knows firsthand or through conversations with other members the energy which is required to bring a private members' bill to the House. Each bill is, I believe, a triumph to the sponsor's determination. Each of us also knows that no matter how much time and effort we put into a bill we cannot begin to match the resources, the time and the energy which goes into scrutinizing each phase of a typical bill that is sponsored by the government.

Bills pass through distinct phases of research, policy development, consultation, consideration of options and peer review and parliamentary study. Each government bill must successfully pass through intensive filters at each of those stages before becoming law.

Try as he or she might, an ordinary member developing a bill simply cannot match the minute level of scrutiny which government bills undergo. Yet despite this difference, each private members' bill has the potential to have the same impact on the day to day lives of Canadians as any government bill.

I must therefore ask: Is it really our desire that committees report on all the bills that are referred to them? Is it possible that some bills should stay in committee? Is it possible that some members wish to have their ideas expressed in the form of a bill considered by committee but do not wish to proceed further?

There are few among us who have not wrangled at the way this place works from time to time. Members on all sides have experienced the frustration of having what seemed to be perfectly good ideas stuck or worse, lost. But the disappointment of a few members of Parliament does not necessarily justify the change which is proposed today.

The simple fact is that this Parliament has made a great deal of progress with respect to private members' business. All votes on private members' business are now the subject of a free vote. Under this system 13 bills have completed passage in the past three years, including a private members' bill which required and for the first time in Canadian parliamentary history received a royal recommendation. Members may wish to note that in the eight years prior to this Parliament, only eight private members' bills completed the legislative process.

It is important to consider that within the context of this current Parliament. Each time a change in the standing orders is proposed, we need to stop and remind ourselves that this system is the product of hundreds of years of parliamentary practice and precedence.

Ultimately we may decide to support this motion or improve a version of it, but I for one am reluctant to do so at this point in time. As we have benefited from changes implemented by our predecessors, we of this Parliament have an obligation to ensure that any changes we make would make improvements as well. Would this motion, as it is currently worded, represent an improvement? Does it recognize the inherent ability and inventiveness of committees to develop their own solutions to issues associated with the review and reporting of private members' business?

For example, I understand that at least one standing committee has implemented a monthly review of all private members' business referred to it. I would remind the House that we have already asked one of our own committees, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to examine private members' business procedure. That committee has already heard from several witnesses on a number of topics, including committee study of private members' bills.

In conclusion, I would like to see that committee examine some of the issues associated with the hon. member's motion. As a matter of fact, I think it would be both consistent and a courtesy to our colleague to ask that the committee include this motion in its review.

[Presence In Gallery, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, there has been some consultation among the parties regarding a committee report that we would want to be presented at this time. I wonder if there is unanimous consent to revert to Routine Proceedings under presenting reports from committees.

[Questions On The Order Paper, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[Government Response To Petitions, February 11th, 1997]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 15 petitions.