Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on June 15th, 2009

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I'd like to call the private members' business subcommittee to order.

At our last meeting, the subcommittee dealt with six items on the order of replenishment.

Our first item of business today will be Ms. Hoeppner's bill, Bill C-391. You're probably all aware that the Speaker has ordered that Bill C-301, which was Gary Breitkreuz's bill, is to be dropped from the order paper and removed from the order of precedence. According to the criteria by which we're able to deem items non-votable, some members argued this based on perceived similarities between Bill C-301 and Bill C-391. Since that impediment has now been removed and is no longer an issue, I'm going to rule that Bill C-391 is votable, and we'll move on to the subsequent items.

We'll move on to M-386.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chair, I'd like to ask a question.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Madam Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I suppose it's a question for the analyst. Bill S-5 is still before Parliament. It's in the Senate. It's identical to Bill C-391. It's my understanding that one of the criteria is about bills that are identical before Parliament. Bill S-5 is before Parliament. Could the analysts comment on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Go ahead.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

That may be a question for the analysts and the clerk as well. It is a principle of parliamentary procedure that this House, the House of Commons, should not know what is taking place in the other place. So even though it's public knowledge that Bill S-5 is before the Senate, we should not take into consideration Bill S-5 when we're examining the private member's bill and the criteria.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Is that the case even when it's a current government bill? Because that is one of the criteria before us, and Bill S-5 is a government bill.

[Michel Bédard]

My understanding is that it will also apply to Bill S-5, a government bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Unless we hear differently, I think what our analyst has indicated is pretty clear.

We'll move on to--

[Marlene Jennings, Liberal, Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine, QC]

Mr. Chair, I would like a ruling from the Speaker, if possible, on this very issue, or a ruling from you, given that you are the chair. Given that the government has an item of business that is identical to that which Ms. Hoeppner has put forward in Bill C-391, I would like a ruling on whether or not that can be taken into consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

With all due respect, I think we have the four criteria upon which bills are votable or non-votable outlined clearly before us. I think it's up to this committee to decide their votability, not the Speaker.

Mr. Reid, do you want to comment?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes. I have the list of criteria as decided by the committee on procedure and House affairs. Under the Standing Orders, the criteria made by the procedure and House affairs committee are in fact part of the Standing Orders, although not contained therein.

The four criteria include items 3 and 4. I'll read them both. Item 3 is the item on the basis of which opposition members opposed allowing Bill C-391 to go forward while Bill C-301 was on the order paper. On the argument there, the criteria is, “Bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament, or as ones preceding them in the order of precedence.” That criteria is no longer met.

Criteria number 4 is, I assume, what is being referred to here. It states, “Bills and motions must not concern questions that are currently on the Order Paper or Notice Paper as items of government business.”

The Order Paper and Notice Paper are instruments of the House of Commons. Bill S-5 is in the Senate and therefore is on neither the order paper nor the notice paper. Therefore, there is no need to fear that Bill C-391 would in any way be out of order on the basis of where Bill S-5 is. It would be different if Bill S-5 had been passed by the Senate and was now before the House on the Order Paper and Notice Paper, but it isn't.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

On checking with the clerk as well, it is clear that it's referring to items that are in the House of Commons, and that one is not.

Ms. Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Mr. Chair, I appreciate that guidance. I just heard you say that it's not a matter for the Speaker, but that we vote on the bill. Could we have a vote on Bill C-391?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Sure.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I'm just curious. I should advise members, and I'm sure everybody is going to vote based on the criteria. If the intention is to vote with no actual criteria against the bill in order to stop it from going forward, I would just remind the opposition members of two things. One, we are meeting in a public session so their vote is now on the record. Two, it would be simply impermissible for us to allow this to go forward as a negative item. I would have to be in a position of having to prevent this from being reported back to the main committee. I just make that observation, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there any further comments?

Madam Gagnon.

[Christiane Gagnon, Bloc, Québec, QC]

Is there interference from Bill S-5 and is the bill votable or not?

So, if I understood correctly, there is no interference. The fact that Bill S-5 is before the Senate and that it is somewhat in the same spirit, if not identical, does not interfere with whether this bill is votable or not.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Madam Gagnon, both our analyst and our clerk have clarified the fact that there is no interference and that the bill is not before the House in any form. Therefore the four criteria that we've looked at certainly do not impede this bill in any way.

Ms. Charlton.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

I just wondered if you could remind me. I know that when Mr. Breitkreuz's bill was before the House this morning, he wasn't in the House to move the motion on the bill and therefore it wasn't debated. I know it was dropped in the order of precedence. Was it actually withdrawn?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

My understanding is that there were multiple attempts to have the bill withdrawn, and because it was not debated this morning, it is automatically ruled by the Speaker to no longer...but I'll look to my clerk.

[The Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Jean-Philippe Brochu]

The bill was dropped from the order paper, so it's no longer in front of the House now.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

So when does that take effect--tomorrow when the order paper comes in or immediately?

[The Clerk]

It was this morning when the Speaker gave his ruling.

[Chris Charlton, NDP, Hamilton Mountain, ON]

Thank you.