Peter Milliken

[Privilege, December 7th, 2006]

I am certainly prepared to examine the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Toronto Centre in some detail and get back to the House if necessary.

My initial reaction is that we have a disagreement as to what was said and I thought the explanation offered by the Minister of Public Safety appeared to deal with the issue, but of course I will look at the questions and answers that were given today on this subject as part of the issue, since those are the ones that were complained of in question period.

Having said that, I think the government House leader raised a very good point about decorum in the House, which I stress the importance of to hon. members, and in preparation of questions particularly, because we do allow preambles to questions in this House. Members do have a limited time but they can make preambles and preambles can contain statements that we hope are always accurate. Accuracy I think is important, as both the Minister of Public Safety and the government House leader pointed out.

The member for Toronto Centre pointed out the importance of accuracy as well, although he was making it in reference to answers. If the allegations in the preambles were more accurate, I suspect maybe we would get more accurate answers, and if we did not, we would have more complaints.

I would urge all hon. members, in the preparation of their questions and answers, and I know there is some preparation that goes into this, as spontaneous as it may look from time to time in the House, to have due regard to the actual statements and references that are made, so that they are an accurate reflection of what they are quoting from or what they are alleging someone else said, rather than a summary which may distort what in fact was said and put words in the mouth of some other hon. member, which the hon. member later will deny having said.

It is not helpful to our debate if there are inaccuracies of this kind, and it is a question period to elicit information and to hold governments to account. That is the whole purpose of it and so questions can be framed in such a way that they do not necessarily distort what members of the House or ministers may have said on other occasions.

I think that is very important for all of us and I would urge hon. members on both sides of the House to bear that in mind in the course of preparation for question period, whether it be for questions or for answers, and as I say, I will get back on the question of privilege later if need be.

The Minister of Canadian Heritage is rising on a point of order.

[Points of Order, November 10th, 2006]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform on October 19, 2006, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-278, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (benefits for illness, injury or quarantine), standing in the name of the member for Sydney—Victoria.

I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for having raised this issue as well as the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst and the hon. member for Sydney—Victoria for their comments.

In his intervention, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that the employment insurance program currently includes a 15-week sickness benefit period to provide temporary income support to individuals who are injured or too sick to work. Bill C-278 would extend the maximum period for which such benefits may be paid from the current 15 weeks to 50 weeks. Therefore, he argued, the bill would result in increased spending of public revenues and should be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

On the other hand, the hon. members for Acadie—Bathurst and for Sydney—Victoria contended that it is the contributions of employers and employees that make up the employment insurance fund. The fund should not be considered public revenue, they argued, and therefore, no royal recommendation should be required.

I have carefully reviewed Bill C-278 in light of the interventions of the hon. members and find that by amending the Employment Insurance Act to extend sickness benefits from 15 weeks to 50 weeks, the bill would require the expenditure of additional funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized. Although contributions to the employment insurance program are indeed made by employers and employees, appropriations for the program are taken from the consolidated revenue fund and any increase in such spending would require a royal recommendation.

I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of the bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Meanwhile, however, the next time the House considers this bill, the debate will be on the motion for second reading, and that motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

[Points of Order, November 9th, 2006]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-284, An Act to amend the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), standing in the name of the hon. member for Halifax West.

I would like to thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary for having raised this issue as well as the hon. member for Halifax West for his comments.

In his presentation, the hon. parliamentary secretary argued that Bill C-284 seeks to create a new category of assistance for students with permanent disabilities and students from low income families, claiming that such a program does not currently exist in the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

The hon. member for Halifax West countered that this grant program already does exist and that the purpose of his bill is simply to extend the program over the course of four years.

After examining Bill C-284, the Chair has concluded that it has two objectives. First, it takes the existing Canada access grants program, established by regulation, and transfers its provisions out of the regulations into the Canada Student Financial Assistance Act.

I remind hon. members that a regulation cannot impose a charge on the public revenue without express authority having been provided in the enabling legislation. The government cannot expend funds pursuant to a regulation unless the legislation on which that regulation is based was accompanied by a royal recommendation.

In this case, then, the Canada access grants program, established by authority granted to the minister by the Canada Student Assistance Act is covered by the royal recommendation which accompanied that act. Accordingly, the Chair is satisfied that moving the program out of the regulations into the act does not violate the royal recommendation.

However, the second objective of Bill C-284 is more problematic for the Chair. As the sponsor of the bill, the hon. member for Halifax West himself pointed out, the bill seeks to expand the grants program, so that students will be eligible for grants in every year of a program rather than only during their first year of post-secondary studies. In enlarging the program in this way, the bill extends the program's scope beyond that originally envisaged.

Such an extension is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. Funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes authorized by a royal recommendation. Any extension of the terms of an existing program must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation. Through the royal recommendation accompanying the original act, the minister was able to authorize the funding of a one-year program. The royal recommendation did not cover a program of four years, as proposed in the hon. member's bill.

Therefore, the Chair must conclude that those provisions in clause 1 of the bill, which relate to increasing the availability of Canada access grants, would require a royal recommendation.

In its present form, I will therefore decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received. However, the debate is currently on the motion for second reading and the motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

[Points of Order, November 8th, 2006]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on October 3, 2006, by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the need for a royal recommendation for Bill C-285, An Act to amend the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation Act (profits distributed to provinces), standing in the name of the hon. member for Québec.

I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for having raised this important matter as well as the hon. member for Québec for her comments.

In his presentation, the hon. parliamentary secretary noted that Bill C-285 seeks to require the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation (CMHC) to distribute any surplus from its reserve fund to the provinces.

He pointed out that the bill is similar in this regard to Bill C-363, introduced during the 1st Session of the 38th Parliament and acknowledged that, in a ruling given on October 3, 2005, at pages 8293-4 of the Debates, the Deputy Speaker had ruled that Bill C-363 did not require a royal recommendation.

The Parliamentary Secretary went on to make two points which he felt were relevant to the determination of whether or not Bill C-285 requires a royal recommendation. First, quoting from section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, he asserted that all of the revenues received by CMHC fall within the definition of “public money”.

He then went on to argue that, and I quote from Debates of October 3, 2006, at page 3589:

“—the accounts of CMHC are consolidated with the government’s revenue and available for future appropriations determined by Parliament. By transferring this money to the provinces, Bill C-285 is effectively an appropriation.

I have examined this matter with care because I recognize its importance both to the government and to all hon. members. I would also like to remind the House that my role here is restricted to ensuring that our rules are respected. It is not within the responsibilities of the Chair to deal with matters of legal interpretation.

The Chair continues to have difficulty with the assertion that the proposed amendment constitutes an appropriation. As I noted in my ruling of October 3, 2005, on Bill C-363, at page 8293 of the Debates:

--the reserve fund is an operational account that CMHC uses to conduct its corporate business. Until amounts from the reserve fund are actually transferred to the Consolidated Revenue Fund each year, they are not available to the Crown for general appropriations.

As I stated in my earlier ruling and as it is defined in section 2 of the Financial Administration Act, an appropriation is the approval by Parliament for a withdrawal of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund (CRF). Funds which have not been deposited in the CRF cannot be subject to appropriation.

Until such time as funds are paid over to the Receiver General, pursuant to section 29 (2) of the CMHC Act, they are not in the CRF and they cannot be appropriated. A bill which alters the Act to require that reserve funds not be paid to the Receiver General but be used for another purpose does not touch the CRF and does not require a royal recommendation.

As such, Bill C-285 does not seek to appropriate public funds and would not require a royal recommendation.

I would once again like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for having raised this matter. As I said earlier, it is a matter of some interest to all hon. members and one on which it is best to have as clear an understanding as possible.

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2006]

I think I can deal with the point of order raised by the hon. member for Vancouver East.

I fail to see the relevance of the argument she presented today to the argument that I received yesterday concerning the proceedings in the committee, and the allocation of time and so on for the deliberations of the committee.

However, the hon. member does raise the issue first regarding the televising of committee proceedings. I can only say that I could suggest that she have her colleague, who is a member of the committee, raise the matter in the committee as a point of order and complain there because the committee, as the hon. member knows, is master of its own proceedings.

If it decided or someone decided on its behalf or some decision was made not to televise the committee, I can only imagine the frightful disappointment in the eyes of the public who may have wanted to watch what was going on. That being the case, it is still a matter for the committee to decide whether or not its televising was cancelled improperly.

The hon. member's colleague, who is on the committee, ought to raise the matter as a point of order in the committee and have the chair of the committee deal with that point of order to find out how it was that something went wrong.

Her second argument dealt with the committee sitting through question period. I am sure she is aware that some members do miss question period from time to time. We do authorize committees to travel and be away from Ottawa all together on days when the House is sitting. Those members are torn because they either go travelling to hear evidence somewhere else or they remain here for question period and all the entertainment and information that that entails.

Trying to be very judicious in my choice of words, I do not think it is a breach of hon. members' privileges to be deprived of their opportunity to be in the Chamber for question period or indeed for some other part of the debate, unless of course they are being restrained from their attendance by an intervention from some third party with the use of restraints. Then of course there would be a breach of privilege and the Speaker would be more than happy to intervene.

However, if a committee makes a decision to sit through question period or indeed, with the permission of the House, to travel somewhere else and have hearings during a day when we are sitting, I am afraid there is no question of privilege that the Chair can deal with to ameliorate the hon. members of the committee who do not want to go and who feel that they are being torn away from a very important aspect of House proceedings, namely question period.

While I can share the hon. member's concern on behalf of her colleague, again, it is a matter he should raise with the chair of the committee, present the argument in the committee, and convince his colleagues that sitting through question period is a waste of the committee's time. I am sure they would adjourn and come in here at the drop of a hat.

I would have to accordingly leave the matter in the hands of the committee.

[Points of Order, November 7th, 2006]

The Chair is now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River on November 1, 2006, concerning Bill C-257, standing in the name of the hon. member for Gatineau, and Bill C-295, standing in the name of the hon. member for Vancouver Island North. Both bills amend the Canada Labour Code in relation to replacement workers.

I want to begin by thanking the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River for having raised this matter and the hon. member for Vancouver East for having made a submission.

In his presentation, the hon. member for Scarborough—Rouge River argues that these bills are substantially the same, except for some minor differences relating to fines. A decision was taken by the House on October 18 to adopt Bill C-257 at second reading and refer it to committee. The hon. member argues, in light of this decision, that debate should not continue on Bill C-295 and that the bill should be removed from the order of precedence.

The hon. member for Vancouver East contends that although both bills deal with the same subject, they are different and, therefore, Bill C-295 should not be removed from the order of precedence.

Let me first clarify our practices with regard to items of private members’ business which are similar. Standing Order 86(4) states:

The Speaker shall be responsible for determining whether two or more items are so similar as to be substantially the same, in which case he or she shall so inform the member or members whose items were received last and the same shall be returned to the member or members without having appeared on the notice paper.

When this Standing Order was first adopted, private members' business operated very differently than it does today. The Standing Orders provided for only 20 items of private members' business to be placed by lottery on the order of precedence and provided that, of those, only three bills could come to a vote. Realistically, then, there was little chance that bills considered substantially the same would ever be drawn together and placed on the order of precedence, let alone be debated and voted upon. Given those odds, Standing Order 86(4) came to be involved only rarely: only when a bill was identical to one already introduced would it be refused. This generous interpretation is referred to in a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser on November 2, 1989, at pages 5474-5 of Debates, where he states:

I should say that in the view of the Chair, two or more items are substantially the same if, first, they have the same purpose and, second, they obtain their purpose by the same means.

Accordingly, there could be several bills addressing the same subject, but if they took a different approach to the issue the Chair would judge them to be sufficiently different so as not to be substantially the same.

The intent...was to give members an opportunity to put before the House items of concern to them, but to prevent a multiplicity of identical bills being submitted....

As Mr. Speaker Fraser explained, this interpretation had the practical effect of giving a member an opportunity to bring forward a legislative proposal on any subject, regardless of what other members might be doing. This practice has served members well until the present case.

The current Standing Orders, which were first adopted provisionally in May 2003, provide for a single draw of the names of all members at the beginning of a Parliament. On the 20th sitting day following the draw, the first 30 members on the list who have introduced a bill or given notice of a motion on the notice paper, constitute the order of precedence. Following the draw, the subcommittee on private members' business needs to determine if any of the items should be designated non-votable pursuant to Standing Order 91.1. In determining whether any of the items should be deemed non-votable, the subcommittee considers whether or not any of the bills or motions are substantially the same as ones already voted on by the House of Commons in the current session.

In the case at hand, a careful examination of both bills reveals that they have exactly the same objective, that is, to prohibit employers under the Canada Labour Code from hiring replacement workers to perform the duties of employees who are on strike or locked out. The following minor differences distinguish them: First, Bill C-257 provides for a fine not exceeding $1,000 for each day that an offence occurs, whereas Bill C-295 provides for a fine not exceeding $10,000; second, Bill C-257 contains subparagraph (2.1)(f) in clause 2 concerning prohibitions relating to the use of replacement workers, text that is not found in Bill C-295; and third, subclause (2.2) in Bill C-257 appears as subclause (2.9) in Bill C-295.

Other than these three differences, both bills are identical in terms of their legislative and procedural impact. The only concrete difference between them relates to the sum of the fines. While this is an important matter, it does not make the bills into distinctly different legislative initiatives. The Chair must therefore conclude that both bills are substantially the same and achieve their objectives through the same means.

The question then becomes, should the second bill, Bill C-295, be allowed to proceed?

It seems to the Chair that there is considerable risk involved in allowing bills that are substantially the same to be debated. It puts at risk a key principle of parliamentary procedure, namely, that a decision once made cannot be questioned again, but must stand as the judgment of the House.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 495, explains that the principle exists for very good reason.

This is to prevent the time of the House from being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session.

In the present case, we have an unusual convergence of circumstances. Not only were the bills sponsored by the hon. members for Gatineau and Vancouver Island North both placed on the notice paper, their names were also among the first 30 drawn for the order of precedence. Moreover, the subcommittee on private members' business faced with the fact that debate had yet to begin on items of private members' business could not deem one of the bills to be non-votable since the House had not yet taken any decisions on such business.

Today, the Chair has found itself in an unprecedented situation. I have concluded that Bill C-295 is substantially the same as Bill C-257. Ordinarily, I would order Bill C-295 to be dropped from the order paper in conformity with this standing order. However, given that this situation has never arisen before, I am reluctant to make a final ruling since this may be the only opportunity in this Parliament that the hon. member for Vancouver Island North gets to have an item on the order of precedence. At the same time, the Chair cannot allow the bill to go forward for its last hour of debate and the vote that would follow.

So, instead, in accordance with Standing Order 94(1), which provides the Speaker with the authority to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of private members' business, I am ordering that Bill C-295 be dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence.

This delay in the consideration of Bill C-295 is designed to provide the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs with sufficient time to examine this matter and suggest some resolution to the situation for the sponsor of the bill. The committee should also consider whether our practices in relation to the application of Standing Order 86(4) continue to serve the House in an effective manner given that our rules respecting private members' business have changed since this Standing Order was first adopted.

In the absence of a solution to the predicament of the sponsor of Bill C-295, the Chair will have no option when the bill next reaches the top of the order of precedence, I will order that debate not proceed, that the order for the bill's consideration be discharged and that the bill be dropped from the order paper.

Once Again, I thank the hon. members for Scarborough—Rouge River and for Vancouver East for having brought this situation to the attention of the Chair and of the House. It is an important contribution to the evolution of private members' business.

I believe the effect of the ruling will be that there will be no private members' business taken up this evening.

[Points of Order, November 6th, 2006]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader and Minister for Democratic Reform concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-303, the early learning and child care act, standing in the name of the hon. member for Victoria.

I would like to thank the hon. parliamentary secretary for raising this matter as well as the hon. member for Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord and the hon. member for Windsor—Tecumseh for their comments.

In his remarks, the parliamentary secretary pointed out that clause 5 of the bill gave the Minister of Finance the authority to make transfer payments to the provinces, provided that the criteria and conditions set out in clauses 5 and 6 had been met. He asserted that the making of transfer payments in this way would require the expenditure of public funds in a manner and for a purpose not currently authorized.

As hon. members know, funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). Proposed legislation seeking either authority for new spending or for the use of approved funds for distinctly new purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

Having reviewed Bill C-303, I am in agreement that the provisions in clauses 5 and 6 of the bill, which relate to the making of transfer payments according to the specified criteria and conditions, require a royal recommendation.

The hon. parliamentary secretary also raised the question of whether Bill C-303 breaches the rules of the House because it is dealing with an issue that has already been decided. He made reference to provisions of the Budget Implementation Act, 2006 by which, in his view, this House had dealt with the issue of funding for early learning and child care.

The principle that the same question cannot be raised twice during the same session is a well-established part of our practice. I refer hon. members to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 476 and 477.

However, the fact that the House cannot consider the same question or two very similar questions in a single session should not be interpreted to mean that the same general policy area cannot form the basis of more than one debate. Provided that separate and distinct proposals are put to the House, the issue of funding for early learning and child care may be debated again in the House.

In conclusion, I concur with the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the government House leader that Bill C-303 provides for the making of transfer payments by the minister in a manner not currently approved. The bill, therefore, infringes upon the financial initiatives of the Crown.

In its present form, I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill unless a royal recommendation is received. The debate is currently on the motion for second reading. This motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the second reading debate.

[Points of Order, November 6th, 2006]

The point raised by the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster, it seems to me, deals with a matter that was dealt with in the committee, not by a Chair making a unilateral decision to impose a rule, but by the committee adopting a motion that brought about time limitation on members and their activities in the committee.

It seems to me from my experience on committees many years ago that it is in fact not an uncommon practice in committee to have motions of this kind introduced, discussed and sometimes adopted, which result in limits on members' freedom of speech in committee. Time limits are not uncommon. I put in an appearance recently before the procedure and House affairs committee where all the members were under time limitations imposed by the will of the committee itself. On occasion I was not even able to answer some of the comments made, because the member had used up all the time. It does happen. It was not that I was desperate to respond, but members can understand my concern when I hear the hon. member for Burnaby—New Westminster raising this issue.

But I do think that committees are masters of their own procedure. They are entitled to make provisions in adopting orders in the committee that govern the way they are going to conduct their business. What Mr. Speaker Fraser's ruling, which I have briefly looked at, said was what committees were allowed to do. The committee is allowed to make amendments to the bill. The committee has imposed rules on how those amendments will be dealt with in the committee and how members will be able to address the issues raised by the amendments. It seems to me that is entirely within the jurisdiction of the committee and indeed is some quite normal exercise of its powers.

Accordingly, I do not find the point of order, so far from what I heard from the hon. member, to raise a valid point of order. I do not believe the committee has exceeded its jurisdiction. The ruling I gave recently on this issue, and I am going from memory from the date to which the hon. member referred, dealt with the amendments themselves and whether amendments exceeded the scope of the bill that had been referred to the committee.

There, I agree, the Speaker may have some jurisdiction to make a ruling if the committee has exceeded its jurisdiction, but that is not the issue the hon. member has raised today. It is a procedural matter within the committee and it seems to me the committee is master of its own procedure and is able to decide which rules it wishes to adopt in respect of the business that it has before it.

While the hon. member may disagree with the committee's decision, I do not think it is for the Chair to exercise the jurisdiction of a court of appeal in that respect, and I accordingly decline to do so.

[Employment Insurance Act, November 6th, 2006]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Government House Leader on Thursday, September 21, 2006, concerning the requirement for a royal recommendation for Bill C-269, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (improvement of the employment insurance system), standing in the name of the hon. member for Laurentides—Labelle.

I would like to thank the hon. government House leader for having drawn this important matter to the attention of the House. I would also like to thank the hon. member for Winnipeg Centre, the hon. member for Mississauga South, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, and the hon. member for Acadie—Bathurst for their contributions on this point.

In raising his point of order, the hon. Government House Leader listed five grounds on which Bill C-269 infringes the financial initiative of the Crown: it reduces the qualifying period for benefits; it increases the weekly benefit rate; it repeals the waiting period for benefits; it increases the yearly maximum insurable earnings and it extends coverage of the Employment Insurance Plan to the self-employed.

The Chair has examined the bill carefully and I have concluded that all of these elements would indeed require expenditures from the EI Account which are not currently authorized. I note as well that the summary of the bill lists three further ends which, at first glance, appear to me to involve other increases to expenditures.

Such increased spending is not covered by the terms of any existing appropriation. Funds may only be appropriated by Parliament for purposes covered by a royal recommendation, as explicitly stated in Standing Order 79(1). New purposes must be accompanied by a new royal recommendation.

I would like to address a second question raised by the hon. members for Winnipeg Centre, Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and Acadie—Bathurst concerning the employment insurance account. In their interventions, they asserted that the funds in the account are paid by workers and employers and do not constitute government funds.

As Speaker, I of course remain strictly neutral on matters of public policy. I would however like to remind the House of the current status of the Employment Insurance Account. As I stated in a ruling on June 13, 2005 at p. 6990 of the Debates:

Sections 71 to 77 of the Employment Insurance Act establish the operation of the Employment Insurance Account as part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Amounts are paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund and charged to the Account—

As Bill C-269 envisages the expenditure of funds from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, I must rule that, on the grounds just enumerated, Bill C-269 requires a royal recommendation. I will decline to put the question on third reading of this bill in its present form unless a royal recommendation is received.

Today's debate, however, is on the motion for second reading, and this motion shall be put to a vote at the close of the current debate.

It being 11:05 a.m., the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business.

Resuming debate, the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Veterans Affairs.

[Points of Order, November 1st, 2006]

Order, please. I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. government House leader on June 21, 2006, in relation to the procedural issues relating to Bill C-253, an act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions), standing in the name of the hon. member for Pickering—Scarborough East.

In his arguments, the hon. government House leader explained that clause 2 of the bill contained provisions which would effectively increase how taxable income was calculated and thus result in potentially more taxes being collected. Specifically, subclause 2(5) would make any refund of payments regarding contributions to RESPs considered as taxable income. Subclause 2(6) necessarily repealed a section of the Income Tax Act, which would have made such refunds excluded as taxable income.

Therefore, the hon. government House leaderargued that if Bill C-253 was creating a new tax burden, then it should not have been given first reading without the adoption of a ways and means motion, and the Speaker should discharge the order for second reading and remove the bill from the order paper.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice provides some information on the operation of taxation bills on pages 758 and 759:

The House must first adopt a Ways and Means motion before a bill which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer can be introduced. Charges on the people, in this context, refer to new taxes, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayers…Legislative proposals which are not intended to raise money but rather reduce taxation need not to be preceded by a Ways and Means motion before being introduced in the House.

Furthermore, on page 898 it states:

With respect to the raising of revenue, a private member cannot introduce bills which impose taxes. The power to initiate taxation rests solely with the government and any legislation which seeks an increase in taxation must be preceded by a Ways and Means motion.

As I understand it, the current RESP regime requires the person contributing to the plan to make such contributions out of after tax income. If, subsequently, the amount in the plan is not to be used for funding post-secondary education as intended, the contributor may have the contributions refunded. This refund is not taxed as the original contribution was made from income on which tax had already been paid. Similarly, a student withdrawing money from an RESP is not required to report the contribution amount as income, but only the interest earned while the funds were invested in the plan.

Let us now turn to the proposal before the House. The summary of Bill C-253 states that the bill provides “that contributions to a Registered Education Savings Plan are deductible from a taxpayer's taxable income”.

The bill also provides that if, at a later time, contributions are taken out of the plan by the contributor, they are to included as taxable for that year. Not having been taxed initially, the contributions would cease to enjoy tax-exempt status at the time of withdrawal from the plan.

This proposal amounts to a tax deferral. Rather than making contributions out of after tax income, the contributor would be provided with a tax deduction at the time that the contribution is made. If, subsequently, the money is not used for educational purposes but is withdrawn from the plan, the funds would be reported as taxable income at that time.

I do not regard such a tax deferral as imposing any increased tax burden on the contributor. It is permissible for a private member's bill to introduce a tax exemption, or to propose a delay in the reporting of income. Therefore, I find that Bill C-253 is properly before the House.

Accordingly, in my view, debate may continue on the bill in its current form.