Evidence of meeting #2 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 senate.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
I am talking about reforming Parliament. It's good reform. Good reform.
Committee Researcher
There's no subcommittee or committee in the Senate with a similar mandate.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Does that mean that this bill will be scrutinized by the House without any assessment of its constitutionality before it goes to the House, since the Senate is not doing it?
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Well, we should talk about that, colleagues, one day. It's not for today, but....
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I concur. I think there's a double standard here, at two levels.
First, you're right that if you want to pass something that might be unconstitutional, it's best to start it as a private member's bill in the Senate rather than in the House of Commons.
Second, this was something that bothered me in the last Parliament, because it's a long-standing problem. It would be nice if the Senate accorded us the same treatment we accord them. It's been a bit of a one-way street, and it is a bit frustrating.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Yes.
Back to the issue at hand, Bill S-206, we'll ask our analyst to comment now on the one criterion that exists for Senate bills coming to the House.
Committee Researcher
With respect to An Act respecting World Autism Awareness Day, the House of Commons has not already voted on a similar bill in the current Parliament. Therefore, I see no reason to recommend to the subcommittee that it be designated non-votable.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
Did we decide that this very day should be allowed to be something else? We have so many days for this and that, and there are only 365 days in a year.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Mr. Dion, the purpose of this committee is not to determine those kinds of issues. That will be debated, with all due respect. I would say this whether or not I were actually sponsoring this bill. We have to stick to the substance at hand and the criteria that we've been briefed on. I think it's a legitimate point for debate--
Committee Researcher
This bill will require that labour organizations provide financial information to the minister for public disclosure.
You may recall that a similar version of this bill was examined by the subcommittee when we first met in the current session. The Speaker made a ruling to the effect that the bill should have been preceded by a ways and means motion, because there were some taxation provisions in the bill. The bill has been modified, and all the provisions pertaining to taxes have been removed and replaced with a fine. The bill was designated as votable by the subcommittee when we first looked at it. Therefore, I have no comment in respect of the four criteria. I see no problem with them. It is within federal jurisdiction. It is not unconstitutional. And there's no similar bill currently on the order of precedence, either from the government or a private member.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay.
Is there any discussion?
Do you have a question, Mr. Toone?
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Yes. First of all, I would argue that it violates criterion number 2, still.
We have the ruling from the Speaker, and I think we need to look at that attentively.
It's true that a whole section dealing with the Income Tax Act has been taken out, and now we're looking at a fine. It's certainly not the first bill that's going to come before the House that speaks of fines. On that level, I can see that it does agree with the Speaker's ruling.
Where I do have a problem with it, though, is that in my opinion, it's certainly violating the freedom of association provision in the charter.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Just as a reminder, this committee did not turn this bill down in the previous decision, on any of the four criteria before us. So unless there's something new about this bill in terms of its constitutionality, I would argue that we may be reinventing the wheel.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
It is a new bill, and the previous one was rejected by the Speaker. So if we follow the ruling of the Speaker, we are looking at a new bill. Mr. Hiebert was given an opportunity to resubmit a bill, which I think was a very fair ruling. This is what we have before us now.
First of all, a union is not a static organization. It's not the Rotary Club, with all due respect to the Rotary Clubs of the world, of which I'm a member. It's not the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, which doesn't even have any clear membership guidelines. I don't know how you become a member.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I don't think very many people are members. I've called them, actually, to ask them how to become one, and I did not get an answer.