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

[Michel Bédard]

That is the biggest difference that jumped out at me. There are also smaller discrepancies, such as the one that I just mentioned.

For example, if Parliament were to adopt Bill C-12, Bill C-475 could still carry on through the legislative process. Some of its provisions would probably be amended because they would already be part of Canadian legislation. Certain ones, including those that I mentioned, could however amend the legislation. Those provisions would still be valid. Adopting Bill C-12 does not necessarily render Bill C-475 void.

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

I don't like the fact that you are using the word “necessarily”. You mean that it does not render it invalid?

[Michel Bédard]

That is right, it does not render it null and void.

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

That does not require any amendments?

[Michel Bédard]

In the event that there are two bills, even if the subjects are different, it so happens that the same provisions are amended. Corrective amendments are made to bills during the legislative process. That is common practice and is to be expected.

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

Does that not call into question criterion number 3? It reads: “ Bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session of Parliament [...]”

Criterion 4 reads as follows: “Bills and motions must not concern questions that are currently on the [...]”.

[Michel Bédard]

Criterion 4 would in fact be the one that is in question since we are talking about a government bill. There are no committee precedents explaining the criteria in more detail that could help me interpret them.

In the case of bills that are designated as non-votable items, in the past, the subcommittee referred to decisions made by the chair pursuant to a standing order that is more or less the same. This was regarding a bill that sought to reach the same objectives by the same means. In the current situation, some objectives and some means are the same, but there are also other objectives and other means.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Is Bill C-475 deemed votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bédard]

The next bill is C-479. It will make amendments to the Corrections and Conditional Release Act respecting parole review hearings.

This bill is not outside federal jurisdiction, it does not clearly violate the Constitution, and there is no similar bill on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are we okay with that, Mr. Toone, Mr. Dion?

Is Bill C-479 votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bédard]

Next is motion M-422, with respect to the funding of the Last Post Fund. This is the program of Veterans Affairs Canada.

It is clearly within federal jurisdiction, it does not appear to be clearly against the Constitution, and there is no similar motion on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Is it votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bédard]

Next is motion M-230, with respect to anaphylaxis as a serious concern for the quality of life of Canadians.

It is within federal jurisdiction, it is not clearly against the Constitution, and there is no similar motion on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

Is it votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bédard]

The next item is Bill C-474, a bill for the enactment of the Transparency of Payments Made by Mining, Oil and Gas Corporations to Foreign Governments Act.

This bill will compel corporations to disclose some information. It is clearly within federal jurisdiction, it does not clearly offend the Constitution, and there is no similar bill on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

Is it votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bédard]

Bill C-473 will amend the Financial Administration Act with respect to representation of women and men on boards of crown corporations.

This bill is clearly within federal jurisdiction.

With respect to the other provision concerning the Constitution, an argument might be made under section 15 concerning equality rights. But also, subsection 15(2) of the charter authorizes affirmative action programs, so it would be difficult at this stage to conclude that it is clearly unconstitutional. There is no substantially similar bill on the order paper currently.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Okay.

Is the bill votable?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[Michel Bédard]

Motion M-431 will instruct the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the rules and procedures relating to the election of committee chairs. This is clearly within federal jurisdiction. It does not offend the Constitution and there's no similar motion on the order paper.