Debates of Feb. 2nd, 1998

Violence In Algeria

[The Speaker]

The hon. member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre has the floor.

Banking

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

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance.

A recent CFIB survey confirms what many small businesses and farmers have been saying for years, that bank loans are too expensive and harder to get. What proof can the minister give this House that this monster merger will be better for small businesses and farmers? Or at the very least can he promise it will not make things worse?

[Paul Martin, Liberal, Minister of Finance]

Mr. Speaker, the industry committee has taken this matter up for quite some time. In fact the member from Spadina has made this a particular cause of his.

Over the course of the last two to three years, there has been a substantial improvement as a result of the monitoring that has been brought forth by members of this House. I can assure the House that will continue. In fact this is one of the issues which the task force will be looking at. We suggested that the task force look at it. It will certainly form part of the great public debate in this House and across the country.

Iraq

[David Price, Progressive Conservative, Compton—Stanstead, QC]

Mr. Speaker, the chief of defence staff said that Canada could send some help to the gulf region within nine hours of the order being given. I understand that our soldiers, sailors and airmen are not as confident.

Will the Minister of National Defence tell the House what is the state of readiness of our forces and what will Canada be capable of sending within nine hours when requested by our closest allies?

[Art Eggleton, Liberal, Minister of National Defence]

Mr. Speaker, first of all there has been no request. If such a request was received, it would have to be given serious consideration. What would be sent if that became a reality would depend on the nature of the mission, the nature of the military action.

The Canadian forces do have rapidly deployable units which are capable of moving on very short notice. However as has been said by my colleague and by the prime minister, the hope is that Saddam Hussein will come to his senses and abide by the UN Security Council resolution and that a diplomatic resolution will be found.

Points Of Order

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, my point of order today concerns Bill S-3, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act.

To begin, I would point out that the official opposition supports the principle of this bill but it is not the principle of the bill which concerns us. What concerns us is the introduction of public bills in the Senate and in particular the breach of the constitutional principle that money bills must be introduced in the House of Commons.

Ethically there are many reasons why the Senate should not be introducing the legislation. Constitutionally there is only one. Section 53 of the Constitution Act 1867 provides that bills for appropriating any part of the public revenue or for imposing any tax or impost shall originate in the House of Commons.

While this seems to be a clear and well understood principle, the application—

[The Speaker]

Order. I am sure that all hon. members will want to hear the point of order of the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I know it is hard for them to understand when we talk about the Senate but we will get through this.

While this seems to be a clear and well understood principle, the application of it over the years is not always clear or well understood.

I would like to refer to an article from the

Ottawa Law Review

entitled “Money Bills and the Senate” by Elmer A. Driedger. Mr. Driedger argues:

Perhaps the strongest argument in favour of the Commons can be found on the theory that under our Constitution, representation and consent form the basis of the power of the Commons to grant money and impose taxes. Through the centuries the principle was maintained that taxation required representation and consent. The only body in Canada that meets this test is the House of Commons. The elected representatives of the people sit in the Commons, and not in the Senate and consistently with history and tradition, they may well insist that the Commons alone have the right to decide to the last cent what money is to be granted and what taxes are to be imposed.

If we are to insist that the Commons alone has the right to decide to the last cent what money is to be granted, then I would propose that legislation should never be introduced in the Senate. It is unethical, unnecessary and undemocratic.

Having said that, Bill S-3 has been introduced in the Senate and is now on our Order Paper here in the House of Commons. This bill deals with aspects of private pension funds which are of such financial importance to taxpayers that it must be considered a money bill. Its impact on Canadian pension funds is significant enough to warrant the accountability of an elected House, as Mr. Driedger and other experts have pointed out.

Another consideration can be found in F.A. Kunz's “The Modern Senate of Canada”. There is a reference to the war risk insurance bill of 1942. The government had to accept a number of amendments made by the Senate, except one which enabled the minister to enter into an agreement with provincially registered insurance companies. After debate Mr. Iisley told the House on July 29, 1942 that the Senate in fact “contravenes constitutional usage and practice because the alteration of that scheme in any important particular is the alteration of what is essentially and soundly considered a financial bill”.

The Senate through Bill S-3 is attempting to do essentially the same thing as the Senate tried to do with its amendment to the war risk insurance bill of 1942. Bill S-3 is attempting among other things to enable the minister to enter into agreements with designated provincial authorities respecting the application of provincial law to any pension plan that is subject to federal jurisdiction.

If the Senate amendment to the war risk insurance bill of 1942 contravened constitutional usage, then surely a bill attempting to do a similar thing originating in the Senate is a breach of the financial privileges of this House.

The Pension Benefits Standards Act and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act are sound financial acts. If the Senate is to amend those acts, it is amending financial acts. The government in its own terms of reference is referring Bill S-3 to the Standing Committee on Finance. Bill S-3 is a financial bill.

Furthermore Bill S-3 was introduced as Bill C-45 in the last Parliament. They are essentially the same bill. The government felt it necessary in the last Parliament to attach a royal recommendation to Bill C-45, an act to amend the Pension Benefits Standards Act, 1985 and the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions Act. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, royal recommendations are attached to money bills. The government by its own actions therefore considers Bill S-3 to be a money bill.

In conclusion, the members are concerned over the slow erosion of their power. Just recently we lost an important battle regarding the supply process which has rendered the influence of members in this House to that of a rubber stamp to the government. Members of this House cannot be further humiliated by becoming a rubber stamp for an unelected Senate. We have yet to get over the degradation of the treatment given our private members' bills.

It is high time that the benefit of doubt be given to the members of this House instead of the government and the unelected and unaccountable senators.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Mr. Speaker, I want to respectfully disagree with the submission made by the hon. House leader for the opposition.

In his submission the hon. member claims that this bill is a money bill and therefore it is constitutionally incorrect for the bill to have been presented to the Senate before the House of Commons. That is the essence of his statement today.

Mr. Speaker, you will know of course that the hon. member further stated that in his view no bill shall be presented to the Senate before the House. Of course the Constitution of our country is such that bills generally, with the exception of money bills—and I will get to that in a minute—can be presented to either House of Parliament.

Last fall hon. members across the way made the argument that government bills should not be presented to the Senate at all. Your honour adjudicated on that matter and stated that that submission by members across the way was wrong, that in fact both Houses did have the constitutional authority for bills generally. On that point I would submit that the hon. member lost the battle previously.

On the second issue as to whether or not this bill is a money bill, the bill is not a money bill. The hon. member himself admitted in his submission that the bill did not have a royal recommendation. He says that a similar bill in a previous Parliament did. It may be that a bill somewhat similar or even identical did have a royal recommendation. That is not the issue. The issue is whether a royal recommendation was required. A royal recommendation not having been required, there was no royal recommendation in the Senate nor is there one with the bill now in this House.

If there is no royal recommendation necessary for the bill, it is quite constitutional for the bill to be presented first before either house of Parliament and to the other house subsequently. This is exactly the process that has occurred with regard to this bill.

Finally, going back to the other point raised by the hon. member across the way, he submitted as he also did last year at one point, that bills should not originate in the Senate at all.

I want to remind the Speaker and the House that I put on the record last fall with Mr. Speaker that a bill in the last Parliament first introduced by the Senate and then subsequently dealt with by the House required a stand up division vote on which he and other members of his party voted favourably.

[Bill Blaikie, NDP, Winnipeg—Transcona, MB]

Mr. Speaker, I want to register the fact that the NDP caucus shares the concern of the Reform Party on this. In the past we have expressed our concern about bills being introduced in the Senate.

The government House leader says that no royal recommendation has been required in this case. One asks oneself whether no royal recommendation was attached in order to avoid having the bill properly characterized as a money bill. It is certainly arguable that it is in fact a money bill given its similarity to other bills that have been so understood.

I would like to make a further point which I have made before. In the current political context it is more and more inappropriate for bills to be introduced in the Senate no matter what they are. The NDP members have always felt this way. There have never been New Democrats in the Senate. Now with the addition of the Reform Party and the Bloc, we have three parties out of five that are not sitting in the Senate.

The undemocratic nature of the Senate and the unrepresentative nature of the Senate therefore becomes much more an issue than it was in some previous era where there were Liberals and Conservatives in this House and Liberals and Conservatives in the other house. I say that from the point of view of New Democrats who have always felt that and we have more company in our discomfort now than we may have had in the past.

This point needs to be made over and over again. There are two things. The government, if not for technical procedural reasons, should for good political process and democratic reasons desist from introducing bills in the Senate and make sure that they go through the elected House first where all parties are represented and where the broad spectrum of Canadian public opinion is represented. Second, the government should give heed to the various calls for Senate reform and take some action on reforming the other place or getting rid of it altogether depending on what we come up with.

[Chuck Strahl, Reform, Fraser Valley, BC]

Mr. Speaker, listening to the House leader for the NDP I am not sure if misery loves company or what the phrase is that follows, but I have to concur with much of what he said. I would also add to that besides the fact that we need the Senate reform and besides the fact that the Senate is unrepresentative and undemocratic and all those other good things that we have a consensus on, I urge you, Mr. Speaker, when you rule on this to consider the trends that are happening in Parliament.

On a previous point of order on another unrelated issue you ruled against a point of order that I had brought forth on the way the government had acted. You ruled against me but you chastised the government and the finance department in that case for all too often taking this House of Commons for granted. You did not rule in my favour but you basically said “I'm warning you not to keep this up, don't persist in this action or else”.

We are now up to five or six bills introduced into the Senate. I know previously you said that a bill introduced in the Senate was not that big a thing. It was not unconstitutional. But look at what is happening if you would. This bill which the government House leader says is not a money bill is by his admission not a money bill because he just did not bother stapling a royal recommendation to the bill. Yet a few months ago he did staple the royal recommendation.

In other words, just tearing off that one piece of paper suddenly in his mind makes it unnecessary to bother with the royal recommendation. That does not make it so.

Second, Mr. Speaker, when you see now five or six bills introduced in the Senate, think of where we are going with this. I urge Mr. Speaker to consider that this House, as the House of the common people, the House where democracy should be heard and heard first, is where the bill should be introduced.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to take that into consideration when you make your ruling later on.

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

Mr. Speaker, as the member opposite has said, a money bill by definition must either appropriate part of the federal revenue or it must raise a tax.

That a bill can be described as being important does not make it technically a money bill. If it does not spend money or raise taxes, even if it deals with financial issues, it is not a money bill. The member opposite, I would suggest, failed to demonstrate that any clause of the bill either spends money or raises a tax.

I hope you will take those points into consideration, Mr. Speaker.

[Bill Gilmour, Reform, Nanaimo—Alberni, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I believe what we often deal with in this House is not black, it is not white, it is grey and this is one of those grey areas that you will have to deal with.

Arguably this is a money bill. This will be your decision. But I believe what we are dealing with here is the inch worm. It is the wedge.

If you rule against the Reform Party on this point of order, how far down the road do we have to go? Do we have to go to the state of the Australian Parliament where the Senate which could deal with money bills formed a gridlock? The Australian Parliament ceased to function. Is that where this Parliament is going? Is that how far we want to go down that road? Do we have to get there? I do not think we do.

Mr. Speaker, I urge you to look at this in the context of how far down the road we are going to stop it. I believe the time is now.

[The Speaker]

Colleagues will remember that early in the session I ruled that bills could emanate from the Senate. However, a new point has been brought up and this is what is arguable here. I have had arguments from both sides. I would remind the House that the Speaker rules in favour of the House. He does not rule for or against one side or the other. There is a matter brought before your Speaker and I will have a look at all sides of the argument. I would like some time to deliberate on some specific points which are causing me to think out loud and I will come back to the House if necessary.

I have another point of order, the hon. member for Langley—Abbotsford.

[Randy White, Reform, Langley—Abbotsford, BC]

Mr Speaker, I understand all parties in this House have been consulted and agree on the following motion. I move:

That, notwithstanding any standing order or usual practice of the House, on Wednesday, February 4, 1998, no proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 38 shall take place, and, commencing at the ordinary time of daily adjournment on that day, a motion to adjourn shall be deemed to have been proposed and shall be debated under the following conditions:

1. Members may speak for no more than 20 minutes on the ice storm of January 1998, provided that two members may be permitted to divide one twenty minute time period;

2. During the debate no dilatory motions or quorum calls may be received;

3. When no members wish to speak, the motion shall be deemed to have been adopted.

(Motion agreed to)

Government Response To Petitions

[Peter Adams, Liberal, Parliamentary 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 responses to 11 petitions.

Canada Evidence Act

[Anne McLellan, Liberal, Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada]

moved that Bill S-5, an act to amend the Canada Evidence Act and the Criminal Code in respect of persons with disabilities, to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act in respect of persons with disabilities, and other matters, and to make consequential amendments to other acts, be read the first time.

(Motion agreed to and bill read the first time)

Petitions

[Rick Borotsik, Progressive Conservative, Brandon—Souris, MB]

Mr. Speaker, it has been a busy month since the House last sat. It is my pleasure to present a petition with respect to the Canadian Wheat Board bill, Bill C-4, which will come back to the House either today or tomorrow for further debate. I would like to read the petition submitted by a number of signatories.

It states that Bill C-4 does not make the necessary changes to the Canadian Wheat Board that the majority of western Canadian farmers want to ensure that the CWB operates in the best interests of the producer, that Bill C-4 opens the possibility of including more crops under the Canadian Wheat Board's jurisdiction which will adversely affect the marketing and processing of non-board crops.

Therefore the petitioners call on Parliament to withdraw parts of Bill C-4 that would allow for additional crops to be marketed by the CWB and that no more crops be brought under the Canadian Wheat Board's monopoly.

I wish to table this as a petition of my constituents of western Canada.

[Dale Johnston, Reform, Wetaskiwin, AB]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 150 constituents from Wetaskiwin. They say that the CRTC on July 22, 1997 refused to license four religious television broadcasters including one Roman Catholic service and three multidenominational services. On that same day the CRTC did license the pornographic Playboy channel television service.

These people believe that they have a constitutional right to freedom of religion, conscience and expression. Therefore the petitioners pray that Parliament review the mandate of the CRTC and direct it to administer a new policy which will encourage the licensing of religious broadcasts.

[Nelson Riis, NDP, Kamloops, BC]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36. The petitioners point out that other countries use their taxes in a very creative way. Ireland requires no income tax from artists in an effort to promote the artistic community in that country. In Taiwan teachers pay no income tax. Again this indicates the importance placed on teachers and young children.

They suggest that Canada should undertake changes to its tax system in order to encourage certain sectors. They point out the small business sector and those people who have launched self-conducting businesses, people running businesses on their own, home based businesses and that sort of thing.

I support the point they are making here, that tax reform is highly overdue.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to present two petitions today. The first petition gives the opportunity for this House to give meaning to the government's words of working in partnership with aboriginal people. This is a petition for a public inquiry of Ipperwash.

Whereas many questions concerning the events preceding, during and after the fatal shooting of Anthony Dudley George on September 6, 1995 at Ipperwash provincial park, where over 200 armed officers were sent to control 25 unarmed men and women, have not been answered, and whereas the Constitution of Canada requires that Canada protect Indians and Indian lands, the undersigned petition the House of Commons that a full public inquiry be held into the events surrounding the fatal shooting of Dudley George on September 6, 1995 to eliminate all misconceptions held by and about governments, the OPP and the Stony Point people.

I take pleasure in submitting this on behalf of the signatories whose names cover eight pages.

[Gordon Earle, NDP, Halifax West, NS]

Mr. Speaker, the second petition concerns fair pensions for Canadians. This petition has over 100 signatures. It calls for the rescinding of Bill C-2. It further petitions the House of Commons for a national review of the retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system today and tomorrow. I take pleasure in presenting this petition.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present two petitions. The first petition is similar to the one presented by my colleague from Halifax West. It is signed by many petitioners from British Columbia and is on the subject of the pension system.

The petitioners note that the CPP, the OAS and the GIS are the cornerstones of Canada's social safety net. The petitioners support a publicly administered universal pension plan. They call upon parliament to rescind Bill C-2, which makes major changes to the Canada pension plan.

Further, they petition the House for a national review of the retirement income system in Canada to ensure the adequacy of Canada's retirement system for today and tomorrow.

[Svend Robinson, NDP, Burnaby—Douglas, BC]

Mr. Speaker, I have another petition I wish to present. It is signed by hundreds of residents of my constituency as well as elsewhere in British Columbia.

The petition notes that there continue to exist over 30,000 nuclear weapons on earth and that the continuing existence of nuclear weapons poses a threat to the health and survival of human civilization and the global environment.

Therefore the petitioners urge that parliament support the immediate initiation and conclusion by the year 2000 of an international convention which will set out a binding timetable for the abolition of all nuclear weapons.

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

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present a petition on behalf of a number of individuals from Athabasca, Lac La Biche and Edmonton, Alberta, as well as other locations.

The petitioners are concerned about the tax structure. They feel that corporate contributions to public revenue are too low and among the lowest of all the G-7 countries. They are very concerned about the individuals' share of federal revenue in terms of the taxes being paid. They are also in opposition to the harmonization of the GST which the Liberal government has put forward.

The petitioners call upon the House of Commons and the Government of Canada to undertake a fair tax reform dealing with all these issues including the high taxes on gasoline.