Private Members’ Business / Financial Limitation

Senate bill: infringement on the financial initiative of the Crown

June 20, 2005

Debates, p. 7397

On May 10, 2005, Karen Redman (Chief Government Whip) rose on a point of order with respect to the need for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill S-14, An Act to protect heritage lighthouses. She argued that provisions of the Bill would require the owners of such lighthouses to maintain them in a reasonable state of repair and in a manner in keeping with their heritage character. As most lighthouses in Canada are the property of the Crown, over time this requirement would necessarily involve significant expenditures of funds by the Government. Noting that the Speaker had ruled that the Bill’s predecessor in the previous Parliament (Bill S-7) did not require a royal recommendation, as it did not impose an obligation to expend public funds until heritage lighthouses were so designated by the Governor in Council, she argued that the timing of an expenditure had not been a factor in previous rulings. Thus, she held, if a bill involved a new and distinct cost to the Crown, it did not matter if the cost was incurred immediately upon assent to the Bill or at some future point. In his intervention, Gerald Keddy (South Shore–St. Margaret’s) argued that the lighthouses were owned by the federal Government which was already spending money for their upkeep. Since the lighthouses were being given over to private ownership, and future owners would be asked to keep their exteriors in a condition consistent with the era in which they were built, less federal money would be expended. After interventions from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under consideration.^[1]

On June 20, 2005, the Speaker delivered his ruling. Making reference to his ruling on the predecessor of Bill S-14, Bill S-7,^[2] he stated that, in this case, while the Bill might at some point in the future require an expenditure of public funds, those expenditures would fall within departmental operational costs to be approved by Parliament through an appropriation act. He concluded, therefore, that Bill S-14 did not require a royal recommendation.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Before we resume debate on second reading of Bill S-14, An Act to protect Heritage Lighthouses, I would like to deliver a ruling on the point of order raised by the Chief Government Whip on May 10 with regard to the requirement for a royal recommendation for this Bill.

I want to take this opportunity to thank the hon. Chief Government Whip for having raised this matter at the commencement of debate at second reading. This is the most appropriate time to raise such concerns as it permits the Chair to return to the House with a decision before detailed consideration of the Bill is taken up in committee.

The Chair also wishes to thank the hon. Members for South Shore–St. Margaret’s, Wellington–Halton Hills, and Halifax for their submissions on this matter.

Bill S-14 proposes a mechanism to designate and protect heritage lighthouses as well as to require that they be reasonably maintained. In making her presentation, the Chief Government Whip argued that clause 17 of the Bill appeared to involve the expenditure of significant funds by Parks Canada and the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The clause reads as follows:

The owner of a heritage lighthouse shall maintain it in a reasonable state of repair and in a manner that is in keeping with its heritage character.

She also referred to a ruling on this Bill’s predecessor, Bill S-7, delivered on October 29, 2003, and argued:

This ruling seemed to focus on the fact that the Bill did not immediately impose an obligation to expend public funds… To my knowledge, the timing of an expenditure has not been a factor in previous rulings. If a bill involves a new and distinct cost to the Crown, it surely does not matter if the cost is incurred immediately upon assent of the bill or at some future point.

In 2003, the Chair was responding to a similar point of order raised by the hon. Member for Kootenay–Columbia and the then Government House Leader, the hon. Member for Glengarry–Prescott–Russell. They also asked the Chair to look at clause 17, asking whether it involved spending. In my reply, I stated:

Both the hon. Member for Kootenay–Columbia and the Government House Leader are in agreement that the Bill does not immediately require the expenditure of public funds. Any funds that may be required to comply with clause 17 of the Bill will be required of the owners of lighthouses only once those lighthouses have been designated as heritage lighthouses… As there is no obligation for public expenditure created by the passage of Bill S-7, there is no need for a royal recommendation.

The Chair was referring to the fact that this Bill, of and by itself, does not create an authorization for new spending for a distinct purpose. For example, the Bill does not create a new agency to protect heritage lighthouses nor does it set up a program for funding the maintenance of lighthouses. This Bill simply provides a mechanism for designating heritage lighthouses and requiring that they be reasonably maintained. These provisions do not authorize new spending for a distinct purpose.

The Chair acknowledges that at some point in the future when heritage lighthouses are designated, there may be an expenditure of public funds. However, I would characterize those expenditures as falling within departmental operational costs, for which an appropriation would have been obtained in the usual manner. From year to year, such expenditures would vary depending on the condition and number of heritage lighthouse structures and on the effects of weather. Such operational expenditures are covered through the annual appropriation act that Parliament considers and approves.

Therefore, after listening to the submissions of hon. Members and after reviewing my previous ruling and the provisions of this Bill, I would conclude that Bill S-14 does not require a royal recommendation.