Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  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, substan

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  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.

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  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.

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  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

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  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.

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  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 f

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  The question for this committee is to determine whether in its opinion the threshold has been met or whether that is a question best determined when the bill goes before the House.

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  My understanding is that you're asking about the likelihood of it—

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  —violating the charter. That analysis is not the analysis—

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  That is to be undertaken according to the second criterion, which is that the bill does not “clearly violate” the—

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  In terms of the second criterion, the way that it's framed in terms of the evaluation at this stage, which is determining the votability or the non-votability of items, it's not the same as doing a charter analysis of likelihood that it's compliant, or likelihood that it might be

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  Correct.

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  The questions you raise go to the language of the criterion of whether there is a clear violation of the Constitution Acts, including the charter, or whether there is a possibility or likelihood of a violation. In terms of the language adopted here, and in previous decisions made

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  In regard to M-585, this motion from Madam Groguhé calls on the government to redesign its economic policy to help owners of small businesses in the manufacturing sector create new jobs, given the unemployment rates since the 2008 recession. That's a summary of the motion. To ap

Subcommittee on Private Members' Business committee  Bill C-639 from Ms. Young is an act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the protection of critical infrastructures. This enactment, in summary, amends the Criminal Code to create an offence of interfering with critical infrastructures. As an aside, there are some news art