Evidence of meeting #4 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 voted.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I'd like to call to order this meeting of the subcommittee on private members' business.
We have 15 items under consideration today. We will be proceeding through them as the order on your sheet indicates. Do you all have the worksheet?
11:05 a.m.
An hon. member
Yes.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We have the worksheet and the actual bills accompanying them.
Let's begin with Bill C-399.
We'll ask our analyst to comment on the four criteria, and then we will proceed with an indication of our wishes on allowing it to be votable.
11:05 a.m.
Michel Bédard Committee Researcher
This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a tax credit for travel expenses for volunteers.
The bill is not outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the charter. It is not substantially similar to a private member's bill already voted on in the current session, and it is not similar to a government bill already voted on in the current session.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Actually, I agree with all of those criteria, but am I not right that a tax credit would run afoul of another problem about votability and the royal recommendation?
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Mr. Reid, normally we allow bills that may require royal recommendation to proceed. They may be stopped at another point down the road; I think it's prior to third reading.
Our analyst can confirm that.
11:05 a.m.
Committee Researcher
According to section 54 of the Constitution, and the Standing Orders, the House of Commons cannot adopt a bill that requires a royal recommendation, but it may debate it. During the process the Speaker will be called upon to rule on a bill if there's an argument, a point of order, to the effect that there might be a need for royal recommendation. Even when there is a ruling, the bill could continue through the process until the question is put at third reading.
There's always a possibility that the bill will receive royal recommendation during the process, as happened a month or so ago with one bill.
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
11:05 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Great. Thank you.
As I see no opposition, we'll consider the motion on Bill C-399 votable.
Moving on to M-381.
11:05 a.m.
Committee Researcher
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.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
We've heard the comments of our analyst. There seems to be a fair number of differences with the previous opposition day motion. However, I'm at the will of the committee.
Are there any comments?
Mr. Reid.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I know it's a bill and not a motion. We dealt with Candice Hoeppner's bill regarding the firearms registry. It was somewhat similar, was it not? There was a push, which I opposed, to make it non-votable on that basis. Sebastian, you were there.
11:10 a.m.
Sebastian Spano Committee Researcher
That meeting could have been in camera, so I'm reluctant to—
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, in part only. It was in public.
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
I recall Ms. Hoeppner's bill, and at the time there was also Breitkreuz's bill. Mr. Breitkreuz's bill had been dropped from the order paper the day before the subcommittee met. When the subcommittee met, Mr. Breitkreuz's bill was no longer in existence.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
So it's not something that's been negatived. It's something that's been dropped from the order paper. Is that the distinction?
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
The criterion is that it must not have been voted on. Mr. Breitkreuz's bill had not been voted on; it had been dropped.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill would amend the Income Tax Act to establish an income averaging system for artists. This bill is clearly within federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the charter. It is not similar to a private member's bill already voted on in the current session, and it's not similar to a government bill already voted on in the current session.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any concerns?
Seeing none, we'll proceed to bill C-425.
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill would amend the Citizenship Act with respect to the residency requirement for permanent residents who are members of the Canadian armed forces. It also provides for the consequences of an act of war against the Canadian armed forces. This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction and does not violate the Constitution, including the charter. It is not similar to a private member's bill already voted on in the current session, and it is not similar to a government bill already voted on in the current session.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any concerns?
Seeing none, we will proceed to M-382.
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This motion with respect to Canadian foreign policy on the right of freedom of religion and conscience does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution. It is not substantially similar to a motion already voted on in the current session, and it's not similar to a government motion already voted on in the current session.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill will establish the Office of the Commissioner for Children and Young Persons in Canada. The measures provided in this bill do not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the charter. There's no similar private member's bill that had been voted on in the current session, and there's no government bill already voted on in the current session. Once again, there might be a need for a royal recommendation for the adoption of this bill, but that is not a question for the subcommittee to decide.
11:10 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill would amend the Canada Elections Act to increase fines for certain offences. It would also permit the Chief Electoral Officer to contest the election of a candidate. This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the charter. There's no similar private member's bill that had been voted on in the current session, and there's no government bill that had already been voted on in the current session similar to this bill.
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Is there a question of royal recommendation here?
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Yes. Again, I think some of these will require that, but that doesn't come into consideration by this committee.
11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Why would they need a royal recommendation? Is expenditure involved?
11:10 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
There are fines. It's possibly a form of taxation.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I think that's okay.
My point was a different one. I'm wondering at what point you make a penalty high enough that it can no longer be dealt with by summary conviction. It needs to be treated as a criminal matter. Some of these numbers are pretty large, a year in prison and $20,000. Does that not create a problem?
11:15 a.m.
Committee Researcher
I'm not sure there is a criterion or given threshold upon which summary procedure is no longer permitted. With regard to the criteria, this committee is—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, what would happen is it would relate to.... Let's say for the sake of the argument, to make the point in a very stark fashion, that for the summary conviction the fine were hanging or imprisonment for life. That would be problematic. You would have to have a criminal proceeding before you could carry out something so severely punitive. The line is drawn somewhere, but I'm just not sure where the line is drawn. I don't know if it's a bright line or a fuzzy one.
11:15 a.m.
Committee Researcher
I mentioned the bill. If you look on the first page, at the proposed paragraphs 500(5)(a) and (b), the first of those paragraphs is with respect to summary convictions, and the amount of the maximum fine is increased to $20,000. The second paragraph is with respect to conviction on indictment. Then the fine is established at the maximum of $50,000. The bill makes a distinction, as currently the act does too.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
At some point you are making a distinction between being hanged and being hanged, drawn, and quartered, right, if it's severe enough?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think we're getting into the content of the bill. At this committee we need to limit ourselves to the question of votability. If I could ask us to limit our remarks to that, are there any further remarks on all four criteria? Seeing none, I am assuming that you are all in agreement to allow this to proceed? Okay.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I actually have a reservation about that. My criterion is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The question is that at some point you—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
You want to make that point? That's what the committee is for.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes, I guess I am making the point that I have this concern.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Can I just point out that you might be going into the cruel and unusual punishment section, right?
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Obviously pain is cruel and unusual punishment, so you actually can't do that. I'm aware of that. But you see my point that—
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm just not sure where the line is drawn.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Can we just have a semblance of order here?
Mr. Toone, make your point, and then we will go back to Mr. Reid.
11:15 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I'm just not sure that it falls within the criteria. I see your point, but frankly I think that would be up to debate. Maybe this bill could stand a bit of improvement in committee, frankly.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
I think that's what I was trying to point our earlier, that we are getting into the content. But Mr. Reid feels that we are in the constitutional area.
Mr. Reid.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, the content is what makes it constitutional, Mr. Chairman. I do think Mr. Toone has a good point. In general, I think things should go through, and Parliament has the ability to deal intelligently with issues of constitutionality; and, of course, issues of unconstitutionality ultimately get dealt with intelligently by the courts. So we have several layers of protection in addition to this committee, thank goodness.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
At this point, we are going to proceed on the basis of the question of votability. I'm going to ask those members who are in favour of allowing it to proceed to raise their hand. Those opposed?
(Motion agreed to)
Now we move to M-388. I must admit a little affinity to this particular motion, because it's the same number that I had one on a couple years ago. I declare a conflict of interest.
11:15 a.m.
Some hon. members
Oh, oh!
11:15 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This motion calls on the House of Commons to express its support for various measures regarding Canadian firefighters. This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not substantially similar to a motion already voted on in a current session. It's not substantially similar to a government motion already voted on in the current session.
11:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay. Are there comments or concerns? Seeing none, M-388 will proceed.
Now we go to M-387.
11:15 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This motion calls upon the House of Commons to express the opinion that the government should further the success of its 2006 blue sky policy. This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is not substantially similar to a motion already voted on in a current session, be it a private member's motion or government motion.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any comments or concerns? Seeing none, we will proceed to M-385.
11:20 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Motion M-385 seeks the creation of a House of Commons committee whose mandate would be to develop a national bullying prevention strategy. This motion does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Charter. This motion is not substantially similar to a private member's motion already voted on in the current session, and it is not similar to a government motion already voted on in the current session.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you.
Are there any comments or concerns?
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill C-398.
11:20 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill would amend the Patent Act to make it easier to manufacture and export pharmaceutical products to developing countries. It seeks to eliminate some of the administrative constraints under Canada's Access to Medicine Regime.
This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Charter. It is not similar to a private member's bill already voted on in the current session. And it is not similar to a government bill already voted on in the current session.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay. Are there any concerns or comments?
We'll move to Bill C-400.
11:20 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Bill C-400 seeks to establish a roadmap in order to develop a national housing strategy. The measures set out in this bill do not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Charter. They also appear to be within federal jurisdiction. There is no similar private member's bill already voted on in the current session. And there is no government bill already voted on in the current session.
11:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any concerns?
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill C-428.
11:20 a.m.
Committee Researcher
This bill amends the Indian Act to require band councils to publish their by-laws, repeals certain outdated provisions of the Act and requires the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs to report annually on the work undertaken to develop new legislation to replace the Indian Act.
This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Charter. It is not similar to a private member's bill already voted on in the current session. And it is not similar to a government bill already voted on in the current session.
11:20 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
On the contrary, I feel that the bill before us could raise a constitutional problem. Section 35 of the 1982 charter says:
The existing aboriginal and treaty rights of the aboriginal peoples of Canada are hereby recognized and affirmed....
For greater certainty...“treaty rights” includes rights that now exist by way of land claim agreements or may be so acquired.
This bill expands the requirements for band councils. But without the authorization of those councils, we cannot change the Canadian Constitution. There is a mechanism to amend the Constitution. We are amending section 35 without following the amendment procedure. I think section 35 would have to be changed.
I do not agree with moving forward without the authorization of Shawn Atleo from the Assembly of First Nations, for example. It needs to be debated. I feel that this committee has gone too far in changing the requirements for band councils. I don't think we can do that. First, we have to obtain their approval through the constitutional mechanism, not through a private member's bill.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any other comments?
Do you want to respond to that at all?
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
11:25 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Mr. Toone, are you talking about the requirements to publish by-laws?
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
New requirements are being imposed on band councils. Many of these band councils are already subject to treaties. According to Canada's constitutional convention, requirements must be given a restrictive rather than broad interpretation. But in this case, we are creating new broader requirements, which is not constitutional.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
If I understand correctly—and you can correct me if am wrong about what you just said, Mr. Toone—you're saying that effectively, certain of the treaty rights that are constitutionally entrenched via section 35 of the Constitution Act of 1982 are effectively repealed by virtue of certain sections of this act. I'm just trying to figure out now which....
There are certain obligations placed upon the bands that in some respects would cause a retrenchment of those treaties. Is that sort of what you're getting at, or am I missing the point?
11:25 a.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
Right. That's essentially what I'm saying: if we have treaty rights, and we create new obligations on top of those treaty rights, we're essentially abrogating those treaties or are at least fundamentally modifying them. And that can't be done, because the treaties are now entrenched in the Constitution.
We don't necessarily have to go through the amendment system of seven provinces that require 50%. It is a federal jurisdiction, so there are possibly other ways to do this. But I don't think a private member's bill is the correct vehicle.
11:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
If I may speak to that, I have some knowledge of this subject, being the only person, as far as I know, to have actually formally submitted an amendment to the Constitution as a private member's motion. It was a 7/50 amendment—that is, requiring seven provinces and 50% of the population. That's done by motion, but amendments to the Constitution under federal jurisdiction I think are done by section 45, I think it is. Forgive me. I'm not sure which section it is.
Let's just find that out, and I'll continue my thought once we have that done. I'm not sure that it's a section 45 amendment. That really deals with the executive government.
I think it's section 44. That's done by bill. An example is the Nunavut Act, which effectively amended the Constitution to create the new territory of Nunavut. There was a bill, and part of the bill was constitutional in its implications, but not the whole thing. So it has been done. That's how it's done.
That particular kind of amendment is done through a bill as opposed to being done through a motion. Most constitutional amendments are done by means of a motion, but this is the exception.
11:25 a.m.
Committee Researcher
I am going to quickly talk about the impact of section 35 of the Constitution Act, 1982. At this point, since the criterion is clearly constitutional and since we are citing a treaty, it could obviously have some impact, but that has to be claimed and demonstrated. In some cases, the legislation might not apply if they violate treaties. Requirements are already imposed on band councils, and I don't think it is unconstitutional to change those obligations.
In terms of the procedural process by which the private member's bill can amend the Constitution, there is really no constitutional constraint. A member of Parliament can introduce a bill to amend the Constitution directly because it is allowed through the amending formula, section 44, that is. In addition, the Constitution Act, 1871, allows the Parliament of Canada to explicitly legislate on territories.
When other amending formulas apply, a member of Parliament could obviously introduce a motion to amend the Constitution. In that case, the appropriate number of provinces would have to adopt the motion as well.
June 19th, 2012 / 11:30 a.m.
Liberal
Stéphane Dion Liberal Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC
It is possible that this bill contravenes some provisions in some treaties; it is also possible that it does not. It will be up to the committee to determine that. In my view, the bill in itself does not violate the Constitution. It has to comply with it just like any other bill. That is something the committee will have to check in order to ensure that a bill is agreed to on its substance. The only remaining problem is to make sure that it complies with the existing treaty. That could be established in the parliamentary process.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay, I'm going to say that we've had adequate debate, but I will not make that judgment. Does anyone want to comment further?
We need to move ahead with a decision on whether or not to allow this to proceed.
Mr. Toone.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Sure.
All in favour of allowing this to proceed?
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Now we'll move to Bill C-429.
11:30 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Bill C-429 would amend the Radiocommunication Act and the Telecommunications Act with respect to antenna system infrastructures. Basically, the bill legislatively codifies a circular policy already applied by Industry Canada.
This bill does not appear to be outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Charter. It is not similar to a bill already voted on in the current session, be it a government bill or a private member's bill.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any concerns or comments?
Seeing none, we will move to motion M-386.
11:30 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Motion M-386 seeks the guidance of the House on the Indian Act as the embodiment of colonial and paternalistic policies, which have denied First Nations their rights and fair share in resources. It essentially asks that the act be eliminated.
This motion does not appear to violate the Constitution, including the Charter. It appears to be within federal jurisdiction. It is not similar to a motion already voted on in the current session, be it a private member's motion or a government motion.
11:30 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there comments or concerns?
Seeing none, motion M-386 is considered votable.
Now we need a motion by one of our members that the subcommittee present a report listing those items which it has determined should not be designated non-votable and recommending that they be considered by the House.
That's moved by Mr. Reid.
All in favour?
(Motion agreed to)
Okay. Thank you.
I declare the meeting adjourned.