Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on March 21st, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I call this meeting to order.

This is meeting number 7 of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, and we are here for the determination of non-votable items pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1).

I think everyone has a list.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

The first motion on the order of precedence is motion M-432. It's a motion with respect to the enrollment and the registration process for the Qalipu Mi’kmaq First Nation band. It refers to an agreement that has been concluded between the Qalipu Mi’kmaq and the Government of Canada. This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It is not clearly against the Constitution, and there's no similar motion, private member's motion or government motion, on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are there any questions? Mr. Dion? Mr. Armstrong?

Is everybody in favour of that?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

[Michel Bédard]

The second motion, M-408, will condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination.

There are only a couple of lines.

This motion will ask the House to condemn discrimination against females occurring through sex-selective pregnancy termination. With respect to this motion, I will first underline that there is a fundamental distinction between a motion and an act of Parliament.

A motion does not enact in itself a rule of law; it's not an act of Parliament. It does not put in place rules. This motion refers to the deliberative functions of Parliament, which are protected by parliamentary privilege. If we look at the criteria, it is within federal jurisdiction, it does not clearly offend the Constitution, and there's no similar motion currently on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Toone, I knew that your leader had made some comments. I don't know whether you wanted to....

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Maybe it is necessary to do a more detailed analysis to determine if this falls under federal jurisdiction. In the case of this kind of selection, I don't see where the federal jurisdiction comes in.

[Michel Bédard]

When it comes to federal jurisdiction, this is a criterion that is particularly relevant when dealing with bills. Indeed, motions do not establish prescriptive criteria. It only means that the House of Commons gives its opinion on the subject. This calls on the House's right to debate any matter and express its opinion on it. There are other motions on the list that we could study today, and some aspects of them could fall under provincial jurisdiction.

However, in the case of a policy statement, given that the House is simply being asked to give its opinion on a subject of public interest, it is difficult to establish if it falls under federal jurisdiction. This criterion is not really appropriate for motions. It is specifically intended for bills. However, it goes without saying that if a motion clearly interferes with a province's affairs, one could argue that that is under provincial jurisdiction, therefore contrary to the criteria. Nonetheless, since in this case the House is simply being asked to condemn a certain practice, I find it very difficult to say that that does not fall under federal jurisdiction.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

When it comes to jurisdiction and criteria for selecting bills, it is not only a question of determining if it seems to fall under federal jurisdiction at first glance. It seems to me that it's much more restricted than that. Is that right?

[Michel Bédard]

Yes indeed, the first criterion reads as follows: “1. Bills and motions must not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction.”

The second criterion reads as follows: “2. Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982 [...]”.

Indeed the word “clearly” is used in the second criterion where it is not used in the first, which only deals with federal jurisdiction.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

And the second criterion specifies that these are matters relating to the Constitution rather than to jurisdiction.

[Michel Bédard]

There is some overlapping between the criteria given that the distribution of jurisdictions is part of the Constitution Act, 1867.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I see another problem here.

We already addressed a motion on the same subject. For my party, the subject is abortion. No matter how one tries to sugarcoat it, that's the subject. We are being asked to open up this debate again, and yet we already refused to do so in the context of motion M-312. It seems to me that that is contrary to one of our criteria.

[Michel Bédard]

Motion M-312 instructed the committee to carry out a study, whereas in this case, the House is giving its opinion on a certain practice. The committee is free to interpret the criterion as it wishes, but I simply wanted to clarify that point.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

The fact is that it is being addressed from different perspectives.

We are being asked to open this debate again on the same subject.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

I would like to support my colleagues at the table in both instances. We're of the position that motion M-408 should not be deemed votable because it doesn't meet these two criteria. It involves ultrasound and health care delivery, and this is clearly in the jurisdiction of the provinces. This motion would impinge upon provincial jurisdiction.

Also, in our opinion this motion is very similar in nature to a former motion that was debated in the House, motion M-312. This was also voted on.

We agree with the positions of both of our colleagues at the table.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Should motion M-408 be non-votable?

Mr. Dion, Mr. Toone, Mr. Armstrong?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We move on to Bill C-475.

[Michel Bédard]

This bill will amend the Personal Information Protection and Electronic Documents Act with respect to compliance orders, and also with respect to loss of information. Portions of this bill are already in Bill C-12, which is a government-sponsored bill, but there are also elements of Bill C-475 that are not in Bill C-12.

Based on the fact that there some elements in Bill C-475 that are not in Bill C-12, this bill, even if Bill C-12 is adopted, could nonetheless itself proceed and on its own amend the law. So I suggest that it is not substantially similar to Bill C-12.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

There is enough difference, you are suggesting, between them?

[Michel Bédard]

Yes. In Bill C-475, for example, there is a provision to authorize the commissioner to take action against an organization that has lost private information. There is no similar provision in Bill C-12. That's an example.

Also, if you want to proceed to a detailed analysis of the two bills, we could. For example, under Bill C-12, when there is a loss of information the organization is compelled to notify the individual, whereas under Bill C-475 the notification would only be applicable if the Privacy Commissioner ordered that there be a notification.

So they are similar, but there are some distinctions as well, and there are also other provisions in Bill C-475 that are not in Bill C-12.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Is what you mentioned an example of the main difference?