Mr. Speaker, I have a question about the propriety of Bill S-7 as it relates to the relationship between the House of Commons and the Senate.
I would like to make a brief presentation because I want to get onto the debate of Bill S-7. I am in favour of the bill. That is not the question. The question is the relationship between the House and Senate. The question is whether it violates the financial privileges of this House and the constitutional requirements of responsible government.
Standing Order 80(1) states:
All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.
Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that:
Bills for appropriating any part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost shall originate in the House of Commons.
Section 54 states:
It shall not be lawful for the House of Commons to adopt or pass any Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill for the Appropriation of any Part of the Public Revenue, or of any Tax or Impost, to any Purpose that has not been first recommended to that House by Message of the Governor General in the Session in which such Vote, Resolution, Address, or Bill is proposed.
Marleau and Montpetit, on page 711, states:
--private Members' bills involving the spending of public money have been allowed to be introduced and to proceed through the legislative process, on the assumption that a royal recommendation would be submitted by a Minister of the Crown before the bill was to be read a third time and passed.
Bill S-7 originated in the Senate and on that basis may be in violation of the privileges of this House.
Mr. Speaker, the reason why I raise this issue is that I would like you to take a look at the need for a ruling on whether there is the need for a royal recommendation with respect to this bill. If we look at the provisions of Bill S-7, subclause 3(c) refers to the fact that there must be “requiring that heritage lighthouses be reasonably maintained”.
There is another reference in clause 17 which states:
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.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I draw to your attention subclause 19(e) which refers to what presently is in place and that is:
national parks, national historic sites, historic canals, national battlefields, national marine conservation areas, heritage lighthouses, heritage railway stations and federal heritage buildings;
As the heritage critic, I am very much aware of the fact that the government has a budget for all of those buildings and all of those properties.
Although the bill does not specifically state that money shall be spent, clearly it says that if this bill were passed, it is only logical and reasonable that if lighthouses are in the environment that they are in, which is near salt water and extreme weather, that those buildings would probably require expensive renovation.
Therefore, prior to this bill coming to a vote in the House, I would like to ask for a ruling as to whether there must be a royal recommendation included with the bill.