House of Commons Hansard #58 of the 36th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was grain.

Topics

Point Of Order

10:05 a.m.

The Speaker

My colleagues, I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands on February 4, 1998 concerning Bill S-4, an act to amend the Canada Shipping Act.

Before I begin, I would like to thank all the members who participated in the discussion on this matter: the hon. member for Elk Island, the hon. member for Nanaimo—Alberni and the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons.

I would especially like to commend the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands for having raised his point of order in such an articulate way that demonstrated thorough research and concise argumentation.

The hon. member argued that Bill S-4 violates Standing Order 80 because it substantially increases the limits of liability upon the government, thereby infringing on the financial privileges of the House of Commons. He concluded by requesting that Bill S-4 be removed from the Order Paper.

I wish to remind all hon. members of citation 619 of Beauchesne's sixth edition which states in part:

Under Standing Order 80, the House of Commons claims that all aids and supplies are the sole gift of the House of Commons and are not alterable by the Senate.

In other words the House of Commons claims pre-eminence in financial matters, that is, public expenditure and taxation. Public expenditure is sometimes referred to as charges upon the public revenue, and taxation as charges upon the people. Therefore, all legislation that entails charges upon the public revenue or upon the people must originate in the House.

To determine if Bill S-4 is properly before the House, the Chair must ascertain whether or not it does in fact constitute a charge upon public funds.

Before doing so, I want to say a few words regarding one of the precedents cited by the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands.

In support of his claim that Bill S-4 breached the financial privileges of the House, the hon. member made reference to a decision given by Speaker Lamoureux on June 12, 1973 concerning the then Bill S-5, an act to amend the Farm Improvement Loans Act.

At that time Speaker Lamoureux ruled that Bill S-5, while not proposing a direct expenditure did involve substantial additional liabilities on public moneys and therefore infringed on the financial privileges of the House. Obviously Speaker Lamoureux could find no financial authority to cover such liabilities and consequently ordered that notice for first reading of Bill S-5 be removed from the Order Paper.

While looking at the elements of the case before us I have discovered that there exists very few decisions in the area of liabilities and how these relate to the financial privileges of the House.

For those reasons I have relied on the well-established principles described in the 21st edition of Erskine May under the subheading “Tests used to determine whether expenditure involves a charge”. In deciding if a proposal for expenditure actually imposes a charge, May stipulates that a charge must be new and distinct. This is explained at page 712 where it is stated:

The question may arise whether a proposal for expenditure or for increased expenditure is not already covered by some general authorization. The test for determining this question in the case of a substantive proposal, that is a provision in a bill, as introduced, is a comparison with existing law.

The comparison of provisions in a bill with the law on the subject, as it exists, may show that, while such provisions undoubtedly involve expenditure, the power to incur such expenditure is covered by general powers conferred by statute.

My colleagues, I would point out to you that these are very technical matters, so I would ask that you give them some attention.

My understanding of the procedural implications of Bill S-4 is the following. The increased limits of liability are set out in the proposed amendments to the Canada Shipping Act but the actual compensation available to claimants is subject to the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act, more specifically section 30(1) of this act which states:

On receipt of a certificate of judgment against the crown issued pursuant to the regulations, the Minister of Finance shall authorize the payment out of the consolidated revenue fund of any money awarded by the judgment to any person against the crown.

To further quote from Erskine May, it is stated at page 717:

Where sufficient statutory authority already exists for payments to which bills relate, no further resolution and recommendation is required.

There follows a list of cases not requiring further authorization, one of them being case No. 2 which is “Liability, to pay damages, covered by existing law”.

What this says is that in the case of the Canada Shipping Act, provisions are made for changes to liabilities which, as the hon. member for Cypress Hills—Grasslands says, will create a charge upon the public revenue. However as Erskine May explains, where there is an act already in force to pay damages, no royal recommendation is required.

I conclude that there is already statutory authority under the Crown Liability and Proceedings Act to make the payments that Bill S-4 outlines. Therefore I would rule that Bill S-4 is in proper form and that it should remain on the Order Paper.

Monitoring And Assessment Of Employment Insurance ProgramRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Papineau—Saint-Denis Québec

Liberal

Pierre Pettigrew LiberalMinister of Human Resources Development

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to section 3(3) of the Employment Insurance Act, I have the honour to table, in both official languages, two copies of the first monitoring and assessment report on the employment insurance program, the 1997 report.

Government Response To PetitionsRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions.

Income Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10:10 a.m.

NDP

Lorne Nystrom NDP Qu'Appelle, SK

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-315, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of expense of tools provided as a requirement of employment).

Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to allow employees to deduct the cost of providing tools for their employment if they are required to do so by their employer as a condition of employment.

The deduction includes an allowance in respect to the capital cost of tools and rental, maintenance and insurance expenses. Regulations would set the appropriate depreciation rates applicable to the capital cost of various types of tools.

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

Income Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Liberal

Joe Fontana Liberal London North Centre, ON

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-316, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (interest on student loans).

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this private member's bill to amend the Income Tax Act, a bill which acknowledges that student loans are an investment in the future.

The purpose of the bill is to decrease the student loan debt load and facilitate access to post-secondary education by allowing students or their co-signers to deduct their annual interest payments on student loans from their annual taxable income.

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

Income Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-317, an act to amend the Income Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, my private member's bill is quite short and simple. It is to delete paragraph 81(1)(n) of the Income Tax Act which grants an exemption of tax to the governor general.

We feel that should not be appropriate any more.

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

Excise Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

February 12th, 1998 / 10:15 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-318, an act to amend the Excise Tax Act.

Mr. Speaker, again I have a short bill to repeal section 1 of part II of schedule III and section 1 of part VIII of schedule VI of the act which removes the GST exemption for the governor general.

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

Excise Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I was unavoidably delayed in getting here this morning. I was wondering if you could seek unanimous consent to return to tabling of reports.

Excise Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is there unanimous consent to revert to presentation of reports from committees?

Excise Tax ActRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Committees Of The HouseRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

John Williams Reform St. Albert, AB

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. The report deals with Health Canada and our investigation into Health Canada's performance of delivery of services to first nations across the country.

Pursuant to Standing Order 109 of the House of Commons, the committee requests the government to table a comprehensive response to this report.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Peterborough Ontario

Liberal

Peter Adams LiberalParliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

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

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Reform

John Reynolds Reform West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast, BC

Mr. Speaker, yesterday during Routine Proceedings I withdrew order paper Question No. 6 which stood in my name. That was an error, given that I wanted to withdraw P-3, a notice of motion for the production of papers.

This was an oversight given that both Q-6 and P-3 are on the same subject matter. May I reinstate Q-6 and withdraw P-3 at this time?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Is the House agreeable to the suggestion of the hon. member for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

Shall all questions stand?

Questions On The Order PaperRoutine Proceedings

10:15 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:15 a.m.

Glengarry—Prescott—Russell Ontario

Liberal

Don Boudria LiberalLeader of the Government in the House of Commons

moved:

That in relation to Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Canadian Wheat Board Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, not more than one further sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the report stage at second reading of the bill and one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill and, fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on the day allotted to the consideration of the report stage and on the day allotted to the third reading stage of the said bill, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required for the purpose of this Order, and in turn every question necessary for the disposal of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively without further debate or amendment.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

No.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Yea.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

The Deputy Speaker

All those opposed will please say nay.

Canadian Wheat Board ActGovernment Orders

10:20 a.m.

Some hon. members

Nay.