Mr. Speaker, I want to take but a few moments and just go over some of the obligations set forth in the bill. I have read the bill. It is a very short bill.
For instance, clause 2 of the bill states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall”--it is an obligation--“cause memorial plaques to be installed” and so on. Paragraph 2(1)(c) says again that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall establish a permanent museum...”. Subclause 2(2) states, “The Minister of Canadian Heritage shall arrange for suitable ceremonies...”.
Subclause 3(1) states that the Minister of Canadian Heritage “shall negotiate with the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association...a suitable payment...”. The words are “a suitable payment“. Subclause 3(2) identifies that “The restitution payment shall be applied...”. In other words, there is no possibility here that there will not be a payment. It is a payment of some sort, in other words, an obligation on the Crown.
Paragraph 3(2)(a) again states that the payment “shall” include “the development and production of educational materials...”. This is an obligation as part of the payment, not instead of but in addition to some form of payment.
Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice , the 22nd edition, informs us on pages 732 and 733 of the following:
It was a central factor in the historical development of parliamentary influence and power that the Sovereign was obliged to obtain the consent of Parliament (and particularly of the House of Commons as representative of the people) to the levying of taxes to meet the expenditure of the State. But the role of Parliament in respect of State expenditure and taxation has never been one of initiation: it was for the Sovereign to demand money and for the Commons to respond to the demand.
In other words, it has to originate in this place and of course from a minister. Erskine May continues:
The development of responsible government and the assumption by the Government of the day of the traditional role and powers of the Crown in relation to public finance have not altered this basic constitutional principle: the Crown demands money, the Commons grant it, and the Lords assent to the grant.
That is the order. No other order is contemplated. At page 733, we read about “Charges upon the public revenue or upon public funds”. Erskine May states:
A charge 'upon the public revenue' or 'upon public funds' now means an obligation...
I remind Mr. Speaker of the word “shall” all throughout the bill. I read it six or seven times. Then, in brackets to the above, is added “(or a potential obligation)”.
There is nothing potential in this bill at all. Everything is an obligation because the possibility of non-payment is not even contemplated in the bill, should the bill pass. I will continue to read from same section of Erskine May, which states:
--to make a payment out of the Consolidated Fund....
In other words, a potential obligation to make a payment would offend this principle and this is not potential; it is stronger than that. I will keep reading to the end of the sentence: It states:
--or the National Loans Fund to cover an item of public expenditure.
I just wanted to raise these two items with the Speaker: one, the bill leaves no discretion at all as to whether or not the obligation is there; and two, that obligation can only be initiated by a minister, receive the consent of this House and then go to the other House. No other sequence, according to Erskine May, is suitable or even acceptable.