This motion concerns various measures with respect to asbestos in the industrial sector. It would, among other things, call for the implementation of an industrial restraint plan for the communities, depending on the asbestos.
This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution, including the charter.
With respect to its similarity to another motion, there was a motion on asbestos that was already negatived by the House of Commons in the current session, on November 1. I have asked that the motion be distributed to all members of the subcommittee.
The subject matter of asbestos is the same, but there are some differences between the two motions. The motion that was just distributed was negatived on the opposition day, November 1, 2011.
If you look at Motion M-381, I will bring your attention to paragraph (b), which is about public consultation; paragraph (c), which is about the publishing of a comprehensive list of public and quasi-public buildings containing asbestos; and also paragraph (e), “stop financially supporting the asbestos industry within six months...”.
These paragraphs were not part of the motion that was negatived on November 1 of last year. So there is some distinction between it and the motion already voted on by the House of Commons.
I looked at the precedents. The only precedent I could find in recent history was the motion by Mr. Dion that was deemed non-votable in 2007. The motion called for the restoration of the court challenges program. It was seen as non-votable because there had already been a report of a committee, substantially the same, restoring the court challenges program.
So this is the only precedent that we found with respect to this motion before us.