Debates of Oct. 4th, 1995

Points Of Order

[George Baker, Liberal, Gander—Grand Falls, NL]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order relating to a finance committee meeting I attended yesterday, an excellent committee, as I am reminded. This committee dealt with Bill S-9, a Senate bill referred to the committee and on which we heard evidence.

During the evidence in the committee meeting it became clear that the bill imposes expenditures on the Government of Canada. The amount of money involved per year, as was pointed out in the committee and which evidence I could lay before you, Mr. Speaker, involves perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars. It was part of budgetary provisions dating back to 1992, budget papers from 1992 and 1993. A provision of the bill also is retroactive to November 10, 1988, which requires an expenditure of public funds.

Mr. Speaker, I refer you to two decisions made in this Chamber and contained in the books of Speaker Lamoureux, which are truly the decisions that mark the difference between the powers of the Commons and the powers of the Senate. I do not have the decisions of Justice Lamoureux before me, but one of them is on page 174 and the other 175.

The decision on page 174 was made on November 12, 1969 when the Senate approved a bill for the dissolution of the Dominion Coal Corporation at that time. An MP by the name of Baldwin stood in the Chamber and objected that this involved an expenditure of public funds.

The Speaker at the time set aside a period in which he heard arguments as to whether it was an expenditure of public funds. After listening to the arguments he said no, this bill must come in as per Standing Order 62 at that time, which is Standing Order 79(1) today, which is that royal recommendation is required for any expenditure of public money.

The second decision was made on June 12, 1972, again by Speaker Lamoureux. It was the same instance where a government bill came through the Senate. An objection was launched at that time that although the bill did not involve an immediate expenditure of public funds, it committed the government to an expenditure in the future.

The ruling at that time was that yes, according to Standing Order 63, presently Standing Order 80(1) under Beauchesne's sixth edition, if a bill involves an expenditure of money then it cannot be brought in through the Senate.

My objection is according to Standing order 79(1), which says quite clearly that it is the crown that demands, the Commons that grants and the Senate that accedes to that grant, it is the prerogative of the House of Commons, not the Senate, and it must be done with royal recommendation by the executive, by the crown. It cannot be done through the Senate. Standing Order 80(1) states quite clearly that the Senate's only role is to accede to such a request. It cannot even amend such a request.

The evidence is quite clear that on the one hand the expenditure of public money involved is that it reduces by 50 per cent the tax on any profits made by U.S. multinationals in Canada. That is the expenditure, approximately $130 million to $135 million per year. This is supported, incidentally, by the Reform Party and the Bloc wholeheartedly.

The expenditure involves in the last clause of the bill a retroactive provision in the case of payments that involve the payment by the Government of Canada of a tax credit for anybody who was subjected to the estate tax in the United States. If people who had property of over $600,000 in the U.S. are subjected to the estate tax, Canada will provide a tax credit to offset that on their foreign based income. That is dated back to November 10, 1988, which would impose an immediate expenditure on the Government of Canada. The rest of it would impose an expenditure, a loss in tax expenditures for all time to come.

Mr. Speaker, it is not that the bill would be defeated by your ruling, because all of the political parties in this Chamber support the bill. I am saying this violates the privileges of the Canadian House of Commons as seen in precedent and as seen in our standing orders. This should come back and be presented in the correct manner.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, with great respect to the hon. member's very able argument, I think he has misconstrued the point in Standing Orders 79 and 80 of the House of Commons.

Standing order 79(1) reads:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

He is quite correct in stating that is the case.

Bill S-9, an act to amend the Canada-U.S. tax convention, is not a bill for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for any tax or impost. What it does is change the effect of the taxation laws of Canada through the application of various rules under this tax convention, which may result in the refund of revenues already received by the Government of Canada. This is not an expenditure of government funds; this is a refund of money that was collected from Canadian citizens pursuant to the tax laws of Canada, which are being amended by this tax convention because similar moneys were taken from these persons as a result of the application of the tax laws of the United States.

Everyone in the House is aware that tax conventions exist for the purpose of avoiding double taxation on the citizens of the two countries involved in the convention.

The hon. member has misconstrued the repayment of tax revenues already received as appropriations of public money. That was not the intention either of the standing order or of the constitutional practice in this regard. In support of that submission I refer Your Honour to citation 599 of Beauchesne's sixth edition:

If any motion, whether in the House or in a committee, requires, but fails to receive, the recommendation of the Crown, it is the duty of the Speaker to announce that no question can be proposed upon the motion, or declare the bill out of order, or to say that the problem may be rectified by the proposer obtaining a Royal Recommendation.

I do not disagree with that. Citation 600 states:

The principle that the sanction of the Crown must be given to every grant of money drawn for the public revenue applies equally to the taxation levied to provide that revenue.

In other words, a royal recommendation is required on a bill to impose a tax on the subject-and this bill does not; there is no dispute on that-and any bill to authorize the expenditure of public funds.

There is no expenditure authorized. What is authorized here is different. It is a refund of taxation which has been taken from the subject that is being changed by virtue of the application of the tax treaty. The tax treaty was ratified in the other place in the form of this bill which has been sent to the House for concurrence and the committee was very properly studying concurrence in the bill.

In my experience, and I have watched this kind of procedure for some time, tax conventions are almost invariably introduced as bills in the other place. Many of those tax conventions as a result of their passage involve repayment of money to Canadian citizens. In my experience there has not been a royal recommendation attached to any of those bills. There could not have been, or they would not have been introduced in the other place first.

They are introduced there because it is permissible to introduce technical bills of that kind in the Senate, the ones that do not require royal recommendation. That has been done in this case. In my experience it has been the invariable practice with respect to tax convention implementation legislation. I submit there is nothing irregular in this procedure. The hon. member has simply misconstrued the notion of refund of taxation as an expenditure of public funds. I submit they are not the same.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.

The hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls referred to Standing Order 80 which would preclude a Senate bill coming to the finance committee if it dealt with aids and supplies. This is not an aid or supply.

As the hon. parliamentary secretary has indicated, it has been the custom of the House for as long as I can recall to have tax treaty amendments of which there have been probably 70 or 80 in the past decade and a half originate in the Senate. I commend the Senate for the excellent job it has done in dealing with these very complicated and detailed pieces of legislation. It is not an area where those who

have not done a lot of work and a lot of study are really capable of assessing the implications.

I concur with the hon. parliamentary secretary. This is not an aid or supply. This has been our tradition. It has worked very well. This is an excellent piece of legislation, supported by all members of the House.

[John Solomon, NDP, Regina—Lumsden, SK]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on behalf of the New Democratic Party on this point of order.

The New Democratic Party agrees with the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls who raised the matter of Bill S-9 being a bill that will cause a great deal of expenditure from the treasury to people retroactively, in particular to people who have a great deal of wealth to start with.

There is an assumption that the New Democratic Party supports Bill S-9. I make it perfectly clear that the bill is an unfair bill for taxpayers. The New Democratic Party does not support it. I support the contention of the hon. member for Gander-Grand Falls with respect to having the bill reviewed by Your Honour to see if it is in order.

[John Nunziata, Liberal, York South—Weston, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I have a letter in front of me from the Minister of Finance in which he refers to the subject matter my friend from Gander-Grand Falls raised as a cost presumably to the taxpayers of Canada. He pegs that cost at $125 million for 1995-96 and $145 million for 1996-97.

We are not dealing with petty cash here. We are dealing with a significant amount of taxpayers' dollars. What ordinary Canadians want to know is if it is such an important piece of legislation, why is it coming via the unelected Senate of Canada? Since when does an unelected group of men and women down the hall from this elected Chamber introduce legislation that will have the result of withdrawing from the public purse $125 million this year and $145 million next year?

Surely that moral and legal right ought to be that of the government of the day. It is the government that should be setting public policy, not unelected senators.

I lend my support to the member who raised this point. If it is the government's wish, and I understand the government is supporting this initiative, why bring in the back door what they do not have the courage to bring in through the front door?

Let us have an honest debate in the House of Commons. Let us have them introduce it as a government bill. Let us debate it at second reading. Let us send it to the committee. Let us have the courage as elected people to call a spade a spade.

The minister refers to it as a cost in his letter. It must be a cost because it will cost you and I and every other taxpayer close to $300 million over the next two years.

[The Speaker]

As a general rule I do not want to get into a debate on a point of order. The parliamentary secretary has spoken once. I appreciate the interventions that have taken place.

This is a very important point of order that has come before the House. I wonder if members would give me a day or two to do the research on my own, to have a look at it. Then I will come back to the House at that time with a decision and we will see where we are going from there. I would prefer to do that.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I want to answer the allegations made by the hon. member for York South-Weston. Not that I am seeking to defend the other place in my comments, but it is very important that he recognize this is a government bill.

The bill was introduced by the government in the other place. It is sponsored in the House by the Minister of Finance. It was debated at second reading in the House, referred to committee and will be debated at third reading in the House. It is a government bill. It is going through the same process that every other government bill goes through in the House.

[The Speaker]

I thank all hon. members for their interventions. I will apprise myself of the situation. If members will give me time to look at it, I will come back to the House with a decision.

Committees Of The House

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to table before the House the 18th report of the House of Commons Standing Committee on Finance.

The report deals with Bill C-9, the bill just mentioned in the House. It was passed unanimously by the committee yesterday.

I thank members of all parties who were there and who assisted us so diligently in our work.

[Derek Lee, Liberal, Scarborough—Rouge River, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present, in both official languages, the 10th report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, being the first report of the subcommittee on national security.

Pursuant to Standing Order 108(2) the committee has agreed to the first report of the subcommittee on national security on the subject of document and personnel security.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 the committee requests a comprehensive response to the report within 150 days.

[John Godfrey, Liberal, Don Valley West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the eighth report of the Standing Committee on Industry.

The report relates to the Canadian Tourism Commission and follows on discussions the committee held with commission officials in March of this year.

The Canadian Tourism Commission was created by order in council in January 1995 and has recently submitted to the industry committee its charter and 1995-96 business plan.

The committee intends to continue monitoring the commission's progress over the coming months.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the 88th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in relation to the committee's consideration of the objections filed in accordance with the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The committee respectfully requests that the deadline be extended to November 30, 1995.

If the House gives its consent I would move that the 88th report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs be concurred in.

(Motion agreed to.)

Petitions

[Ronald J. Duhamel, Liberal, St. Boniface, MB]

Mr. Speaker, the petitioners believe that violence and abuse in society need to be reduced, in fact if possible to be eliminated. They also believe that they affect young children in a very negative kind of way and do not see any need for violence and abuse to inform, educate or entertain.

I had the honour just over a week ago to address the CRTC hearings on this very topic and again today in the House. I am pleased to support the petition.

[Jane Stewart, Liberal, Brant, ON]

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour for me to present a petition to the House that has been signed by hundreds of Canadians and continues to be circulated across the country.

The petitioners understand that more than 100 million anti-personnel land mines are laid around the world and indiscriminately kill or maim between 1,000 and 2,000 men, women and children every month. They understand that land mines impoverish communities by denying access to land and impede social and economic post-conflict reconstruction.

Therefore they petition Parliament to legislate the prohibition in Canada of the use, production, stockpiling, sale, trade and transfer of all anti-personnel land mines; to work for an international convention banning these activities; and to ask the Canadian government to increase its contributions to the United Nations for assistance in land mine clearance and for programs that would rehabilitate mine victims.

[Paul Szabo, Liberal, Mississauga South, ON]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition which has been circulating across Canada. The petition has been signed by a number of Canadians from Surrey and Langley, B.C.

The petitioners would like to draw to the attention of the House that managing the family home and caring for preschool children is an honourable profession which has not been recognized for its value to our society. They also state that the Income Tax Act discriminates against families that make the choice to provide care in the home to preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.

The petitioners therefore pray and call upon Parliament to pursue initiatives to eliminate tax discrimination against families that decide to provide care in the home for preschool children, the disabled, the chronically ill, or the aged.

[Ted McWhinney, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by 405 Canadian citizens of Vietnamese origin. They pray for the intervention of Parliament to help in securing the release of religious, cultural and academic leaders now under detention, arrest or imprisonment in Vietnam.

[Bill Graham, Liberal, Rosedale, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by over 150 Canadians from my riding in Rosedale and from as far away as Vancouver. They call upon Parliament to create an environment of justice and equality in Canada by amending the human rights act to prohibit discrimination based on sexual orientation.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege to present two petitions today.

The first is from students who draw to the attention of the House that professional organization and union dues are obligatory and are therefore deductible under the Income Tax Act whereas the student association fees they are required to pay are not deductible. They call upon Parliament to amend the Income Tax Act to allow

students to deduct their fees as other professionals do from their employment income.

[Marlene Catterall, Liberal, Ottawa West, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by over 400 people. They remind Parliament that discrimination which occurs daily against lesbian, gay and bisexual Canadians is unacceptable in a country known for its commitment to human rights and equality. They call upon Parliament to act quickly to amend the human rights act to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and to recognize the equality of same sex relationships.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, I have three separate petitions to present today.

The first is from 57 petitioners who request that Parliament institute complete recycling, waste reduction, energy and resource conservation, clean up and zero pollution programs.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition is from 220 signatories from Ontario and Quebec. They request that Parliament legislate a more effective, productive and cost efficient method of unemployment relief, a policy of paying from these funds three million people $1,200 per year to work at entry level positions in understaffed public and private institutions.

[Beryl Gaffney, Liberal, Nepean, ON]

Mr. Speaker, the third petition has 34 signatories who call upon Parliament to redesign, restructure, reorganize or replace ineffective government structures and systems if needed in order to address the poor state of our national economic, social and environmental health in a timely and cost efficient manner.

Questions On The Order Paper

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.

[The Deputy Speaker]

Is that agreed?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.