SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

Member of Parliament

Shelby Kramp-Neuman

  • Member of Parliament
  • Member of Parliament
  • Conservative
  • Hastings—Lennox and Addington
  • Ontario
  • Voting Attendance: 66%
  • Expenses Last Quarter: $121,555.68

  • Government Page
Context: House Hansard - 65 - May/5/22
Mrs. Shelby Kramp-Neuman (Hastings—Lennox and Addington, CPC)
Madam Speaker, I am extremely pleased to be here today to rise and speak to the private member's bill of my hon. colleague for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel. I want to take this opportunity to thank our dean of the House for his service to our nation. It is a great honour to be able to address the hon. member. I was six years old when he was elected to this place and, I will note, as a Progressive Conservative. I would like to say to him that his constituents, Quebec and Canada thank him for his years of dedicated, effective and thoughtful service. That being said, he has 337 members gunning for his job, myself included. If I ever do have the pleasure of serving as long as my hon. colleague, that would put me at a very young 80 years of age in this place. It is perhaps divine providence that I am the official opposition shadow minister for seniors. To get to the point at hand, transfer payments are an essential component of Canadian federalism. As such, I can certainly appreciate any member's efforts to increase payments for their constituency. It is a massive part of what we are all sent here to do. My hon. colleague has had the honour and privilege of serving in this chamber for over 37 years straight, so he knows the rules of this place and he has surely had the opportunity to introduce and speak to many bills. My concern today is not with the approach taken by our hon. dean of the House, who I think is only doing his very best to care for his constituents. My concern is with his method. One rule in particular, as I am sure we are extremely aware, because the Speaker ruled on this recently, is that private members' bills cannot propose the expenditure of public funds or tax-raising initiatives unless they have a royal recommendation. Standing Order 79(1) states: This House shall not 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 the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed. I may be ignorant to the goings-on behind the scenes, but to my knowledge, this particular piece of legislation has not received the required royal recommendation. My good friend from Winnipeg North, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, rose on a point of order to share his concerns about the content of this bill. In his opinion, this bill was actually a spending bill. The Chair said the following in response to the point of order. I reviewed the bill, and I have reached the following conclusions concerning the impact on the royal recommendations. Section 1 of the bill provides that Quebec need not apply the conditions set out in paragraph 24(a) of the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act in order to obtain the amounts referred to in subsection 24.1(1) of that act. Section 3 of Bill C-237 provides that Quebec receives the full monetary contribution provided for in the Canada Health Act without being subject to the various grant conditions set out in that act. In other words, the result of the mechanism proposed by Bill C-237 would be to exempt Quebec from having to fulfill the conditions to which it is currently subjected in order to receive the Canada health transfer, which originate in the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act and the Canada Health Act. [Translation] The member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel argued that these changes have no financial effect in terms of either the amounts or their destination. However, these changes would amend the terms and conditions initially attached to the Canada health transfer, which were approved by Parliament. On this, page 838 of the House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states: A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. For this reason, a royal recommendation is required not only in the case where money is being appropriated, but also in the case where the authorization to spend for a specific purpose is significantly altered. Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative. As the member for Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel indicated in his intervention, the bill seeks to exempt Quebec from the application of the Canada Health Act. Thus, after analysis and in keeping with the precedents, including the rulings by Speaker Milliken on May 8, 2008, and by my predecessor on December 6, 2016, the Chair is of the opinion that the implementation of Bill C-237 would contravene the conditions initially provided for in the royal recommendation. Accordingly, the Chair is of the view that Bill C-237 must be accompanied by a royal recommendation. As it stands now, this bill does not have a royal recommendation. Unlike my hon. colleague from Bécancour—Nicolet—Saurel, I am new to the House. I may not be as aware of how things work in this place, but I think is it safe to assume that, if a royal recommendation has not yet been given at this stage then it will not be given later. We all know how this will play out. As it stands now, this bill cannot and will not be put to a vote at third reading. I want to use the closing portion of my speech to reiterate that my objection to this bill is rooted in the manner through which it was brought before the House. I want to reiterate that I know my hon. colleague from the Bloc is a tireless advocate for the people of Quebec, as is evidenced by his electoral record. I will go so far as to say that his constituents are lucky to have him. His knowledge, experience and record of service are quite literally uncomparable with those of any member of this place. That being said, the rules of Parliament are the rules of Parliament. Our Standing Orders are our Standing Orders. They explicitly lay out the rules and regulations under which we operate, and based on the Speaker's decision, the future of this bill is crystal clear. It is a spending private member's bill that does not have a royal recommendation. As such, I will not be voting for it.
1140 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border