Evidence of meeting #18 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was charter.
A recording is available from Parliament.
The Chair Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)
Welcome to the 18th meeting of the Subcommittee on Private Members' Business of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which concerns the determination of non-votable items pursuant to Standing Order 91.1(1).
We can consult the chart of items in the order of precedence.
Ms. Blaney, do you have the document?
NDP
NDP
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Yes, and I listed Bill C-208. I think there are 10 of them in the list.
Liberal
Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Are you okay with letting those first 10 be done, and we'll just discuss the other five?
I move:
That all items, except for Bills C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), C-419, An Act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act (credit cards), C-420, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Official Languages Act and the Canada Business Corporations Act, C-421, An Act to amend the Citizenship Act (adequate knowledge of French in Quebec), and C-266, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), not be designated non-votable.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Do you want me to very briefly identify the concern that we have?
The issue on Bill C-331 is that the bill legislates exterior to Canada, and there have been some concerns raised that the law would have no force or effect and is therefore outside of the authority of Parliament. I want to get the analyst's opinion on that matter.
David Groves Committee Researcher
As always, my analysis is non-binding on you. You can disagree with me as much as you'd like. Ultimately, it's your decision.
With Bill C-331, I did not assess there to be an issue on the level of constitutionality, and that's for the reason that Parliament is capable of legislating extraterritorially, outside of its borders. The provincial legislatures are not, but the federal Parliament can legislate across the planet. If you look in the Criminal Code, you see there are actually several provisions that deem actions that take place outside Canada to be a crime within Canada.
Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)
Does anyone have any comments?
NDP
Rachel Blaney NDP North Island—Powell River, BC
I think that makes sense. In that case it's nothing new, so I agree with you.
I move:
That Bill C-331, An Act to amend the Federal Courts Act (international promotion and protection of human rights), not be designated non-votable.
Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
Let it go on division if you want.
(Motion agreed to on division [See Minutes of Proceedings])
Are we on Bill C-419?
Ms. Linda Lapointe (Rivière-des-Mille-Îles, Lib.)
Committee Researcher
Bill C-419, an act to amend the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act with regard to credit cards would make a series of amendments to those acts around credit cards. It would, for example, regulate how banks allocate payments across different credit accounts with different interest rates, require that a credit card provider seek express consent before increasing a credit limit, and require that the credit card advertisements include information on fees and rates.
I have noted the bill in my analysis because of some overlap in substance with Bill C-86, a second act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 27, 2018 and other measures. Division 10 of that bill, which is entitled “Financial Consumer Protection Framework”, would make a series of amendments to the Bank Act, some of which touch on credit cards as well. It would, for example, amend the Bank Act to add proposed section 627.35, which would regulate the allocation of payments across credit accounts with different interest rates, just like Bill C-419. It would also include a requirement that bank advertising be “accurate, clear and not misleading”, and would require that express consent before providing any product or service.
To summarize, both bills would regulate, among other things, the ways in which banks administer, offer and advertise credit card accounts. However, while Bill C-419 extends to cover credit card providers that are regulated under four acts—the Bank Act, the Trust and Loan Companies Act, the Insurance Companies Act and the Cooperative Credit Associations Act, Bill C-86 only amends the Bank Act.
One condition that this committee considers in assessing the votability of private members' items is that an item—this is the quote—“must not concern questions that are currently on the Order Paper or Notice Paper as items of government business”. In this case we have a situation of some degree of overlap between Bill C-419 and Bill C-86, which is on the Order Paper and is a piece of government business, but there are differences in scope. Bill C-419 has a broader statutory ambit. It would extend its provision to three other acts and to the institutions that would ultimately be covered under those acts.
November 22nd, 2018 / 1:15 p.m.
Liberal
David Graham Liberal Laurentides—Labelle, QC
I have just a very quick question, because I don't want to take all day with it.
When we had the issue with the derelict vessels act, there was a much greater overlap than there is here.