Subcommittee on Private Members' Business Committee on Oct. 24th, 2013

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

I'd like to call to order the meeting of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

We are half an hour behind time to start with, but I don't think we have a great deal on our schedule.

Just for the benefit of new members, and maybe everybody is new, we do not debate the merit of these bills but only the votability. The analyst will give us his opinion on the votability. You don't have to accept his opinion, but for the most part we're probably in good hands to do that, so without further ado, we'll proceed.

[Michel Bédard, Committee Researcher]

Thank you, sir.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

There is one other thing. Typically we have not voted on these in the committee. We do things by consensus, so they move fairly quickly.

[Michel Bédard]

Thank you, sir.

I will go through the chart which I believe was distributed earlier this week. There were two items that were discharged from the order paper and no longer appear on the list that was distributed. I will identify them when we get to them.

The first bill is Bill C-481. This bill would amend the Federal Sustainable Development Act to require the Minister of Justice to examine bills and propose regulations to ensure they are consistent with the Federal Sustainable Development Act.

This bill does not concern questions outside federal jurisdiction. It is not clearly against the Constitution. It is not substantially similar to another private member's bill already voted on in the current session or already on the order paper, and it is not similar to a government bill already on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are there any questions?

Thank you.

[Michel Bédard]

Next is Bill C-525, which would amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act, and the Public Service Labour Relations Act to require that the certification and decertification of the bargaining unit be achieved by secret ballot.

This bill does not concern questions outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. It is not substantially similar to another private member's bill already on the order paper, and it is not similar to a government bill currently on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are there any questions?

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Just to be clear, when you say the Constitution, do you mean the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms as well?

[Michel Bédard]

I mean that as well. It is including that. The actual criteria that I—

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

I thought about that when I was reading this.

[Michel Bédard]

Number two under the criteria reads as follows:

Bills and motions must not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

That includes all of the written Constitution.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Thank you.

[Michel Bédard]

The next item, Bill C-501, would designate the third Saturday of September of each year as National Hunting, Trapping and Fishing Heritage Day.

This bill does not concern questions outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution. There is no other private member's bill similar to it on the order paper, and there is no other government bill similar to it on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Are there any questions? Is everyone happy?

Thank you.

[Michel Bédard]

Bill C-201 would amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a new deduction for travel and accommodation expenses for employees who are employed at a construction site in order to keep their job.

This bill does not concern questions outside federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. There is no other private member's bill similar to it on the order paper, and there is no government bill similar to it on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Is everyone satisfied with that?

Thank you.

[Michel Bédard]

The next bill is Bill C-518, which would amend the Members of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act to provide for the payment of a withdrawal allowance in lieu of their retiring allowance or compensation allowance in certain circumstances, such as when the member is convicted of a punishable offence which was prosecuted by indictment.

This bill does not concern questions outside of federal jurisdiction. It does not appear to clearly violate the Constitution. There is no similar private member's bill on the order paper, and there is no government bill similar to it on the order paper.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

Yes.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Just for clarification, I understood that matters that might require the expenditure of money require royal recommendation. Again, I'm new to the committee and I have to ask this question. I would have expected that anything that has to do with expenditure of money might be tagged at this committee and alerted, and then we would say, “Sorry”.

I know there are criteria. I've read the criteria. I'm just curious. At what point then would it be reviewed to determine that it's compliant with what I've just said?

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We'll let the analyst give you that.

[Michel Bédard]

If you look at the Constitution Act, 1867, sections 53 and 54, there is some prohibition with respect to money bills and taxation bills. For these bills to be introduced first in the House of Commons, these bills would then require royal recommendation. If you look at Standing Order 79, you will find this requirement respecting royal recommendation.

On a private member's bill, private members are not prohibited from introducing such bills. It's just that during the process, bills that require the spending of money will need royal recommendation.

It is very rare that such bills receive royal recommendation, but it could happen. It's just that the Speaker won't put the question at third reading.

[Frank Valeriote, Liberal, Guelph, ON]

Does that process follow this one?

[Michel Bédard]

Yes. It's up to the Speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Dave MacKenzie]

We usually deal with the votability; the Speaker will make the next ruling.

[Michel Bédard]

That's right. When there is a point of order raised, the Speaker rules and that's how this mechanism is triggered.