Private Members’ Business / Financial Limitation

Royal recommendation: repeated raising of similar points of order

February 14, 2007

Debates, p. 6816

On February 13, 2007, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform) rose on a point of order with respect to Bill C-288, Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, standing in the name of Pablo Rodriguez (Honoré–Mercier). He argued that the Bill required a royal recommendation as a result of amendments made in committee which entailed the expenditure of Government funds. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker reserved his decision.^[1]

On February 14, 2007, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the arguments raised by the Government House Leader were substantially the same as previous submissions that had been the object of rulings by the Chair, and that it had already been established that Bill C-288 did not authorize any spending of public funds for a distinct purpose. The Bill did not, therefore, require a royal recommendation. He added that while a Member might fear that a given bill will entail constitutional or other legal difficulties, the Chair’s authority is limited to interpreting matters of parliamentary procedure, not matters of law or public policy. The Speaker expressed concern that the repeated raising of the point of order came “perilously close to an appeal of the Chair’s decisions”, something that is prohibited by Standing Order 10.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Last night, just before debate on Private Members’ Business began, the hon. Government House Leader raised a point of order relating to Bill C-288, the Kyoto Protocol Implementation Act, standing in the name of the hon. Member for Honoré–Mercier.

The House will recall that on Friday, February 9, 2007, debate on Bill C-288 was completed and divisions on the report stage of the Bill deferred to February 14, 2007. Because of this, I felt obliged to point out to the hon. Government House Leader that his intervention came very late although I proceeded to listen to his argument in case he had new light to shed on the Bill.

After his intervention, the hon. Members for Wascana, Scarborough–Rouge River and Honoré–Mercier offered their views.

I have now carefully reviewed the comments made by the hon. Government House Leader and I confess that I find them somewhat troubling, for the hon. Minister presents no new arguments, but instead comes perilously close to an appeal of the Chair’s decisions, an appeal specifically prohibited by Standing Order 10.

Despite two rulings from the Chair to the contrary, the crux of the argument presented by the hon. Government House Leader is that Bill C-288 does require a royal recommendation because the course of action it puts forward would require the expenditure of Government funds.

This is substantially the same argument so ably presented by the Minister’s predecessor on June 16, 2006. It was not persuasive then and is no more persuasive now.

With respect, I would refer the hon. Government House Leader to Debates for September 27, 2006, at pages 3314 and 3315 where I ruled on the original point of order raised on June 16. Since this latest intervention provided no new insights, let me simply quote from that decision. Referring back to an earlier decision on a similar case, I said:

the Chair—in the case of Bill C-292, An Act to implement the Kelowna Accord—made a distinction between a bill asking the House to approve certain objectives and a bill asking the House to approve the measures to achieve certain objectives. So too in the case before us—[Bill C-288]—the adoption of a bill calling on the government to implement the Kyoto Protocol might place an obligation on the government to take measures necessary to meet the goals set out in the Protocol but the Chair cannot speculate on what those measures may be. If spending is required, as the Government House Leader contends, then a specific request for public moneys would need to be brought forward by means of an appropriation bill or through another legislative initiative containing an authorization for the spending of public money for a specific purpose.

As it stands, Bill C-288 does not contain provisions which specifically authorize any spending for a distinct purpose relating to the Kyoto Protocol. Rather, the Bill seeks the approval of Parliament for the Government to implement the Protocol. If such approval is given, then the Government would decide on the measures it wished to take. This might involve an appropriation bill or another bill proposing specific spending, either of which would require a royal recommendation.

As Bill C-288 stands however, the Chair must conclude that the bill does not require a royal recommendation and may proceed.

This first ruling on the Bill seems quite clear. The House will also recall that on February 2, 2007, a point of order was raised by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader to the effect that amendments to this Bill reported by the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development on December 8, 2006 required a royal recommendation and some hon. Members commented on his intervention. That exchange is captured at pages 6341 and 6342 of the Debates. It too concludes that the Bill does not require a royal recommendation and I would commend it to the attention of all hon. Members. In short, the Chair has not been presented with any precedents that would reverse the views it expressed earlier.

I can appreciate that the hon. Government House Leader is frustrated by the prospect of what he calls a bad law being enacted and by the constitutional difficulties that he foresees, but these are not matters within the Speaker’s purview. The Chair’s powers are limited to interpreting matters of parliamentary procedure, not matters of law, nor matters of public policy.

Bill C-288 seeks to ensure Canada meets its global climate change obligations under the Kyoto Protocol ratified by Canada on December 17, 2002, but the Bill contains no provisions authorizing spending to that end. Therefore, there is simply no procedural impediment to the Bill proceeding further or to the House pronouncing itself on report stage and third reading.

Let me just say in conclusion that, as your Speaker, I take very seriously indeed the responsibility to interpret the procedures and practices of this House in specific cases, particularly where the prerogatives of the Crown may be at issue and particularly in controversial cases such as this one where parties are deeply divided as to the right course of action.

The House’s new rules on Private Members’ Business bring out in full relief the Chair’s role and responsibility in these matters. I believe that a careful reading of my rulings on such cases, including the two rulings already rendered on Bill C-288, reveals them to lie squarely within the traditions of this place. I thank hon. Members for their attention.