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.
Noon
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
You are making a very interesting point. I think it should be discussed appropriately when the committee examines and makes a decision about this bill. For myself, I would say, let us proceed.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay.
I want to ask our analyst whether he has another comment to make.
Noon
Committee Researcher
I made some comments earlier about section 133 of the Constitution Act and section 16 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. My humble opinion is that those provisions will not apply to this bill. It's just an opinion.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay.
I think we are ready to vote on the votability of Bill C-315.
Noon
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I am sorry, Mr. Chairman, but I think this is one of those times when we might profit from a recorded vote.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay. I have a recorded vote requested.
All those in favour of the making this one non-votable...no, that's not worded correctly. It's that Bill C-315 be designated as a non-votable item. Are you in favour of that?
October 18th, 2011 / noon
The Clerk
Mr. Reid?
Noon
Conservative
Noon
The Clerk
Mr. Toone? Mr. Dion?
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
(Motion negatived: nays 2; yeas 1)
Okay. We'll move to Bill C-299.
Noon
Committee Researcher
Bill C-299 would amend the Criminal Code to prescribe a minimum punishment when a kidnap victim is under 16 years of age.
This item 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 already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.
Noon
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any questions or comments?
Seeing none, we'll move on to Bill C-316.
Noon
Committee Researcher
This bill would amend the Employment Insurance Act with respect to the qualifying period and benefit period as a result of the claimant having spent time in a jail, penitentiary or other similar institution.
This item 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 already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.
12:05 p.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill would enact an Act to establish a National Strategy for Chronic Cerebrospinal Venous Insufficiency through the convening of a conference with territorial and provincial ministers in order to develop a national strategy.
This item does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction nor does it clearly violate the Constitution, including the Charter; it does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there questions or concerns?
Seeing none, we'll move to Motion No. 274.
12:05 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Motion M-274 seeks the opinion of the House regarding access to information regarding treatments by patients suffering from multiple sclerosis, their families and their caregivers.
This motion does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction; it does not clearly violate provisions of the Constitution, including the Charter; it does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there comments or questions?
Seeing none, we'll move on to to Bill C-312.
12:05 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Bill C 312 would amend the Constitution Act, 1867 with respect to democratic representation in the House of Commons.
This item does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction and does not clearly violate provisions of the Constitution; it does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons; and, it does not concern questions that are currently before the House as items of government business.
Members of the subcommittee, like all parliamentarians, are probably aware of the government's intention to introduce a bill on this very matter; but the bill has not yet been tabled in the House of Commons. Therefore, it's not possible to review a bill that doesn't exist yet; we can only consider bills that actually exist.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
This, in my view, is clearly unconstitutional. It's unconstitutional and violates criterion number two, because it seeks to amend the Constitution Act in an area that regards the principle of proportionate representation, which is something that can be changed only by means of what is known as a 7-50 amendment. It seeks to do so using the wrong amending formula, the section 44 amending formula. In our Constitution, through sections 38 through 49, if you count all the sections that deal with the technicalities of it, we have a variety of amending formulas.
Subsection 42(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982, says: “An amendment to the Constitution of Canada in relation to the following matters may be made only in accordance with subsection 38(1)...”, which is a reference to the so-called 7-50 amending formula. then it has a series of different items, one of which is “(a) the principle of proportionate representation of the provinces in the House of Commons prescribed by the Constitution of Canada...”.
There is a specific reference in the preamble to this bill to section 44 justifying the use of the section 44 amending formula. I suppose that in theory a preamble is not part of the law per se, and a preamble that states something that's inaccurate need not invalidate the law itself, but a further problem is that the measure is presented as a bill, which is how section 44 amendments are presented to the House of Commons.
If this were an attempt to amend the Constitution with all the same substantive results, but it were presented as a motion, it would then be in order and would come into effect if seven provinces representing 50% of the population of Canada enacted it through their provincial legislatures within a three-year window. That's how we deal with section 38 amendments.
But it's simply done in the wrong form, completely in the wrong form, and that makes it irretrievably a violation of criterion number two. On that basis, it ought to be rejected.
I have more a detailed argument to present, but let that be the starting point.
12:10 p.m.
Liberal
12:10 p.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill proposes a new formula for the distribution of seats, by province, in the House of Commons. Bills dealing with this same topic have been introduced by the government in previous sessions. There were four or five different bills, but none passed. We are also told that a bill will probably be introduced this year or next year.
This deals with a section of the Constitution that provides that Parliament alone can determine provincial representation, based on my understanding. And that has actually been demonstrated through the bills introduced by the government. It did not decide to introduce motions or seek the agreement of the other provinces; it simply introduced its own bills.