House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

18. Financial Procedures

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[351]: Standing Order 40(2).
[352]: Standing Order 81(11). This has never occurred.
[353]: 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 sub-amendment, amendment or main motion.
[354]: Journals, April 10, 1962, p. 344.
[355]: Journals, April 21, 1966, p. 428; June 5, 1969, p. 1121.
[356]: On May 8, 1974, following the sub-amendment being agreed to (Journals, pp. 175-6), Prime Minister Trudeau sought a dissolution; the Twenty-Ninth Parliament was dissolved the next day. On December 13, 1979, following the sub-amendment being agreed to (Journals, pp. 345-6), Prime Minister Clark sought a dissolution; the Thirty-First Parliament was dissolved the next day.
[357]: Journals, February 28, 1991, pp. 2639-40; March 4, 1991, pp. 2653-4.
[358]: Journals, April 28, 1993, pp. 2874-5.
[359]: Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 926.
[360]: Standing Order 84(3).
[361]: Standing Order 84(7). See also Debates, February 20, 1990, pp. 8578-9.
[362]: Standing Order 85.
[363]: See, for example, the debates on the Budgets presented on June 13, 1963, and March 29, 1966.
[364]: Amendments to the Budget motion are rarely disallowed, the most recent example occurring in 1978 when a sub-amendment “modif[ied] the first proposition completely” (see 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 (see, for example, Journals, May 15, 1934, pp. 332-3; July 1, 1942, pp. 454-6) or one of its committees (see, for example, Journals, May 7, 1934, pp. 311-2) and those which are not relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed (see, for example, Journals, March 8, 1937, p. 208).
[365]: Standing Order 84(4).
[366]: Standing Order 84(5).
[367]: Standing Order 84(6).
[368]: See 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.
[369]: Journals, March 7, 1986, p. 1777.
[370]: 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.
[371]: Journals, May 8, 1974, pp. 175-6; December 13, 1979, pp. 345-6.
[372]: May, 22^nd ed., pp. 777-82. See also rulings of Speaker Parent, Debates, February 12, 1998, p. 3765, and December 2, 1998, pp. 10789-91.
[373]: See ruling of Speaker Michener, Journals, December 9, 1957, p. 254; ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, March 27, 1972, p. 223. See also May, 22^nd ed., p. 781.
[374]: Standing Order 83(1). See, for example, Debates, January 30, 1985, p. 1832. While the Standing Orders explicitly permit the tabling of notices of Ways and Means motions at any time during a sitting regardless of the business then before the House, the Speaker has clearly indicated that such tabling is more appropriate during certain proceedings than others. For instance, it would not be appropriate during Question Period or when another Member is speaking unless the House was about to adjourn. (See ruling of Speaker Bosley, Debates, September 11, 1985, p. 6498.) 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 ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, March 20, 1972, p. 202, and Debates, March 20, 1972, pp. 963-5.)
[375]: Standing Order 83(2). See, for example, October 7, 1997 (Debates, p. 569, and Journals, p. 83), and December 2, 1998 (Debates, p. 10791, and Journals, p. 1357).
[376]: Standing Order 83(1). This restriction has been circumvented with the consent of the House. (See, for example, Debates, January 19, 1987, pp. 2368-70).
[377]: Standing Order 83(3).
[378]: See, for example, Journals, October 22, 1997, p. 136.
[379]: Standing Order 83(4). (See, for example, Journals, April 8, 1997, pp. 1354-5, and April 9, 1997, pp. 1362-3.) 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, and April 3, 1973, p. 237.)
[380]: See, for example, Journals, December 11, 1996, p. 992 (Sessional Paper 8570-352-14).
[381]: See, for example, Journals, October 23, 1996, p. 763 (Sessional Paper 8570-352-8).
[382]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 794.
[383]: See, for example, rulings of Speaker Jerome, Journals, July 15, 1975, p. 710; May 19, 1978, p. 786; Debates, June 7, 1978, p. 6155.
[384]: Speaker Jerome, Journals, December 18, 1974, p. 224. See also Journals, July 14, 1975, p. 707; May 19, 1978, p. 784.
[385]: See ruling of Speaker Jerome, Debates, June 7, 1978, p. 6155.
[386]: See ruling of Speaker Jerome, Journals, May 19, 1978, p. 786.
[387]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, December 13, 1973, pp. 746-7; ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, January 29, 1990, pp. 7546-9.
[388]: 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.
[389]: See, for example, rulings of Speaker Jerome, Journals, December 18, 1974, pp. 224-5; July 14, 1975, pp. 706-7; May 19, 1978, pp. 784-6.
[390]: 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 bill were declared null and void. (See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, October 9, 1986, p. 246.)
[391]: See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[392]: 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 presented before the House and the first reading proceedings were declared null and void. ( See Debates, December 2, 1998, p. 10791, and Journals, December 2, 1998, p. 1360.)
[393]: See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[394]: 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, and in particular pp. 30-1. On occasion, with the 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 of where the House has proceeded by way of unanimous consent in a Committee of the Whole, see Debates, April 9, 1973, p. 3121, and January 7, 1974, p. 9115. For an example of where the House has proceeded by unanimous consent at report stage, see Debates, May 26, 1981, pp. 9931-2, 9948.)
[395]: See, for example, Journals, November 5, 1976, p. 114; October 20, 1978, p. 42; April 9, 1997, pp. 1362-3.
[396]: See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16254-5. Despite the fact that two different procedures are invoked, such bills are acceptable providing the notice provision is respected (see rulings of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319, and February 16, 1982, p. 15053; ruling of Speaker Francis, Debates, January 18, 1984, p. 526).
[397]: See ruling of Speaker Francis, Debates, January 18, 1984, p. 526.
[398]: As early as 1341, Edward III had conceded the principle that grants to the Crown should be audited to ensure they were spent for the purposes intended (Dreidger, p. 30).
[399]: Standing Order 108(3)(e). See also the Final Report of the Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability (Lambert Commission), March 1979 (Supply and Services Canada), and especially Part V, “Accountability to Parliament: Closing the Loop”, pp. 367-419.
[400]: The Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada also serves as Receiver General for Canada (Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, S.C. 1996, c. 16, s. 3(3)).