Evidence of meeting #8 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 charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:25 p.m.
Committee Researcher
They're not exactly the same by any means. The other motion is quite a bit broader. In terms of what the committee has allowed to go forward before, they really, again, erred on the side of being permissive, to enable motions and bills to go forward unless they're really, substantially the same.
In this case they're quite different, except for the one element.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
Can I just ask one quick question?
I know there has been at least one, maybe two opposition motions in the life of this Parliament that have called for this. They've been defeated, obviously by votes in the House. The fact that those motions have already been presented, the House has debated them, voted them down, has that had no effect on these because these are sponsored by private members? Is that the difference?
How many times is this Parliament going to be asked to vote on a public inquiry of this nature, when it's already been done a couple of times? Is that not an issue?
I have no objection to the motion. Let it go ahead. I'm trying to understand a little bit better, when this Parliament has already voted on this matter.
1:25 p.m.
Committee Researcher
The criteria, as set out, is the same as ones already voted on by the House in the current session of Parliament. I went through the order paper and notice paper particularly for this session of Parliament, so the second session.
1:25 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
In the first session of Parliament, we might have already voted, but not in the second.
1:25 p.m.
Committee Researcher
I can't speak to what happened in the first session because I haven't double-checked, but I went through the second session.
There aren't questions as items of government business. The government hasn't brought any such motions forward.
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:25 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Bill C-661, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (transfer of family farm or fishing corporation) is from Madame Raynault. As noted in the bill's summary:
This enactment amends the Income Tax Act in order to provide that, in the case of the shares of the capital stock of a family farm or fishing corporation, siblings are deemed not to be operating at arm's length and to be related.
It has to do with capital gains and things like that.
This bill does not concern questions that are outside of federal jurisdiction. We're dealing with the Income Tax Act. It does not clearly violate the Constitution acts, including the Canadian charter. This bill does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House in the current session of Parliament or preceding it in the order of precedence. This bill does not concern questions that are currently on the order paper and notice paper as items of government business.
1:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
April 21st, 2015 / 1:30 p.m.
Committee Researcher
This is from Monsieur Giguère regarding small and medium-sized businesses. In summary, this motion calls on the government to reduce transaction fees charged to merchants and to allow merchants to disclose to the consumer the transaction costs relating to the payment method chosen at the point of sale in order to help make the cost of living more affordable for the middle class.
Just as a bit of background, section 91.15 of the Constitution Act of 1867 allocates to the federal Parliament legislative power in relation to banking, the incorporation of banks, and the issuance of paper money. This is the federal connection.
Of note is that in 2010, the government passed the Payment Card Networks Act, which gave the Minister of Finance the authority to regulate national payment card networks and the commercial practices of payment card network operators. As well, it gave the Financial Consumer Agency of Canada a mandate to supervise payment card network operators to determine their compliance with the act and its regulations. Section 6 of the act and section 7 of the act regarding regulations and enforcement conditions have never entered into force, so the subject matter doesn't overlap exactly.
As well—you might have noticed this in the news recently—in 2010 the government established a voluntary code of conduct with the credit and debit card industry in Canada, which was recently updated in April, this month, to include mobile payment. It added a provision that says mobile users must be given full control of the default settings on their virtual wallets. It also allows merchants to exit their contracts with credit card processors without penalty and gives new protection to retailers who decide to stop accepting mobile payments.
All of this is background to say that there are things out there on this issue. They're not exactly the same. They actually might even flow well together.
This motion does not concern issues that are outside of federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution acts, including the Canadian charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House in the current session or preceding it in the order of precedence. It does not concern questions that are currently on the order paper or notice paper as items of government business.
1:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We'll go to M-587.
Mr. Butt has already recused himself from taking part in this discussion.
1:30 p.m.
Committee Researcher
This motion calls on the House to reaffirm the recognition of various genocides—the Holocaust, the Armenian genocide, the Rwandan genocide, and the Ukrainian famine and genocide—and to recognize the month of April as genocide remembrance, condemnation, and prevention month.
I hope, Mr. Butt, that is a fair summary.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
1:30 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Thank you.
This does not concern questions that are outside of federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution acts, including the charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House in the current session of Parliament or preceding it in the order of precedence. It does not concern questions that are currently on the order paper or notice paper as items of government business.
1:30 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
We'll keep going a little bit. Although the schedule said we would end at 1:30, we'll go a little longer and see if we can get through these.
Next is Motion No. 444.
1:30 p.m.
Committee Researcher
Motion 444 is Ms. Ashton's motion on a national action plan to address violence against women. We spoke a little bit about it in relation to Dr. Bennett's motion. This motion calls on the government to create a national action plan to address violence against women, in collaboration with the provinces, territories, civil society, first nations, Métis and Inuit peoples and their representatives—just a broad consultation.
It does not concern questions that are outside the federal jurisdiction. It does not clearly violate the Constitution acts, including the Canadian charter. It does not concern questions that are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House in the current session of Parliament or preceding it in the order of precedence. Again, Dr. Bennett's motion is substantially narrower. Finally, this motion does not concern questions that are currently on the order paper or notice paper as items of government business.