41st Parliament, Second session
The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has
the honour to present its
Committee, which has received an Order of Reference from the House of Commons
on January 29, 2014, is pleased to report as follows:
On January 29, 2014, the House of Commons adopted the following
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be instructed to
recommend changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions
so as to establish an e-petitioning system that would enhance the current
paper-based petitions system by allowing Canadians to sign petitions
electronically, and to consider, among other things, (i) the possibility to
trigger a debate in the House of Commons outside of current sitting hours when
a certain threshold of signatures is reached, (ii) the necessity for no fewer
than five Members of Parliament to sponsor the e-petition and to table it in
the House once a time limit to collect signatures is reached, (iii) the study
made in the 38th Parliament regarding e-petitions, and that the Committee
report its findings to the House, with proposed changes to the Standing Orders
and other conventions governing petitions, within 12 months of the adoption of
3, 2014, the House concurred in the Committee’s 27th Report, which authorized
the Committee to continue its deliberations beyond January 30, 2015 for a time
extension of 30 sitting days.
course of its study, the Committee heard from the following witnesses: Mr.
Kennedy Stewart, Member for Burnaby––Douglas, Mr. André
Gagnon, Acting Deputy Clerk, House of Commons, Mr. Soufiane
Ben Moussa, Chief Technology Officer, Information Services, House of Commons, Mr. Aaron Wudrick, Federal Director, Canadian
Taxpayers Federation, Mr. François Arsenault, Director,
Parliamentary Proceedings Directorate, National Assembly of Quebec, Mr. Tim Mercer, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Legislative
Assembly of the Northwest Territories, Ms. Jane Hilderman,
Acting Director and Research Manager, Samara, Dr.
Ruth Fox, Director and Head of Research, Hansard Society, Ms. Catherine Bochel, Reader in Policy Studies, University
of Lincoln, Mr. Mike Winter, Head of Office, Office
of the Leader of the United Kingdom (“UK”) House of Commons, Mr.
Chris Shaw, Parliamentary Adviser, UK Cabinet Office, Mr.
Charles Walker, Chair, Procedure Committee, UK House of
Commons, and Mr. Huw Yardley, Clerk, Procedure Committee, UK House of
On November 6, 2014,
Mr. Kennedy Stewart, Member for Burnaby—Douglas, appeared before the Committee
to speak to his motion, M-428. Mr. Stewart provided an outline of Canada's
current paper-based petitioning system and emphasized that electronic petitions
(“e-petitions”) would enhance and not replace paper petitions. He suggested an
11-step e-petition process; however he noted that his motion is instructive in
nature, and the details of the process are left to the Committee to determine.
Mr. Stewart noted that an e-petition system could follow many of the existing
paper-based petitioning rules, as well as rely on existing staff and
infrastructure, but allow Canadians to draft and sign petitions using
electronic means. He assured the Committee that e-petitions will help more
citizens engage in the democratic process between elections at a very low cost,
discussed measures that could be put in place to ensure only the most serious
of issues are ever debated in the House of Commons, and measures that ought to
be put in place to protect the integrity of the process and privacy of
On November 18, 2014,
Mr. André Gagnon, Acting Deputy Clerk, House of Commons, and Mr. Soufiane
Ben Moussa, Chief Technology Officer of Information Services at the House of
Commons, appeared before the Committee. Mr. Gagnon provided a brief overview
of the evolution of the issue of e-petitions at the House of Commons and
outlined a number of themes and questions he suggested the Committee consider.
Gagnon also raised a number of key areas for consideration for the Committee,
particularly regarding how
to validate an online signature, how to prevent frivolous or libellous
petitions, and the role of Members in the e-petitions process. He noted that
the proposal would require moderate changes to the Standing Orders. He
suggested that the e-petition system should mirror, to the extent possible, the
current procedures and practices in place for paper petitions.
Mr. Gagnon provided a high-level estimate of an initial investment of $100,000
to $200,000 to implement such a system. He also approximated that an additional
20% should be added for ongoing technical costs, not including any costs
associated with potentially hiring new staff. Mr. Gagnon estimated that
the development and implementation phases could take from three to six months,
following the approval of a business case by the Board of Internal Economy.
Wudrick of the Canadian Taxpayers Federation noted, in his appearance before
the Committee on November 18, 2014, that his organization supports the motion
because it permits citizens to engage with Parliament in a new way and
demonstrates commitment to greater accountability by Parliament.
Arsenault, Director, Parliamentary Proceedings Directorate, National Assembly
of Quebec, and Mr. Tim Mercer, Clerk of the Legislative Assembly, Legislative
Assembly of the Northwest Territories also appeared before the Committee on
November 18, 2014, to discuss the e-petition systems in the legislatures of Quebec
and the Northwest Territories (“NWT”).
used for NWT legislature’s website was purchased from a firm located in the
United Kingdom for $8,000. The website is hosted and maintained by the firm in
the U.K. for just over $800 a year. Since its implementation in 2012, 14
e-petitions have been tabled in the NWT Assembly. Mr. Arsenault noted
that the two most important considerations in establishing an e-petition
program are technology and staff preparedness. The National Assembly of Quebec
developed their own software, and it took staff approximately six months to complete.
Mr. Arsenault stressed that ensuring that the staff at the Assembly who would
be reviewing the petitions was properly trained and ready to handle any problem
that might arise was critical during the launch of the system.
On November 25, 2014,
Dr. Ruth Fox of the Hansard Society (based in the UK) appeared before the
Committee to discuss a report written by the Hansard Society on e-petitions at
the request of the UK House of Commons Select Committee on Backbench Business.
The report, entitled “What next for e-petitions?” addresses five problems that
arose from the newly established e-petitions process: ownership and
responsibility, heightened public expectations, public engagement, debates on
e-petitions in Parliament, and the simplicity and fairness of the process. She
recommended that the Committee integrate the paper and electronic petition
systems for consistency and clarity. Further, she recommended the Committee
consider the role of Members carefully in the petition process, as the process in
the UK has “quite a thin form of engagement” between petitioners and Members.
Hilderman, research manager and an acting director of Samara also appeared
before the Committee on November 25, 2014. Ms. Hilderman focused her
discussion on public opinion surrounding e-petitions, which she noted, appears
to be favourable.
On November 25,
2014, the Committee also heard testimony from Ms. Catherine Bochel, Reader in
Policy Studies, University of Lincoln, who provided the Committee with
information on features of note concerning the UK government e-petition system
and some statistics on usage.
In Ms. Bochel’s
view, an e-petition system can increase public participation in and bolster the
legitimacy of the democratic process, inform MPs about public concerns, and can
perform an educative function. As to features of an e-petition system, Ms.
Bochel made several points. The system needs a clear statement of purpose,
there is a need to manage expectations by making it clear to petitioners how
the system functions, and what the range of outcomes are for petitions. She
also posed questions for the Committee’s consideration, such as whether the
petitioner would be granted direct access to the system or whether the petition
would require an M.P. to sponsor it? Ms. Bochel noted that, in her view, it
could be useful to have the system alert an M.P. that a petition is being
submitted by a constituent, noting also that engagement throughout the process
with the petitioner would be desirable, such as having the system provide
alerts when certain thresholds are met. She also provided the Committee with
some usage statistics for the UK e-petitions system. During its first three
years, the UK e-petitions system received approximately 53,500 petitions, of
which 28,500 were deemed admissible. Of these, 145 received a response from
the relevant government department, and debates had been held on 25 petitions.
Mr. Mike Winter,
Head of Office, Office of the Leader of the UK House of Commons and Mr. Chris
Shaw, Parliamentary Adviser, UK Cabinet Office, also appeared before the
Committee on November 25, 2014. They provided information to the Committee on
the e-petition system used by the government in the UK.
described the process for signing a government e-petition in the UK. He noted,
to be eligible to sign a UK government e-petition, a person must declare that
he or she is a UK resident or a British citizen, he or she must have an active
email account, and a valid postal code (this is checked against a Royal Mail
database). Only one signature is allowed per email address per e-petition;
however, signatories from the same IP address are allowed. The latter is
monitored for unusual signing patterns by technical staff. Mr. Winter noted
that, as far as he was aware, no abuses of the e-petition system had yet been
found. In terms of privacy, the government stores only the name, postal code,
and email address of individuals who create a petition. This data is not made
available to any third parties. On the e-petitions website, the only
information displayed about the petition creator is his or her name, and no
other contact information.
The software for
the e-petitions system was created by the UK Government’s Digital Service at a
cost of approximately £80,000. The ongoing operating costs are approximately
£40,000 per year, a figure that does not include certain other marginal costs
(staff costs, technical staff costs, and costs to individual government
Mr. Winter noted
that the UK e-petition system had been used by roughly 3.5 million people per
year since being implemented in 2011. The system had also evolved, with the
most notable changes being the introduction of a 10,000 signature threshold to
elicit a government policy response to a petition, and the creation of a
specific time in the sitting day for e-petition debates. In terms of
statistics of note, Mr. Winter pointed out to the Committee that of the
15,000 e-petitions submitted each year, approximately 30% of approved petitions
have two supporters or fewer. Further, about half of the signatories come to a
specific e-petition via social media apps, and not through the home page.
On November 26,
2014, the Committee received a submission from the Privacy Commissioner. In
it, the Commissioner indicated the Committee ought to consider establishing an
internal code of practice for use by the House of Commons Administration when
dealing with the personal information collected through an e-petition
database. This code ought to be based on the ten privacy principles found in
the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Document Act. These principles
are: accountability; identifying purposes; consent; limiting collection; limiting
use, disclosure and retention; accuracy; safeguards; openness; individual
access; and challenging compliance. Further, the Commissioner also stated in
his submission that, among other things, collecting of personal information by
the e-petition system should be kept at a minimum, that personal information be
retained in the database only for a limited time period, that the e-petitions
server and website be protected with solid security measures, that the use and
disclosure of personal information be strictly limited to the purposes of the
e-petition system, and that the publishing of personal information on the
website be kept at a minimum.
On December 9,
2014, the Committee heard testimony from Mr. Charles Walker, Chair, Procedure
Committee, UK House of Commons, and Mr. Huw Yardley, Clerk, Procedure
Committee, UK House of Commons. Together, they briefed the Committee on the
contents of the Third Report of the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee,
presented to the House on December 4, 2014, entitled E-petitions: a
things, Mr. Walker noted that the joint government–Parliament e-petition system
proposed by the report represented an improvement on the current government
only system. The report also recommended the establishment of a select
e-petitions committee dedicated to handling all aspects of the e-petition
system. It was envisaged that this committee would be given discretion, above
and beyond any timelines and thresholds, to decide from a range of possible
responses or actions what the appropriate response or action regarding an
e-petition ought to be, and when this response or action ought to take place.
This flexibility is meant to ensure that grassroots issues are as likely to be
heard as issues of concern in large populated cities.
indicated that the report does not recommend that a petition require the
support of an M.P. to be deemed admissible, in order to provide for instances
where an M.P. disagrees with the content of an e-petition brought forward by
his or her constituents. The report, however, recommends that signatories to
e-petitions be given the option of alerting their local M.P. that they have
added their name to a given e-petition. With regards to privacy matters, it
was noted by Mr. Yardley that under the legal framework in the UK, personal
data can only be kept as long as necessary. The report recommends that
e-petitions be allowed to remain open for a period of six months; when an
e-petition closes, the text of the e-petition and the number of signatories is
recorded in official House papers, and soon thereafter all personal information
about petitioners is destroyed.
The right to
petition Parliament is an ancient and well-established right in the Westminster
parliamentary system, tracing its history back to the 13th century.
Its origins are closely tied to Parliament’s formative years, when Parliament’s
was essentially judicial, and its first task being to receive petitions from
individual persons or corporate bodies. It has even been put forward that, in
the parliamentary context, it is from the practice of petitioning that
gradually there emerged the procedure of legislation by both public and private
presentation of petitions has been a feature of the Canadian House of Commons
since the time of Confederation. From time to time, the procedures and
practices that govern the petition process have been examined by the House with
a view of ensuring its effective operation as a direct process through which
people can voice their concerns to the House on matters of public interest.
recent times, the petition process was examined for potential procedural
reforms by the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (known as
the McGrath Committee) in the mid-1980s. In February 1994, the House of
Commons passed a motion directing the Standing Committee of Procedure and House
Affairs to examine measures to achieve more direct participation by citizens,
including debates on petitions.
In 2003, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the
Procedures of the House of Commons undertook a study of various practices in
the House of Commons, including petitions. In its Fourth Report, tabled in June 2003, the Committee noted that e-petitions were being used
successfully in the Scottish Parliament, and recommended that a system for e-petitions
be developed. The report was concurred in by the House on 18 September 2003.
In 2005, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs undertook a
study on parliamentary reform, including the feasibility of introducing an e-petition
system for the House. In its 26th Report, among other things, the
Committee indicated that following a briefing given by the Clerk of the House
and his officials regarding implementing an e-petitions system, concerns and
questions arose among Members as to the feasibility of such a system, and no
further action was taken on the matter.
January 2014, the Committee received an Order of Reference from the House to recommend
changes to the Standing Orders and other conventions governing petitions with
the view of establishing an e-petition system. Over the course
of its study, the Committee has given thorough review to the e-petition systems
currently in place in other jurisdictions (including Scotland, the United
Kingdom, the United States, Wales, Quebec, Queensland, and the Northwest
Territories), and has heard from a number of expert witnesses on the matter.
Having concluded its study on this Order of Reference, the Committee is convinced
that an e-petition system for the House is feasible and desirable, and ought to
be put in place.
recommends that the ancient right of petitioning be expanded, given the
evolution in the means of communications, through the establishment an
In order to put
in place an e-petition process that would best serve Canada’s Parliament, and
reflect its procedures, practices and traditions, numerous procedural and
technical aspects of such a system have been considered by the Committee. The
Committee’s recommendations for the establishment of an e-petition process, to
be administered by the House of Commons Administration, and hosted on the Parliament
of Canada website, are set out below in as full detail as possible.
In order to
initiate an e-petition, an e-petitioner would be required to visit the e-petition webpage hosted by House of Commons Administration
on the Parliament of Canada website. A form would have to be completed by the e-petitioner
in which he or she must provide the following information: full name, full
address including postal code, phone number, and e-mail address. The e-petitioner
must also confirm by means of self-declaration that he or she is a resident of
Canada or a Canadian citizen living outside of Canada. The form to be filled
in by the e-petitioner will also receive the e-petition’s prayer (i.e. a
request for the addressee to take some action to remedy a grievance).
a new petition, an e-petitioner must also select a Member of the House of
Commons by using a drop-down list on the website to serve as its “sponsor.” An
e-petition requires a Member to sponsor it in order for it to proceed. Petitioners
can only send a draft petition to one Member at a time. A disclaimer will
appear on the website to inform the e-petitioner that sponsoring an e-petition
does not necessarily mean that the Member supports or agrees with its content.
with paper petitions, Members are responsible for ensuring that the e-petitions
they sponsor do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
The creator of
an e-petition will be required to confirm the validity of his or her e-mail
address. Upon completing the e-petition form, he or she will automatically be
sent an e-mail with a link embedded in it that must be clicked in order to
activate the submission. In addition, this automatic e-mail will also contain
a security mechanism (e.g. a unique code randomly generated by the website)
that will prevent the automated creation of e-petitions.
Similar to the
process recommended in the UK House of Commons Procedure Committee’s Third
Report of Session 2014-15, the Committee suggests that the e-petitioner must identify
five other individuals who support his or her e-petition. The e-petitioner
would enter the full names and e-mail addresses of these five individuals.
These individuals would be automatically e-mailed through the system and
invited to confirm their e-mail addresses, provide their postal codes, and
confirm they are residents of Canada or Canadian citizens living outside of
receipt of confirmation of support of the e-petition from the five individuals,
the e-petitioner’s form (including contact information) and the text of the
petition would be automatically submitted to the Member selected by the
e-petitioner to be the sponsoring Member.
selected by the e-petitioner to be the sponsoring Member would have the option
of agreeing to do so or not. In the event that the selected Member does not
agree to be the sponsoring Member, the e-petitioner will be notified and given
the opportunity to select a second Member to be the sponsoring Member. Should
the second selected Member also not agree to be the sponsoring Member, the e-petitioner
will be notified and given the opportunity to select a third Member to be the
sponsoring Member. This process for finding a sponsoring Member could be repeated
up to and until the fifth selected Member declines to be the sponsoring Member,
at which point the e-petition would proceed no further. Throughout this part
of the process, where a selected Member does not agree to be the sponsoring Member,
that Member may, if he or she wishes, have a message sent to the e-petitioner
and the supporting individuals explaining why he or she does not agree to
sponsor the petition. There will be no limit to the number of e-petitions that
a Member can sponsor at one time. Once a selected Member agrees to be the
sponsoring Member, the e-petition form is automatically sent to the Clerk of
Petitions for certification.
and sponsoring individuals should be advised that they may receive communications
from the selected Member, as well as the Clerk of Petitions about the
application for the e-petition, and from the e-petition administrators about
subsequent events in relation to the e-petition. The Member from the e-petitioner’s
electoral district will not be alerted by the e-petition system that a
constituent has created an e-petition as this would be contrary to the House’s
current practice for paper petitions.
The Clerk of
Petitions will be responsible for assessing all draft e-petitions against the
current guidelines, standards and rules applied for certifying paper petitions,
insofar as they apply (e.g. the rules on the dimensions of paper would not be
In addition, and
for greater certainty, an e-petition must
- be addressed to
the House of Commons, government of Canada, a Minister, or Member of the House;
a clear, proper and respectful prayer;
a grievance sought to be remedied and specify the action the petitioners wish
to see taken in response;
to a matter within the powers of the House of Commons, the Parliament of
Canada, or the Government of Canada;
relate to a matter within the prerogatives of the Queen or the Governor General
(e.g. conferring the Order of Canada on an individual);
be about a matter in which one or more of the heads of relief sought are
currently sub judice;
contain offensive wording or content which is illegal (e.g. information subject
to a publication ban) or actionable;
contain appendices, attachments or lengthy extracts;
in one of the official languages;
exceed 250 words; and
- contain no
reference to Universal Resource Locators (URLs), or other links or web-based
The Clerk of
Petitions reviews draft e-petitions on a first-come, first-serve basis. There
should not be a timeframe in which an e-petition is either posted on the
website or otherwise rejected. The House of Commons Administration will be
responsible for establishing its service standards in respect of handling
e-petitions, based on but not composed wholly of, the recommendations in this Report.
In the event that the Clerk of Petitions does not certify an e-petition, he or
she will indicate to the e-petitioner and the sponsoring Member which standard(s)
were contravened and may provide further comments and/or explanations as
In addition, the
prayer of an e-petition must not be identical or substantially the same as the
prayer of an e-petition currently published and open to signatures on the Parliament
of Canada website. A prayer will be considered substantially the same as the
prayer of another e-petition if both the grievance and the action to remedy the
grievance essentially duplicate that other e-petition.
standards and rules for e-petitions will be made easily accessible on the parliamentary
website in order to assist e-petitioners in completing the form proposing their
Once the Clerk
of Petitions certifies an e-petition, and confirms that its prayer is neither
identical to nor substantially the same as another e-petition that is at that
time published and open to signature, he or she will arrange for the translation
of the e-petition, if necessary, into the other official language and publish
the e-petition, in both official languages, on the e-petition website in a
manner so as to enable others to sign it. The e-petition website will be
hosted on the Parliament of Canada website in an appropriate and accessible
location to be determined by the House of Commons Administration.
In the event
that the Clerk of Petitions finds the prayer of an unpublished e-petition to be
identical to, or substantially the same as, the prayer of a published
e-petition which is, at that time, open to signature, the views of the e-petitioner
of the unpublished e-petition will be sought in order to determine whether to
withdraw his or her unpublished e-petition or to place it on a waiting list
until such time as no other identical, or substantially the same, e-petitions
are open to signature.
e-petition will display the full name and the city of the e-petitioner (for
greater certainty, the website will not display any of his or her contact information)
and the name and riding of the sponsoring Member, as well as the total number
of signatories to date and the total signatories per province. No information
whatsoever regarding the identity of the signatories (e.g. name, city, etc.)
will be displayed on the website. The text of the e-petition, its translation
notwithstanding, will be published in the form it was submitted, provided
typographical errors do not result in the e-petition failing to meet House
standards for clarity. Sponsoring Members may contact and alert e-petitioners
as to potential wording problems or typographical errors.
It should be
possible to link to a webpage on the e-petition website using a social media
may not have two e-petitions published and open to signature at the same time.
In the event the Clerk of Petitions receives an e-petition from an e-petitioner
who has, at that time, an e-petition published and open to signature, the views
of the e-petitioner will be sought by the Clerk of Petitions as to whether to
withdraw the e-petitioner’s most recently published e-petition or place the
newest one on a waiting list until such time as no other e-petitions initiated
by the e-petitioner are open to signature.
published and open for signatures shall remain open for signatures for 120
If a sponsoring Member
ceases to be a Member, at any point prior to an e-petition being presented to
the House of Commons, the e-petitioner may select another Member to be the
sponsoring Member and that process for finding a new sponsor shall start
anew. Once an e-petition has been opened for signature, at that time, if
the sponsoring Member ceases to be a Member, the e-petitioner will have the
option of finding another sponsoring Member but this is not a requirement. A
sponsoring Member will not be permitted to rescind his or her sponsorship of an
e-petition, once they have formally accepted to do so.
In terms of the
organization of the total list of all e-petitions on the e-petition website,
the default organization should be by subject-matter. An option should,
however, exist for a visitor to the website to reorganize the full list of all
e-petitions by other fields, including by date, status, sponsor, or total number
of signatures. An emphasis ought to be placed on a strong, effective, and
user-friendly search engine; visitors to the website ought to be able to
customize their search as much as possible (e.g. using keywords, multiple
In order to sign
an e-petition, an individual would need to provide and confirm his or her
e-mail address, provide his or her full name, postal code and phone number,
confirm that he or she is a resident of Canada or a Canadian citizen living
outside of Canada, and confirm through self-declaration that he or she has not
previously signed the same e-petition. Signatories of an e-petition will be
informed that they may receive updates on the status of that e-petition.
will first be verified by sending an automatically generated e-mail to the
e-mail address provided by the signatory, which contains a link that must be
clicked to confirm that email’s validity. The signing process will also involve
a security feature (e.g. a unique code randomly generated by the website) to
ensure that signatures are not being added to an e-petition on an automated
basis. Only one signatory per e-mail address will be permitted to sign the
same e-petition. In addition, should the Clerk of Petitions believe that a
signature is not authentic or not permissible, the Clerk of Petitions may
disallow it. Only after a signatory’s information has been verified will his or
her signature count toward an e-petition’s total signatures.
used to manage e-petition signatures should safeguard the integrity of the
e-petition process and flag issues or unusual patterns for spot-checks and
verification. For example, the software could flag instances of signatures
with the same first and last names; similar e-mail addresses; where a high
number of signatories (e.g. ten or more) originate from the same IP address for
the same e-petition; or it could flag a disproportionate number of signatories
for the same e-petition originating from non-Canadian IP addresses. For
greater certainty, this would not otherwise limit the ability of the Clerk of
Petitions from taking other measures to monitor and verify the integrity of the
e-petition process. To avoid the potential for abuse by political staff during
work hours, no signatures will be accepted from IP addresses associated with
the Parliament of Canada or the Government of Canada.
If at any time
the Clerk of Petitions believes that the integrity of an e-petition has become
irreversibly compromised through inauthentic signatures, the Clerk of Petitions
may withdraw the e-petition and notify the e-petitioner accordingly.
expiration of the 120-day period during which an e-petition is published and
open to signature, that e-petition will be closed to signature and removed from
the website except for certain information to be kept in an archive hosted on
the website. Petitions that have already been submitted and closed can be
submitted anew on the parliamentary website.
If possible, the
e-petition system should automatically send e-mail notifications
to the signatories of an e-petition when an e-petition they have signed closes,
indicating the total number of signatures received and next steps, where
applicable, in the process. If not possible, at a minimum, instructions should
be sent to each individual upon signing an e-petition concerning how to keep
current with that e-petition’s progress. Signatories should be able to opt-out
of receiving any e-mailed update at any time.
that has garnered fewer than 500 signatures at the time it is closed shall be
deemed withdrawn. The e-petitioner, the five individuals who supported
the petition in order to initiate it, and the signatories shall be advised of
In the case of an
e-petition that has garnered 500 or more signatures at the time it is closed, the
Clerk of Petitions shall prepare the prayer of the petition into a hard copy
format suitable for presentation to the House of Commons by the sponsoring Member.
The tabling process should be broadly similar as for paper petitions, except
with e-petitions, the sponsoring Member tables the e-petition text and the
total number of signatories (for greater certainty, a list of all signatories
to an e-petition will not be tabled in the House). When the sponsoring Member
has presented the e-petition to the House, the Clerk of Petitions shall cause
the e-petitioner, the five individuals who supported the petition in order to
initiate it, and the signatories to be notified by e-mail. An e-petition can
be deposited with the Clerk of the House.
shall be under the same requirement, and timelines, to respond to an e-petition
as it currently has for paper petitions (i.e. within 45 days). When the government
responds to an e-petition, in addition to the response being tabled, the
content of the response will be published on the e-petition website together
with the relevant e-petition. Once the response has been so published,
the Clerk of Petitions shall cause the petitioners to be notified by e-mail.
Should the government
fail to respond to an e-petition within the established timeline, a designated
committee shall call a meeting to enquire into that failure. The Clerk of
Petitions shall cause the petitioners to be notified of the failure and the
committee meeting called in relation to it. The petitioners will also be
notified of the outcome of any committee proceedings.
anticipates that e-petitions will serve to heighten public interest and
engagement in public policy matters and will help shape the debates in
Parliament, along with the priorities of political parties. Elevated
participation by citizens in the democratic process, including through e-petitions,
can bear results in the shape of the government’s legislative priorities and
the use of its usual parliamentary time, the opposition parties’ choices of
opposition motions on allotted days, topics studied by committees, and the
parties collaborating on the use of Take-note Debates.
The majority of
the Committee does not agree to establishing a process whereby debates would
automatically be triggered by e-petitions. While the rules place the
initiative for Take-note Debates on ministers of the Crown, by current
convention, the determination of whether an issue warrants a Take-note Debate
is usually subject to informal discussions and negotiation among the parties’
House Leaders. This practice allows the House to operate in a flexible manner,
with the scheduling of Take-note Debates coming as the result of consensus
achieved among House Leaders. The Committee sees no reason to disrupt this
approach to Take-note Debates, and notes that very popular e-petitions may,
indirectly, result in the choice of topics being debated.
As part of the
e-petition website, an e-petitions archive should be created on which closed
petitions will be displayed following their expiration. The purpose of the e-petition
archive is to allow the public easy access to the results of closed petitions.
A search engine should be included in the e-petition archive. Information to
be included in the archive about each e-petition would include the name of the
e-petitioner, sponsoring M.P., number of signatories, text of the e-petition, government
responses, and any appropriate hyperlinks. Cost permitting, closed e-petitions
should be archived indefinitely.
of Parliament will have no impact on the e-petition system other than any
inherent delays that may potentially arise in presenting the e-petition in the
House or in the government responding to the e-petition.
dissolution of a Parliament, the e-petition website will be deactivated until
the date fixed for the return of the writs for election of Members to the next
Parliament. Any draft e-petitions in the process of being certified,
e-petitions open for signature or e-petitions closed for signature but not yet
presented to the House, shall, upon dissolution, be deemed withdrawn. The
Clerk of Petitions shall cause petitioners to be notified of this outcome in
the event of a dissolution; similarly, in relation to petitions presented to
the House but not yet responded to by the government, the Clerk of Petitions
shall cause those petitioners to be notified that the dissolution of Parliament
prevents the Government from responding.
The Committee considers
it of high importance that an e-petition system, and those administering it, ensure
the highest standards are met with respect to the protection of the privacy
rights, and the handling of the personal information, of the citizens who
choose to take part in the democratic process by starting or signing an
e-petition system will be administered by the House of Commons Administration, and
hosted on the Parliament of Canada website. The data collected on each
e-petitioner and signatory will be only that information provided to the
website in order for the House Administration to ensure that the person is
eligible to start an e-petition or to sign an e-petition according to the
process set out above. E-petitioners and signatories should be made aware of
the purpose for which their personal information is being collected (i.e. to
verify their identity as needed, and to provide them with updates on the status
of their e-petition, which they may opt-out of receiving at any time).
The names and
contact information of lead petitioners may only be shared by the House of
Commons Administration in the manner and for the purposes of administering an
e-petition system as set out above. For greater certainty, no third party
(including Members or political parties) will have access to data or
information collected by the e-petitions system. The names and contact
information of the supporting individuals and other signatories shall not be
released by the House Administration. In the event that a petition becomes the
subject of a committee proceeding, House Administration may share with the
clerk of the relevant committee the contact information of the e-petitioner, in
the event the committee wishes to have him or her appear before it.
information collected through the e-petition website should be destroyed by the
House of Commons Administration within 6 months of each e-petition being
closed. Should executing this task at this interval entail either a
disproportionate administrative burden or cost, the House of Commons
Administration could, alternately, destroy all data collected through the
e-petition website at a regular interval that it deems both cost-effective and
administratively efficient, provided the interval does not exceed every
dissolution of a Parliament.
The House of
Commons Administration is directed to develop an internal code of practice to
be adhered to by those administering the e-petition system, in the spirit and
along the lines proposed by the Privacy Commissioner in his submission to the
Committee of November 26, 2014. This code of practice would, among other
things, protect the privacy of citizens, and operate according to the privacy
principles set out in the Personal Information Protection and Electronic
Documents Act. The Committee further considers it a best practice to limit
access to an e-petition database to the furthest extent possible (e.g. to
Journals Branch staff only), and to implement a mechanism to track which
individuals have accessed the e-petition database.
breadth and reach of an e-petition prompts consideration of similar issues
related to paper petitions. The criteria for who may sign either an e-petition
or a paper petition should be consistent. Therefore, paper petitions
should be receivable if signed by individuals resident in Canada or Canadian
citizens residing outside of Canada.
In order to
facilitate the publication of copies of ministry responses on the e-petition
website, the House of Commons Administration and the Privy Council Office ought
to collaborate with a view of arriving at a formal agreement as to the policies
and processes for transferring ministry responses to the House Administration,
including arriving at a uniform and accessible electronic format for ministry
responses to e-petitions and paper petitions.
system should be activated at the opening of the 42nd Parliament
(or as promptly as possible thereafter, according to when the necessary
logistical arrangements can be put into place). The House of Commons
Administration should work with the Committee on the “look and feel” of
e-petition forms and website layout, presentation, and arrangement of
may not be used for the petition aspect of the proceedings on a private bill.
Annexed to this
Report are provisional Standing Orders necessary to implement the system. They
into effect at the beginning of the 42nd Parliament, which will
coincide with the launch by the House of Commons Administration of the
electronic petition system set out in this Report. The provisional
Standing Orders shall
remain in effect until such time as the Committee, designated by this Report to
conduct a review of the e-petition system, undertakes such a review and the
report concerning the review is concurred in by the House.
An e-petition is
not to be considered a proceeding in Parliament, for the purposes of
parliamentary privilege, until the e-petition has been presented to the House
of Commons. A disclaimer setting out the terms and conditions of the
e-petitions website ought to be created by the House of Commons Administration,
and include therein a process for handling e-petitions that do not comply with
the website’s terms and conditions.
prejudice to the Committee sooner reviewing the e-petition system or adjusting
elements of the process, the Committee should undertake a review of the
e-petition system and process once two years’ experience have been acquired
with its operation.
Orders 36, 131. (6) and 133. (4) of the Standing Orders of the
House of Commons be amended to read as follows:
Paper Petitions to
be examined by Clerk of Petitions.
36. (1) Prior to
presentation, the Clerk of Petitions shall examine all paper petitions, and in order to be presented, they must be certified correct as to
form and content by the said Clerk.
Form of paper petitions.
(1.1) In order
to be certified, pursuant to section (1) of this Standing Order, every paper petition shall:
addressed to the House of Commons, the House of Commons in Parliament
assembled, the Government of Canada, a Minister of the Crown or a Member of
the House of Commons;
contain a clear, proper and respectful prayer which may call for the
expenditure of public funds;
written, typewritten or printed on paper of usual size;
free of alterations and interlineations in its text;
have its subject-matter indicated on every sheet if it consists of more than
one sheet of signatures and addresses;
contain only original signatures and addresses written directly onto the
petition and not pasted thereon or otherwise transferred to it;
(g) not concern a matter in
which one or more of the heads of relief sought are currently sub judice; and
contain at least twenty-five signatures from citizens or residents of
Canada, other than Members of Parliament, and where the
signatories have a fixed place of residence, their addresses.
petitions to be verified by Clerk of Petitions.
36. (2) Prior to
publishing on the Parliament of Canada website, the Clerk of Petitions shall
examine all electronic petitions in order to determine that they are correct
as to form and content.
(2.1) In order to be published on the
website, pursuant to section (2) of this Standing Order, every electronic
(a) be addressed to the House
of Commons, the House of Commons in Parliament assembled, the Government of
Canada, a Minister of the Crown or a Member of the House of Commons;
(b) contain a clear, proper and
respectful prayer which may call for the expenditure of public funds;
(c) not exceed 250 words;
(d) be sponsored by a Member;
(e) not concern a matter in
which one or more of the heads of relief sought are currently sub judice;
(f) contain no Universal
Resource Locators (URLs), or other links or web-based references; and
(g) be submitted by an
e-petitioner who has no other electronic petition open for signature.
(2.2) Each electronic petition shall
be open for signature for 120 days.
Clerk of Petitions to decide.
(2.3) The Clerk of Petitions shall be
responsible for determining whether an electronic petition is so similar as
to be substantially the same as one already open for signature, in which case
the last electronic petition received shall be returned to its sender without
having appeared on the website.
to be certified by Clerk of Petitions.
(2.4) In order to be certified by the
Clerk of Petitions for presentation to the House, every electronic petition
shall contain at least 500 electronic signatures from citizens or residents
of Canada, other than Members of Parliament, and where the signatories
have a fixed place of residence, their addresses.
(3) Members sponsoring
an electronic petition or presenting petitions to the House shall
be answerable that they do not contain impertinent or improper matter.
Member presenting a petition shall endorse his or her name thereon.
Clerk of the House.
(5) A petition
to the House may be presented by a Member at any time during the sitting of
the House by filing the same with the Clerk of the House.
in the House.
(6) Any Member
desiring to present a petition, in his or her place in the House, may do so
on "Presenting Petitions", a period not to exceed fifteen minutes,
during the ordinary daily routine of business.
(7) On the
presentation of a petition no debate on or in relation to the same shall be
Every petition presented pursuant to this Standing Order shall forthwith be
transmitted to the Ministry, which shall, within forty-five days, respond to
every petition referred to it; provided that the said response may be tabled
pursuant to Standing Order 32(1).
such a petition remains without a response at the expiration of the said
period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to
respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee.
Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall
convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of
the Ministry to respond.
No debate on report. Petition may be read.
131. (6) No debate shall be permitted on the report but a petition referred to
therein may be read by the Clerk of the House at the Table, if required.
NOTE: For greater certainty,
only paper petitions shall apply for the purposes of this
Map or plan with petition.
133. (4) 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.
NOTE: For greater certainty,
only paper petitions shall apply for the purposes of this
That the Clerk
of the House be authorized to make any required editorial and consequential
alterations to the Standing Orders, provided that the Clerk of the House inform
the Committee, in writing, of any editorial and consequential alterations they
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
A copy of the
relevant Minutes of Proceedings (Meetings Nos.
56, 57, 58, 62, 64, 65, 67 and 70) is tabled.