Joe Preston

[Committees of the House, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 104 and 114, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 17th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding membership at committees of the House.

If the House gives it consent, I intend to move concurrence in the 17th report later today.

[Points of Order, March 28th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, during statements by members today, I made a comment that was very inappropriate for the House and I apologize unreservedly for doing so.

[Committees of the House, March 12th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 16th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

The committee advises that pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(2), the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business met to consider the items added to the order of precedence as a result of the replenishment on Thursday, February 16, 2012, and recommended that the items listed in the report which it has determined should not be designated non-votable be considered by the House.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I find it absolutely over the top that the member is talking about this place and ethics. She has some explaining to do in her own right and for her own party. I will ask a question about procedure and House affairs and the bill before us.

She said it is very important that this legislation gets passed so the Chief Electoral Officer has these abilities. In previous meetings of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, the Chief Electoral Officer asked for these same powers. Guess who was in power at the time and guess who denied those same powers before? We have an awakening on the road to Damascus from someone whose ethics I question.

[Committees of the House, February 27th, 2012]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 15th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to its study of the report of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, entitled “Responding to Changing Needs – Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the 40th General Election”.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests that the government table a comprehensive response to this report.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie is a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and he has already brought this forward. Everything we discuss at committee has a serious nature to it and it will happen.

There is a mixture of both to that question. Committees are masters of their own destinies and can, through democratic means, do what committees need to do to get their job done. However, today is the day to look at Standing Orders. That one will come forward and we will certainly discuss it.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, the member has been a guest at our committee in the last couple of weeks. I think he is starting to see how it works.

The member mentioned the Standing Order about being able to call committees back. Mine was about when it could happen. However, if all committees work collegially like we do, we would always have a friend from another party that we could get and be able to call that meeting.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I do have my bible with me. I was hunting though it for the Standing Order that allows members to ask questions of the chairs of committees during question period today. I could not find it. This is something else we will have to look for, but I thank the members who did that today.

To answer her question, when I finished my speech in the House, that was the last time I will give my opinion on any of the things that will come forward in committee. From now on, I will be the chair and make sure the members do the work.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Or a telegraph company.

I understand there has not been a private bill that has originated in the House in a few decades, which is probably why this section of the Standing Orders has not been updated. We have heard today about some other areas we need to update, whether it is the fine for a stranger in the House or whatever else. There is a need to take a look at modernization.

I am really interested in the upcoming review. There will be a lot of work done at committee. We have always worked fairly well in that committee. I would like to say it is because of the chair, but truly it is not. It is because of the work of all members. I want to mention what some of them said here today.

The member for Hamilton Mountain started us off and was very eloquent and passionate. She might even have been critical, but she did it with passion. She said that time is the currency of Parliament proceedings and the Standing Orders regulate how we use that time. It was a very profound thought and I will be sure to share it with her when she goes a little long at committee. She also mentioned that a debate on the Standing Orders is a lot like watching paint dry. I think it is a little more exciting than that, but having listened to the speech by the member for Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, she may have had it right.

I would like to also thank the member for Westmount—Ville-Marie, who also sits on the committee and is a very active participant. He said we should make sure we look at the complex parts of the questions that are being asked. Sometimes it is more important to ensure that we are not creating unintended consequences by fixing something in the first place. The committee will take great care to do that.

The member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre is always a great speaker in the House. He suggested today that the Standing Orders were like the rule book on how the game is played in the House. I thank him because often he brings us back to the ground in committee by talking in the way that people back home might understand. When we are talking about Standing Orders, it may not be easy.

The member for Kitchener—Conestoga was also very eloquent in his speech today, as he is in committee. I would like to thank some of the other members on the committee, such as the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent who spoke today. We are really happy with her contributions. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is also a fantastic member on the committee. The member for Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine has also been a great addition to how we can work together on a committee.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, as was mentioned earlier, works a little differently. Members have fun, work hard and get the job done. I am looking forward to the next number of meetings on the Standing Orders to make this place run just a little better.

[Standing Orders and Procedure, February 17th, 2012]

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to rise today and talk about Standing Orders. As the chairman of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, it has been said I am a bit of a procedural wonk. It is good to see there are some others of those in the room today.

I have been very much looking forward to this conversation today, but I am really looking forward to the work that will happen at procedure and House affairs as the result of today's debate. Once we are done with today's debate, all parties will bring various proposals to the committee on procedure and House affairs. Although some may find it uninteresting, that is a discussion and debate that I will find a lot of fun.

Since I chair the committee, I cannot really bring forward proposals while we are at the committee. Therefore, I would like to throw a few ideas out here today while I have the chance. I also want to say I am trying out a new voice today. I will take a vote afterwards as to whether members like it or not.

I would like to throw out a few ideas that will go to the committee or will give the committee some thought.

One thing is looking at Standing Order 106(4) which requires the chair of a committee, upon receiving a signed request from four members, to convene a meeting within five days provided that 48 hours' notice is given. I do not have any problem with a group of committee members, regardless of party affiliation, being able to get together four signatures and call a meeting. What I am concerned about, though, is the strict five day requirement. Let us keep in mind there is no provision for extending this guideline because of weekends or holidays.

This has the potential of creating a very awkward situation around Christmas, Easter and other holidays. For example, if a request were received on the Wednesday before Good Friday, according to the Standing Orders as currently written, the committee would be forced to meet over Easter weekend or at least on Easter Monday. The same problem would occur if the request were received around December 22. The committee could be forced to meet on Christmas or Boxing Day.

I think we should consider a relatively simple change to the Standing Order that would uphold the spirit of Standing Order 106(4) but make it a little more practical. If we simply made it five business days or five days excluding weekends or holidays, that would give the chair the flexibility to call a meeting on a day that is convenient for members, as many have to fly in from across our great country. It would prevent committee meetings from disrupting our time with our families.

I believe we should also look at the right of a minority on committee to present a dissenting report. One of my colleagues had a bit of a comment on this earlier today. Under the current Standing Orders, if members of the opposition or a minority on the committee want to table a dissenting report to a committee report, they must first get the committee's permission. I think that is something the committee on procedure should look at. Should a party that disagrees with a committee report be automatically allowed to give a dissenting report? Is that something worth considering?

As you know, Mr. Speaker, back when we were in a minority government, the opposition majority on committees used their powers on multiple occasions to block government members from presenting dissenting reports. We may want to look at preventing such occurrences from happening in the future, to anyone.

I also want to discuss the topic of private bills. Before I did my research for speaking today, my knowledge of private bills was quite limited. I learned that there is a whole chapter in the Standing Orders devoted to the subject. In preparation for today's debate I looked through the chapter. It is in desperate need of modernization and updating.

For example, Standing Order 130(2) describes in which newspapers a notice needs to be published in order to build a canal or a railway. It goes on to describe the process to operate a telegraph company. There is a lot of desire for that apparently.

To prove that some of the provisions are out of date, let me read Standing Order 133(4) into the record:

No petition praying for the incorporation of a railway company, or of a canal company, or for an extension of the line of any existing or authorized railway or canal, or for the construction of branches thereto, shall be considered by the Examiner, or by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, until there has been filed with the said Examiner a map or plan, showing the proposed location of the works, and each county, township, municipality or district through which the proposed railway or canal, or any branch or extension thereof, is to be constructed.

I have been the chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for a little while now. I have never seen anybody show up with a map to see where we are going to put the next canal. Perhaps it is a bit out of date and we need to look at it.