Evidence of meeting #6 for Subcommittee on Private Members' Business in the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.)
A recording is available from Parliament.
1:30 p.m.
The Chair Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.)
I call this meeting to order. This is the first time I've chaired a committee in this place, so I will appreciate the help of my colleagues here at the table to get through it. I'll turn it over to Alexandre.
March 20th, 2017 / 1:30 p.m.
Alexandre Lavoie Committee Researcher
Thank you.
Today you have two bills to look at. First is Bill S-230, which is a Senate bill. For the Senate bill, I want to remind the committee that the only criterion that applies is that no similar bills have been voted on by the House during the current session. I've looked at the bill and there doesn't seem to be an issue with it.
The second bill is Bill C-338, which is Mr. Saroya's bill. Following our last meeting, I looked at his bill and I didn't see anything that should be an issue with regard to the criterion.
1:30 p.m.
Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.)
Are there any questions or comments?
1:30 p.m.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I'll just quickly comment and thank the analyst for his comments.
On Mr. Saroya's bill, the government would agree that there are no constitutional or jurisdictional issues. It's very similar to his previous Bill C-324 in the sense that it's an act that proposes to amend the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act, but it deals with different sections than Bill C-37, which is currently before the House. We would agree that there are no constitutional or jurisdictional issues.
On the Senate bill sponsored by Mr. Carignan, Bill S-230, an act to amend the Criminal Code regarding drug-impaired driving, I believe there is a similar bill before the House, Bill C-226, but the bills deal with substantively different frameworks and issues. Therefore, from the perspective of the government, it does not meet the criterion regarding a similar piece of legislation before the House, which was set out by a ruling from Speaker Fraser. From our perspective, the bills are not substantively the same; therefore, the matter is constitutional and votable.
1:30 p.m.
Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.)
Are there any other comments?
1:30 p.m.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
The official opposition has no issues with either of the bills.
1:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
1:35 p.m.
Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.)
I need a motion that the subcommittee present a report listing those items which it has determined should not be designated non-votable and recommend that they be considered by the House.
1:35 p.m.
Liberal
1:35 p.m.
Some hon. members
No.
1:35 p.m.
Ms. Filomena Tassi (Hamilton West—Ancaster—Dundas, Lib.)
The meeting is adjourned.
