SoVote

Mar/28/22 11:01:46 a.m.
Watch
Re: Bill C-237

Mr. Speaker, on Monday, February 28, the Chair encouraged members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement for a royal recommendation with respect to Bill C‑237 to do so as soon as possible. I would like to make some arguments. I will be brief. Bill C‑237 amends the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act to provide that a province may withdraw from a federal program in an area under the legislative authority of the province if, and only if, the province itself has a program whose objectives are comparable to those of the federal program. The province that withdraws is to be paid the same amount of money it would have received had it participated in the federal program. By the same token, it amends the Canada Health Act, but only for Quebec. I will not reiterate the arguments that the bill's sponsor, the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, so eloquently laid before us on March 1, but I fully agree with everything he said. Like him, I feel that Bill C‑237 does not require a royal recommendation because it does not change the amounts transferred to the provinces, how funds are divided among the provinces, the end use of the funds or the executive's power to determine whether a province has a comparable program that justifies withdrawing from the program. I would like to add a few points for the Chair to consider. Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867, grants the power of initiative in tax matters to the Crown as follows: It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General It clearly states “any purpose”. The same term is used in Standing Order 79. Over the years, the Chair has had occasion to clarify the scope of that term. According to page 838 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, the Chair has ruled that in order for a private member's bill to proceed without a royal recommendation, its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications must not be significantly altered. My colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel introduced a series of bills comparable in scope to Bill C‑237 that did not have royal recommendation. On March 22, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons presented two cases where the Chair had ruled that the bills required royal recommendation. These two bills have something in common. In both cases, the change in the conditions and qualifications opened the door to potentially increasing the amount of spending. In the case of Bill C‑490 introduced in 2007, it is clear. In addition to increasing the guaranteed income supplement, the bill set out that a person could retroactively receive the benefits for all the previous years they were entitled to receive them but did not apply for them. The change in conditions and qualifications significantly increased the amount of spending. The Chair was absolutely right in that case to require royal recommendation. The government also brought up the example of Bill C‑243, introduced in 2016, which was similar. It provided for a pregnant woman to obtain employment insurance maternity benefits before giving birth if her work posed a risk to her health or her pregnancy. It is true that the weekly benefit would not change. It is also true that the maximum number of weeks of benefits would not change either, but a third of new mothers do not draw the maximum number of weeks because they return to work before using them all. We can assume that a significant number of women would draw maternity benefits for longer if they started to receive them a month, two months, or even three months sooner. Thus, the changes to the employment insurance eligibility conditions that were set out in Bill C‑243 had the potential effect of increasing the amount of spending. Therefore, it was logical that a royal recommendation be required for that bill. That is not the case with Bill C‑237. There is no possibility whatsoever that the bill will result in new spending or that its purpose will change. The government is suggesting a very broad interpretation of the royal recommendation. It is suggesting that when a bill with financial implications changes a condition or a qualification, it must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. If that were the case, a bill to change the colour of a form would also require a royal recommendation because it would change the condition for access to a program, even though it would not change the amount or the purpose, which are the terms used in the Constitution or the Standing Orders. That is definitely not the spirit of the Standing Orders, as in future it would not be possible to make any amendements whatsoever to any budget bill. In closing, in the Chair's interpretation of what constitutes a significant change when a bill amends the conditions and qualifications associated with spending, I suggest that we look to the terms used in both the Constitution and the Standing Orders. Does it change the amount of the expenditure? Does it change the purpose of the expenditure? If it does not change one or the other, it should not require a royal recommendation. In that sense, I believe that we should be able to vote on Bill C‑237 at all stages, even if the Crown were to refuse to grant a royal recommendation.

981 words

All Topics

Context: House Hansard - 47 - Mar/28/22

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Mar/28/22 2:28:00 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it would be so simple to give Quebec the means to take care of its responsibilities in health care. All Quebec is asking for is for the federal government to pay its 35% share. However, Ottawa keeps wanting to dictate how Quebeckers' money should be used. It wants to come across as a saviour, when every year it cuts its share of health funding. It is Ottawa's fault that the system is underfunded. It is like a firefighter who is also a pyromaniac: It sets a fire and then tells us how to put it out. When will Ottawa recognize that the expertise is in Quebec City, not in this Parliament, especially not on the benches across the way nor the ones next to us?

128 words

Context: House Hansard - 47 - Mar/28/22

Mr. Alain Therrien (La Prairie, BQ)

Mar/28/22 2:29:14 p.m.
Watch

Mr. Speaker, it is not as though this government is known for excellence even in its own areas of jurisdiction. Everything it touches in its own jurisdictions turns into a fiasco. The Phoenix pay system is not even able to pay its employees. At the immigration department, the backlog is never-ending. It is chaos for Ukrainian refugees. First nations do not even have access to clean drinking water. The list is long. There is one fiasco after another. Now the federal government is telling us that it is going to look after health care, one of Quebec's jurisdictions. May I say that this makes us very nervous? Why does the federal government not just increase health transfer as everyone is asking it to do? It is simple.

129 words