House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 EditionMore information …
Previous PageNext Page

18. Financial Procedures

If committees are going to do a better job of examining the Estimates, they need more opportunities to influence expenditure, more authority, and better information. Once improvements have been made, committees should be able to bring new attitudes and approaches to their study of the Estimates.

Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Fifty-First Report
(The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control) presented to the House on December 10, 1998 (Journals, p. 1435)


he development of parliamentary procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown. As the Executive power, [1]  the Crown is responsible for managing all the revenue of the state, including all payments for the public service. [2]  The Crown, on the advice of its Ministers, makes the financial requirements of the government known to the House of Commons which, in return, authorizes the necessary “aids” (taxes) and “supplies” (grants of money). No tax may be imposed, or money spent, without the consent of Parliament.

The direct control of national finance has been referred to as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”. [3]  That control is exercised at two levels. First, Parliament must assent to all legislative measures which implement public policy and the House of Commons authorizes both the amounts and objects or destination of all public expenditures. Second, through its review of the annual departmental performance reports, the Public Accounts and the reports of the Auditor General, the House ascertains that no expenditure was made other than those it had authorized. [4] 

The practices and procedures which govern how Parliament deals with the nation’s finances are set out principally in the Constitution Act, 1867[5]  the Financial Administration Act[6]  unwritten conventions, and the rules of the House of Commons and the Senate.

Basic Components of Financial Operations

The basic components of parliamentary financial procedure may be succinctly described as follows:

Consolidated Revenue Fund: the account into which the government deposits taxes, tariffs, excises and other revenues, once collected, and from which it withdraws the money it requires to cover its expenditures. [7] 

Royal Recommendation: the instrument by which the Crown advises Parliament of its intent to introduce a legislative measure having an impact on the Consolidated Revenue Fund. [8]  Under the Constitution, all such legislative measures must be initiated by the Crown and originate in the House of Commons.

Supply: the process by which the government submits its projected annual expenditures (the Estimates) for parliamentary approval.

Borrowing Authority: the authorization required by the government to make up any shortfall between revenues and expenditures.

Ways and Means: the process by which the government sets out its economic policy (the Budget) and obtains necessary authority to raise revenues through taxation.

Public Accounts: the annual statement and review of the government’s expenditures.

The Financial Cycle

The fiscal year of the Government of Canada runs from April 1 to March 31. [9]  However, the planning for the fiscal year begins much earlier with the preparation of departmental expenditure plans, which are developed in accordance with the government’s policy and budgetary priorities, and the pre-budget consultations by the Standing Committee on Finance. [10]  The expenditure plans are submitted to the House in their consolidated form as the “Main Estimates”. At the same time, the Department of Finance is compiling the information taken in during the pre-budget consultations and preparing its economic forecasts. The government’s efforts to reconcile its spending obligations and revenue projections are reflected in the Budget.

The Budget outlines the government’s fiscal, social and economic policies and priorities, while the Estimates set out, in detail, its projected expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. Typically, the Budget is presented in the second half of February, although the government is under no obligation to do so. [11]  Under normal circumstances, the Main Estimates are tabled in the House on or before March 1 and submitted for concurrence by the House no later than June 23. [12] 

Should the government require funds while waiting for, or in the absence of, income from taxes and other revenue sources, it will seek authority to borrow. Should there be a change in the government’s requirements as set out in the Main Estimates, Parliament will be asked to approve “supplementary” Estimates.

The tabling of the Public Accounts of Canada and the Annual Report of the Auditor General, and their review by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, completes the government’s annual cycle of financial transactions. [13] 

Figure 18.1 – The Financial Cycle
An image depicting, in a horizontal oval shape, the financial cycle. The cycle is divided into three supply periods (one ending June 23, the second ending December 10 and the third ending March 26) and shows what financial activities may occur during each of these periods. Among the items listed for the cycle are the tabling of Main Estimates on or before March 1, committees reporting the Estimates back to the House, concurrence in the Estimates and the adoption of appropriation bills, pre-budget consultations by the Standing Committee on Finance, the tabling of the Public Accounts and the budget presentation.

Historical Perspective

The manner in which Canada deals with public finance derives from British parliamentary procedure, as practised at the time of Confederation. [14]  The financial procedures adopted by the Canadian House of Commons in 1867 were formed by the following principles:

  • that although Parliament alone might impose taxes and authorize the use of public money, Parliament can do this only on the recommendation of the Crown (royal recommendation), in Canada represented by the Governor General;
  • that the House of Commons has the right to have its grievances addressed before it considers and approves the financial requirements of the Crown;
  • that the House of Commons has exclusive control over the business of public finance (taxing and spending) and all such business is to be initiated in the lower house; [15]  and
  • that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation is to be given the fullest possible discussion, both in the House and in committee. [16] 

British Precedents

The whole law of finance, and consequently the whole British constitution, is grounded upon one fundamental principle, laid down at the very outset of English parliamentary history and secured by three hundred years of mingled conflict with the Crown and peaceful growth. All taxes and public burdens imposed upon the nation for purposes of state, whatsoever their nature, must be granted by the representatives of the citizens and taxpayers, i.e., by Parliament. [17] 

The requirement that legislation sanction all public spending and taxation has a long constitutional history. [18]  In medieval England, the King was expected to meet most public expenses (the court, the clergy and the military) out of his personal revenues. Where this was not possible, he was obliged to seek funds by summoning the common council of the realm, or parliament, to discuss what aids (taxes and tariffs) should be supplied to support the Crown. Even in the earliest days of these assemblies, it was generally recognized that, when “aids” or “supplies” were required, the King should seek consent not only to impose a tax, but also for the manner in which the revenues from that tax might be spent. In 1295, the writ of summons for one of these councils, later known as the “Model Parliament”, proclaimed: “What touches all should be approved by all”.

Early British Parliaments were not legislative bodies as we understand them today, but petitioning bodies. They presented petitions to the King and agreed to taxes (i.e., money granted to the Crown), on the condition that certain problems (or grievances) outlined in the petitions would be addressed or concessions made. By 1400, the Commons insisted that the King respond to their petitions before any grant of money was made. When the King refused, they adopted the practice of delaying the grant until the last day of the session.

The “councils” subsequently divided into two “Houses” based on their communities of interest: the House of Lords and the House of Commons. In principle, each House taxed itself independently; for this reason it was not considered appropriate that the Lords determine what the Commons should contribute. Moreover, because the greater part of the tax burden fell to the Commoners, grants to the Monarch came to be made by the Commons “with the advice and consent” of the Lords. The dominant position of the Commons in terms of deciding matters of taxation was firmly established early in the fifteenth century when Henry IV conceded that any grant to the Sovereign must be agreed upon by both the Lords and the Commons and must be communicated to the Crown by the Speaker of the House of Commons. [19] 

Initially, the Commons were content simply to have grants of Supply originate in their House. However, over time the Lords began “tacking on” additional legislative provisions to Commons “money bills”, by way of amendments. This was viewed by the House as a breach of its prerogative to originate all legislation which imposed a charge either on the public or the public purse, and led the Commons, in 1678, to resolve that:

All aids and supplies, and aids to his Majesty in Parliament, are the sole gift of the Commons; and all Bills for the granting of any such aids and supplies ought to begin with the Commons: and that it is the undoubted and sole right of the Commons to direct, limit, and appoint, in such Bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations, and qualifications of such grants; which ought not to be changed or altered by the House of Lords. [20] 

By the end of the seventeenth century, the principles of modern financial procedure — most particularly the annual treatment of finance by the House of Commons and the notion of effective and permanent House control over all public expenditure — were well established. Their evolution had taken several centuries and was related to the rise and gradual abolition of the Civil List, the creation of the Consolidated Fund and the growth of the “estimates” system, whereby the government receives annual operating grants from Parliament.

The Civil List

The Civil List [21] was initially a list of all non-military personnel in the service of the Crown for whom remuneration was paid by Parliament. [22]  These included individuals in the personal employ of the Sovereign, such as domestic servants, people in the diplomatic service and various public officials and civil servants. Previously, the Crown had covered these expenses out of the Sovereign’s hereditary revenues and certain taxes voted to the Sovereign for life by Parliament.

Initially, Parliament did not concern itself with how the funds were spent. In general, it was felt that, while the Crown was not entitled to increase its revenue without the Parliament’s consent, it was perfectly free to dispose of, as it pleased, any funds properly in its possession. However, the amounts voted by Parliament were frequently insufficient and the House was increasingly asked for additional grants to discharge debts which the Sovereign had incurred to cover the shortfall. So emerged the practice of allocating to the Crown funds for specific purposes.

With the accession of Queen Victoria to the throne in 1837, Civil List expenditures were reduced to those required solely to meet the personal needs of the Sovereign and her family. All other civil expenses were taken over by the national treasury and paid out of the Consolidated Fund.

The Consolidated Fund

During the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, the raising and spending of public money were intimately connected. Requests from the Crown for money, in estimated amounts for specified purposes, were considered and approved by a Committee of the Whole House. This phase concluded, a second Committee of the Whole considered the recommended “ways and means” for raising the money required to cover the amounts approved. The work of the first committee, which came to be known as the Committee on Supply, led directly to the work of the second, the Committee on Ways and Means. Only when the latter came to a decision, would a bill be introduced which empowered the Crown to raise money in the amount and in the manner approved by the Committee on Ways and Means and to spend up to the amount approved, and only for the purposes designated, by the Committee on Supply.

The close coupling of taxing and spending continued until 1786 when the establishment of the Consolidated Fund [23] abolished the need to match a particular outlay with a specified revenue. [24]  Once the Committee of Supply had agreed to the expenditure of certain sums, the Ways and Means Committee would look to the Consolidated Fund to pay for the approved expenditures. The concept of an appropriation bill was introduced to set aside from the Fund the amounts required for the purposes designated. Appropriation bills merely set aside funds; they do not require the Crown to spend all or any of the money which has been appropriated. Furthermore, appropriations are always made with a time limit; the spending authorization provided under an appropriation act expires at the end of the fiscal year to which the Act applies. [25] 

Thus, two distinct kinds of government financial business emerged: the business of Supply, which approved expenditures and their purposes, and resulted in the passing of appropriation bills; and the business of Ways and Means, which resulted in the taxation bills used to raise the monies needed to replenish the Consolidated Fund.

Since the institution of the Consolidated Fund, all expenses of the state have been authorized either by specific statute (ongoing and permanent) or by way of an annual appropriation. It is the annual appropriations, or supply grants, which come before the House for discussion each year.

The Estimates

As the seventeenth century drew to a close, England’s continuing colonial disputes with France and Spain and the recent experience of two civil wars made evident the need to maintain a national standing army under the control of Parliament. Previously, the Monarch had simply raised armies to fight wars, as required.

The institution of a permanent military establishment carried with it the requirement for grants to cover the cost of personnel, wars and fortifications. [26]  In 1689, the British Parliament passed the Mutiny Act, legislation which had to be renewed yearly. The Act restricted the use of martial law and gave authorization for a definite number of military personnel. The Act also authorized a grant of funds sufficient to cover military wages, ordnance and shipbuilding for that year. This, then, was the means by which Parliament undertook the regular annual charge of Supply for the army and navy, and from which emerged the parliamentary practice of granting annual appropriations for the operations of government. The principles governing that practice hold that the government may spend on public administration no more than the amounts (estimates) approved by Parliament and is similarly prohibited from using funds voted for one purpose to pay for another (engaging in virement). [27]  As the scope of civil government expanded, civil expenditure came to comprise a number of expenses funded solely by annual parliamentary grants. [28] 

Financial Procedure in Colonial Canada

By the end of the eighteenth century, most of the British North American colonies had acquired representative political institutions. [29]  For many years, colonial governance was fraught with dissension as a result of the often irreconcilable interests of appointed governors and elected representatives. Much of that conflict arose over the issue of who should control the public purse. [30]  However, by the time of Confederation, the popular assemblies of British North America had asserted their right to decide what taxes should be raised and where they would be spent, thus fulfilling the principle of responsible government, which holds that the executive may only govern while it enjoys the confidence or support of the House of Commons. Parliament’s rights and role in the processes of taxing and spending may be found in the various rules and procedures of the legislatures from which they derive. [31]  In 1867, the Canadian House of Commons adopted the rules of the former Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, including those covering the process of taxing and spending. [32] 

Upper Canada

Initially, the colonial administration of Upper Canada was paid for entirely by the British Parliament. However, in 1817, the Executive asked the Assembly for a grant of money to cover certain administrative costs which exceeded the amount authorized by Westminster. Previously, Britain had covered any excesses; but, in view of the growing wealth and relative prosperity of the colony, the local community was asked to subsidize these expenditures. Not surprisingly, the elected representatives demanded a say in how the money would be spent. Moreover, they asked that the Governor and his Executive Council not spend money which the Assembly had not authorized, nor for purposes other than those it had designated.

Supply (the authority to spend) was rarely withheld. [33]  Even when it was withheld (in 1818, 1825 and 1836), it was inconsequential. In fact, the Crown appeared relatively indifferent to the sums voted by the House. Nonetheless, the House continued to take the Supply process seriously, resolving that the misapplication of parliamentary appropriations was a “high crime” and affirming the undoubted right of the elected House to determine how, and how much, public money was spent.

By 1840, Supply proceedings in the Assembly had become relatively formalized. Estimates were referred upon presentation to a permanent Select Committee on Finance. The committee’s report would be referred to a Committee of Supply (a Committee of the Whole House) [34] which, in turn, would report back to the House a number of resolutions, each of which recommending that money be appropriated for some item. Once adopted, these resolutions would be referred to a special committee of two members charged with drafting the bills based thereon. A number of bills would then be presented.

Lower Canada

Prior to 1818, the Executive Council requested no funds from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, with the result that no Estimates were tabled. Nevertheless, the House attempted to exert some financial control by way of its annual review of the public accounts. Until 1812, the accounts were examined in a Committee of the Whole, after which they were referred to a special committee of five members. Beginning in 1818, Estimates were also referred to this committee. The committee’s frequent criticisms of the administration for appropriating money without the consent of the House of Assembly prompted the House to resolve that the appropriation of the public revenue without legislation was “a breach of the privileges of this House, and subversive of the Government of this Province, as established by Law”. The House further warned that it would hold the Receiver General responsible for all monies levied. [35] 

The House of Assembly used various other procedures in its efforts to control the administration, including refusing Supply, refusing to deal with all legislation until basic grievances were met and “tacking” on clauses to bills appropriating revenue for which there was no existing statute, a practice which forced the Executive to choose between enacting the additional clauses or losing Supply.

The Province of Canada

In 1840, the British Parliament passed the Union Act uniting Upper and Lower Canada. [36]  With its enactment came the acknowledgement that a government should enjoy the confidence of the people’s representatives. [37]  It is also by the Union Act that the royal prerogative in right of financial legislation was first introduced into Canadian parliamentary law. Prior to 1840, any elected member in the legislatures of Canada could introduce a bill with financial implications for consideration of the assembly. This practice was much frowned upon by governors on the grounds that it interfered with the efficient operation of government. [38]  Lord Durham felt strongly that “The prerogative of the Crown which is constantly exercised in Great Britain for the real protection of the people, ought never to have been waived in the Colonies; and [that if] introduced … it might be wisely employed in protecting the public interests, now frequently sacrificed in that scramble for local appropriations, which chiefly serves to give an undue influence to particular individuals or parties.” [39] 

Provision was made for a Consolidated Revenue Fund against which would be charged all expenses related to the collection, management and receipt of revenue, all interest on the public debt and remuneration of the clergy and officials included on the civil list. [40]  Any surplus remaining in the fund after these charges had been deducted could be used for the service of the public, as the legislature thought fit. [41]  All votes, resolutions or bills involving expenditure of public funds were to be first recommended by the governor general. [42] 

There were still disputes over the control of money. However, no administration was defeated over an appropriation act; in fact, even when governments changed, a supply bill was often taken over and carried through by the succeeding administration. [43]  By 1867, the vote of confidence had virtually replaced withholding Supply as the preferred mechanism by which the Assembly sought control over the administration of government.

Financial Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons

The Constitution Act, 1867 provided that any bill appropriating any part of the public revenue or imposing a tax or duty must originate in the House of Commons. [44]  Furthermore, the Act made it unlawful for the House to pass any measure to appropriate public revenues or impose a tax or duty which had not first been recommended by the Governor General in the Session in which the measure was proposed. [45]  Additional clauses provided for the creation and use of a Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Parliament of Canada for the public service. [46] 

Standing Orders (1867-1968)

The first Standing Orders of the House of Commons codified long-established rules of parliamentary practice and procedure, which were rooted in British parliamentary history and, subsequently, also in the rules and procedures of the different colonial legislatures.

The cardinal principle governing Parliament’s treatment of financial measures was that they be given the fullest possible consideration in committee and in the House. This was to ensure that “parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country”. [47]  To satisfy the requirement for debate, the 1867 rules required that financial business be considered first in a Committee of the Whole before being debated in the House. [48]  In 1874, the House agreed to appoint, henceforth, at the beginning of each session, a Committee of Supply and a Committee of Ways and Means. [49]  The Committee of Supply approved the annual Estimates of government expenditure, while the Committee of Ways and Means considered the government’s proposals to raise revenue and approved necessary withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the measures in the Estimates. Yet another measure safeguarding the House from hasty financial decisions was the rule that the debate on any motion proposed “for any public Aid or Charge upon the people” would not proceed immediately, but would be adjourned to a subsequent sitting day. [50]  This was done so that “no member may be forced to come to a hasty decision, but that every one may have abundant opportunities afforded him of stating his reasons for supporting or opposing the proposed grant”. [51] 

The first Standing Orders also included, directly under the heading “Aid and Supply”, a note in reference to the Constitution Act, 1867, which required that any measure seeking to raise or spend public money be initiated by the Crown. The rules provided further that all legislation respecting charges upon the public revenue (expenditure) or on the public (taxation) be introduced first in the House of Commons, that is, the Commons alone grants supply. [52] 

In general, the financial procedures set out under these rules remained the same for the next hundred years. [53] However, financial procedures came to be used by successive oppositions as a means of obstructing, delaying, and even preventing the government from passing financial business. As a consequence, beginning in the late 1960s, financial procedures, which had remained virtually unchanged for a century, were drastically revised and streamlined. These revisions had to recognize and protect two contradictory principles: that the government is entitled to get its financial legislation through Parliament; and that the opposition is entitled to identify, draw attention to, delay, and debate, items that it feels need attention and discussion.

The Royal Recommendation

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. [54]  This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown”, is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”. With this prerogative, the government is assigned the responsibility for preparing a comprehensive budget, proposing how funds shall be spent, and actually handling the use of funds. The Constitution Act, 1867, states that “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”. [55]  The language of the Constitution is echoed in the Standing Orders of the House. [56] 

For the first hundred years following Confederation, any bill or clause appropriating money had to be preceded by a House resolution, whose wording defined precisely the amount and purpose of any appropriations sought. The resolution was moved by a Minister of the Crown and was recommended by the Governor General. [57]  Every appropriating clause of the subsequent bill had to conform to the provisions outlined in the resolution, and no Member could move amendments to the legislation that would have the effect of increasing the amount or altering the purposes which the resolution had authorized. [58]  To alter an appropriating clause, the government had first to obtain a new resolution from the House, again recommended by the Governor General, embodying the change.

Because the debate on the financial resolution was often repeated at the second reading stage of the bill, the House eliminated the resolution stage in 1968. [59]  The Crown’s recommendation would now be conveyed to the House as a printed notice which would appear in the Notice Paper and again in the Journals when the bill was introduced, and be printed in or appended to the text of the bill. [60]  The rule change did not alter the constitutional requirement for a royal recommendation, nor its form, only the procedure to be followed.

In 1994, the Standing Orders were again amended to remove the requirement that a royal recommendation had to be provided to the House before a bill could be introduced. [61]  The royal recommendation can now be provided after the bill has been introduced in the House, as long as it is done before the bill is read a third time and passed. However, the government has maintained the practice of providing the royal recommendation to their own bills at the moment they are put on notice for introduction in the House. [62]  The royal recommendation accompanying a bill must still be printed in the Notice Paper, printed in or annexed to the bill and recorded in the Journals.

In general, there are two types of bills which confer parliamentary authority to spend and therefore would require a royal recommendation [63] :

  • Appropriation acts, or supply bills which authorize charges against the Consolidated Revenue Fund up to the amounts approved in the Estimates; and
  • Bills which authorize new charges for purposes not anticipated in the Estimates. [64]  The charge imposed by the legislation must be “new and distinct”; in other words, not covered elsewhere by some more general authorization. [65] 

An appropriation accompanied by a royal recommendation, though it can be reduced, can neither be increased nor redirected without a new recommendation. [66]  Because financial legislation must originate in the House of Commons, bills that require a royal recommendation may not be introduced in the Senate. [67] 

A royal recommendation not only fixes the allowable charge, but also its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications. An amendment which either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative. [68]  However, a royal recommendation is not required for an amendment whose effect is to reduce taxes otherwise payable. [69] 

The rules regarding the royal recommendation also apply to a bill sponsored by a private Member. [70] In the past, when such a bill infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, the Speaker has not allowed it to go forward. [71]  However, since the rule change of 1994, 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. [72]  If a royal recommendation were not produced by the time the House was ready to decide on the motion for third reading of the bill, the Speaker would have to stop the proceedings and rule the bill out of order. The Speaker has the duty and responsibility to ensure that the Standing Orders on the royal recommendation as well as the constitutional requirements are upheld. There is no provision under the rules of financial procedure which would permit the Speaker to leave it to the House to decide or to allow the House to do so by unanimous consent. [73] 

The Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons require that bills which appropriate (impose a charge on the public revenue) or levy any tax or duty (impose a charge upon the people) must first be introduced and passed in the House of Commons. [74]  The Speaker has ruled that a Senate bill which appropriated public money could not be introduced in the House and directed that the notice for the first reading of the bill be removed from the Order Paper[75]  The Speaker has also ruled that a Senate bill which had been read a first time in the House was in fact imposing a tax and should have originated in the Commons; the proceedings on the bill were declared null and void and the bill was ordered withdrawn from the Order Paper[76] 

Financial legislation is, in the opinion of the House, not alterable by the Senate. [77]  Since Confederation, the Senate has regularly asserted the right to amend money bills. [78]  Most of the disagreements between the two Chambers arise over the extent of the Senate’s authority to amend financial legislation. On the one hand, it has been argued that the Senate is restricted to passing or rejecting such bills. [79]  Others maintain that the Senate has full powers to amend, provided that it not increase appropriations or the amount of taxation. [80]  The issue is whether a money bill is one that includes any financial provisions or whether its purpose must be primarily or solely financial; and, consequently, whether any restrictions on the Senate’s power to amend should extend to the whole bill or simply to its financial aspects. A further question is whether or not the Senate can propose amendments to bills amending existing financial legislation. [81] In some instances, the House of Commons has rejected the Senate’s amendments and claimed their financial privilege. [82]  On other occasions, however, the House has waived its privileges and accepted the Senate amendments. [83]  Where the Commons choose to accept a Senate amendment (to a bill appropriating funds or imposing a tax), they usually waive their financial prerogative, while insisting that their decision in this instance does not constitute a precedent. [84]  However, the House has, on occasion, accepted or rejected amendments with no reference made to its privileges, whatsoever. [85]  On at least two occasions, the Speaker has refused to lay aside Senate amendments to financial legislation, maintaining that it is the responsibility of the Commons, not the Chair, to invoke or waive the privileges claimed by the House. [86]  Although the Chair has acknowledged its responsibility for directing the House’s attention to any Senate bill or amendment which breaches its privileges, [87]  the Speaker does not rule on the right of the Senate to amend financial legislation on the grounds that this is a constitutional issue. [88]  Senate bills, on the other hand, have been laid aside on the grounds that they contravened the constitutional principles that financial bills originate in the Commons and are introduced at the initiative of the Crown. [89] 

The House will allow the Senate to include or alter pecuniary penalties in bills, where such penalties seek only to punish or prevent crimes or offences and do not have the effect of incurring a public expenditure or imposing a tax on the people. [90] 

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page