Appropriation Bill No. 4, 2015-16
Published on 11 December 2015 Hansard and Statements by Senator George Baker, Joan Fraser, Joseph Day, Terry MercerFirst Reading
The Hon. the Speaker informed the Senate that a message had been received from the House of Commons with Bill C-3, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the federal public administration for the financial year ending March 31, 2016.
(Bill read first time.)
Second Reading
The Hon. the Speaker: Honourable senators, when shall this bill be read the second time?
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-6(1)(f), I move that this bill be placed on the Orders of the Day for second reading forthwith.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Fraser.
Hon. Joan Fraser (Deputy Leader of the Senate Liberals): On a point of information. The copies we have received are stamped at the top of the title page, “temporary parchment” — misspelled. I wonder if we could have an explanation of what a temporary parchment is.
The Hon. the Speaker: I’m sorry, Senator Fraser. That was for the record, I’m assuming?
Senator Fraser: No, it was a genuine request for information, Your Honour. I don’t know what a temporary parchment is.
The Hon. the Speaker: I understand from the table, Senator Fraser, that the usual practice is that the House of Commons will forward a temporary parchment and, in due course, the official parchment follows.
Senator Fraser: Thank you, Your Honour.
The Hon. the Speaker: It was moved by the Honourable Senator Day, seconded by the Honourable Senator Mercer, that this bill be read a second time.
Honourable Senator Day, on debate.
Senator Day: Thank you, honourable senators. This has been a great day for the Senate, and I think that we will want to remind our honourable colleagues, as the Speaker has said, that this is a fine example of bicameralism and the role that the Senate has to play as a body of sober second thought and review.
Honourable senators, there are three documents that you will want to be aware of. We’re dealing with Bill C-3, but Bill C-3 has a bit of history. Part of this is the Supplementary Estimates (B) that our Standing Senate Committee on National Finance has dealt with for the last three days, and we generated a report that was debated in this chamber yesterday.
The supplementary estimates, the report that reflects the study that was done on those supplementary estimates, has resulted in this Bill C-3. What we do is compare what’s in Bill C-3 to what we have studied, and if it’s the same, then that’s in effect a pre-study of a bill that we didn’t have before us. That was the error that we noted — that it wasn’t the same; so we’ve now had that rectified, and I think we’re in a position to proceed with this supply bill, Bill C-3.
I wanted to remind honourable senators that this supply bill, which calls for the expenditure of $810 million, is the top amount. The terminology in the bill itself in paragraph 2 is “not exceeding,” and that provides for lapsing. That provides for funds not being used at a particular time.
As honourable senators will see in the schedule that’s attached to the bill, the House of Commons is asking to reinstate or allow them to spend money that they were unable to spend last year. They still come back to us and ask for the permission to spend that money that was allocated last year at this time but that they were unable to spend. That’s part of the House of Commons’ $9.5 million that they’re looking to spend.
Of the $810 million, honourable senators, $277 million is for Citizenship and Immigration, and our report gives detail on where that is to go and to be used. As we said yesterday, that’s only the Citizenship and Immigration side of things. There are 15 to 20 other departments that will be looking for funds, and there will be another supplementary estimate before the end of this financial year.
Then there is the Parliamentary Protective Service, newly formed in June of this year. They’re asking for $3 million to take them to the end of this fiscal year, and then they anticipate somewhere around $40 million to $50 million on an ongoing basis. They haven’t been able to work that out yet; they’re still in their first year.
Finally, there is Treasury Board supplementing or topping up the $750 million that they hold in reserve to use in times when Parliament is not sitting but money is needed on a very short-term basis. But it must be according to the very tight rules that our Finance Committee and this Senate Chamber participated in establishing with respect to how the contingency vote 5 under Treasury Board can be used. It must be for established programs. The government can’t come along and say, “We thought of something new; we need some money for this.” That has to come before Parliament and be approved. The contingency vote is for established programs that need a little bit more money to keep going until Parliament can come back and approve or otherwise.
That, honourable senators, is what’s in this particular bill. You’re voting for a little in excess of $810 million.
Thank you, honourable senators.
Hon. Terry M. Mercer: Honourable senators, I know you’ve missed me terribly in my absence while I was recovering from my stroke, but I’m sure the Minister of Finance in the previous government and this new Minister of Finance will not be happy with the fact that I’m back. Again, every time since I’ve been here, no matter which government that we’ve been dealing with — when I first came here when it was the Martin government, then the Harper government and now the Trudeau government — I’ve given this similar speech.
Here we are on the brink of leaving for the break over the holidays, here we are on a Friday morning, ready to go. Flights are being cancelled by people in this place and perhaps even in the other place because they didn’t plan to do this properly. I’m not talking about the error that was made.
By the way, it galls me, Your Honour, that they talk about an administrative error. That’s passing the error off onto the staff. I’m sorry; the members of Parliament voted on this; it is their fault and they alone take the blame.
When I sign a document on my desk and it goes off into officialdom somewhere and there’s an error in it, it is not my assistant’s fault. It may indeed have been his or her fault in the preparation of the document, but I signed it. If I signed it, it’s my document.
If they voted for it, it’s their problem. I’m not allowed to use some of the words that I want to use.
Some Hon. Senators: Go ahead.
Senator Mercer: So to come back and give us this BS about “administrative errors,” passing the buck off to someone in the administration of the House of Commons doesn’t wash with me, and it shouldn’t wash with anybody and it shouldn’t wash with Canadians. I want this to be notice to the Minister of Finance and to our colleagues in the other place that this place will not put up with this anymore.
The problem is they always do this. They jam us. They get us here when we want to go. We all want to leave. We all have plans because we were told this is what the schedule was. They will do it to us again in June. Guaranteed, in June we’ll be back at this same spot with a bill that has to do with the finances of the country, that they need in order to operate, and we will be sitting and standing here trying to debate it, waiting for something to come down the hall.
This should be due notice to our colleagues. Lord knows I’m a huge supporter of the new government, but it doesn’t matter which government has been there. Whether it’s been the Conservatives or the Liberals, they do it time and time again, jamming us with this type of legislation at the last minute.
Mr. Speaker, I support your efforts in writing to the Speaker of the other place, and I think you should underscore the attitude that all of us here have, that enough is enough.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
Senator Fraser: In my view Senator Mercer is dead right, but I don’t think he went quite far enough.
Senator Mercer: Oh! That never happens.
Senator Fraser: This is not the first time that we have received bills from the House of Commons that were in defective form, and it hasn’t only happened when we were in the end-of-season crunch, Each time the statements or explanations or letters that we get from the other place are — how shall I say this — less than fully informative and could be interpreted by a skeptic as being self-serving.
I do not think this is a good way to run a parliament. It seems to me that there is something wrong with the system down there. When you write to the Speaker of the other place, Your Honour, I urge you to recall that this is not the first time we have received a defective bill — a seriously defective bill — and suggest that perhaps, in order to avoid these wildly inappropriate events, they examine their system and that perhaps they might even one day consider apologizing to us.
Some Hon. Senators: Hear, hear.
[…]
Hon. Larry W. Campbell: Could I ask a question of Senator Day?
The Hon. the Speaker: Senator Campbell, is it on debate?
Senator Campbell: On debate. I have a question, and I don’t know who, quite frankly, can answer it, but my question is this: Was this schedule attached to this bill when it went through the house on December10? Can anybody answer that?
I would propose that if this schedule was not attached to this bill, how would those people who were voting on it know what they were voting on?
The Hon. the Speaker: We’re into a little bit of an unusual circumstance, but I see Senator Baker rising. I’m going to recognize Senator Baker and then —
Hon. George Baker: Yes, Your Honour. I have, early this morning, read all of the speeches that were given and all of the comments made regarding this supply bill in the other place over the past three days. Perhaps one could conclude, from reading the debates, the questions and answers of the ministers responsible— the Treasury Board minister in particular — that the questions that were asked involved matters that would be contained in the schedule. However, it was not brought up in any of the debate in the House of Commons that the wording of the bill — and I refer senators to clause 3(2) of bill that says:
The provisions of each item in the schedule are deemed to have been enacted by Parliament on April 1, 2015.
That’s the first reference to the schedule within the bill.
Then the second reference is at paragraph 5, clause 5. It says “as appropriation that is granted by this or any other Act and referred to in the schedule of the bill,” which is a part of the bill.
From reading the debates questions and answers, one would have to conclude that the schedule was not a part of the bill. However, regardless of whether or not the schedule was a part of the bill — which it is, obviously, because the bill refers to the schedule as a part of the bill — how we would receive a bill that is incomplete is beyond me, how something like that could be passed.
However, Mr. Speaker, here’s the main point: the Senate’s jurisdiction — as was pointed out yesterday in this chamber— only relates to what is referred to us by the House of Commons. We now have a reference from the House of Commons which includes the part of the bill that was missing — namely, the schedule — which was referenced at two places within the bill.
My point, Your Honour, is that our jurisdiction is only to deal with matters that are referred to us by the other place. We do not have the jurisdiction to look into what has transpired in the other place, whether or not it was legal or had standing in law . We’ve made sufficient note of it here, but now we have before us the bill, which includes the schedule. We have examined the estimates and are now bound by tradition in this place to deal with the bill and dispose of it in a very quick fashion.
Senator Day: I want to ask Senator Baker if he also noted, at page 2 of the bill, just before the figures that appear there in section 2, reference to the schedule, “as contained in the schedule to this act.” I just wondered if the honourable senator had overlooked that.
Senator Baker: No, Your Honour, I didn’t overlook that, because when reference is made to the schedule, and it’s clear that the bill says “as outlined in the schedule” in two separate places, and then makes a distinction as to what is contained in the schedule, as he has pointed out, it is assumed that the bill has attached to it the schedule.
I mean, schedules are sometimes contained in regulatory motions, but this is a bill that contains the schedule in two distinct places within the bill.
I recognize what he has pointed out, but I think that we would have to say that we show deference to the exact wording of sections 2 and 5, as I outlined.
Senator Day: Thank you, honourable senator. The other point I wanted to clarify for the record was your reading this morning, when you were reading the proceedings in relation to this in the House of Commons. My information is that for the Supplementary Estimates (B), which the Senate’s Finance Committee studied over three days, and then the bill, which we’re now studying, the House of Commons spent a grand total of 15 minutes, including Committee of the Whole, on all of that work. Is that correct?
Senator Baker: Yes, Your Honour, that’s correct.
[…]
The Hon. the Speaker: Are honourable senators ready for the question?
Hon. Senators: Question.
The Hon. the Speaker: Is it your pleasure, honourable senators, to adopt the motion?
Some Hon. Senators: Agreed.
Senator Martin: On division.
(Motion agreed to and bill read second time, on division.)
Third Reading
The Hon. the Speaker: When shall this bill be read a third time?
Hon. Joseph A. Day: Honourable senators, with leave of the Senate and notwithstanding rule 5-5(b), I move that Bill C-3 be now read the third time.
An Hon. Senator: Now. Indeed!
The Hon. the Speaker: Is leave granted, honourable senators?
Hon. Senators: Agreed.
[…]
