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.
1:15 p.m.
Committee Researcher
That is to be undertaken according to the second criterion, which is that the bill does not “clearly violate” the—
1:15 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
I haven't yet, but I think we're talking about two different thresholds here. The threshold in number two is “clearly violate”, and it's the analyst's opinion—the expert's opinion—that it does not. I'm not a lawyer. I don't think I'm in a position to suggest that the recommendation from the analyst is incorrect.
I think what Mr. Toone has been saying is that it “may violate” the charter, not “clearly violate” the charter.
I'm not going to put words in your mouth, Philip.
In your argument, which has some merit potentially, I'm not sure it got to the threshold of “clearly” violates, which is what we're being asked to vet on this. That would be my two cents' worth.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
1:20 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I want to point out when it comes to other elements in the Criminal Code, when it speaks to “obstruct”, in this case when you look at subsection 5, where it says “could produce serious adverse economic effects”, this “could” is very large. It could encompass, for example, the fact that I'm standing in front of a post office and am stopping someone from being able to get into the post office immediately, and not five minutes from now, and preventing them from picking up their cheque from their post office box. This strikes me as a very large and very broad opening. I don't think we see that opening anywhere else in the Criminal Code. I think the Criminal Code is usually a lot clearer and more stringent because we are talking about criminal, penal consequences, not just civil liability.
1:20 p.m.
Liberal
Frank Valeriote Liberal Guelph, ON
I'll be candid: I don't like the bill, and I think there is plenty of provision within the Criminal Code right now to deal with these very things.
Had this bill said it's something that a judge could take into consideration when imposing a sentence, that it was the interruption, interference, or obstruction of critical infrastructure, then I would understand that. This goes much further. I wouldn't support this bill, but notwithstanding that, I don't know that this is really for the committee to step in and apply that degree of scrutiny when none of us are lawyers versed in constitutionality, when I think a precedent has already been set at this committee, long before we got here, that prescribes—and I think Mr. Butt said it correctly—there's a difference between “clearly” and “might” or “may”. If I'm to go on what I understand to be the precedent of this committee, Phil, I think this has got to get to a level where the proponent of the bill will have to justify whether or not this meets the constitutionality test at committee, but not at this level.
Otherwise, we'd be preventing a lot of bills from going before the House of Commons and I don't think it's this committee's responsibility to apply that degree of scrutiny. That's why it's a first test, clearly, as opposed to likely or possibly. So as reluctant as I might be about the bill itself, I don't think I could say that it ought not to go forward.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
And I think on that basis we've had lots of discussion. So ordinarily we do it without a vote, but I think in this case we'll call for a vote.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
Yes, okay. That's fair enough.
(Motion agreed to: yeas 2; nays 1)
So it will go forward.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
Brad Butt Conservative Mississauga—Streetsville, ON
That's the first time I've heard Canada Post referred to as critical infrastructure.
You got away with it.
1:20 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dave MacKenzie
I look at these, and we don't deal with royal recommendations, but how many of these go through here that are so clearly in need of a royal recommendation?
1:20 p.m.
Committee Researcher
No, and it's true. It's a committee policy consideration to determine what threshold to let things through, to enable private members to be able to present bills.
1:20 p.m.
Committee Researcher
This is on ferry services to Prince Edward Island by Mr. MacAulay.
This motion essentially calls on the government to ensure stable and adequate funding for the ferry service between Wood Islands, P.E.I., and Caribou, Nova Scotia, which is interprovincial travel, so that's the federal element.
This motion does not concern questions that are outside federal jurisdiction. This motion does not clearly violate the Constitution Acts, 1867 to 1982, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This motion 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, and this motion does not concern questions that are currently on the order paper or notice paper as items of government business.
1:25 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:25 p.m.
Committee Researcher
This is from Dr. Bennett regarding missing and murdered aboriginal women. This motion calls on the government to address the issue of missing and murdered aboriginal women, and to call a public inquiry into the issue.
This motion does not concern questions that are outside of federal jurisdiction. This motion does not clearly violate the Constitution acts, including the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This motion 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.
There is another motion that we're considering today, Motion No. 444 by Ms. Ashton, which contains an element calling for an inquiry into missing and murdered aboriginal women. Her motion, though, is much broader in scope, calling for a national action plan to address violence against women, so they're able to proceed concurrently. Also, this one comes first.
Finally, this motion does not concern questions that are currently on the order paper and notice paper as items of government business.
1:25 p.m.
NDP
Philip Toone NDP Gaspésie—Îles-de-la-Madeleine, QC
I want to make it clear that if we were to adopt this or not vote against it, whatever it is that this committee does—
1:25 p.m.
NDP