SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 115

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
October 21, 2022 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 115 - Oct/21/22
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
Madam Speaker, I rise today because the Chair asked parliamentarians to share their views on the requirement for a royal recommendation to accompany Bill C-290. I would like to give my party's opinion on this matter, as well as my own. In our view, there is nothing in the bill that proposes the use of public funds. Nothing in the bill would result in direct costs, which, as we know, is at the government's discretion. In his speech on September 28, 2022, the sponsor of the bill and member for Mirabel argued that clause 5 of the bill “specifies that the chief executive must provide support to a public servant who makes a disclosure.” The bill does not specify the nature of the support, but there is absolutely no indication that it would be financial. The member for Mirabel explained this by adding the following: The support referenced in clause 5 would involve, rather, things like information, referrals, guidance or advice, all of which are part of the normal duties and functions of executives. In short, we need to ensure that when public servants see wrongdoing, they know their rights, they know where to go, and they are not left to fend for themselves. I agree with what he said, and I am concerned about too narrow an interpretation of the word “support”, which is absolutely not limited to financial support. In this case, the bill before us contains no mention of financial support, and it should not be interpreted as such. I think the government's obligation not to terminate a contract or withhold payment following a disclosure falls into the same category. This provision would not generate any new government spending. All it does is prevent the government from taking a reprisal by withholding already payable funds. The guidelines governing royal recommendation for private members' business are summarized in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 1125, as follows: The Constitution Act, 1867 and the Standing Orders require that bills proposing the expenditure of public funds must be accompanied by a royal recommendation, which can be obtained only by the government and introduced by a Minister. Since a Minister cannot propose items of Private Members' Business, a private Member's bill should therefore not contain provisions for the spending of funds. I think it is important that the need for a royal recommendation be interpreted in a direct, targeted fashion. Any form of legislation can have indirect impacts on government spending. What is being asked for here is that the direct commitment of public funds be accompanied by a royal recommendation. That is why, in my opinion, Bill C-290 does not meet that criterion and consequently does not require a royal recommendation.
467 words
All Topics
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border