Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to the terms of reference for Bill C-92 and Bill C-93.
Notice has been given to refer these bills to committee before second reading. The minister has already moved to refer Bill C-92 to committee before second reading pursuant to Standing Order 73(1). Bill C-93 is the next item on the government's list today and we have already received notice that this bill will also be subject to Standing Order 73(1).
I bring this to your attention today because this is a new standing order and it is under test. We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to ensure that the intent of a new standing order is not distorted and we must ensure that any rights and traditions are not intentionally thwarted by any distortion of the use of a new standing order.
On Monday, April 7, 1997 the House passed a ways an means motion which adopted the budgetary policy of the government. On Tuesday, April 8, 1997 the House adopted two ways and means motions upon which Bill C-92 and Bill C-93 are based. The procedure to send a bill to committee before seconding reading allows a committee to bring forward amendments that can alter the principle of the bill and go beyond the scope of the bill. That is its purpose. There should be no other reason for the government to send a bill to committee before second reading.
I would argue that if the House adopts the budgetary policy of the government and then adopts a ways and means motion which leads to a bill, that bill cannot and should not be subject to a process that could alter the bill in such a way that it would be different from the ways and means motion. I will argue that the only process for a bill that is based on a ways and means motion is the traditional process where the bill is adopted in principle before being subject to committee study.
I Refer to Beauchesne's sixth edition, citation 983:
(1) A bill, related to a Ways and Means resolution, must be based on-the resolution.
(2) The most desirable practice is for the bill to adhere strictly to the provisions of the resolution, and departures, if any, ought to be subject to the strictest interpretation.
Citation 984 deals specifically with the committee consideration:
If any of the provisions of the bill should be found to go beyond the Ways and Means resolutions as agreed to by the House:
(a) a further motion must be passed by the House before those provisions in the bill are considered by committee; or,
(b) the bill must be amended so as to conform to the motions to which the House has agreed.
Citations 988:
Amendments must not exceed the scope, increase the amount or extend the incidence of any charge upon the public, defined by the terms of the Ways and Means resolutions, by which the provisions proposed to be amended are authorized.
Citation 989:
The motion by which a tax is proposed in the House is now treated as an effective expression of the financial initiative of the Crown, and therefore, as the standard in relation to which the admissibility of amendments is determined. Accordingly, an amendment is debarred, not only from increasing the rate of a tax but also from extending its incidence to new classes.
We cannot have a process that recognizes the clear precedence that the bill must stay within the narrow confines of the ways and means motion, yet subject the bill to a process whereby the government is inviting amendments that may vary the principle of the bill and by inference go beyond the scope of the ways and means motion.
If this is the case, then how can these bills be referred to committee before second reading? It does not make procedural sense to do so. It should not be allowed under our rules to do this because it is a departure from our tradition of dealing with bills based on ways and means motions and in particular a bill to implement certain provisions of the budget which is based on two ways and means motions adopted by the House.
If we consider that the general principles of these measures have been adopted by the budgetary process and the details of the principles of these measures have been adopted by a ways and means motion, then how can we proceed to consider these bills in committee before second reading when the principle of the bill has already been fixed and determined?
It is clear that these restrictions on the way bills are based on ways and means motions are dealt with disqualifies them from being considered by a committee before second reading.
The committee cannot deviate from the ways and means motions that were passed by the House, so the proper procedure is to consider these bills in a traditional manner.
It is clear to me that what the government is trying to achieve is to abuse the rules of the House in order to fast track its budget implementation bills.
Not today, Mr. Speaker. I ask you to rule that these bills and any future bills based on ways and means motions cannot be referred to committee before second reading and that the motion we are currently debating is out of order.