Evidence of meeting #6 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 item.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Alexandre Lavoie  Committee Researcher

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

This is the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business. We have a number of items today, all of which have been gone through, and some notes for us.

The first item is M-532.

1:15 p.m.

Alexandre Lavoie Committee Researcher

The motion proposes that the government adopt an approach that provides a unified continuum of health care services to Canadian soldiers and veterans.

The motion does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. 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 as an item of government business.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Is everybody satisfied?

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

The next one is M-505.

1:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

The motion calls on the government to take steps to prevent forced marriages and all forms of non-consensual sponsorship in the immigration system, including by prohibiting the use of proxy, telephone, and fax marriages.

The motion does not concern a question that is outside of federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. 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.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Is everyone satisfied with that?

1:15 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

The next one is M-537.

1:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

The motion asks the government to apologize to the people of Hamilton for approving U.S. Steel's takeover of Stelco in 2007, make public the commitments of U.S. Steel made under the Investment Canada Act, and guarantee the pension benefits of the company's 1,500 employees and pensioners if it goes bankrupt.

The motion does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. 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.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

Is it up to us to ask whether it requires royal recommendation, given that you're asking to guarantee pension benefits?

1:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

It's only a motion.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

It's a motion.

1:15 p.m.

Liberal

Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON

I see. All right.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

I think there was some suggestion that it's actually provincial jurisdiction for pensions.

1:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

Yes. Since it's just a recommendation that the government may provide some money or something like that, it will depend on how the government would respond to that, if it responds.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Thank you.

Next is Bill C-613.

1:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

The bill amends the Parliament of Canada Act to require the Board of Internal Economy of the House of Commons to open its meetings, with certain exceptions, to the public. It also amends the Access to Information Act to give the Information Commissioner the power to make compliance orders.

The bill does not concern a question that is outside federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution Act. 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.

1:15 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie

Monsieur Toone.

1:15 p.m.

NDP

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have a quick question.

Criterion 3 states that, “Bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same [...]”. In the House, we have already voted on a motion concerning BIE's transparency, right?

1:15 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

Bills have to be evaluated with other bills, and motions with other motions, separately. So, based on the criteria, Parliament could have....

1:20 p.m.

NDP

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

The criteria establish that bills and motions must not concern questions that are substantially the same. You are saying that the distinction to be made here is that, if the House has already voted on a motion regarding transparency and we want to repeat that, we have to use a bill to do so. That would be justifiable.

1:20 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

That's correct. The practice has been that the committee deals with motions and bills separately in its analysis.

1:20 p.m.

NDP

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

So this is a custom of the subcommittee.

October 7th, 2014 / 1:20 p.m.

Committee Researcher

Alexandre Lavoie

I am not familiar with the all the history, but I could check where this practice comes from.