Point of Order
November 27, 2001
Admissibility: taxation
Hon. Peter Milliken
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
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..
[1]
Debates, November 27, 2011, pp. 7572-3.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"Bill S-7 is procedurally admissible because its provision for the 'taxation of costs' by the CRTC constitutes a regulatory power to assign expenses in a proceeding, not the imposition of a tax."
AI Summary
The Speaker denied a point of order, ruling that Bill S-7's provision for the 'taxation of costs' is a regulatory power, not the imposition of a tax.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Educational
- Procedural Stage
- Government Orders
- Significance
Low
High