Bill C-219 (Historical)

An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service)

This enactment amends the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer emergency workers to deduct from their taxable income the amount of $1,000 if they performed at least 100 hours of volunteer service, and $2,000 if they performed at least 200 hours of volunteer service.

Bill C-219--Speaker's Ruling

[The Speaker, Liberal, Peter Milliken]

I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons concerning the need for Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service), standing in the name of the hon. member for Malpeque, to be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion.

I wish to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary, as well as the hon. member for Malpeque and the hon. member for Mississauga South for their submissions on this matter.

On January 31, 2008, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons rose to argue that the provisions of Bill C-219 to allow volunteer emergency workers to deduct certain amounts from their taxable income needed to be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion because they would have the effect of replacing several tax relief measures enacted by Parliament following the adoption of the Budget Implementation Act, 2006. He contended that removing such alleviations of taxes would result in an increased tax burden on taxpayers.

In his response, the hon. member for Malpeque argued that on the contrary, Bill C-219 would reduce taxes, not increase them. He pointed out that a very similar bill in the last Parliament, Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service) had been accepted as being properly before the House and that there was no reason to judge it to be otherwise in the current session.

The Chair has carefully reviewed the provisions of Bill C-219. As has been pointed out, the bill provides for volunteer emergency workers to deduct certain amounts from their taxable income. It would thus reduce the amount of taxes payable. It does so by adding to, not replacing, parts of sections 60 and 60.02 of the Income Tax Act. Let me explain.

It is true that these same sections of the Income Tax Act were amended by the Budget Implementation Act, 2006, but those amendments dealt with very different issues than Bill C-219. Specifically, they provide tax relief in relation to the universal child care benefit, the Canada Disability Savings Act and income splitting for seniors.

On reflection, I believe that the House will conclude with the Chair in the first place that the sponsor of the bill could not have intended to amend provisions which did not even exist at the time of the introduction of his bill, Bill C-219.

Furthermore, Bill C-219 does not explicitly repeal provisions of the Income Tax Act, nor does it concern in any way the issues addressed in the subsequent amendments brought by the Budget Implementation Act, 2006. Instead, the bill deals with deductions for volunteer emergency workers.

In light of this, the Chair simply cannot accept the arguments put forward by the hon. parliamentary secretary. If and when the bill is referred to committee, the Chair has no doubt that any clause numbering inconsistencies will be corrected.

Accordingly, I find that Bill C-219 is properly before the House and that debate on the motion for second reading may commence as planned.

Bill C-219

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to respond to the comments made earlier today by the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, in which he stated that my private member's bill, Bill C-219, was improperly before the House. I was not in the chamber at that time so I did not have a chance to respond.

Bill C-219 would amend the Income Tax Act to allow voluntary emergency workers to deduct from their taxable income the amount of $1,000 if they performed at least 100 hours of volunteer service and $2,000 if they performed at least 200 hours of volunteer service.

The parliamentary secretary contends that Bill C-219 is improperly before the House as it has not been preceded by a ways and means motion because, in his view, the bill would increase the level of taxation. He argued that Bill C-219 would increase taxation.

As I have already indicated, the bill would increase the exemption from taxation. House of Commons Procedure and Practice at page 898 states:

...private Members' bills which reduce taxes, reduce the incidence of a tax, or impose or increase an exemption from taxation are acceptable.

Ways and means motions are necessary for bills that impose a tax or other charge on the taxpayer. This bill does not do that.

The fact is that the current bill is similar to Bill C-273 that was in the last Parliament. It went as far as the finance committee and at that level there were technical questions on who it applied to, the record-keeping procedures for hours, et cetera, but not about increasing taxes.

This bill does not propose the expenditure of public funds but rather affects the exemption from taxation which is permitted under our rules.

In conclusion, I believe this bill is properly before the House and I ask that you, Mr. Speaker, allow this bill to proceed as it is supposed to during private members' business tomorrow.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I agree completely with the hon. member opposite who has said that this is obviously a very complex and highly unusual situation concerning Bill C-219. I point out again, however, that we are talking about a ways and means motion rather than a royal recommendation. As the Speaker completely understands, there is a distinction between the two.

Even though I appreciate the arguments made by my hon. colleague about the need perhaps for the member who introduced this private member's bill to be consulted and have a chance to address the situation, and it is an unusual situation and I give full weight to that, Marleau and Montpetit, on pages 701-702, states that a fundamental principle of our parliamentary system is that all taxes imposed on our nation must be granted by Parliament. That was the crux of my argument.

This protection of the principle is an important concern for all members of the House. While I appreciate the arguments of my hon. colleague, there is also convention and procedures that we must observe, Mr. Speaker. I look for your ruling on this matter in the near future.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order respecting the procedural acceptability of Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service), which is currently on the order of precedence in the name of the hon. for Malpeque.

Without commenting on the merits of the bill, I would ask the Speaker to rule on whether the bill conforms to the procedural requirements for tax legislation.

Briefly stated, the Income Tax Act has been amended since the introduction of Bill C-219, so that the bill now has the unintended effect of increasing taxes.

Although the bill was in order when it was first introduced, I will be arguing that the bill should have been preceded by a ways and means motion when it was reinstated in the current session of Parliament.

I will therefore be arguing that the bill should be withdrawn from the order paper.

Bill C-219 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to allow volunteer emergency workers to deduct $1,000 from their taxable income if they performed at least 100 hours of volunteer service and $2,000 if they performed at least 200 hours of volunteer service.

Bill C-219 was first introduced in the House during the previous session of Parliament on April 10, 2006.

On October 16, 2007 the bill was deemed to have been introduced and read a first time in the current session of Parliament pursuant to Standing Order 86.1 which provides for the reinstatement of private members' business following a prorogation.

As the Speaker knows, bills that increase the level of taxation must first be preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion. The 22nd edition of Erskine May states at pages 777 and 778 that matters requiring authorization by a ways and means resolution include “the repeal or reduction of existing alleviations of taxation, such as exemptions or drawbacks”.

Bill C-219 proposes to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax deduction for voluntary emergency workers. Erskine May makes clear at page 781 that bills that alleviate taxation do not require a ways and means motion.

I therefore recognize that the bill was properly before the House when it was first introduced in the previous session of this Parliament. However, since Bill C-219 was first introduced, the Income Tax Act has been amended and as a consequence Bill C-219 will now have the unintended effect of increasing levels of taxation.

Let me take a moment to explain why.

Bill C-219 would add proposed paragraphs 60(y) and 60(z), and proposed sections 60.03 and 60.04 to the Income Tax Act. As I noted earlier, after Bill C-219 was introduced, the Income Tax Act was amended by Parliament in ways which affect Bill C-219.

First, paragraph 60(y) of the Income Tax Act was added by subsection 174(1) of the Budget Implementation Act, 2006, which received royal assent on June 22, 2006.

The effect of this new paragraph is to provide a deduction equal to the amount of any universal child care benefit that a taxpayer is required to pay. The deduction is necessary because when the taxpayer initially received the universal child care benefit the amount is required to be treated as income. As such, it is taxable.

However, if the benefit is to be repaid, taxes would be paid on an amount the taxpayer did not get to keep. That is why the deduction is required. Without it, more taxes are paid. Therefore, removing the deduction would have the effect of increasing the taxes paid.

Proposed paragraph 60(y) contained in Bill C-219 would set out the new tax deduction proposed in the bill but would also have the effect of replacing existing paragraph 60(y) in the Income Tax Act. Therefore, as currently drafted, Bill C-219 would result in a greater tax burden.

The same could also be said for proposed paragraph 60(z), contained in Bill C-219. Section 105 of the Budget and Economic Statement Implementation Act, 2007, which received royal assent on December 14, 2007, has already added paragraph 60(z) to the Income Tax Act.

Paragraph 60(z) provides for the deduction of any repayment of any grants or bonds paid under the Canada Disability Savings Act. Bill C-219 would remove that deduction.

The third change to the Income Tax Act to which I wish to draw attention is proposed section 60.03 which was added by section 5(1) of the Budget Implementation Act, 2007, which received royal assent on June 22, 2007.

Section 60.03 of the Income Tax Act allows a couple to split their pension income to permit them to take advantage of a lower effective marginal tax rate.

The proposed section 60.03 of Bill C-219 sets out the evidence taxpayers are required to submit to be eligible for the new tax deduction proposed in the bill, but would also have the effect of replacing the existing section 60.03 in the Income Tax Act. In other words, Bill C-219 would repeal the pension splitting provisions and therefore result in a greater tax burden for seniors.

We have with Bill C-219 an unusual circumstance. A ways and means motion was not required when the bill was introduced in the previous session because the bill did not have the effect of increasing taxes at that time.

However, Bill C-219 amends the Income Tax Act, which has since been amended. The provisions of the Income Tax Act, which are being repealed by Bill C-219, were for the benefit of taxpayers. By removing these provisions, we would be adding to the tax burden. Consequently, I would suggest that the bill should have been preceded by an adoption of a ways of means motion at the time of reintroduction in this session and that the bill is therefore now improperly before the House.

I note that in this session the government tabled ways and means motions and had them adopted by the House before the reinstatement of two government tax increase bills from the previous session, namely Bill C-10, the income tax bill, and Bill C-12, the bankruptcy and wage earner protection bill. The government would have tabled a ways and means motion for any new government bill to increase taxes which would remove provisions added in previous budget bills.

In addition, I suggest that the requirement for a ways and means motion is not limited to the introduction of a bill, but also to any motion that would increase taxation. For example, it is clear that motions to amend bills that have the effect of increasing taxation require a ways and means motion. Citation 982 of the sixth edition of Beauchesne's states that, “No motion can therefore be made to impose a tax”.

It could therefore be argued that the motion for second reading of Bill C-219 is out of order, as the bill would have the effect of increasing the levels of taxation.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, if you were to find that Bill C-219 is now improperly before the House, as I argue, I believe you would be obliged to direct that the order for second reading of the bill be discharged and the bill be withdrawn from the order paper, as you did in the case of Bill C-418 earlier in the session, on November 28, 2007.

35th Annual Tournament of the Northwest Firefighters Association

[Jean-Claude D'Amours, Liberal, Madawaska—Restigouche, NB]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity today to congratulate everyone who took part in the 35th annual tournament of the Association des pompiers du Nord-Ouest, which took place in Saint-Basile.

I have great admiration for the members of this association and the work they do to make our communities safer. These firefighters do not hesitate to risk their own lives when a fire breaks out, and they deserve recognition.

At the tournament banquet, I had the opportunity to speak to the firefighters, and I again pledged my support for Bill C-219, which proposes to reduce taxes for volunteer emergency workers, including volunteer firefighters.

I want to congratulate the Green River brigade, which won the 35th annual tournament and will represent the northwest region at the provincial tournament.

I also want to thank all the volunteers and the organizing committee members for all their efforts in planning this memorable event.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

I don't think that's a secret. It was in the Standing Orders.

It was in camera, Mr. Chairman. We were dealing with the issue of similarity. There were a number of issues, but I think we all know that similarity was the relevant consideration here.

It seems to me that it's possible to start getting some things mixed up in our discussions. In particular, it's possible to start mixing up the ruling of the Speaker, the ruling under which he was operating, and the less tight rule, vis-à-vis similarity, that governs our decisions. And it was the cause of the subcommittee ruling as it did.

Again, I'm being respectful of the in camera rule when I simply refer to the rule itself. It talks about substantial similarity, and a review of the two bills makes it clear that there is substantial similarity.

The Speaker's ruling against finding similarity according to the tighter criteria he was working with was based on having made, at an earlier point in time, a ruling that there was a substantial difference between having something that deals only with replacement workers and having something that deals with replacement workers with reference to an exemption for workers in essential services. And that was the distinction he made. He said, having it in a previous ruling, I would then have to follow through and keep that ruling consistent as I deal with the bill and the standing order on which I'm ruling—“I” meaning him.

In our case, we were looking at this without being bound by a previous ruling that we ourselves had made. As I say, we were dealing with a wider range of similarity. I want to point out that if you take a look at the two bills and you go through them, what you'll see is that most of the paragraphs are actually identical. A couple of clauses are different, but for the most part they are absolutely identical.

You can see that effectively this really is the same bill. People who doubt that this is the case I would invite to look at the legislation in the province of Quebec on the subject of replacement workers, which is essentially on the banning of replacement workers in Quebec. You can see that there really is a substantial difference between that legislation, although it's on the same general topic, and the legislation that was introduced in the House, whether it's Bill C-415 or the...I'm sorry, I've forgotten the number of the law.

It's Bill C-257.

You can see that there's a pretty substantial difference. There are many pages--I believe it's 80 pages, if memory serves, or thereabouts--of descriptions of the kinds of services that are exempt. There is great detail going into trying to ensure that the ban on replacement workers will exist while all the services that could be regarded as being essential for the function of the economy, for public safety, and so on, are dealt with.

Had a piece of legislation like that been written, I think it would have been pretty substantially different from either Bill C-415 or Bill C-257, and it might have received a very different reception from the committee. I can't say for certain, of course, because we didn't receive such a bill. But my inclination would be to think that it would be substantially different as opposed to being substantially similar. If you take a look at the two bills, and I have them in front of me, you'll get a sense of what I'm getting at.

The clause numbers are different, Mr. Chairman, in some cases, but often it's the same thing. You really have to look not at the clause numbers of the bill but at the sections and subsections of the Canada Labour Code that are being referred to. Then you get a sense of this.

I'll just look down here and try to find examples so you get the point. Just give me a moment.

In clause 2 of Bill C-257, it says that subsection 94(2.1) of the act is replaced by the following. I'm also referring to Bill C-415, clause 3. So far the wording is identical.

In Bill C-257 it says:

(2.1) Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout declared in accordance with this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) use the services of a person to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out, if that person was hired during the period commencing on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout;

(b) use, in the establishment where the strike or lockout has been declared, the services of a person employed by another employer, or the services of a contractor, to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out;

If you go back and look at the same thing in Bill C-415 you'll see very similar language in clause 3:

(2.1) Subject to section 87.4, for the duration of a strike or lockout declared in accordance with this Part, no employer or person acting on behalf of an employer shall

(a) use the services of a person to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out, if that person was hired during the period commencing on the day on which notice to bargain collectively was given under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout;

(b) use, in the establishment where the strike or lockout has been declared, the services of a person employed by another employer, or the services of a contractor, to perform the duties of an employee who is a member of the bargaining unit on strike or locked out;

You'll notice here that on the surface these two clauses, if you're looking at them side by side, look more different than they actually are. If you put them right beside each other so you have the same language versions, you'll notice it's just the way they were drafted that gives a superficial appearance of greater difference. Underlining occurs to a larger degree in Bill C-415, where all the words in proposed subsection 94(2.1) from “Subject” all the way down to “Part” are underlined. You can actually see that the words that will appear in the act as rewritten will be identical.

Similarly--and I'm not sure I can tell you exactly why this is--the paragraph letter (a) is underlined in one and not in the other, but it's the same thing. The words “who is a member of” are underlined in one and not the other, but they're going to be the same when rewritten. In one you're talking about changing the wording and showing the detailed changes to the words. In the other you're simply showing the section as rewritten; you're eliminating the underlining. But they are in fact exactly the same thing. They're just different styles of legislative drafting. I suppose it would be an interesting matter to find out if the same legislative counsel worked on both of these together.

The use of that continues, with “during the period commencing” underlined in one and not the other, but the words are still there. The word “day” is in line 35 of Bill C-415 but not in the corresponding line 23 in the other bill--similarly the final words of this paragraph, “under paragraph 89(1)(a) and ending on the last day of the strike or lockout” .

In legislative drafting, if you're adding a whole new paragraph, rather than underlining every line, which would make it hard to read, a line is put down the left-hand side to indicate the new material that's being put in. That was done in one bill but not the other.

In Bill C-415 this was done, but not in Bill C-257. But when you look at it, once again you see that exactly the same wording is in use. I mentioned proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(b) of the Canada Labour Code. Here you see all the same wording.

But again, superficially it looks different. You notice I was stumbling a bit at the beginning, trying to find the examples, because I myself was thrown off by the superficialities that have nothing to do with the substance of the bills but are in fact simply a question of the drafting style.

Not everything is identical. I don't want to leave the false impression that absolutely everything is identical here. If you continue, proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(b), as far as I can see, is identical. That's a paragraph I already read. But if you go to proposed paragraph 94(2.1)(c), there is at this point, I believe, a change. So there are some distinctions. I'm not trying to say that everything is identical, but the differences that appear on the surface are not as great as they might appear to be.

Looking ahead, here's another example: proposed subsection 94(2.4) is changed. It appears that in this case there is an alteration that is actually different. The two are substantially similar. They're not identical.

Proposed subsection 94(2.4) in one bill would read:

The measures referred to in subsection (2.2) shall exclusively be conservation measures and not measures to allow the continuation of the production of goods or services otherwise prohibited by subsection (2.1).

This actually is different. Excuse me for a moment. I think I have the right subsection. Yes, I do. Yes, they're quite different.

The other one reads:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) are being met.

But even here, we find that there's a great deal of similarity. We're just continuing. You'll see that largely this is the result of a renumbering of proposed subsections in one compared with the other, which I suspect is the reason for the line down the left-hand side showing that sections have been replaced.

Proposed subsection 94(2.5) in Bill C-257 becomes proposed subsection 94(2.4) in Bill C-415, where you'll immediately see that the wording is actually identical. Once again, I myself, when trying to make the argument that these are similar, was thrown off and was indicating that they're more different than they actually are.

Here's what proposed subsection 94(2.4) of the one bill says:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2) and (2.3) are being met.

It changes, in the other bill:

The Minister may, on application, designate an investigator to ascertain whether the requirements of subsections (2.1), (2.2), (2.3) and (2.4) are being met.

It's the fact that (2.4) is removed from one and is included in the other that gives the impression that all the other paragraphs are actually different, when in fact just the numbering is being changed.

Then we go back. There's proposed subsection 94(2.5) in the one bill; that's in Bill C-415. Now we're back to being identical, word for word, with proposed subsection 94(2.6) in the other piece of legislation:

The investigator may visit the work places at any reasonable time and be accompanied by a person designated by the certified trade union, a person designated by the employer, and any other person whose presence the investigator considers necessary for the purposes of the investigation.

It's absolutely identical, word for word.

Proposed subsection 94(2.6) in the one is identical to proposed subsection 94(2.7) in the other. I think the rule of thumb to follow here is that for this part of the bill, Bill C-257 has one number extra, one more proposed subsection than Bill C-415. So proposed subsection 94(2.6) in Bill C-415 is proposed subsection 94(2.7) in Bill C-257.

Again, identical:

The investigator shall, on request, produce identification and a certificate of designation signed by the Minister.

It's the same thing with the next clause:

The investigator shall, immediately after completing the investigation, make a report to the Minister and send a copy of the report to the parties.

And you can see the next paragraph, where you have identical wording again, it's clause 2.8, and then the other:

The investigator has, for the purposes of the investigation, all the powers of a commissioner appointed under the Inquiries Act, except the power to impose a sentence of imprisonment.

With regard to clause 3 of Bill C-257, we see that it's essentially identical to clause 4 of Bill C-415.

The point I'm making is reasonably clear. I can continue and go through the entire bills--they're not long bills--but nonetheless I think the point is made pretty clearly, Mr. Chairman.

The other thing I wanted to draw to people's attention--as we work together and often agree with each other, particularly in the same caucus--is that I'm not as worried as Mr. Lukiwski that a dangerous precedent could be set if we overruled a previous ruling of a subcommittee, particularly when that subcommittee has met in camera. Unless we go in camera ourselves, we don't have full access to what was discussed and it seems reasonable to have to make certain assumptions. So I would differ with my colleague on this point.

But I think we would be setting a dangerous precedent—and here I think he would be in agreement with me—if we were to try to make our vote on this bill contingent on any consideration other than what the rules say. And if anybody here is voting based on the merits of replacement worker legislation, whether there should be such legislation or, if there is such legislation, whether or not it should make provision for essential services, these are questions of policy and they are utilitarian questions, the kinds of questions that as parliamentarians we are asking ourselves all the time, because our goal is to make good laws for the governance of the country.

In this committee we have to act much more as a court acts, not as utilitarians but as contienes, looking at what the rules say, what our prime directive is. And our prime directive is ensuring that the Standing Orders are followed as closely as they can be, without regard to the actual merits or demerits of specific pieces of legislation, but rather with consideration of the relevant rule and the relevant mandate we have. And that mandate is to make sure any bills that are substantially similar to other bills that have been before the House not be permitted to move forward; and of course, that if they are not falling afoul of that rule or the other rules that govern our actions, we allow them to go forward.

So I urge all members of this committee to base their votes on the facts and on our mandate to follow the rules laid out under the Standing Orders.

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Brian Pallister]

Could the next witnesses please come forward as quickly as possible?

We'll now continue pursuant to the order of reference

of Monday December 4, 2006 with respect to Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents)

We have several witnesses with us today, including our colleague Mr. Jeff Watson, who I will invite to speak for no more than five minutes.

Mr. Watson, I'll indicate to you and to other witnesses when there is a minute remaining. Of course, I'll then unceremoniously cut you off.

Committee members may want to consider that during these five-minute presentations—I believe we have three of them—there will be a balance of approximately 20 minutes remaining for discussion and, if possible, clause-by-clause.

I welcome Mr. Masse to our committee as well. Thank you for being here.

I will invite committee members to ponder that and possibly the need to extend the time to further discuss it, if they so desire.

We go now to Mr. Watson. Welcome.

[Mark Warawa, Conservative, Langley, BC]

Thank you, Chair.

Thank you to the witnesses for being here. I'd also like to thank the Honourable Maria Minna, who is the author of Bill C-298, for bringing this bill to this committee.

The focus of my questioning is to provide the right tools to deal with PFOS. I think that's the intent of Dr. Khatter and also the staff here. Environment Canada has said we need to get rid of PFOS, and right now its use is being prohibited.

What we see in Bill C-298--and Dr. Khatter has a recommendation--is that PFOS should be on the virtual elimination list. We've heard from Mr. Moffet that that may not be the best tool or the most practical way of dealing with it.

I would like specific recommendations from Dr. Khatter and Mr. Moffet as to how they would change Bill C-298 to be the tool that achieves what we all want to see happen here.

DNA Identification Act

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On May 31, 2006 you invited members to comment on whether Bill C-279 would require a royal recommendation.

Without commenting on the merits of this private member's bill, I would appreciate your consideration on whether this bill requires a royal recommendation, since the bill proposes the creation of two new indices and modifies the purposes of the existing act.

The Speaker has previously ruled that the creation of a new office or purpose involves new costs, and therefore bills proposing such new offices or purposes require royal recommendations.

On November 22, 2004 your Honour ruled that a royal recommendation would be required for Bill C-243, an Act to amend the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (establishment of the Office of Victims Ombudsman of Canada). In that ruling, you noted that:

--this bill would create the position of victims ombudsman of Canada, with remuneration for such officers and employees as are necessary to perform the functions and duties. It is abundantly clear that this legislative initiative would authorize the spending of public funds.

Similarly, on June 13, 2005 the Chair indicated:

Where it is clear that the legislative objective of a bill cannot be accomplished without the dedication of public funds to that objective, the bill must be seen as the equivalent of a bill effecting an appropriation.

The purpose of the existing DNA Identification Act is to help law enforcement agencies identify persons alleged to have committed designated offences. I would note that this Act was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Section 3 of Bill C-279 would add an additional purpose, which is to identify missing persons via their DNA profiles.

Section 4 of Bill C-279 would follow-up on this additional purpose by requiring the establishment of two new indices under the national DNA databank to be administered by the databank commissioner.

Given that it would create an addition purpose and new program requirements which would modify the purpose of the DNA Identification Act, and result in significant new expenditures, the bill should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

[Réal Ménard, Bloc, Hochelaga, QC]

I am going to ask several questions and I would like you to provide brief answers to them.

The real question, as far as we are concerned, is how many conditional sentencees reoffend. I have not found an answer to that in the brief provided by the police officers. Yet I think that is the most important piece of information. Aside from that, everything else is ideological in nature, bordering on demagogy, and based on no data whatsoever.

One of the witnesses called for a commission of inquiry. We should not forget that sentencing reform, as set out in Bill C-41, was the result of the work of a royal commission, the Archambault Commission.

The police and the government have the same figures. In other words, out of 13,000 people who received conditional sentences, 5 to 6% of them served their conditional sentences in the community, depending on the year. You have the same figures.

I would like the Association des services de réhabilitation sociale du Québec Inc. to tell us how many conditional sentencees reoffended or committed other offences.

I am certain Tony Cannavino will also have information to share with us on that matter.

Income Tax Act

[Wayne Easter, Liberal, Malpeque, PE]

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deduction for volunteer emergency service).

Mr. Speaker, this bill would provide for a deduction to volunteer emergency workers of $1,000 if they perform at least 100 hours but less than 200 hours of volunteer service as an emergency worker, and $2,000 if they provide 200 hours or more of service. In other words, it would provide equity to all those who volunteer in their communities to assist their neighbours in a time of emergency. It would also give recognition to firefighters.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)