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.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I'm just not sure where the line is drawn.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay. Are there comments or concerns? Seeing none, M-388 will proceed.
Now we go to M-387.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any comments or concerns? Seeing none, we will proceed to M-385.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Thank you.
Are there any comments or concerns?
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill C-398.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Okay. Are there any concerns or comments?
We'll move to Bill C-400.
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any concerns?
Seeing none, we'll move to Bill C-428.
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.
Conservative
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.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Harold Albrecht
Are there any other comments?
Do you want to respond to that at all?
Conservative
Committee Researcher
Mr. Toone, are you talking about the requirements to publish by-laws?
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.