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.
12:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay.
Mr. Reid, and then I would like to bring this to a close as soon as we can.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Criterion number 2 is that bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.I take it from that, although the wording is not perhaps as we might have wished, that they cannot violate in their pith and substance--as the courts would have said it--the charter. That is to say that the bill cannot be so constructed as to be, in its essence, a violation of the Constitution or of the charter.
It seems to me that the concerns Mr. Toone is expressing relate to things that could be amended. One can deal with these things via amendment. I'm not sure I actually concur with him on this point, but they could be dealt with via an amendment. For example, if you think that the level of precision that's required is such that the bill becomes onerous, then the logical thing to do is to say, let's pick a larger number we deal with, in the same way that governments have to disclose their grants and contributions down to $10,000, but not below that because we understand that it would be onerous to go beyond that. Something like that could be done. Thus, one could deal with the problems associated with any burdens being too great. Obviously it would only be in the course of debate that we could establish actual examples of how this is too great.
I think this is an argument for careful debate of the bill and perhaps for amendment otherwise.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think we're approaching the point of being ready to make a decision.
I want to make a couple of points. First of all, in terms of time, my understanding is that this is the same bill—other than the section on fines, which was changed from a de-registration—and that we had had enough time to study the essence of the bill prior to this.
The second point is that maybe we need to reflect upon the current four criteria to either add or subtract from them, and possibly think about, if there is obvious need, having a ways and means motion as one of the criteria in the future. That's not to do with this particular issue alone.
However, I think we're ready to move ahead on the question. I'm going to ask, all those in favour of allowing Bill C-377?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Sure, if that's requested.
The motion is that Bill C-377 be designated as non-votable.
All those who agree that Bill C-377 should be non-votable?
(Motion negatived: nays 2; yeas 1)
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
So that bill, by definition, is votable.
We will move to Bill S-201, a Senate bill, and I'll ask our analyst to speak to it.
12:40 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Bill S-201 establishes November 15 of every year as National Philanthropy Day. As was just explained to us, the only reason a bill from the Senate would be designated as non-votable is because a similar bill has already been voted on over the course of the same legislature. In this case, no similar bills have been voted on during the same legislature.
12:40 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
It's not the same day proposed for autism awareness, so....
12:40 p.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
[Inaudible--Editor].... I know of at least one other MP who has made similar comments, I was just saying.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
All in favour of allowing Bill S-201 to proceed as votable?
Okay, so ordered.
We now need someone brave enough to make this motion that the subcommittee present a report listing those items that it has determined should not be designated non-votable, and recommending therefore that they be considered by the House.
Is someone prepared to make that motion?
12:40 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Mr. Chair, do we need them, because nothing has been determined as non-votable?
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think we still need the full.... Procedurally, we need to do this, and then this is reported directly to the House as opposed to through PROC.
12:40 p.m.
An hon. member
I'll move that, Mr. Chair.
12:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
(Motion agreed to)
That'll be reported to the House, which means it's basically—
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Mr. Chair, if we have time, I would like to come back to Mr. Toone's point that we don't always have time to react. You've told us that this bill has been looked at before, but not by us.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Liberal
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
On the first iteration of this bill, it was agreed unanimously that it would be votable. It went to the House, and the Speaker—