Evidence of meeting #7 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 decision.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Just on Ms. Boucher's private member's business, I appreciate what you were saying there, and I do appreciate you extending that branch to us, so thank you. I think we're making the difference that Ms. Boucher's bill is kind of outside the jurisdiction of this committee, whereas we believe the House made a decision on the other bill, Bill C-227, where that would have jurisdiction in this committee and that information is from the clerk. We believe the House has made a decision on one, whereas it hasn't on the other.
Liberal
Arnold Chan Liberal Scarborough—Agincourt, ON
I don't agree. I take the clerk's recommendation that there had been no decision of the House on the bill that was reintroduced by Mr. Sangha that essentially adopts Mr. Hussen's former bill. As I say, I get the point that the clerk is making on Bill C-343. Again, I still am just mindful when we're dealing with the Constitution Act and section 54. I think we will see a lot of bills coming before the House that will attach a very similar type of provision to get around section 54 of the Constitution. I note the point that he's raised, that ultimately it would be deemed non-votable at third reading if there were a royal recommendation clause and the royal recommendation wasn't actually granted by that point of decision in the House.
I do acknowledge that there were Senate precedents. I don't remember the exact instances. I know there were a few instances—because this would be a breach of section 53 of the Constitution, because the Senate also can't initiate any spending measure. Similar provisions came out of the Senate on a number of bills. I don't think it actually even ever made it to the House for consideration in each of those instances, because there was no sponsor of the bill. I think that was the distinction from the point that you were making. Clearly, that is a breach of section 53. There has been precedence. I believe this is the first time it's been attempted in the House. I believe there has been precedence, coming from the Senate, with a similar provision found in Ms. Boucher's bill in clause 26.
Conservative
Jamie Schmale Conservative Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON
Through you, Chair—and correct me if I'm wrong—I believe that in the past, bills that have required royal recommendation have come through this committee and have gone on to a final decision through the House.
The Clerk
Absolutely. We do have a current example, Mr. Gerretsen's Bill C-243, for instance.
The Clerk
It was deemed to be non-votable by this subcommittee and it is currently at report stage. You have a good example there. It was also the subject of a statement by the Speaker that, in his opinion, it did require royal recommendation, so the bill is still going forward until it reaches the third reading, question put at third reading.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Filomena Tassi
Alexandre, do you want to add something else with respect to what you've looked up on the standing order?
Are there any other comments or discussion on this?
Are we good?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Filomena Tassi
Okay.
Now, I would suggest that we take a look at these two items separately, to determine whether they are going to be part of the package that we're moving forward.
Since we discussed it first, let's start with Mr. Sangha's bill, Bill C-344. I think we have to actually have a show of hands on this with respect to the discussion that has taken place, and whether it is votable.
(Motion agreed to)
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Filomena Tassi
Now we will move to Bill C-343.
Could I see a show of hands for those who believe that this motion is votable and should be included?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Filomena Tassi
Could we have unanimous consent with respect to the remaining items as discussed at the beginning, the 15 items and the three Senate bills?
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Filomena Tassi
This is it formally now:
That the Subcommittee present a report listing those items which it has determined should not be designated non-votable and recommending that they be considered by the House.
(Motion agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])