Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on Oct. 18th, 2011

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I just want to understand our role, because we may start a debate about the bill. I don't think it's the time to do that, but I understand why a reasonable person might say that we may have to address some issues regarding the charter with this bill.

My colleague said that he couldn't think of anything. As far as I'm concerned, however, if you live, not in a big house, but in a very small condo, a flag could make noise and prevent people from sleeping. There are those kinds of issues that would need to be resolved.

For example, section 322.2 strikes me as extremely reasonable. I can't really see how this bill could be amended to make it reasonable, but I don't believe that is our role here. As far as this bill is concerned, is our role not to report on the charter-related problems that would have to be dealt with in committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Correct. Based on that input, and I think if we're done discussing...?

Do you have another point to make? I think we need to move ahead. I think we're coming to a consensus that the bill is actually votable, but we have a few concerns.

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

I was just going to say that I'm actually still not sure how one would use the flag in a way that would lead to a problem relating to section 7, but there is a restriction here. It states that the flag must be displayed in its role as a national symbol. That's paragraph 2(a).

Paragraph 2(b) states that “the display is not for an improper purpose...”. That means any attempt to use it maliciously. I could display the flag by draping it over my neighbour's car so he can't leave the driveway and that would not be permitted, or across the end of the laneway so he can't drive out without.... Also, “the flag is not subjected to desecration”. If I want to start burning flags and create a fire hazard, that wouldn't be allowed either. I think there is a reasonable limit put on it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

I think we've had a good discussion.

Michel, do you want to have one last word?

[Michel Bédard]

I'd like to follow up on Mr. Dion's comments. The subcommittee's mandate is to determine whether bills and motions should be votable items or not. However, the subcommittee's practice has never been to provide the reasons for its decisions. It simply designates the items as votable or non-votable.

However, the sponsor of the bill could potentially benefit from the discussion that took place in the subcommittee, because subcommittee meetings are now public. So, that is one way the sponsor of the bill could be made aware of the potential problems with his or her bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Mr. Dion.

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

So the process is only that...?

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Yes or no.

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

It's yes or no, and our deliberations will be known, and that's it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

So anyone—the sponsor of this bill, for example—could review the minutes of this meeting and see what the concerns raised were and then take appropriate action, or other members of the subcommittee...when it comes to committee after it has had second reading.

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

The suggestion that has been made to look at subsection 322(2) of the Canada Elections Act makes sense. I'm pleased that the sponsor of the bill may have an opportunity to look at that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Okay We're ready to move ahead.

Are all agreed that we will allow this to proceed to votable...? I see no objections. Bill C-288 is votable.

Next is Bill C-313.

[Michel Bédard]

This bill will amend the Food and Drugs Act in order to designate non-corrective cosmetic contact lenses as a medical device.

This bill does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution, including the charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as the ones before the House or already voted on. It does not concern questions currently before the House as items of government business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there any concerns or questions? Seeing none, Bill C-313 is votable.

Bill C-290 is next.

[Michel Bédard]

This bill will amend the Criminal Code in order to repeal a prohibition against sports betting.

This bill does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution, including the charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones before the House or already voted on. It does not concern questions currently before the House as items of government business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there comments, concerns, or questions?

Okay? Bill C-290 is considered votable.

I thought we were regaining our momentum, Mr. Dion, and now you're going to take us back.

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

It's about...?

It's to abolish lotteries in a way, is it not?

[Michel Bédard]

Are you referring to Bill C-290?

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

Yes.

[Michel Bédard]

There is a provision in the Criminal Code that prohibits betting on specific sporting events. Crown corporations such as Loto-Québec are involved in betting on sporting events, but they benefit from a loophole in the legislation, since the bets relate to several sporting events.

What the bill seeks to do is legalize everything. Therefore, betting on a single sporting event would also be legal.

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

And the criminal law falls within federal jurisdiction.

[Michel Bédard]

Exactly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Seeing no further concerns on Bill C-290, that one is considered votable.

We're moving on to Bill C-306.

[Michel Bédard]

This bill will amend the Parliament of Canada Act in respect of members changing political affiliation.

This bill does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution, including the charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones before the House or already voted on, and it does not concern questions currently before the House as items of government business.

[The Chair, Conservative, Harold Albrecht]

Are there comments or questions? Seeing none, Bill C-306 is considered votable.

Now we have Bill C-217.