Evidence of meeting #2 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 41st Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was acts.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
This is meeting number two of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on Tuesday, February 11, in regard to the determination of non-votable items pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1).
Let's go through this.
The first one is Motion No. 485.
Alexandre Lavoie Committee Researcher
The motion proposes measures to measure the impact of the use of international tax havens and tax evasion on federal government revenues.
The motion does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper as an item of government business.
Committee Researcher
The bill amends the Supreme Court Act to require that Supreme Court of Canada judges understand English and French at the time of their appointment.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted down by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.
February 11th, 2014 / 11:10 a.m.
Conservative
Committee Researcher
The bill requires the Minister of Health to develop a national Lyme disease strategy in collaboration with his or her provincial and territorial counterparts.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.
Conservative
Committee Researcher
The bill amends the National Capital Act to establish the boundaries of Gatineau Park and prohibit the sale of federal real property within these boundaries.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted down by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Is everybody satisfied with that? Yes? Thank you.
Bill C-555 is next.
Committee Researcher
The bill requires the federal government to amend the marine mammal regulations to increase the distance that a person must maintain from another person who is fishing for seal, except under the authority of a seal fishery observation licence.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently in the order paper or notice paper.
Conservative
Committee Researcher
The bill amends the Access to Information Act to give the Information Commissioner of Canada the power to order government institutions to release documents requested under the act.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.
Committee Researcher
The motion recommends that municipalities use a nationally standardized methodology in carrying out homeless counts.
This motion does concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. I want to point out to the committee, however, that a motion only expresses the views of the House and does not have any legal implications. Generally, the House has the capacity to consider any matter and express its view on it.
Otherwise, the motion does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
What were your first comments—sorry—about not concerning questions that are outside federal jurisdiction?
Committee Researcher
This motion is making a recommendation directed to municipalities, which technically would fall under provincial jurisdiction. However, the House usually has considered or discussed those questions, and expressed views on any matters, regardless of whether they're provincial or federal.
Because a motion does not have legal implications, there are no rules that—
Liberal
Conservative
Committee Researcher
The bill amends the Divorce Act to instruct judges to order equal parenting when making a parenting order unless it is established that a different allocation would be in the best interests of the child.
The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts. It does not concern a question that is substantially the same as one already voted on by the House of Commons. It does not concern a question that is currently on the order paper or notice paper.