Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on March 21st, 2013

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Do we celebrate anything else on July 27?

What time on July 27?

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

My question is not related to the bill before us, but I would like to know, when we say a bill was not voted on in Parliament, if we are talking about the House of Commons specifically.

[Michel Bédard]

Yes, that is correct.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

We do not have to check whether the Senate has done something similar.

[Michel Bédard]

I used the word "Parliament" because we sometimes refer to the House of Commons that way.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

We take up a lot of room.

[Michel Bédard]

The House of Commons is not even supposed to know what happens at the Senate, aside from the messages it receives. We are therefore dealing with House of Commons bills only.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Dion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I already asked that question, but I don't remember if I received an answer.

We have four criteria, but we are told that in the cases when Senate bills are submitted to us, the only relevant criterion is determining whether it is a question being studied in the House of Commons. There are three criteria left.

I would like to know if these three other criteria are examined by senators when they agree to study a bill. If they are not examined, does that mean that we never apply, for bills that come from the Senate, the same criteria as those applied to bills coming from the House?

Do you understand my concern?

[Michel Bédard]

Yes.

An equivalent subcommittee does not exist in the Senate. In other words, there are no parliamentarians who gather, as with the subcommittee, to determine if bills tabled in the Senate can be put to a vote before being debated. However, as with any bill submitted to a committee, Senate bills can certainly be studied and amended. Their constitutionality can also be called into question.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I have no doubt that it's done, knowing some of the senators, but I still think there is something strange. We have criteria when it's coming from the House, and they're not the same ones when it's coming from the Senate. I'm sure it's not in our power to change it. I guess it is in the mandate of this committee, but it's something we should consider.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I think it highlights that there are some differences between the House and the Senate with respect to process. There are others, too, that we're starting to see a difference in, not only in this kind of process but also in other processes. I expect that somebody is going to take a look at the bigger picture of what we're doing. I would agree with you: if they don't have the same criteria as we do, and we don't have that criteria to check it against, why do we do it with our criteria and not with theirs?

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I would just suggest that the House is the master of its own rules, as you've said. We have no power to ask the Senate to do the same as us. When it's coming to us, we should respect our four criteria.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

And that comes from that direction?

[Michel Bédard]

If I may, Mr. Chair, Standing Order 92.1(a) establishes the criteria for Senate public bills. Section 91.1 of the Standing Orders authorizes the standing committee to establish criteria that this subcommittee will use for House of Commons bills. If you would like to put in place new criteria for Senate public bills, you would need an amendment to the Standing Orders.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

Mr. Armstrong.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

We are about to commence a study on the Standing Orders at some point at the procedure and House affairs committee. This is definitely a topic that should be on the agenda when we do that review, which is coming up in the next several months.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

It's not major; it's just strange.

[Scott Armstrong, Conservative, Cumberland—Colchester—Musquodoboit Valley, NS]

Standing Orders aren't major. But if you don't review them, they'll never get fixed.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Mr. Dion.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

We already voted on it. It's just that I'm still uncomfortable. I don't want to revisit the vote—it has been done. It's just when you say C-479, I think the following.

In French, you said: “It isn't quite null and void.” That isn't very strong. If I had to revise my vote, I might vote differently. It's simply that I am concerned when I hear that one bill can amend another. In this case, we should wait to have voted on one of the bills before examining the other.

It is said that the House can do both things at the same time. Adopting or not adopting one bill has pretty significant effects on the other. Under these circumstances, it seems to me that we should have set the other one aside.

I don't know if I am being clear.

[Philip Toone, NDP, Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC]

Are you talking about Bill C-479?

[An hon. member]

Or Bill C-475.

[Stéphane Dion, Liberal, Saint-Laurent—Cartierville, QC]

I don't want to revisit the decision; it has been made. I just want to say that in the future, we need to be careful about that. We have accepted that we will study this bill at the same time we are studying another bill that may make this bill partly irrelevant. And we have said that it will only be partly, so we will accept it. That's the decision we have made, and I was supportive of the decision. I'm still uncomfortable with it.