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.