Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Indeed, I was interviewed by The Globe and Mail at some point a few weeks back. The reporter questioned me as to the activities of the finance department in this regard. At first I didn't believe it. I said, “Well, surely you must be misreading what they're doing.” Then he gave me the details. Obviously, I came to the conclusion that it was improper.
Contrary to what was said today, this is not the first time the finance department has done this. Both Speaker Milliken and I were members in 1989, when the finance department did the opposite of what it's doing now. In fact, it had pretended that the GST was the law. It was sending out circulars. If my memory serves me right, it had bought TV time and was advertising a tax that Parliament had not passed. It was severely admonished by then Speaker John Fraser at the time. I recall the incident. I believe I spoke about it. Peter Milliken probably did as well, as we were both very interested in parliamentary procedure. We're probably the last two non-parliamentarians who still are. In any event, this is not something that's unprecedented.
I would gladly answer all questions later.
There is the issue of the Interpretation Act. There is the Royal Assent Act, as well, to take into consideration here. Finally, if and when the government moves ahead with a bill, it must be preceded by a ways and means motion. What the government would be doing, should it change this to revoke the provisions for a certain group that it thinks the bill possibly could be too wide for, this would constitute what is called in parliamentary jargon the “revocation of tax alleviation”. Revocation of tax alleviation requires a ways and means motion before a new bill can be presented to the House.