Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions stand.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2008, with 59% of the vote.
Questions On The Order Paper May 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I ask that all other questions stand.
Questions On The Order Paper May 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, we will be answering Question No. 94 today. .[Text]
Question No. 94—
Committees Of The House May 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 28th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding its order of reference of Friday, April 7, 2000, in relation to Bill C-445, an act to change the name of the electoral district of Rimouski—Mitis.
The committee studied Bill C-445 and is reporting it with amendments.
Government Response To Petitions May 3rd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8) I have the honour to table in both official languages the government's response to 10 petitions.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 2nd, 2000
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.
Questions Passed As Orders For Returns May 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, if Question No. 24 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately.
Government Response To Petitions May 2nd, 2000
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to five petitions.
Government Response To Petitions May 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to 13 petitions.
Order In Council Appointments May 1st, 2000
Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to table, in both official languages, a number of order in council appointments made recently by the government.
Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 110 these are deemed referred to the appropriate standing committees, a list of which is attached.
Petitions April 14th, 2000
Madam Speaker, I am very pleased to address the issues raised in Motion No. 128 introduced by the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford. He proposes that we amend the standing orders to alter the way we deal with petitions.
My hon. colleague is well known for his background, experience and knowledge in the area of parliamentary procedure. I will take the time to review the proposal carefully and I hope he and the House will view it as constructive.
If I understand my hon. colleague's motion correctly, the purpose of his motion would be to alter the process for dealing with petitions so that a public petition could automatically become the basis for law or a resolution of the House. Not only does the member propose that any petition with sufficient signatures could become law, he also proposes that these laws could come into effect with no apparent policy analysis or prior consultations with affected groups and with relatively minimal parliamentary scrutiny. In fact it appears that the House and its committees would be forced to consider these petition bills on a relatively short deadline.
Before I discuss the merits of the motion, I will address the historic background of petitions. The procedure for petitioning parliament is a longstanding practice which goes back many years.
In medieval England, the records show that individuals petitioned parliament to seek resolution to an issue in cases where the courts had been unable to reach a decision. The British House of Commons, therefore, served in a quasi-judicial capacity.
Procedures for handling petitions evolved from this early form partly because of their extreme popularity in Great Britain in the early part of the 19th century. In the year 1843 alone there were over 33,000 petitions filed in the House of Commons. However, as my hon. colleague might imagine, dealing with this inordinate number of petitions did not leave very much time to deal with the other pressing matters of national business.
Because of the impact of these petitions on the time of the House, changes were made to limit the rules of debate so that matters of interest and importance to all individuals would not be hijacked by political strategies that might not be in the broader interest of the nation.
Canada, of course, has adopted these British parliamentary traditions and petitions are now only presented to the House, generally without provision for debate. In the 1985 report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, the chair, Mr. James McGrath, noted:
—the right to petition Parliament is a fundamental right of the citizen and that petitions are an integral part of the process whereby the people of Canada speak to their elected representatives.
This is still true today.
As a means of ensuring that petitions are treated in a relevant fashion, the standing orders require that the government respond to petitions within 45 days to ensure that the government would take note of the content of the petitions.
It appears that the sponsor of this motion is suggesting that petitions are not given due recognition by the government and it would seem that through Motion No. 128 he is attempting to alter the nature and significance of petitioning a parliament.
To begin with, the government does take seriously its responsibility to respond to petitions presented by Canadians and within the 45 day limit. In this session we had about 600 to 700 petitions presented by members from both sides of the House.
First, the presentation of petitions allows parliament and the government to tap the public mood and to hear what issues concern individuals, not only from across the country but also from specific regions.
Second, the standing orders require the responsible department to respond to petitions. Petitions give these policy makers or policy advisors valuable information that can be fed into the ongoing and dynamic process of policy development. This can and often does stimulate legislation, regulatory or policy change.
Finally, members of the House have numerous instruments here at their disposal for debating issues of national and regional importance, including those raised in petitions.
As a representative of his constituents and with his experience, if my hon. colleague saw an issue that required attention he could introduce a private member's bill or motion to allow an issue to be considered, just as he has done in this case.
On any day the House is sitting, a member can ask a question of member of the government during question period or can submit a written question. Of course, opposition parties can make their own determination of what issues are important to Canadians. They actually select the subject of debate on any opposition day in the House.
Furthermore, the standing orders of the House now provide that standing committees have a mandate to study any issue that falls within the mandate of a minister's department.
The process that my colleague is proposing through Motion No. 128 raises a number of questions. For example, how would parliament deal with several petitions on the same subject but with opposing perspectives? How would a standing committee cope with petitions that affected many other committees or that required broader consultation and integration with the work of other committees of the House? From a purely constitutional and procedural perspective, bills which involve the spending of public funds can only be introduced by the government with what we call the royal recommendation.
I suggest that my hon. colleague's motion, while it is a creative initiative, it has a number of practical difficulties. I want to emphasize that the government supports the ability of Canadians to petition their parliament. With reference to the member's initiative, members of the House may wish to consider whether they want to alter the way we deal with petitions. We might wish to consider other ways of dealing with them and place these procedures in the standing orders. I therefore suggest that if the hon. member wishes to pursue this matter further—and he may well might as well might other members of the House—he could seek to have this issue, among others, brought on to the agenda of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which might study it further. One never knows what might be recommended back to the House.