Chapter 18Financial Procedures

The Business of Ways and Means

The business of ways and means is the process by which the government sets out its economic policy through the presentation of a budget and obtains parliamentary approval to raise the necessary revenues through taxation. The most important revenue-raising statutes (i.e., those which replenish the Consolidated Revenue Fund) are the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, and the Customs Tariff.

A principle fundamental to the ways and means process is the requirement that taxation bills originate in the House of Commons. 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”,³⁸⁶ a requirement echoed in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.³⁸⁷

There are two types of ways and means proceedings:

the debate on a motion to approve in general the budgetary policy of the government (the budget presentation followed by the four-day ensuing debate); and
the consideration of legislation (bills based on ways and means motions already approved by the House) which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer.

A ways and means motion proposes that a particular financial measure be considered by the House. For a budget, the motion seeks to approve the budgetary policy of the government; for legislation, the motion sets out the terms and conditions of the proposed measures, most notably the rates and incidence of taxation. While a budget is normally followed by the introduction of ways and means bills, such bills do not have to be preceded by a budget presentation. Generally, taxation legislation can be introduced at any time during a session, the only prerequisite being prior concurrence in a ways and means motion.

The Crown, on the advice of its responsible Ministers, initiates all requests to impose or increase a tax on the public and the House either grants or withholds its consent.³⁸⁸ A ways and means motion may therefore be moved only by a Minister of the Crown.³⁸⁹ Once adopted, a ways and means motion forestalls the passage of any amendment that would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.³⁹⁰

Ways and Means Proceedings (1867-1968)

Initially, the business of ways and means involved the consideration and authorization of measures to raise revenue and measures to appropriate, or set aside, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the funds approved in the estimates by the Committee of Supply.³⁹¹ Ways and means proceedings remained essentially unchanged for the first 100 years following Confederation. Measures were proposed in the form of resolutions, each of which had to be debated and adopted formally in the Committee of Ways and Means, then reported to the House. Once reported, the resolutions were read a first and second time and agreed to before being embodied in one or more bills which then passed through the same legislative stages as other bills.³⁹²

Over the years, the major business of ways and means became the consideration and adoption of resolutions emanating from the budget speech. However, the financial statement by the Minister of Finance, and opposition responses, could hardly be termed a debate. On a designated day, the Minister of Finance would rise in the Chamber and address the House on the “financial condition of the Dominion”. Once the opposition had been given an opportunity to reply, the House would go into the Committee of Ways and Means and consider any resolutions respecting taxation or tariffs which the Minister had proposed in the budget. At first, consideration of the budget speech and consequential ways and means resolutions accounted for only a small proportion of the work of the Committee; the bulk of its time was occupied with appropriating the funds voted under supply. Gradually, however, the financial statement evolved into a major political event. Debate on the budget lengthened as the opposition used it both to challenge the government’s financial policy and, through the use of amendments, to draw attention to specific government actions and programs.

For many years after Confederation, the Minister of Finance followed no established procedure when presenting the budget. Sometimes the presentation was made on the motion for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply³⁹³ and, on other occasions, while the House was sitting as the Committee of Ways and Means.³⁹⁴ From 1912 to 1968, the budget statement was presented on the motion for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Ways and Means. As with supply, the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair to go into the Committee of Ways and Means was debatable, amendable and not subject to time limitations. This meant that budget proposals were debated initially on the motion to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means, debated in the form of resolutions in the Committee, debated when the resolutions were reported to and read in the House, and debated again as bills passed through the normal legislative process. This practice was not modified until 1913, at which time the House resolved that, when the order was read to consider ways and means on a Thursday or a Friday, the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair would be decided without debate or amendment.

Following changes to the Standing Orders in 1955, there was no longer any debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the chair for the House to go into the Committee of Ways and Means, except on occasions when a budget was to be presented.³⁹⁵ In such cases, the motion, together with any amendments, could be debated for a total of eight sitting days. Any subamendment would be disposed of on the fifth day of debate; any amendment on the seventh.³⁹⁶ In the early 1960s, the House further limited the budget debate to six days,³⁹⁷ with the subamendment and amendment disposed of on the second day and fourth day, respectively. Speeches, with the exception of those of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, were limited to 30 minutes; the Member moving the subamendment could speak for 40 minutes.³⁹⁸

Before the 1968 changes to the Standing Orders, tax changes could be introduced only in a budget. Most felt this procedure was ill-suited to the modern context in which government saw fiscal policy as its prime instrument for influencing economic activity and needed the flexibility to respond quickly to changing economic conditions.³⁹⁹

Ways and Means Proceedings (1968 to Present)

In 1968, the House agreed to abolish the Committee of Ways and Means⁴⁰⁰ in order to do away with the Committee’s role in considering resolutions to authorize any withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund following the adoption of supply, and to eliminate the repetitive process of debating budget proposals initially on the motion to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means, again in the Committee of Ways and Means, and yet again during the various stages of the bills subsequently introduced.⁴⁰¹ Ways and means bills, however, continued to be considered in a Committee of the Whole until 1985.⁴⁰²

As a result of these changes, the budget debate takes place on a generally worded motion respecting the budgetary policy of the government. Ways and means motions (proposals respecting changes to government revenues) resulting from the budget are proposed to the House once the budget debate has concluded and are decided without debate or amendment. Detailed consideration of the proposed ways and means measures takes place only during the debate on the bills brought forward to implement them.⁴⁰³

In 1982, the time limit for all Members speaking to the budget motion, except the Minister of Finance, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, was reduced from 30 to 20 minutes and a 10-minute period for questions and comments was set aside following each 20-minute speech.⁴⁰⁴ In 1991, the total number of sitting days allocated to the budget debate was reduced from six to four, with the subamendment and amendment disposed of on the third day and fourth day, respectively. As well, amendments were adopted governing the notice provisions for a budget presentation, as well as the provisions governing proceedings on the day of the budget presentation.⁴⁰⁵

In February 1994, the House decided that the adoption of a ways and means motion could apply to amendments to a bill then before the House, provided that such amendments were otherwise admissible.⁴⁰⁶ At the same time, a new rule authorized the Standing Committee on Finance to consider and report on proposals with respect to the budgetary policy of the government.⁴⁰⁷ The Committee could begin its review on the first sitting day in September of each year and present its reports on this matter until the 10th sitting day before the last normal sitting day each December. In 2015, the deadline for presenting the report was changed to the third sitting day before the last scheduled sitting day in December.⁴⁰⁸

The Budget

The term “budget” derives from “budge”, an anglicized form of the French word “bouge”, which denotes a small bag. A 1733 satirical pamphlet, “The Budget Opened”, caricatures Sir Robert Walpole, then British Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, “explaining his financial measures as a quack doctor opening a bag filled with medicines and charms”.⁴⁰⁹ The term “budget” appears to have acquired its current meaning around this time.

By tradition, the Minister of Finance makes a formal budget presentation annually offering a comprehensive assessment of the financial standing of the government and giving an overview of the nation’s economic condition.⁴¹⁰ The Minister also declares if and where the burden on the taxpayer will be increased or reduced.

In 2015, as part of the budget bill, the House enacted the Federal Balanced Budget Act, which requires that budgets be balanced and debts reduced. The Act stipulated the circumstances that allowed for a projected or recorded deficit, and required the Minister of Finance to appear before a House committee to explain the reasons for the deficit and present a plan to return to a balanced budget.⁴¹¹ However, this section of the Act was deemed never to have come into force and was repealed in 2016, following the adoption of Bill C-15, An Act to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on March 22, 2016.⁴¹²

The Budget Speech

Whenever the government wishes to make a budget presentation, a Minister⁴¹³ will rise in the House to request that an Order of the Day be designated for this purpose; the Minister will also specify the date and time of the presentation.⁴¹⁴ Traditionally, the Minister of Finance makes the announcement during Oral Questions in the House, in response to a question.⁴¹⁵ However, a Minister may do so at any time while the House is sitting.⁴¹⁶ The Minister’s announcement has been deemed to be the request that a day be designated pursuant to the requirements of the Standing Orders, that is, for it to be placed on the Order Paper, and no further notice is required. The Order of the Day is also deemed to be an Order of the House to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment if required.⁴¹⁷

At the specified time on the designated day, typically in the late afternoon after the financial markets have closed, the Speaker interrupts any proceedings then before the House, which are deemed adjourned,⁴¹⁸ and the House proceeds to the consideration of the Order of the Day for the budget presentation. The Minister of Finance then rises in the House to move a ways and means motion, “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government”,⁴¹⁹ and to deliver the budget speech. The Minister may also table notices of ways and means motions setting out the various taxation and other financial measures that will be needed to implement the budget provisions and ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of each of these motions. However, concurrence in any of these motions, or of any ways and means motions tabled at any other time during the session, may not be proposed until the debate on the budget is completed. This is to allow the House to pronounce itself on the budgetary policy of the government before considering individual taxation measures.⁴²⁰

It is the long-standing practice of Canadian governments to put tax measures into effect as soon as the notices of the ways and means motions on which they are based are tabled in the House of Commons, with the result that taxes are collected as of the date of this notice, even though it may be months, if not years, before the implementing legislation is actually passed by Parliament.⁴²¹

Budget Secrecy

There is a long-standing tradition of keeping the contents of the budget secret until the Minister of Finance actually presents it in the House. Respect for a budget’s impact on financial markets has often been used as the basis of questions of privilege or points of order respecting the validity of budget proceedings where there has been a budget “leak”.⁴²² However, Speakers have maintained that secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention rather than one of privilege.⁴²³ Speaker Sauvé noted that while a breach of budget secrecy:

… might have a very negative impact on business or on the stock market [and] might cause some people to receive revenues which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain … [it has] no impact on the privileges of a member. [It] might do harm—irrevocable in some cases—to persons or institutions, but this has nothing to do with privilege. It has to do with the conduct of a minister in the exercise of his administrative responsibility.⁴²⁴

In order that Members of Parliament and the news media are able to respond to the budget speech, a closed-door informal session, or “lock-up”, is usually provided for them by Finance Department officials several hours before the actual budget presentation in the House.⁴²⁵ Although questions of privilege have been raised concerning lock-ups, the Speaker has ruled that admission to lock-ups and the nature of lock-ups are not a matter for the Chair to decide.⁴²⁶

Pre-budget Consultations

With a growing emphasis on consultation, many of the budget’s financial provisions have been discussed publicly before the budget is ever drafted.⁴²⁷ Since 1994, the Standing Committee on Finance has been specifically empowered to hold “pre-budget” consultations.⁴²⁸ Prior to this, only the Minister and the Department of Finance had consulted with the government’s economic and social partners during the budget preparation process. The Standing Committee on Finance already had the authority to undertake this type of consultative study;⁴²⁹ however, the inclusion of an explicit Standing Order for this purpose indicates the House’s willingness to receive and consider a report on the matter.

On occasion, the Committee asks that the House authorize the Committee to travel throughout Canada during its proceedings and to broadcast its deliberations.⁴³⁰ While it seems a tradition has now developed in this regard, these yearly trips are neither automatic nor obligatory. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee may report the outcome of its budgetary consultations to the House up to and including the third sitting day prior to the last scheduled sitting day in December as provided for in the House of Commons calendar.⁴³¹ Although it is not required to do so, the House occasionally considers the subject matter of the report on pre-budgetary consultations in a take-note debate, which is normally held under Government Orders some time before the budget is actually presented.⁴³² Holding a take-note debate does not prevent a Member from moving concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance presented pursuant to Standing Order 83.1.⁴³³

Financial Statement

On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a “mini-budget”,⁴³⁴ that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget.⁴³⁵ Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions. Such statements have been made in the course of debate during consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne,⁴³⁶ on a motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate,⁴³⁷ during Routine Proceedings under “Statements by Ministers”,⁴³⁸ on a government motion,⁴³⁹ and on moving the motion for second reading of a borrowing authority bill.⁴⁴⁰ The rules of debate pertinent to each situation have applied.⁴⁴¹

The Budget Debate

Following the budget speech, the Speaker recognizes a representative of the official opposition, usually the finance critic, who, after a brief speech, moves the adjournment of the debate, which is then deemed adopted. In doing so, that Member reserves the right to speak first when debate on the motion resumes at a subsequent sitting. The Speaker then adjourns the House until the next sitting day.⁴⁴²

Figure 18.2 Budget Presentation and Debate

Budget Presentation	Budget Debate Maximum of four days
Minister of Finance makes presentation normally in late afternoon	Amendment and subamendment normally moved	Subamendment— question put 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business	Amendment— question put 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business	Main motion— question put 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business

Budget Presentation

Budget Debate

Maximum of four days

Day 1

Day 2

Day 3

Day 4

Minister of Finance makes presentation normally in late afternoon

Amendment and subamendment normally moved

Subamendment— question put 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business

Amendment— question put 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business

Main motion— question put 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business

Duration of Debate

Once the budget has been presented, the Standing Orders provide for a maximum of four additional days of debate on the budget motion and any amendments proposed thereto.⁴⁴³ The four days of debate do not have to be consecutive⁴⁴⁴ and, if few Members wish to speak, the debate can be less than four days. The unused days may be added, if the House so agrees, to the number of opposition days in the same supply period, as suggested by the Standing Orders.⁴⁴⁵

Since the rule changes in 1955, there have been seven cases where budget debates have not continued for the full amount of time provided for in the Standing Orders.⁴⁴⁶ In 1962, the budget was presented and Parliament was dissolved before any debate on the budget could take place.⁴⁴⁷ The House adopted special orders providing for fewer days of debate in 1966 and 1969.⁴⁴⁸ Another two debates (in 1974 and 1979) were cut short when the Prime Minister sought and was granted a dissolution of Parliament after subamendments were adopted.⁴⁴⁹ In early 1991, when the Standing Orders required that there be six days of debate, only four days of debate were held on the budget presented on February 26; both the amendment and the subamendment were negatived and debate on the main motion was not resumed before prorogation occurred in May.⁴⁵⁰ In 1993, only two days of debate took place on the budget presented on April 26; the subamendment was negatived and debate on the amendment and the main motion was not resumed before dissolution occurred in September 1993.⁴⁵¹

Precedence of Debate

In 1955, the House established that debate on the budget motion should be given precedence over all other government orders.⁴⁵² When an Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the budget motion, pursuant to the Standing Orders it stands as the first item of business for the sitting and no other government business may be considered during that sitting, unless the motion has been disposed of.⁴⁵³

Length of Speeches

The Standing Orders impose a 20-minute time limit on the speeches delivered by all Members, with the exception of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the first Opposition Member speaking to the motion, all of whom have unlimited time. A 10-minute questions and comments period is made available following these speeches.⁴⁵⁴ The general nature of the budget motion allows for a wide-ranging debate, during which the rules of relevance are generally relaxed.

Disposal of Amendments and Termination of Debate

Only one amendment and one subamendment may be proposed to the budget motion.⁴⁵⁵ The purpose of this rule is to permit opposition parties officially to present their proposals on an issue and have the House come to a decision. This is contrary to the usual rules of debate where Members are permitted to move an unlimited number of amendments and subamendments, provided that each one has been disposed of before the next is proposed. On the first day of resumed debate on the budget motion, the Opposition Member who had previously moved the adjournment of the budget debate continues with his or her speech and traditionally moves an amendment at the end of it. The next speaker, a Member of the next largest opposition party, typically moves a subamendment at the end of his or her speech.⁴⁵⁶ Occasionally, no subamendment is proposed.⁴⁵⁷ Amendments to the budget motion are rarely inadmissible.⁴⁵⁸ There is no rule preventing the amendment or the subamendment from being moved on a day after the first day of resumed debate (although this has occurred only once since the number of days of resumed debate was reduced to four in 1991).⁴⁵⁹

The Standing Orders define the exact procedures to be followed for the disposal of the amendment and subamendment. On the second day of resumed debate, if a subamendment has been proposed, the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings 15 minutes before the end of the time provided for government business to put the question to dispose of the subamendment.⁴⁶⁰ In the same manner, at the end of the third and fourth day’s resumed debate, the Speaker puts the question on the amendment and the main motion, respectively. If the subamendment and amendment were moved after the third day, they would be voted on at the end of the fourth day.⁴⁶¹ During the 1970s, the main motion was frequently adopted on division,⁴⁶² but since the 1980s, with one exception,⁴⁶³ Members have requested recorded divisions.

As with amendments moved to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, proposed amendments to the budget motion are opportunities for expression of non-confidence in the government. On several occasions since 1930, proposed amendments to the budget motion have been worded as explicit statements of non-confidence in the government.⁴⁶⁴ In two cases in the 1970s, the adoption of subamendments was followed by the Prime Minister seeking a dissolution of Parliament.⁴⁶⁵

The Legislative Phase

The legislation required to give effect to taxation proposals, whether outlined in a budget or initiated independently of a budget during the course of a session, must go through a unique preliminary step in the legislative process. The House must first adopt a ways and means motion before a bill which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer can be introduced. Charges on the people, in this context, refer to new taxes, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayers.⁴⁶⁶ Industry levies and service fees imposed by departments do not constitute charges on the people in the context of ways and means.⁴⁶⁷ Legislative proposals which are not intended to raise money but rather to reduce taxation⁴⁶⁸ or to change the way in which the funds are to be used once they have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund⁴⁶⁹ need not be preceded by a ways and means motion before being introduced in the House.

Ways and Means Motions

Before taxation legislation can be read a first time, a notice of a ways and means motion must first be tabled in the House by a Minister of the Crown; this may be done at any time during a sitting.⁴⁷⁰ The notice normally indicates that the government will ask that the legislation be retroactive to the time of its notice, although it can also be used as a vehicle for public scrutiny prior to the introduction of the relevant legislation. On the day the notice is tabled or at some other time during the session, a Minister of the Crown may make a request to the Speaker that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the motion at a subsequent sitting; that is, to put it on the Order Paper.⁴⁷¹ Although there are virtually no restrictions on when a notice can be tabled, a ways and means motion cannot be moved during the same sitting in which the notice is tabled,⁴⁷² or when the ways and means proceedings regarding the budget have yet to be completed.⁴⁷³ When the Order of the Day is called, a Minister moves that the motion be concurred in. The motion for concurrence must then be decided immediately without debate or amendment.⁴⁷⁴ The adoption of a ways and means motion stands as an order of the House either to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of that motion or to propose an amendment or amendments to a bill then before the House.⁴⁷⁵

Ways and means motions can be expressed in general terms,⁴⁷⁶ or be very specific, as in the form of draft legislation.⁴⁷⁷ In either case, they establish limits on the scope—specifically tax rates and their applicability—of the legislative measures they propose. Neither the provisions of a ways and means bill nor any amendment subsequently proposed to the bill may exceed the limits imposed in the ways and means motion. In particular, they may not increase the amount of a tax or extend the incidence of a tax or the applicable tax base.⁴⁷⁸ Should this occur, either a new ways and means motion must be adopted authorizing the exceptions before those provisions may be considered in committee, or the offending provisions must be amended to conform to the resolution on which the bill is based.⁴⁷⁹ To proceed otherwise would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown in taxation measures. Speaker Jerome expressed this in a December 1974 ruling on the matter: “The terms of the Ways and Means motion are a carefully prepared expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and frequent departures from them can only invite deterioration of that most important power”.⁴⁸⁰ When a new ways and means motion is required, it must also be adopted rather than simply tabled.⁴⁸¹ Should a bill be found not to conform to the provisions of a ways and means motion, a new motion will be required before the non-conforming provision can be considered and a decision taken.⁴⁸²

A ways and means motion often refers to more than one legislative proposal; it can encompass more than one provision in a bill and may seek to introduce more than one bill or a bill amending more than one statute. There are essentially no procedural restrictions on the motion’s wording or content.⁴⁸³

Ways and Means Bills

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of the motion.⁴⁸⁴ A ways and means bill must be “based on” but not necessarily “identical to” the provisions of its ways and means motion.⁴⁸⁵ Such a bill can then be read the first time and printed immediately after the motion is concurred in or at a subsequent sitting of the House.⁴⁸⁶ From this point on, the legislative steps that ways and means bills must complete are exactly the same as those followed for other public bills.⁴⁸⁷ Like all tax measures, bills imposing a charge upon the people and thereby requiring a ways and means motion must originate in the House of Commons.⁴⁸⁸

Amendment in Committee and at Report Stage

No amendment may be proposed to the text of a bill until the bill is considered in committee. Amendments to ways and means bills are subject to the same rules respecting legislation.⁴⁸⁹ Amendments which exceed the scope of the motion on which the bill is based are procedurally unacceptable unless a new ways and means motion is concurred in prior to the amendment being moved.⁴⁹⁰ Since ways and means motions may be proposed only by a Minister of the Crown, and since Ministers do not usually sit on committees, any amendment exceeding the provisions of the authorizing ways and means motion may be proposed and considered only at report stage. If the House has concurred in the required ways and means motion prior to the bill reaching report stage, the Minister may put amendments on notice and they will be considered with any other report stage amendments.

Ways and Means Bills Requiring a Royal Recommendation

If a bill based on a ways and means motion also contains provisions relating to government expenditure, the bill will also require a royal recommendation.⁴⁹¹

Prior to 1994, in such cases, the House had to both adopt the ways and means motion authorizing the government to proceed with the taxation measures, and give leave, after the normal 48-hour notice period, to introduce those spending provisions which were subject to the royal recommendation before proceeding to the first reading of the bill.⁴⁹² In the event that the notice requirements for the expenditure provisions in a bill requiring a royal recommendation had not been met, the bill was withdrawn and the order for second reading of the bill discharged and removed from the Order Paper. However, this would not affect the validity of any ways and means motion previously concurred in by the House.⁴⁹³

Since 1994, it is however no longer necessary for a royal recommendation to be provided prior to the introduction of such a bill. The legislation can proceed through all stages provided that any royal recommendation required is on notice a minimum of 48-hours before the bill is read a third time and passed.⁴⁹⁴

386.: Supra note 1, s 53.
387.: Standing Order 80(1).
388.: May, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed., p. 711.
389.: On a number of occasions, the Speaker has ruled that a private Member’s bill had the effect of increasing the amount of tax payable by taxpayers or businesses. As a bill that seeks to eliminate an existing tax deduction cannot be introduced in the House unless it is preceded by a ways and means motion, the Speaker ruled that the bill’s first reading was null and void, and ruled that the order for second reading of the bill be discharged and the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper (Debates, October 24, 2002, p. 889; November 22, 2002, pp. 1808–9; March 11, 2004, p. 1366; November 28, 2007, pp. 1463–4; November 4, 2011, pp. 2984–6; February 25, 2016, pp. 1402–3). For further information, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
390.: May, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed., p. 761. The royal recommendation has the same limiting effect with respect to amendments relating to spending. For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “The Royal Recommendation”.
391.: The Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means were Committees of the Whole House. The rules held that all financial measures—to tax as well as to spend—should be given the fullest possible consideration, both in committee and in the House (Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 88).
392.: Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 1st ed., p. 495.
393.: This occurred in 1867, 1868, 1875, 1878, 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1911.
394.: This occurred in 1870, 1874 and 1879.
395.: Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 922–7. See also Debates, July 1, 1955, pp. 5558–65.
396.: Criticism of ways and means proceedings focused on two concerns: the right to move subamendments to the motion to resolve into Committee, and the length of debate on the motion relating to the budget presentation. The first was resolved in 1927 when the House agreed to the right to move a subamendment (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 316–68). The second issue—the length of debate—was more complex. The questions of limiting individual speeches and the overall proceedings were often discussed in the context of time allotment for debate in general. See, for example, the resolution debated and adopted on April 19, 1886 (Journals, pp. 167–8). In 1927, a new rule limited speeches to 40 minutes on most occasions and for most speakers (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328–9), although some Members attempted unsuccessfully to exempt the budget debate from the application of these limits (Debates, March 18, 1927, pp. 1352–7, 1364–71).
397.: Journals, July 25, 1960, p. 826; August 8, 1960, p. 898.
398.: These changes were introduced provisionally at first and were made permanent on April 12, 1962 (Journals, p. 350). They remained in force until 1968.
399.: Stewart, The Canadian House of Commons, pp. 102–4.
400.: Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554–79, in particular pp. 559–60.
401.: In its Third Report, presented to the House on December 6, 1968, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House declared the existing ways and means procedure “if anything, even less readily comprehensible than that relating to supply”, with an underlying purpose which appeared “to be lost in obscurity” (Journals, pp. 429, 431–2). See also Stewart, The Canadian House of Commons, pp. 102–4.
402.: In 1985, amendments were made to the Standing Orders whereby ways and means bills would no longer be dealt with in a Committee of the Whole, but would be referred after second reading to a legislative committee (Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 919). Standing Order 73 was further amended in 1994 to allow for all bills, except supply bills, to be referred after second reading either to a standing, special, or legislative committee (Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112–20).
403.: Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, presented to the House on December 20, 1968 (Journals, pp. 559–60).
404.: Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
405.: Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2918–9.
406.: Standing Order 83(4); Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117.
407.: Standing Order 83.1. For further information on this procedure, see the section in this chapter entitled “Pre-budget Consultations”.
408.: Twenty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on December 8, 2014 (Journals, p. 1915), and concurred in on February 4, 2015 (Journals, p. 2092).
409.: Norman Wilding and Philip Laundy, An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed. (London: Cassell, 1972), p. 61.
410.: See, for example, Journals, March 29, 2012, pp. 1045–6; April 21, 2015, p. 2381. In the United Kingdom, a general finance act must be enacted annually because certain taxes, most notably the income tax, are authorized for one year only. Since Canadian taxation statutes continue in effect from year to year without need of renewal, there is no obligation on the part of the government to present a budget at all, although one is normally presented once a year. For further information, see Stewart, The Canadian House of Commons, p. 101. Similarly, there is no procedural requirement for the government to table supporting documents for the budget (Debates, March 18, 2003, pp. 4368–9).
411.: Federal Balanced Budget Act, SC 2015, c 36, s 41.
412.: 1st Sess, 42nd Parl, 2016. This Bill received Royal Assent on June 22, 2016 (SC 2016, c 7, s 79).
413.: It does not have to be the Minister of Finance. See, for example, Debates, April 23, 1993, p. 18385; April 2, 2015, p. 12708.
414.: Standing Order 83(2). On February 10, 2003, the Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions) requested the designation of an order of the day to allow the presentation of the budget speech (Debates, p. 3361). The Minister of Finance had informed the House during Oral Questions on February 7, 2003, of the date when the budget would be presented, but had neglected to specify the time (Debates, p. 3306). See also Debates, April 24, 2006, pp. 424, 426; February 20, 2007, pp. 7070, 7077.
415.: See, for example, Debates, February 21, 1995, p. 9901; February 5, 1999, p. 11508; February 11, 2008, p. 2885; March 1, 2012, p. 5697; January 27, 2014, p. 2112.
416.: See, for example, Debates, February 10, 2003, p. 3361 (immediately following Oral Questions); April 24, 2006, p. 426 (at the beginning of Routine Proceedings); January 26, 2009, p. 2 (at the opening of a session or Parliament); March 3, 2010, p. 9 (at the opening of a session or Parliament); June 3, 2011, p. 19 (at the opening of a session or Parliament); April 2, 2015, p. 12708 (at the beginning of Routine Proceedings).
417.: Standing Order 83(2). The provision for the House to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a budget presentation was added to the Standing Orders in 1991 (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2918–9) and eliminated the requirement for the House to pass a special order to suspend the regular schedule of business to allow the Minister of Finance to deliver the budget. See, for example, Journals, January 30, 1987, p. 425; February 8, 1988, pp. 2158–9; April 19, 1989, p. 116.
418.: Standing Order 83(2).
419.: Standing Order 84(1). On February 26, 2003 (Debates, pp. 4041–2), a Member raised a point of order concerning the fact that the Prime Minister, in a statement reported in the media, had contradicted the government’s budgetary policy as set out by the Minister of Finance on February 18, 2003. He asserted that the government could not ask Members to vote on the motion “That this House approve in general the budgetary policy of the government” until the government had clarified its position and taken the appropriate steps to amend the budget formally. The Speaker reminded Members that the budget speech and the tabling of background documents were voluntary actions of the government and that, even if the documents tabled on February 18 were no longer completely accurate, this was not sufficient ground on which to challenge the right of the House to continue considering the budget motion. However, he went on to remind the House that if, as a result of the change in policy, the government wished to propose legislation different from that which it had earlier intended, then it would have to file a new notice of ways and means (Debates, March 18, 2003, pp. 4368–9).
420.: Standing Order 83(3).
421.: Wilson, The Canadian Budgetary Process, p. 15.
422.: In 1989, the House had agreed by special order that the budget would be delivered at 5:00 p.m., on April 27. Following a significant budget leak in the late afternoon of April 26, the substance of the budget speech was presented in a televised press conference on that evening, at a time when the House had already adjourned for the day despite an earlier attempt by the Government House Leader to extend the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment (Debates, April 26, 1989, p. 1001). The next day, the Opposition tried unsuccessfully to withdraw their consent for the special order authorizing the budget presentation, on the grounds that it had already been presented. However, the Speaker ruled that he was bound by the Order of the House, as previously agreed to. See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1060).
423.: See, for example, Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Debates, April 17, 1978, p. 4549); Speaker Sauvé’s ruling (Debates, November 18, 1981, p. 12898); Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, June 18, 1987, p. 7315).
424.: Debates, November 18, 1981, p. 12898.
425.: A lock-up is a closed-door or in camera information session immediately prior to the presentation of a major initiative, such as a budget or the Auditor General’s annual report. Because the information provided is confidential until presented to the House, no copy may be removed from the lock-up before the budget or the report has been tabled and journalists are informed in advance that they will not be permitted to leave the briefing room until the information is made public. Members in attendance, however, may not be prevented from leaving the room in order to attend to their official business. See Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Debates, November 27, 1978, p. 1515).
426.: On November 27, 1978, a Member contended that the conditions for participating in the lock-up violated his parliamentary privileges (Debates, pp. 1514–7). The Speaker stated then, and Speakers have stated consistently since, that lock-ups are not a requirement for Members to participate in parliamentary proceedings either in the Chamber or in committee; access or lack of access to a lock-up cannot constitute grounds for a question of privilege. See Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Debates, November 27, 1978, pp. 1518–9); Speaker Sauvé’s rulings (Debates, February 25, 1981, pp. 7670–1; February 26, 1981, p. 7714); Speaker Francis’ ruling (Debates, January 19, 1984, p. 563); Speaker Parent’s ruling (Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693). However, Members may not be prevented from leaving a lock-up room. See Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Debates, November 27, 1978, p. 1515).
427.: See, for example, Speaker Francis’ comments (Debates, January 19, 1984, p. 563); Speaker Parent’s comments (Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693).
428.: Standing Order 83.1 (Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 117, 119–20). The actual wording authorizes the Committee to consider and make reports on proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. For examples of reports presented to the House, see Journals, February 7, 2008, p. 403; December 10, 2014, p. 1952.
429.: Standing Order 108(2), which gives the Committee authority to review the mandate and operations of the Department of Finance.
430.: See, for example, Journals, June 27, 2005, p. 991; June 17, 2008, p. 1005; September 19, 2011, p. 183. In 2012, the House adopted a motion allowing the Standing Committee on Finance to travel to Washington, D.C., and New York, in relation to its pre-budget consultations (Journals, April 27, 2012, p. 1130).
431.: Standing Order 83.1. On occasion, the Committee was authorized by the House to present its report past the deadline. See, for example, Journals, December 1, 2004, p. 280; December 10, 2004, p. 337; January 31, 2005, p. 367; November 6, 2014, p. 1742; December 10, 2014, p. 1952. In 2010, the report was never tabled, as a draft version was leaked. See Speaker Scheer’s ruling (Debates, November 29, 2010, pp. 6560–1).
432.: See, for example, Journals, November 28, 1994, p. 943; November 30, 1994, p. 957; February 1, 1999, pp. 1442, 1446; February 2, 1999, p. 1461; December 10, 2002, pp. 289–90, 295; December 12, 2002, pp. 305–7; January 31, 2005, pp. 359–60, 366; February 1, 2005, p. 374; February 7, 2008, pp. 405–6; February 8, 2008, pp. 411, 413.
433.: On five occasions since 1994, the House debated a motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance dealing with the pre-budget consultations (Journals, December 15, 1999, pp. 819–20; December 13, 2001, p. 953; April 22, 2005, pp. 673–4; May 30, 2005, pp. 803–4; March 7, 2012, p. 913; October 30, 2014, p. 1686). On November 1 and 7, 2001, the House debated the government motion “That this House take note of ongoing pre-budget consultations” (Journals, November 1, 2001, pp. 780–2; November 7, 2001, p. 811). On November 26, 2001, the Standing Committee on Finance presented its Tenth Report on the pre-budget consultations (Journals, p. 853). On December 10, the budget speech was delivered; it was debated on December 11 and 12 (Journals, December 10, 2001, p. 939; December 11, 2001, p. 943; December 12, 2001, p. 950). On December 13, concurrence was moved in the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and debated that day (Journals, p. 953). In accordance with the procedural rules in effect at the time, the motion was transferred to Government Orders on the Order Paper. The budget was debated again on January 28 and on January 29, 2002, when it was adopted (Journals, January 28, 2002, p. 964; January 29, 2002, p. 976). At the time, no objections were raised as to the acceptability of moving a motion to concur in the Committee’s report presented under Standing Order 83.1. See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, May 5, 2005, pp. 5725–7).
434.: For many years, the Minister of Finance presented the Economic and Fiscal Update in the fall to the Standing Committee on Finance. See, for example, Minutes of Proceedings, November 2, 1999, Meeting No. 2; November 3, 2003, Meeting No. 96; November 23, 2006, Meeting No. 53. On October 29, 2007, even before the Standing Committee on Finance held its organization meeting, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform sought unanimous consent to propose a motion for leave to present an economic statement under “Statements by Ministers” at 4:00 p.m. the following day (Debates, p. 529). As unanimous consent was denied, the Minister of Finance tabled the government’s Economic Statement before the House on October 30, 2007, without, however, giving a speech (Journals, p. 113). Since 2009, the economic statement has been delivered outside of the House of Commons to business audiences in various provinces. In 2009 and again in 2014, a question of privilege was raised concerning the economic and fiscal update being delivered outside of the House. In his ruling in 2009, Speaker Milliken concluded that the public release of information concerning government policy did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Speaker (Debates, October 5, 2009, p. 5564). This ruling was upheld by Speaker Scheer in 2014 (Debates, December 4, 2014, pp. 10167–8).
435.: Furthermore, the Parliament of Canada Act tasks the Parliamentary Budget Officer with providing objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy (RSC 1985, c P-1, s 79.2(a)).
436.: Journals, October 20, 1977, p. 19, Debates, pp. 98–102; Journals, April 21, 1980, pp. 61–2, Debates, pp. 242–8. See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling (Journals, April 28, 1980, pp. 86–8).
437.: Journals, October 14, 1971, pp. 870–1, Debates, pp. 8688–90.
438.: Debates, October 27, 1982, p. 20077; Journals, June 12, 1987, p. 1089; June 18, 1987, pp. 1200–1.
439.: Journals, October 18, 2000, pp. 2074–5; November 28, 2008, p. 51; March 4, 2010, p. 47; October 17, 2013, pp. 23–4.
440.: See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1992, pp. 14417–27.
441.: However, on November 7, 1984, and November 25, 2008, the House adopted a special order enabling the Minister of Finance to make an economic statement and providing for replies from representatives of recognized parties following the example used for ministerial statements (Journals, November 7, 1984, pp. 32–3; November 8, 1984, pp. 37–8; November 25, 2008, p. 37; November 27, 2008, p. 48).
442.: Standing Order 83(2). See, for example, Journals, April 21, 2015, pp. 2381–2.
443.: Standing Order 84(2); Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2919.
444.: Standing Order 40(2).
445.: Standing Order 81(11). This has never occurred.
446.: Prior to 1955, only one budget debate did not terminate with a decision by the House. The Twentieth Parliament dissolved on April 30, 1949, without votes being held on the subamendment, amendment or main motion.
447.: Journals, April 10, 1962, p. 344.
448.: Journals, April 21, 1966, p. 428; June 5, 1969, p. 1121.
449.: On May 8, 1974, following the subamendment being agreed to (Journals, pp. 175–6), Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau sought a dissolution; the Twenty-Ninth Parliament was dissolved the next day. On December 13, 1979, following the subamendment being agreed to (Journals, pp. 345–6), Prime Minister Clark sought a dissolution; the Thirty-First Parliament was dissolved the next day.
450.: Journals, February 28, 1991, pp. 2639–40; March 4, 1991, pp. 2653–4.
451.: Journals, April 28, 1993, pp. 2874–5.
452.: Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 926.
453.: Standing Order 84(3).
454.: Standing Orders 43(1)(a) and (b) and 84(7). See, for example, Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451–5; September 20, 2006, p. 404; October 20, 2006, p. 556; October 25, 2006, pp. 577–9.
455.: Standing Order 85.
456.: On two occasions, a Member from the third opposition party has moved a subamendment at the end of his or her speech (Journals, May 3, 2006, pp. 123–4; March 20, 2007, p. 1116).
457.: See the debate on the budget presented on June 13, 1963.
458.: The most recent example occurred in 1978 when a subamendment “modif[ied] the first proposition completely” (Debates, November 17, 1978, p. 1250). Other amendments deemed inadmissible include those dealing with matters before the House or already decided upon by the House (Journals, May 15, 1934, pp. 332–3; July 1, 1942, pp. 454–6) or one of its committees (Journals, May 7, 1934, pp. 311–2) and those which are not relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed (Journals, March 8, 1937, p. 208).
459.: In 2012, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Official Opposition spoke for nearly three full sitting days. On the third of four appointed days for resuming debate on the budget motion, he moved an amendment and the Member speaking first on behalf of the second-largest opposition party moved a subamendment. As a result, both the amendment and the subamendment were moved and voted upon on the same day (Journals, April 3, 2012, pp. 1060–4).
460.: Standing Order 84(4).
461.: Standing Order 84(5) and (6).
462.: Journals, April 23, 1970, p. 711; November 27, 1974, p. 150; July 4, 1975, p. 685; June 10, 1976, p. 1341; April 20, 1978, p. 668; November 24, 1978, p. 184.
463.: Journals, March 7, 1986, p. 1777.
464.: Journals, May 15, 1930, p. 318; April 11, 1933, p. 401; May 27, 1948, p. 485; March 31, 1949, p. 290 (Parliament was dissolved before the amendment came to a vote); December 21, 1960, p. 138; June 22, 1961, pp. 707–8; May 7, 1974, p. 169; April 19, 1977, p. 680; June 29, 1982, p. 5101; February 16, 1984, p. 180. On February 2, 2009, during a minority Parliament, an amendment to the budget motion was adopted but was worded, not as an expression of confidence, but as a condition to the adoption of the budget motion (Journals, pp. 74–6). It required the government to table reports detailing economic and fiscal updates in the House at the end of every supply period during that session. See, for example, Journals, March 10, 2009, p. 230. The government continued this practice during the following session. See, for example, Journals, January 31, 2010, p. 1095.
465.: Journals, May 8, 1974, pp. 175–6; December 13, 1979, pp. 345–6.
466.: On December 1, 2009, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader rose on a point of order arguing that Bill C-470, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (revocation of registration), 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009, should have been preceded by a ways and means motion as it would extend the incidence of a tax (Debates, pp. 7410–1). The Deputy Speaker ruled that the Bill did not impose a tax on a new class of taxpayer and, therefore, a ways and means motion was not necessary (Debates, March 15, 2010, pp. 419–20).
467.: May, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed., pp. 761–70. See also Speaker Parent’s rulings (Debates, February 12, 1998, p. 3765; December 2, 1998, pp. 10789–91), and Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, June 12, 2001, pp. 5024–7).
468.: See Speaker Michener’s ruling (Journals, December 9, 1957, p. 254); Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling (Journals, March 27, 1972, p. 223); Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, February 1, 2008, p. 2480). See also May, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed., pp. 768–9.
469.: See Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, June 13, 2005, pp. 6990–2).
470.: Standing Order 83(1). The term “at any time” has been interpreted quite literally. Notices of ways and means motions have been tabled at the start of a sitting (Journals, October 3, 2011, p. 299), on a point of order (Debates, September 9, 1985, p. 6420), during Routine Proceedings (Journals, June 1, 2015, p. 2598), during “Statements by Ministers” (Journals, June 12, 1987, p. 1089; June 18, 1987, pp. 1200–1), during Government Orders (Debates, May 28, 2015, pp. 14276–7), during debate on a motion to adjourn pursuant to Standing Order 26 (Debates, October 14, 1971, pp. 8688–90), during an Address debate (Journals, April 21, 1980, pp. 61–2), immediately following Oral Questions (Journals, June 11, 2015, pp. 2739–40) and immediately before Private Members’ Business (Debates, November 2, 2006, p. 4673). However, the Speaker has clearly indicated that such tabling would not be appropriate during Question Period or when another Member is speaking unless the House was about to adjourn. See Speaker Bosley’s ruling (Debates, September 11, 1985, p. 6498). For an exception to this rule, see Debates, October 31, 2006, p. 4502. Prior to 1968, the practice was for notices of ways and means motions to be given only during the budget speech. It is now procedurally acceptable for a Minister to introduce ways and means legislation based on budget proposals presented in a previous session. See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling (Journals, March 20, 1972, p. 202, Debates, pp. 963–5).
471.: Standing Order 83(2). See, for example, Journals, May 4, 2015, p. 2462, Debates, p. 13390.
472.: Standing Order 83(1). This restriction has been circumvented with the consent of the House. See, for example, Journals, October 15, 2001, p. 705; June 2, 2005, pp. 825, 827; June 12, 2009, pp. 629, 631.
473.: Standing Order 83(3).
474.: See, for example, Journals, April 23, 2013, pp. 3016–8; April 9, 2014, p. 819. Occasionally, by unanimous consent, the motion to concur is deemed moved and seconded, the question is deemed put, and a recorded division is deemed requested and deferred until an appointed date and time. See, for example, Journals, March 24, 2003, p. 546; October 16, 2012, p. 2146; May 29, 2015, p. 2594. On occasion, the motion to concur is deemed moved, seconded and agreed to. See, for example, Journals, October 29, 2007, pp. 73–4; October 21, 2013, p. 35.
475.: Standing Order 83(4). No notice is required for the introduction of such a bill. Since the early 1990s, bills based on a ways and means motion have normally been introduced and read a first time during a subsequent sitting of the House following the adoption of the motion. See, for example, Journals, October 23, 2013, p. 87, Notice Paper, p. III; Journals, October 24, 2013, p. 93, Order Paper, p. 7. A Minister will sometimes proceed with the introduction and first reading of the bill immediately after the ways and means motion has been adopted. See, for example, Journals, March 25, 2003, pp. 548–9, 551–3, Order Paper, pp. 7, 21; Journals, October 29, 2007, pp. 73–6, Order Paper, pp. 7–8, 17; Journals, October 23, 2014, pp. 1638–40, Order Paper, p. 7; Journals, May 7, 2015, pp. 2500–2, Order Paper, p. 7. On two recent occasions, a motion was adopted by unanimous consent ordering that a ways and means motion be deemed adopted and that the subsequent bill be deemed introduced and adopted at all stages (Journals, December 5, 2013, p. 342; June 3, 2015, p. 2624). On occasion, two or more ways and means motions were adopted and a single bill was introduced. See, for example, Journals, February 16, 1971, p. 334; April 3, 1973, p. 237; October 31, 2007, pp. 119–21; November 14, 2007, pp. 154–6; November 21, 2007, pp. 185–6.
476.: See, for example, Journals, February 11, 2014, p. 535 (Sessional Paper No. 8570-412-11).
477.: See, for example, Journals, October 20, 2014, p. 1622 (Sessional Paper No. 8570-412-16).
478.: May, Erskine May’s Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 24th ed., pp. 782–3. In the fall of 2006, a Member rose on a point of order to state that Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions), 2nd Sess, 39th Parl, 2008, was improperly before the House. He contended that the Bill contained provisions that would effectively increase the amount of tax payable by the taxpayer, which would result in potentially more taxes being collected, and therefore should have been preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion (Debates, June 21, 2006, pp. 2758–9). The Speaker stated that the proposal amounted to a tax deferral, and that consequently it did not impose any increased tax burden on the taxpayer (Debates, November 1, 2006, p. 4540). In the spring of 2008, a Member rose on a point of order concerning the admissibility of sections 45 to 48 of ways and means motion No. 10 to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget (Debates, March 11, 2008, p. 3971). More specifically, the point of order involved conditional amendments that sought to amend or repeal the amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in Bill C-253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions), 2nd Sess, 39th Parl, 2008, should the latter receive Royal Assent. In reply to the fact that the ways and means motion contained measures that were not included in the budget, the Speaker pointed out that their stated objective was “to protect Canada’s fiscal framework” as set out in the budget and that therefore the motion could proceed in its current form (Debates, March 13, 2008, pp. 4109–10).
479.: See, for example, Speaker Jerome’s rulings (Journals, July 15, 1975, p. 710; May 19, 1978, p. 786; Debates, June 7, 1978, p. 6155).
480.: See Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Journals, December 18, 1974, p. 224). See also Journals, July 14, 1975, p. 707; May 19, 1978, p. 784.
481.: See Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Debates, June 7, 1978, p. 6155).
482.: See Speaker Jerome’s ruling (Journals, May 19, 1978, p. 786).
483.: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling (Journals, December 13, 1973, pp. 746–7), and Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, January 29, 1990, pp. 7546–9).
484.: Standing Order 83(4). This allows for debate on ways and means bills to begin one sitting day earlier than the debate on other government bills.
485.: See, for example, Speaker Jerome’s rulings (Journals, December 18, 1974, pp. 224–5; July 14, 1975, pp. 706–7; May 19, 1978, pp. 784–6). See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, March 13, 2008, pp. 4109–10).
486.: See, for example, Journals, May 31, 2013, pp. 3238–9. On one occasion, a ways and means bill was introduced and read the first time without prior concurrence in the ways and means motion and the proceedings on the government bill were subsequently declared null and void. See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, October 9, 1986, p. 246).
487.: For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”. Standing Order 69.1, which allows the House to make a separate decision on each of the various themes in an omnibus bill, does not apply to budget implementation bills containing provisions that were announced in the budget presentation (Journals, June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6).
488.: Speaker Parent ruled that a Senate bill imposed a tax and thus should have been preceded by a ways and means motion. The bill was deemed to be improperly before the House and the first reading proceedings were declared null and void (Debates, December 2, 1998, p. 10791). See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, June 12, 2001, pp. 5024–7).
489.: For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
490.: See, for example, Debates, December 19, 1984, p. 1380; Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 3, 1991, Issue No. 29, pp. 16–35, in particular pp. 30–1. On occasion, by unanimous consent of the House, a new ways and means motion has been concurred in, and a Minister of the Crown has proposed amendments to bills which went beyond the provisions of the original ways and means motion. Consent to move these amendments was usually requested either in a Committee of the Whole or during report stage. For examples where the House has proceeded by way of unanimous consent in a Committee of the Whole, see Debates, April 9, 1973, p. 3121; January 7, 1974, p. 9115. For an example where the House has proceeded by unanimous consent at report stage, see Debates, May 26, 1981, pp. 9931–2, 9948.
491.: See, for example, Journals, October 19, 1978, p. 38; October 20, 1978, p. 42; April 8, 1997, pp. 1353–5; April 9, 1997, pp. 1362–3; March 13, 2008, pp. 598–9; March 14, 2008, p. 608; May 31, 2013, pp. 3238–9; October 23, 2014, pp. 1638–40.
492.: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling (Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16254–5). Despite the fact that two different procedures were invoked, such bills were acceptable provided the notice provision was respected. See Speaker Sauvé’s rulings (Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319; February 16, 1982, p. 15053), and Speaker Francis’ ruling (Debates, January 18, 1984, p. 526).
493.: See Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, January 18, 1984, p. 526.
494.: For further information regarding the royal recommendation, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca