The Legislative Process / Senate Public Bills

Admissibility: taxation

November 27, 2001

Debates, pp. 7573-4

On November 27, 2001, Jim Abbott (Kootenay–Columbia) rose on a point of order with respect to Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act. Mr. Abbott argued that the Bill would violate the financial privileges of the House in that it would introduce a new tax by increasing the liabilities on an existing fund. He concluded that Bill S-7 should accordingly be withdrawn from the Order Paper.^[1]

The Speaker ruled immediately. He declared that Bill S-7 would not impose taxes and that, although the word “taxation” was used in the Bill, it referred to the taxation of costs, meaning the review of costs with a view to determining whether they were authorized and reasonable, consistent with existing, applicable regulations. This being the case, he concluded that the Bill was properly before the House.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair wants to thank the hon. Member for Kootenay–Columbia for his very able argument on this point. I cannot tell him how pleased I am to have my own decision cited as an authority for something in the House. Having said that I am afraid I must disagree with the premise of his question.

In my view Bill S-7 would not impose taxes. Rather it would give to the CRTC, a quasi-judicial body, the power to make regulations enabling the Commission to direct that the costs of a party appearing before the Commission be paid by another party according to a scale of costs set out by the Commission in its regulations similar to that which any court in this country can do upon the adjudication of a case before it.

As explained in the Bill’s summary, costs are the allowed expenses that a party incurs in respect of a proceeding. The taxation of costs means the review of the costs by an officer of the Commission with a view to determining that they are authorized and reasonable.

The subject matter of Bill S-7 is not the imposition of any tax although the word taxation is used in the Bill. Accordingly I cannot find the hon. Member’s point of order to be well taken. In my view Bill S-7, at least on this ground, is properly before the House.