Evidence of meeting #1 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 section.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
In that case, I suggest it be referred to the committee and experts will appear as witnesses.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think the other benefit we have in the fact that we're meeting in public is that the writer of the bill has the option of looking back through the transcript of this meeting to see what the concerns that were raised actually were.
Mr. Reid.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm not necessarily averse to that course of action, although I would have to ask for a recorded vote and then vote in favour of the bill going forward as votable, because I feel very uncomfortable voting against something unless I'm certain in my own mind that it is something that, to my own satisfaction, meets the criteria here. We always want to err in the direction of votability.
That being said, I have a question relating to the procedures that would go on at the main committee. Is it a single meeting that's permitted? Is that it? Or is more than one meeting permitted prior to a final decision being made by the main committee?
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
11:45 a.m.
The Clerk of the Committee Mr. Olivier Champagne
The Standing Orders are not very clear on that. They say that the sponsor of the bill or the motion may defend his or her bill or motion to the procedure and House affairs committee within five sitting days after the current meeting. So if at least the first meeting would be within those five sitting days, I don't think it would be a problem to have--
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Is it five days for them to make the appeal or for the appeal to be actually heard by a meeting?
11:45 a.m.
The Clerk
Well, technically, the appeal would be after the procedure and House affairs committee would have agreed on a report from the subcommittee designating the bill as non-votable. Then the appeal process would start. So when the sponsor appears before the procedure and House affairs committee, it's not really an appeal. It's really consideration of the item in the full committee.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That's fair enough.
The question was whether we have time within five days.
11:45 a.m.
The Clerk
Yes, that is clear.
To the question of whether we can have multiple meetings in the procedure and House affairs committee, I think so, provided that the first meeting is within the first five sitting days.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Do you mean the first five sitting days following the report of this committee to the full committee?
11:50 a.m.
The Clerk
Yes.
11:50 a.m.
Committee Researcher
If I might, I'll add some clarification.
You may recall that during the 39th Parliament there was a bill sponsored by Mr. Silva that was deemed non-votable. Mr. Goodyear was then chair of PROC. Mr. Silva filed his appeal to PROC within the five-day timeline, but he appeared before the committee after the five days. If my recollection is correct, Mr. Goodyear, the chair of PROC, stated on the record that as long as the chair received the appeal within the five days, that was fine with him.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay.
I think we want to move ahead, unless there's more discussion.
I think we're ready to vote on whether Bill C-292 will be votable.
Mr. Reid, do you want this recorded?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
The Clerk
All those in favour of the motion, please indicate such.
October 18th, 2011 / 11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Is the motion to make it votable or non-votable?
11:50 a.m.
The Clerk
It's to designate it as non-votable.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 2; nays 1)
11:50 a.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
It's very difficult to be so formal when we're such a small group.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That is how my wife and I make decisions at home--a show of hands.
11:50 a.m.
Voices
Oh, oh!
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
This will have to be reported to the entire committee at the next meeting.
11:50 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Bill C-291 would amend the Employment Insurance Act with respect to the two-week waiting period as well as special benefits for illness, injury or quarantine.
This bill does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction and does not clearly violate the Constitution; it does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session or which are already before the House; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.