18. Financial Procedures

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 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

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.

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 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] 

The Business of Supply is the process by which the government asks Parliament to appropriate the funds required to meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already approved by Parliament. The Crown, acting on the advice of its responsible Ministers, transmits to the House of Commons the government’s projected annual expenditures, or “estimates”, for parliamentary scrutiny and approval. The House of Commons has sole authority to grant the “supplies” needed to satisfy the government’s demands. All financial legislation (which includes all government expenditures) must originate in the House of Commons. ^[91] Once Supply is granted, the government can draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet its financial obligations. ^[92] 

The Supply procedures established in 1867 remained basically unchanged for the first hundred years following Confederation. Deriving from a long-standing rule of the British House of Commons, ^[93]  the Business of Supply was considered in a Committee of the Whole House, called the Committee of Supply. ^[94] 

From Confederation to 1968

Prior to 1968, the Supply proceedings consisted of the process of entering into Committee of Supply and the study of the annual Estimates or government spending proposals in Committee of Supply. Before the Committee of Supply could begin its work, the Finance Minister had to table the Estimates along with the message from the Governor General signifying the recommendation of the Crown. ^[95]  The Minister then moved that the message and recommendation, together with the Estimates, be referred to the Committee of Supply. ^[96] 

When the Order of the Day was read for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply, ^[97]  the motion, “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” was proposed to the House. ^[98]  This initiated the first phase of the Supply proceedings; it was an opportunity for Members to debate and, if they chose, amend the motion that the Speaker leave the Chair. The rules pertaining to relevance were relaxed and Members used amendments to the motion as the mechanism to raise their issues and debate them in the House. In addition, the Opposition could use the threat of delaying Supply to obtain concessions from the Executive. The practice of allowing every description of amendment to be moved, ^[99]  coupled with great latitude permitted in the debate and the lack of time limits, reflected the ancient tenet of parliamentary government which held that the Crown should respond to the grievances of the people before the people granted Supply. ^[100]

Once having agreed to the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair, the House was then sitting as the Committee of Supply. Each Estimate was considered as a separate resolution or motion, “that a certain sum be granted to Her Majesty for …” Amendments to the motion were permitted and no time limits were placed on the debate. If decided in the affirmative, the resolutions were reported to the House for its concurrence. This was accomplished by “reading” the resolution twice. The first reading was purely formal; however, the motion for second reading was debatable and amendable. Reports from the Committee of Supply were usually not received or taken up by the House on the same day they were reported, but were ordered to be received at a subsequent sitting of the House. Upon reporting, the Committee requested leave “to sit again”, without which permission the Committee of Supply, as an entity, would have ceased to exist. ^[101] 

When the Order of the Day was read to report the resolutions approved in Committee, a formal motion for their first reading was proposed. The motion was never debated or amended. If the House agreed, each resolution was then read separately a second time, after which the Speaker put the question for concurrence. Both the debate and any amendment had to be relevant to the proposed resolution. ^[102] 

When all the Estimates had passed through the Committee of Supply, the Finance Minister would move a motion for the House to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means to consider resolutions to authorize the necessary withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. ^[103]  Again, each sum was proposed as a separate resolution, considered and, if agreed to, reported to the House. Once the resolutions had been read a second time, they formed the basis for the Appropriation or Supply Bill, which set aside (or appropriated) from the Consolidated Revenue Fund the amounts required to fund the programs and activities approved in the Estimates. Supply Bills were often introduced and passed through two or more legislative stages in a single day. ^[104]  Once it had been passed by the House, the Supply Bill was sent to the Senate where it was given three readings and passed before being returned to the House.

The debate on the motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” often resulted in Supply being considered very late in the session, and often late at night. Consequently, by the time the Estimates were actually discussed in the Committee, they tended to be given relatively short examination, provoking frequent criticism of the lack of effective parliamentary oversight of government expenditure. ^[105] 

In 1913, the Standing Orders of the House were modified: henceforth, when the order for the House to go into the Committee of Supply was called on Thursday and Friday, the motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” would be deemed adopted without question put. ^[106]  This change represented the first encroachment on the Members’ previously unfettered right to air grievances before considering the government’s financial requirements. The effect of the adoption of the change was that from 1913 to 1955, only 132 amendments to the motion were moved, while in the period 1867 to 1913, 271 amendments had been moved. By guaranteeing the government at least two days a week on which its financial requirements could be taken up by the House, the new rule introduced the first real constraint on the opposition’s capacity to delay Supply.

There were no further modifications until 1927 ^[107]  when the House agreed to allow a sub-amendment to the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair to go into the Committee of Supply or the Committee of Ways and Means when proposed on a day other than a Thursday or Friday. ^[108] 

Opinion soon began to differ as to whether Estimates should continue to be considered in a Committee of the Whole or be referred to a standing committee. ^[109]  In 1955, the House agreed to establish a Special Committee on Estimates. ^[110]  Initially, the Committee lacked the authority to send for persons, papers and records; however, changes to the Standing Orders in 1958 gave the committee the necessary powers. ^[111] 

Additional changes, approved provisionally in 1967, made it possible for standing committees to examine the Estimates and limited to four the number of occasions in any session on which the House could debate the motion to go into the Committee of Supply or the Committee of Ways and Means. ^[112]  A maximum of 30 days in each session was allocated for the consideration of the Business of Supply. ^[113] 

Supply Proceedings Since 1968

In 1968, changes were recommended by the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization. The Committee had described Supply procedures as "time-consuming, repetitive and archaic", claiming they did not permit an effective scrutiny of the Estimates, did not provide the House with the means of organizing meaningful debate on pre-arranged subjects, had failed to preserve effective parliamentary control over expenditures and had failed to guarantee an expeditious decision on appropriation bills. The Committee found that the traditional Supply procedures were irrelevant to the realities of government in the present day. ^[114]  The House agreed to alter substantially its financial procedures. ^[115]  The Committee of Supply was abolished, along with the Committee of Ways and Means. All Estimates would be referred now to standing committees before they were taken up in the House. Under the revised rules, the Main Estimates would be tabled and referred on or before March 1 of each year. Committees were required to report back the Estimates, or would be deemed to have reported them back, no later than May 31. ^[116] 

The House agreed to establish, at the beginning of each session, a continuing order for the consideration of Supply on the House agenda under Government Business. ^[117]  Unlike the order for the House to go into the Committee of Supply, which lapsed once the committee had reported the Estimates back to the House, the continuing order remains on the agenda as an item of government business and may be taken up at any time at the government’s discretion.

The new rules divided the parliamentary calendar into three periods, during which 25 days would be allotted to the Business of Supply. Five allotted days were set aside in the Supply period ending December 10, seven days in the period ending March 26 and an additional thirteen days in the period ending June 30. Opposition or Supply motions could be moved only by Members in opposition to the government and might be related to any matter within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada. ^[118] 

In addition, the new rules stipulated that in any period, the opposition could ask that up to two of its allotted day motions be brought to a vote and that these could be designated as votes of non-confidence in the government. Since the requirement that the Executive retain the confidence of the House is a matter of convention, many questioned why votable opposition motions should be termed “no-confidence” motions. ^[119]  In March 1975, the Standing Orders were provisionally modified so that votes on opposition supply motions would no longer, ipso facto, be considered an expression of confidence in the government. ^[120]  The provisional rules lapsed at the beginning of the following Session and the term “no-confidence” found its way back into the 1977 version of the Standing Orders. Amendments to the Standing Orders in June 1985 again removed the non-confidence provision from the rules on opposition motions. ^[121] 

In 1986, provision was made for the Leader of the Opposition to extend the committee consideration of the Main Estimates of one department or agency beyond the May 31 deadline, for a period not exceeding 10 further sitting days. ^[122]  In addition, the new rules set aside the last allotted day in the Supply period ending June 30 to debate the motion to concur in the Main Estimates, instead of the usual opposition motion, and extended the sitting hours on that day until 10:00 p.m. In 1991, the end date for that period was changed to June 23 and, as a result of a reduction of the number of sittings days in the year, the total number of allotted days over a year was reduced from 25 to 20. ^[123]  Provision was also made to increase or decrease the number of allotted days in a Supply period in relation to the total number of sitting days in the period, ^[124]  and to limit the number of allotted days falling on Wednesday and Friday. ^[125]  Finally, in 1998, the total number of allotted days was increased to 21, and the last allotted day in June again provided for the consideration of an opposition motion. ^[126]  However, the consideration of the opposition motion on this last allotted day is not to go beyond 6:30 p.m. and is to be followed with the necessary motions to concur in the Main Estimates.

In the Speech from the Throne, which begins each new session of Parliament, the Governor General traditionally advises Members of the House of Commons that they will be asked to appropriate (approve the spending of) the funds required to carry on the services and payments authorized by Parliament. ^[127] 

Among its first items of business after the Speech from the Throne, the House considers a motion usually proposed by the Minister serving as President of the Treasury Board: “That the business of Supply be considered at the next sitting of the House”. ^[128]  By long-established practice, the motion is not debatable and is traditionally decided without dissent. Once agreed to, the motion is an order of the House to add the Business of Supply on the Order Paper for the remainder of the session. ^[129]  This process has the effect of establishing a continuing order of the day for the purposes of considering Supply, which enables the government to call Supply on any sitting day, within the framework laid out in the Standing Orders.

The Business of Supply consists of the consideration of motions:

• to concur in Interim Supply;
• to concur in Main and Supplementary Estimates;
• to restore or reinstate any item in the Estimates;
• to introduce or pass at all stages any bill or bills based thereon;
• to be proposed by the opposition on allotted days. ^[130] 

In any calendar year, 21 days are set aside under the Standing Orders for consideration of the Business of Supply and, on these days, Supply have precedence over all other government business. ^[131]  The Business of Supply can be divided into a general debate phase and a legislative phase. The general debate phase is taken up with the consideration of opposition motions proposed on allotted days. ^[132]  During the legislative phase, the House considers and votes on the government’s proposed annual spending plans (the Main and Supplementary Estimates) ^[133]  and the legislation (appropriation bills) needed to authorize all consequential withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Allotted Days

The setting aside of a specified number of sitting days on which the opposition chooses the subject of debate derives from the tradition which holds that Parliament does not grant Supply until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused. Of the twenty-one days allocated in each annual Supply cycle for the House to consider the Business of Supply, seven days are allotted during the period ending December 10, seven during the period ending March 26 and seven during the period ending June 23. Of these twenty-one days, no more than four may fall on a Wednesday and no more than four on a Friday (the shortest sitting days of the week). ^[134]  The twenty-one days are designated as “allotted days”. On each of these days, the House will debate an opposition motion. ^[135] 

The normal Supply cycle can be disrupted by an extended adjournment, a prorogation or a dissolution. In these cases, the number of opposition days in each Supply period may be increased or decreased. If, for any reason, the number of sitting days in any Supply period is fewer than the number prescribed under the parliamentary calendar, the number of allotted days in that period will be reduced by an amount proportional to the number of sitting days the House stood adjourned. The Speaker will determine and announce to the House the reduction in the number of allotted days for that period. ^[136]  Conversely, should the House sit more than the prescribed number of sitting days, the total number of allotted days will be increased by one day for every five additional days the House sits. ^[137]  The House may also decide that any unused days from the six days allotted to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, or from the four days allotted to the Budget Debate, be added to the number of allotted days in the Supply period in which they would have been taken up. ^[138] 

If, in the Supply period ending June 23, concurrence is sought in Supplementary Estimates for the previous fiscal year, a further three sitting days will be allocated in that period for the consideration of a motion to concur in those Estimates and for the passage at all stages of the related supply bill. ^[139]  On occasion, changes have been made, with the consent of the House, to the length of a Supply period or to the number of allotted days. For example, the House has agreed to extend the length of a Supply period; ^[140]  to add Supply days; ^[141]  and to transfer unused Supply days from one period to the next. ^[142]  The House has also agreed that an allotted day in one Supply period be deemed disposed of and one additional allotted day be designated in the subsequent Supply period. ^[143] 

Designating an Allotted Day

The government designates the days allotted to the consideration of the Business of Supply. The established practice is for a Minister of the Crown, usually the Government House Leader, to rise in the House and designate the following day or a subsequent day as an allotted day; ^[144]  allotted days may also be designated during the “Thursday Statement” on the House business for the following week. ^[145]  However, the date so designated is not binding on the government and may, like the scheduling of any other Government Order, be revised at any time. ^[146]  If the government fails to designate the prescribed number of allotted days, the remaining days in that period will be designated by default. ^[147]  When the sitting on a day designated as an allotted day ends before the House has reached Orders of the Day, the allotted day has not commenced, and therefore the sitting does not count as one of the days designated for the consideration of an opposition motion. ^[148]  On the other hand, once the order for Supply has been called, an allotted day is deemed completed if, subsequently, the proceedings are superseded. ^[149] 

Opposition Motions

Opposition motions have precedence over all government Supply motions on allotted days. ^[150]  However, on the last allotted day for the period ending June 23, at not later than 6:30 p.m., the Speaker interrupts the proceedings on the opposition motion and puts, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion. Any recorded division requested is deferred to the end of the Supply proceedings on that day, but not later than 10:00 p.m. Meanwhile, the House proceeds to consider a motion or motions to concur in the Main Estimates. ^[151] 

Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada, as well as on committee reports concerning Estimates. ^[152]  The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on Supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (e.g., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene. ^[153] 

Notice

Before an opposition motion can be taken up on an allotted day, a 24-hour written notice of the motion must be given. ^[154]  A notice which is not filed by 6:00 p.m. (or 2:00 p.m. on a Friday) on the day before a designated allotted day will not appear on the Order Paper the following day. ^[155]  A Member may put an opposition motion on notice even though an allotted day has not yet been designated. ^[156]  However, a decision by the government not to proceed with a designated allotted day is not in itself a reason for the Chair to remove a notice of an opposition motion from the Notice Paper. ^[157]  It can remain on the Notice Paper until it is proceeded with later or withdrawn by the sponsor. Only the sponsor can have it removed, and the consent of the House to do so is not required. ^[158] 

Speaker’s Power to Select

The Standing Orders are silent on the method of apportioning allotted days between the parties, when two or more recognized parties form the opposition. Although the government designates which days shall be used for the Business of Supply, the opposition parties decide among themselves which party will sponsor the motion and whether or not, subject to the provisions of the Standing Orders, that motion will be brought to a vote. The distribution has reflected the proportion of seats each recognized party occupies in the Chamber. It is not the purview of the Official Opposition to determine unilaterally who can propose a motion on an allotted day. ^[159]  Notices of more than one motion may be given by one or several opposition parties. ^[160]  Where notice of two or more opposition motions appears on the Order Paper for consideration on an allotted day and there is no agreement among the opposition parties as to which shall be taken up, the Speaker must decide which motion shall be given precedence. ^[161]  Generally, in making their decision, Speakers will take into consideration the following: representation of the parties in the House; the distribution of sponsorship to date; fair play towards small parties; the date of notice; the sponsor of the motion; the subject matter; whether or not the motion is votable; and what has happened, by agreement among the parties, in the immediate past Supply periods. ^[162] 

Votable Motions

For each annual Supply cycle, not more than 14 opposition motions considered on allotted days may be brought to a vote. ^[163]  For the purpose of calculating votable motions, the period ending December 10 is deemed to be the first period in the Supply cycle. ^[164]  The allocation of the 14 votable motions is worked out in an informal agreement among the opposition parties. ^[165]  However, except in a situation where the limit of allowable votable motions in a Supply period or in any year has been reached, it is not within the competence of the Chair to rule whether or not a particular motion should be votable. ^[166]  Although it happens infrequently, some opposition motions on allotted days have been agreed to by the House. ^[167] 

Proceedings on an Opposition Motion

Proceedings on non-votable opposition motions expire at the conclusion of the debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders. ^[168]  However, a motion can be moved to extend the sitting beyond the hour of daily adjournment. ^[169]  In the case of votable motions, the Speaker will interrupt the debate 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders and proceed to put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion. ^[170]  When a recorded division on a votable opposition motion is demanded on a Friday, the division is automatically deferred until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day; however, a recorded division demanded on the last allotted day of a Supply period may not be deferred. ^[171] 

The proceedings on a votable opposition motion may continue for more than one allotted day; ^[172]  usually, such proceedings have taken place over two consecutive sitting days where both have been designated together as allotted days. ^[173]  The duration of such proceedings must be stated in the notice respecting the day or days set aside. ^[174] 

The mover of the motion, who is a Member of the opposition, speaks first on an opposition day. No Member may speak for more than twenty minutes; a ten-minute period is also provided for questions and comments. ^[175]  It is often the case that two Members of the same party will agree to share the twenty minutes, with each speaker receiving five minutes for questions and comments. ^[176]  On allotted days, the party of the opposition Member sponsoring the motion may be recognized more frequently on debate than otherwise might be warranted, given their relative numbers in the House.

Only one amendment and one sub-amendment are permitted to opposition motions considered on an allotted day. ^[177]  Amendments which have the effect of providing the basis for an entirely different debate are not in order. ^[178]  When a party has been allocated an allotted day and a subject has been proposed for debate by way of an opposition motion, the day should not be taken away by way of an amendment. ^[179]  The House has consented, despite the rules, to allow amendments which had been ruled inadmissible by the Chair. ^[180] 

Main Estimates

The Main Estimates provide a breakdown, by department and agency, of planned government spending for the coming fiscal year. The Estimates are expressed as a series of “Votes”, or resolutions, which summarize the estimated financial requirements in a particular expenditure category, such as operations, capital or grants. ^[181] The Votes are expressed in dollar amounts, the total of which, once agreed to, should satisfy all the budgetary requirements of a department or agency in that category, with the exception of any expenditures provided for under other statutory authority. Each budgetary item, or Vote, has two essential components: an amount of money and a destination (a description of what the money will be used for). Should the government wish to change the approved amount or destination of a Vote, it must do so either by way of a “supplementary” Estimate or by way of new or amending legislation.

The Main Estimates are presented in two parts. Part I, the Government Expenditure Plan, gives an overview of the government’s projected total expenditures for the new fiscal year. Part II contains the Main Estimates, which summarize the budgetary and statutory expenditures for all government ministries and agencies for the same period. It also contains an introductory section, which explains the different kinds of Votes ^[182]  and other elements making up the Estimates, as well as any changes to the content with respect to that found in previous fiscal years. Part II outlines spending according to departments, agencies and programs and contains the proposed wording of the conditions governing spending which Parliament will be asked to approve. ^[183]  The information provided in Part II directly supports the Schedule of the Appropriation Act. Statutory items are expenditures authorized under separate legislation and, because already approved by the statute, they do not require further approval by Parliament. They are identified in the Estimates with an “S” and are included for information purposes only. ^[184]  Part I is now combined with Part II in the volume known historically as the “Blue Book”. ^[185]

The form and content of the Main Estimates have been modified on only four occasions since Confederation: in 1938, 1970, 1981 and, most recently, in 1997. ^[186]  In each instance, the impetus behind the reforms was a desire to improve the quality and utility of the information provided to Members of Parliament. In 1938, the Minister of Finance included in the Estimates, for the first time, a breakdown of departmental operating costs by function. ^[187]  Still greater precision was introduced in 1970, when departmental expenditures were linked to programs and activities. An explanatory forward clarifying the technical terms used was added and, for the first time, the Blue Book was printed in bilingual format. ^[188] 

As the scope of the federal government widened and government operations grew increasingly complex, compressing all government expenditure information into a single document became more and more impractical. In 1981, following a comprehensive review of financial management and accountability in the federal government, two new documents were introduced. The old Blue Book became known as Part II, Estimates, and a new Part I and Part III were added. ^[189]  Part I provided an overview of federal spending, along with information about planned future activities which could not be included along with the annual appropriations and statutory spending set down in the Blue Book. Part II continued to list in detail the resources that individual departments and agencies required for the upcoming year. Finally, Part III, the Departmental Expenditure Plan, was a collection of separate books each providing additional details about the programs and activities of a single department or agency. The first Part IIIs were tabled with the 1982-83 Main Estimates. ^[190] 

In Chapter 6 of the 1992 Annual Report to Parliament, the Auditor General addressed the issue of departmental reporting. It was noted that much of the government’s financial activity was not expressed as spending and, for this reason, not captured in the information Members of Parliament used when considering and approving Supply. ^[191]  In the view of the Auditor General, information to Parliament should include a description of the organization’s mission, its major lines of business, the way it is structured, the instruments it uses, its strategic targets and objectives for achieving the mission, as well as performance reports on the extent to which these objectives have been met. ^[192]  In 1997, the House decided to undertake a pilot project to split the Part III departmental expenditure plans into the Report on Plans and Priorities and the Performance Report. Beginning in fiscal year 1997-98, the Part IIIs were replaced by two documents, the Report on Plans and Priorities to be tabled on or before March 31 and the Performance Report to be tabled in the fall. ^[193] 

The Report on Plans and Priorities describes a department’s (or agency’s) mandate, mission and strategic objectives, and provides detailed information about the business line structure, expected results and performance-measurement strategy. ^[194]  The reports are tabled in Parliament by the President of the Treasury Board on behalf of the responsible Minister. ^[195]  Performance Reports are individual departmental and agency accounts of achievements, measured against planned performance expectations as set out in their Report on Plans and Priorities. ^[196]  These too are tabled by the President of the Treasury Board on the Ministers’ behalf and referred to the appropriate standing committee. ^[197]  With regard to the Administration of the House of Commons, the annual Report on Plans and Priorities, as well as the annual Performance Report, are tabled in the House by the Speaker. ^[198] 

The Main Estimates for an incoming fiscal year must be referred to the standing committees on or before March 1 of the expiring fiscal year. The Estimates are presented by a Minister of the Crown, normally the President of the Treasury Board, and are accompanied by a recommendation from the Governor General, which the Speaker reads aloud in the House. ^[199]  The Main Estimates are typically referred to standing committees as soon as they are tabled. ^[200]  Any Minister may move a motion during Routine Proceedings that an item or items in the Main Estimates be referred to any standing committee or committees; the motion is decided without debate. ^[201] 

Interim Supply

Since the fiscal year begins on April 1 and the normal Supply cycle only provides for the House to decide on Main Estimates in June, the government would appear to be without funds for the interim three months. For this reason, the House authorizes an advance on the funds requested in the Main Estimates to cover the needs of the public service from the start of the new fiscal year to the date on which the Appropriation Act based on the Main Estimates of that year is passed. This is known as “Interim Supply”, ^[202]  a spending authority made available to the government pending approval of the Main Estimates.

The government gives notice of a motion setting out in detail the sums of money it will require, expressed in twelfths of the amounts to be voted in the Main Estimates. ^[203]  Most are three-twelfths of the total amount, corresponding to the three-month hiatus between the beginning of the new fiscal year and the final passage of the Main Estimates, but the government may request more. ^[204]  The motion for Interim Supply is considered on the last allotted day of the period ending March 26. Concurrence in the motion is followed by the consideration and passage at all stages of an appropriation bill based on Interim Supply and authorizing the prescribed withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. ^[205]  The granting of Interim Supply does not necessarily constitute immediate House approval for the programs to which it applies in the Main Estimates.

Supplementary Estimates

Should the amounts voted under the Main Estimates prove insufficient, or should new funding or a reallocation of funds between Votes or programs be required during a fiscal year, the government may ask Parliament to approve additional expenditures set out in Supplementary Estimates. The government may introduce as many sets of Supplementary Estimates in a year as it deems necessary, although the practice has been to limit such requests to two or three.

The Supplementary Estimates are tabled as a document in the same form as Part II of the Main Estimates. However, instead of being expressed as summary Votes (i.e., where a Vote summarizes all the anticipated disbursements in a particular expenditure category), each Supplementary Estimate or Vote relates to a specific program or financial transaction. The information included in the Supplementary Estimates will become a Schedule in the subsequent Appropriation Act authorizing the prescribed withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

As with the Main Estimates, each set of Supplementary Estimates is presented normally by the President of the Treasury Board and is accompanied by a recommendation from the Governor General, which the Speaker reads aloud in the House. ^[206]  Supplementary Estimates are referred to the relevant standing committees immediately after their tabling in the House. ^[207]  The reference motion is moved by a Minister of the Crown during Routine Proceedings and is decided without debate. ^[208]  The Supplementary Estimates must be reported back, or are deemed to have been reported back, not later than three sitting days before the last allotted day, or the last sitting day, of the Supply period in which they were tabled. ^[209] 

Final Supplementary Estimates

Where concurrence in final Supplementary Estimates cannot be obtained before March 31 of the fiscal year to which they relate, the Standing Orders provide for approval to be sought in the next Supply period, which is the first Supply period of the subsequent fiscal year. In such cases, three days will be added to the Supply period ending not later than June 23 to consider the motion that the House concur in those final Estimates for the previous fiscal year and to pass at all stages any bill based thereon. ^[210] 

Dollar Items

Supplementary Estimates often include what are known as “one dollar items”, which seek an alteration in the existing allocation of funds as authorized in the Main Estimates. The purpose of a dollar item is not to seek new or additional money, but rather to spend money already authorized for a different purpose. Since “estimates” are budgetary items, they must have a dollar value. However, because no new funds are requested, the “one dollar” is merely a symbolic amount. Dollar items may be used to transfer funds from one program to another; ^[211]  to write-off debts; ^[212]  to adjust loan guarantees; ^[213]  to authorize grants; ^[214]  or to amend previous appropriation acts. ^[215] 

The inclusion of one dollar items in the Estimates also gave rise to the issue of using Estimates to “legislate” (i.e., Estimates going beyond simply appropriating funds and attempting to obtain new legislative authority which would otherwise require separate enabling legislation through the regular legislative process, outside the Supply procedure). ^[216] 

Prior to 1968, Supply procedures afforded ample opportunity for the House to debate individual items in the Estimates. Those of a legislative nature (virtually always “one dollar items”) were regularly included in Appropriation Acts. ^[217]  However, this practice was not accepted readily by the House and Members did question the regularity of these items. ^[218]  The 1968 changes to the rules governing Supply, which provided for the abolition of the Committee of Supply and the reference of Estimates to standing committees for detailed study, had the effect of reducing significantly the time allocated for the House to consider the Supplementary Estimates (where most dollar items are found). Moreover, the Supplementary Estimates are often tabled fairly late in the Supply period allowing relatively little time for committee consideration. As a result, soon after the 1968 changes, the Speaker was called on increasingly to decide questions concerning the admissibility of dollar items. ^[219]  The rulings by Speakers of the House have clarified what is, and what is not, procedurally acceptable in regard to dollar items.

Speakers have often indicated that Members should take the initiative in bringing to the attention of the Chair any procedural irregularities with regard to the Estimates. ^[220]  They have also repeatedly asked that Members raise questions about the procedural acceptability of Estimates as early as possible so that the Chair has time to give “intelligent” consideration to these questions. ^[221] 

The Chair has maintained that Estimates with a direct and specific legislative intent (those clearly intended to amend existing legislation) should come to the House by way of an amending bill. ^[222]  Speaker Jerome stated in a ruling: “ … it is my view that the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.” ^[223]  He also said in a further ruling: “ … supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended; that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn voting by the House of that money to the government […] legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for Members to participate in debate and amendment.” ^[224] 

Consideration of Estimates in Committee

When the Estimates are tabled in the House, they are referred to standing committees for consideration. ^[225]  When a committee decides to consider Estimates, each budgetary item, or “Vote”, is called, proposed and debated as a distinct motion. A Vote can be agreed to (the budget item is approved), reduced ^[226]  (but, as the case may be, no lower than the amount already approved in interim supply) or negatived ^[227]  (the budget item is not approved). ^[228]  Calling a Vote is the mechanism by which the committee opens debate on the program expenditures to which that Vote pertains. Committees considering Estimates may invite witnesses to appear; these typically include the Minister, departmental or agency officials, and interested individuals or groups.

The discussion on Vote 1 in the Main Estimates (generally departmental administration or operations) is traditionally wide-ranging. Typically, questions on departmental policy are directed to the responsible Minister; questions of a more technical or administrative nature may be referred through the Minister to departmental officials. Chairs have generally exercised considerable latitude in the nature of the questioning permitted on Estimates. ^[229]

A committee may not increase the amount of a Vote, change the destination of a grant or change the destination or purpose of a subsidy, as this would exceed the terms of the royal recommendation and infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. ^[230]  A committee may move to reduce a Vote by an amount equal to that set aside in the Estimates for a program or activity to which the committee is opposed. ^[231]  Members cannot propose a motion to reduce a Vote by its full amount; the procedure is simply to vote against the question, “Shall the Vote carry?”

Statutory expenditures are provided for on an ongoing basis by way of legislation other than the Appropriation Act and are identified in the Main Estimates for information purposes only. ^[232]  Motions or recommendations respecting statutory expenditures listed in the Main Estimates are not allowed, although questions requesting information are acceptable. Statutory items may be modified only by way of amending legislation.

Report to the House

A committee is under no obligation to report the Estimates back to the House; however, in the case of Main Estimates, committees that do not report are deemed to have done so on May 31 and, in the case of Supplementary Estimates, they are deemed to have done so on the third sitting day before the last allotted day or the last sitting day in the Supply period. ^[233]  Where a committee chooses to report on the estimates, the Chair, or any member of the committee acting on behalf of the Chair, rises during “Routine Proceedings”, when the Speaker calls “Presenting Reports from Committees”, for the purpose of presenting the report.

The rules provide for one exception to the May 31 reporting deadline for Main Estimates. The Leader of the Opposition may give, not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, notice of a motion to extend the committee consideration of the Main Estimates of a named department or agency. ^[234]  The motion is deemed adopted when called under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings on the last sitting day prior to May 31. ^[235]  Adoption of the motion allows the committee to continue its consideration of Main Estimates for that department or agency and to delay the presentation of its report for up to 10 sitting days, but not later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the sitting day immediately preceding the final allotted day in the Supply period. ^[236]  If the committee has not reported by this time, it is deemed to have done so. Where the designated committee chooses to report, the Chair, or any member of the committee acting on behalf of the Chair, may rise on a point of order, at any time prior to the reporting deadline, and the House will revert immediately to “Presenting Reports from Committees” for the purpose of receiving the report. ^[237] 

The report of a committee on Estimates ought to correspond, both in its form and as to its substance, with the authority with which the committee is invested. ^[238]  As it is the Estimates which have been referred to the committee by the House, it is the Estimates (as agreed to, reduced or negatived) which should be reported back to the House. In making other substantive recommendations, the committee is clearly going beyond the scope of its order of reference, which was to deal with the Estimates. ^[239]  The Speaker has expressed strong reservations regarding the inclusion of substantive recommendations in committee reports on Estimates. ^[240]  A standing committee wishing to make substantive recommendations respecting the Estimates which it has considered may do so under its permanent authority to study and report on any matter relating to the mandate, management and operation of the departments or agencies it oversees. ^[241]  A motion to concur in a committee report on Estimates can only be considered on an allotted day as part of the Business of Supply. ^[242] 

A committee may also report on the expenditure plans and priorities in future fiscal years of the departments and agencies whose Main Estimates are before the committee for consideration. ^[243]  Such reports must be presented to the House not later than the last sitting day in June, as provided for in the parliamentary calendar, and any concurrence motion can only be considered by the House on an allotted day. ^[244] 

Concurrence in Estimates

The Estimates, as reported or deemed reported by the standing committees, must be concurred in by the House in order for the government to introduce the appropriation bill authorizing the necessary withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Any motions to concur in Estimates are proposed on the final allotted day of a Supply period, once the proceedings related to an opposition motion are completed. In a normal Supply cycle, concurrence motions would occur as follows: ^[245] 

• On the last allotted day in the Supply period ending December 10, a motion or motions to concur in Supplementary Estimates would be considered, if any were tabled by the government during the period;
• On the last allotted day in the Supply period ending March 26, a motion or motions to concur in Supplementary Estimates would be considered first, if any were tabled by the government during the period, followed by a motion to concur in Interim Supply for the next fiscal year;
• On the last allotted day in the Supply period ending June 23, a motion or motions to concur in the Main Estimates would be considered first, followed by a motion or motions to concur in Final Supplementary Estimates relating to the preceding fiscal year and a motion or motions to concur in Supplementary Estimates for the current fiscal year, if any were tabled by the government during the period.

A motion to concur in the Main or Supplementary Estimates is a motion to concur in the Estimates as reported or deemed reported by the standing committees. The government, usually through the President of the Treasury Board, will give 48 hours’ written notice of a motion or motions to concur in the Estimates. ^[246]  Should a committee have reduced or negatived a Vote or Votes in those Estimates, the government may move that they be restored or reinstated. ^[247]  Forty-eight hours’ written notice is also required for any motions to restore or reinstate Estimates which have been reduced or negatived in committee. ^[248] 

Furthermore, any Member may give notice to oppose any item in the Estimates before the House: such items are then referred to as “opposed items” in the Estimates. The notice period for opposed items is 24 hours in the Supply periods ending December 10 and March 26, and 48 hours in the Supply period ending June 23. ^[249]  Members give notice of opposed items to express opposition to the total amount of a Vote ^[250]  or to a specified portion of that amount. ^[251]  A notice to oppose an item in the Estimates is not a motion. ^[252]  Because the government may propose in one motion the concurrence in all the Votes in the Estimates, ^[253]  the notice to oppose an item is rather a mechanism by which Members force the government to propose a separate motion for the concurrence in each Vote that is the subject of total or partial opposition. ^[254]  The wording of the general concurrence motion is then changed to exclude those Votes. ^[255]  On one occasion, Members who had filed notices of opposed items in the Estimates informed the Clerk of the House that they did not wish to proceed with their notices. Thus, the separate motions were not put to the House, and the Votes that had been opposed were reintegrated in the general concurrence motion. ^[256] 

On the last allotted day of each Supply period, once the proceedings on the opposition motion are completed, motions to restore or reinstate Votes in the Estimates are considered first, followed by motions to concur in each of the Votes for which a notice of opposition has been given, and the motion to concur in altogether the remaining unopposed Votes ^[257]  before proceeding to the appropriation bill based on those Estimates. For that purpose, the House may sit beyond the normal hour of adjournment for that day. ^[258] 

In principle, all the motions are debatable and amendable. ^[259]  However, in practice, on the last allotted day in each of the Supply periods ending December 10 and March 26, the debate on the opposition motion, which has precedence over all government motions to dispose of the Business of Supply, continues throughout the day and is interrupted by the Speaker at 15 minutes before the time provided for Government Orders expires. At that time, all the motions, starting with the opposition motion, are decided in sequence without further debate or amendment. ^[260] 

On the last allotted day in the Supply period ending June 23, unless previously disposed of, at 6:30 p.m., the Speaker interrupts the proceedings on the opposition motion. If the opposition motion is not a motion that must come to a vote, proceedings on the motion expire at the conclusion of the debate and the House proceeds to consider a motion or motions relating to the Main Estimates. ^[261]  If the opposition motion is a motion that must come to a vote, the Speaker must put forthwith and without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the proceedings and any recorded division requested is deferred to the end of the consideration of a motion or motions relating to the Main Estimates. ^[262]  At 10:00 p.m., the Speaker must interrupt any proceedings then before the House, proceed first to the taking of any deferred division or divisions necessary to dispose of the opposition motion, ^[263]  as the case may be, and subsequently put forthwith, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion or motions relating to the Main Estimates. Immediately thereafter, the Speaker must put successively and without debate every question necessary to dispose of any business relating to the final Estimates for the preceding fiscal year or for any Supplementary Estimates, the restoration or reinstatement of any Vote in the final or Supplementary Estimates, or any opposed item in the final or Supplementary Estimates.

The Supply Bill or Appropriation Act

Concurrence in the Estimates or in Interim Supply is an order of the House to bring in an appropriation bill or bills giving effect to the spending authority (amounts and their destinations) that the House has approved. ^[264]  Once adopted, the legislation will authorize the government to withdraw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts up to, but not exceeding, the amounts set out in the Estimates for the purposes specified in the Votes.

Supply bills must be based on the Estimates or Interim Supply as concurred in by the House. ^[265]  They bear the standard title: An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31 (year). ^[266]  They begin with a preamble which cites both the message from the Governor General recommending the Estimates to the House, and the purpose of the Estimates, which is “to defray certain expenses of the public service of Canada, not otherwise provided for” for a specified fiscal year. The Chair has cautioned that an Appropriation Act gives authority only for a single year and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a longer period, or indefinitely. ^[267]  On one occasion, Speaker Parent expressed strong reservations about the reference to two fiscal years in the long title of a Supply bill. ^[268]  He qualified the reference as “not needed” and “misleading”. Although a separate statute may grant a government agency legislative authority to carry the unexpended balance of money appropriated for a fiscal year over to the end of the following year, ^[269]  the appropriation itself is and must be for one year only and not be referred to as a multi-year appropriation.

The destinations and the amounts attributable to each spending item, or Vote, are set out in the schedules attached to each bill. These provide the governing conditions under which expenditures may be made. The schedules are organized alphabetically, by department, in both the English and French versions of the bill. ^[270] 

Supply bills are considered on the last allotted day in each Supply period, at the end of the day, after the Speaker has interrupted the proceedings on the opposition motion or the Main Estimates, as the case may be, in order for the House to go through all the remaining steps to complete the Business of Supply for the period. At that time, the House must proceed through all the motions related to the Estimates, the Interim Supply and the Supply bills without further debate or amendments. ^[271]  As all bills are printed and made available once they have received first reading, Members would not normally be made aware of the content of the Supply bills until late in the day, at a time when the proceedings are dealt with expeditiously in the House. To compensate for this lack of time, the practice established in recent years is therefore to allow for an early distribution of the draft copy of the bills to Members at the beginning of the Supply proceedings on that day. The House invariably gives its consent to that special arrangement. ^[272] 

Like all public bills, Supply bills are “read” twice, considered in committee, and read a third time before going to the Senate. ^[273] Because concurrence in the Estimates or in Interim Supply is an order of the House to bring in the appropriation bill, first reading proceeds forthwith, without the formality of introduction, and a motion is proposed that it be read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole. ^[274] 

Although, theoretically, a Supply bill is debatable, and therefore amendable, at all stages after first reading, it generally passes without debate or amendment on the last allotted day. ^[275]  However, if time for debate were to remain on that day, and debate were to occur at the second and third reading stages of the bill, speeches would be limited to 20 minutes, followed by a period not exceeding 10 minutes for questions and comments. ^[276]  In a Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered clause by clause and then reported back to the House. ^[277] It is at the Committee of the Whole stage that a Member of the opposition usually seeks assurance from the President of the Treasury Board that the Supply bill is in its usual form. ^[278]  Bills reported from a Committee of the Whole are concurred in without debate or amendment. ^[279]  Once the bill has been read the third time, it is forwarded to the Senate, where it must be given a further three readings before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law.

Normally, bills which have passed in both Houses of Parliament are held by the Clerk of the Parliaments (the Clerk of the Senate) until the Governor General (or a deputy) grants them Royal Assent. However, because the granting of Supply is a prerogative of the House of Commons, Supply bills are always returned to the House and taken by its Speaker to the Senate Chamber to receive Royal Assent. The Speaker, as spokesperson for the House, assembles with Members from the House of Commons, at the bar of the Senate Chamber. The Speaker addresses the Crown’s representative, saying:

May it please Your Excellency (Honour ^[280]): The Commons of Canada have voted Supplies required to enable the Government to defray certain expenses of the public service. In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Excellency (Honour) the following Bill: (title), To which Bill I humbly request Your Excellency’s (Honour’s) Assent.

The Speaker presents the bill to the Clerk of the Senate who reads out the title of the bill, to which the Governor General (or a deputy) nods consent. The Royal Assent is then pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:

In Her Majesty’s name, (the Honourable the Deputy to) His/Her Excellency the Governor General thanks Her Loyal Subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this Bill.

The Journals of the House of Commons carries the text of the Speaker’s address, together with the response from the Crown’s representative in granting Assent, and the title of the bill. ^[281] 

From time to time, circumstances may require a deviation from the normal Supply process and cycle. For example, because of an unscheduled adjournment or a prorogation or disolution of Parliament, the Main Estimates might not be tabled and referred to standing committees before the March 1 deadline, or the Interim Supply or the Main Estimates might not be concurred in by the June 23 deadline. In those cases, the Standing Order provisions relating to the Business of Supply no longer apply (such as those respecting the timetable for the tabling of Estimates, their reference to standing committees and their return to the House, the concurrence motions and the appropriation bills).

Such situations may be dealt with by temporarily suspending the relevant Standing Orders. There may be an arrangement worked out between the government and the opposition parties to finalize Supply as expeditiously as possible. Typically, this involves adopting a special order ^[282]  which, depending on the situation, might address the following matters: length of Supply period; ^[283]  number of allotted days in the period; ^[284]  number of votable opposition motions; ^[285]  committee referral and reporting date for Main or Supplementary Estimates; ^[286]  date of concurrence in Estimates; ^[287]  and debating time allotted to the appropriation bill. ^[288] 

Where the government feels that there is a matter of urgency and it cannot wait until the end of a Supply period, it may use its own time to consider the Estimates. The Standing Orders specifically provide a mechanism in the event of an emergency where a motion to concur in the Estimates and the subsequent appropriation bill may be taken under “Government Orders” and not on days allotted for Supply. ^[289]  The concurrence motion and the bill are then treated like any other item of government business and are therefore debatable. There is no automatic time limit on the debate and the days used for that purpose are not considered as allotted days and may not be deducted from the number of days allocated to the Business of Supply. ^[290]  Apart from these two exceptions, the rules respecting the consideration of Supply under Government Orders are the same as those governing proceedings on any allotted day. ^[291] 

Borrowing powers are needed by the government to cover any shortfall between its revenues and its expenditures. The government borrows principally by issuing treasury bills, marketable bonds and Canada Savings Bonds, on domestic and foreign markets. The Financial Administration Act states: “No money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament”, ^[292]  and the authority to borrow sufficient new money to cover estimated financial requirements, together with a margin for contingencies, is normally sought and granted early on in the financial cycle for each new fiscal year. ^[293]  These requests refer to new authority to borrow, since the Financial Administration Act already authorizes borrowing for the purpose of refinancing maturing debt. ^[294]  Unused borrowing authority lapses at the end of a fiscal year and must be replaced by new authority.

The government borrows when there is a shortfall between its expenditures, as authorized by Parliament in the Main and Supplementary Estimates and in Interim Supply, and its revenues, whose projected levels are also approved by Parliament. Prior to 1975, it was the custom to include requests for borrowing authority in one of the first appropriation or Supply bills of a new fiscal year. Where circumstances necessitated increasing the level of borrowing authority, the increases were sought by way of subsequent appropriation bills, such as appropriation bills enacting Supplementary Estimates or Interim Supply. The primary justification for including new borrowing authority in an appropriation act was the contention that borrowing powers to cover any shortfall between revenues and expenditures should be authorized relatively automatically, given that both the shortfall and the borrowing requirements were a consequence of actions already approved by Parliament.

The 1968 changes to Supply procedures made the inclusion of borrowing authority in appropriation bills problematic. ^[295]  The revised process usually offered no opportunity for Members to debate the borrowing provisions; the borrowing clause was not part of the Estimates, which were discussed in standing committees, and the Supply bills containing the borrowing clauses were generally passed without debate. In 1975, the Speaker ordered a borrowing clause struck from a Supply bill related to Supplementary Estimates on the grounds that, under the rules, its inclusion in a Supply bill based on Supplementary Estimates virtually precluded discussion of the borrowing provisions. ^[296]  Later, in 1981, the Speaker found no objection to including a request for borrowing authority in a tax bill based on a Ways and Means motion, provided that the government also gave the regular 48 hours’ notice for the introduction of a bill in order to cover the borrowing provisions. ^[297] 

Borrowing authority is now sought by way of a bill which follows the normal legislative process, with the exception that debate at second reading is limited to a maximum of two sitting days. ^[298]  The recent practice has been for the government to introduce borrowing authority legislation, if required, either when the Budget is presented or shortly thereafter. ^[299]  In theory, if additional borrowing requirements are needed to deal with unforeseen circumstances, then a Supplementary Borrowing Authority Bill would be introduced.

In a very special circumstance, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant ^[300]  permitting the government to make charges not otherwise authorized by Parliament on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, provided that the following conditions are met: ^[301] 

• Parliament is dissolved;
• A Minister has reported that an expenditure is urgently required for the public good; and
• The President of the Treasury Board has reported that there is no appropriation for the payment.

This provision of the Act makes it possible for the government to continue its work during a dissolution. Special Warrants may be used only from the date of dissolution until 60 days following the date fixed for the return of the writs after a general election. Furthermore, no Special Warrants may be issued during that period if Parliament stands prorogued. ^[302] 

The Financial Administration Act requires that every Special Warrant be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days of its issue. Notification of the amount authorized under such a Warrant must also be tabled in the House within 15 days of the commencement of the next Session of Parliament ^[303]  and authorization must be included retroactively in the first Appropriation Act passed in that Session.

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 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”, ^[304]  a requirement echoed in the Standing Orders of the House. ^[305] 

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. ^[306]  A Ways and Means motion may therefore only be moved by a Minister of the Crown. Once adopted, a Ways and Means motion forestalls the passage of any amendment that would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown. ^[307] 

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. ^[308]  Ways and Means procedures remained essentially unchanged for the first hundred 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. ^[309] 

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 Supply ^[310]  and, on other occasions, while the House was sitting as the Committee of Ways and Means. ^[311]  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, ^[312]  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. In such cases, the motion, together with any amendments, could be debated for a total of eight sitting days. Any sub-amendment would be disposed of on the fifth day of debate; any amendment on the seventh. ^[313]  In the early 190s, the House further limited the Budget debate to six days, ^[314]  with the sub-amendment and amendment disposed of on the second 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 sub-amendment could speak for 40 minutes. ^[315] 

Before the 1968 changes to the Standing Orders, tax changes could only be introduced 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. ^[316] 

In 1968, the House agreed to abolish the Committee of Ways and Means, ^[317]  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. ^[318]  Ways and Means bills, however, continued to be considered in a Committee of the Whole until 1985. ^[319] 

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. ^[320] 

In 1982, the time limit for all Members speaking on 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. ^[321]  In 1991, the total number of sitting days allocated to the Budget debate was reduced from six to four. ^[322] 

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”. ^[323]  The term “budget” appears to have acquired its current meaning around this time.

By tradition, the Minister of Finance annually makes a formal Budget presentation, offering a comprehensive assessment of the financial standing of the government and giving an overview of the nation’s economic condition. ^[324]  The Minister also declares if and where the burden on the taxpayer will be increased or reduced.

The Budget Speech

Whenever the government wishes to make a Budget presentation, a Minister ^[325]  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. ^[326]  Traditionally, the Minister of Finance makes the announcement during “Oral Questions” in the House, in response to a question from a Member of the Official Opposition. ^[327]  However, a Minister may do so at any time while the House is sitting. The Minister’s announcement has been deemed to be the request that a day be designated pursuant to the requirements of the Standing Orders; no 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. ^[328] 

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, ^[329]  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 approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government” ^[330]  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 Ways and Means proceeding on the Budget itself is completed. This is to allow the House to pronounce itself on the budgetary policy of the government before considering any taxation measures. ^[331] 

Convention dictates that taxation proposals are effective as soon as the Minister tables a notice of a Ways and Means motion, even though the government’s taxation plans have not yet been officially adopted by way of legislation. ^[332] 

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”. ^[333]  However, Speakers of the Canadian House have maintained that secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention, rather than one of privilege. ^[334]  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.” ^[335]  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 Members of Parliament and the news media by Finance Department officials several hours before the actual Budget presentation in the House. ^[336]  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. ^[337] 

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. ^[338]  Since 1994, the Standing Committee on Finance has been specifically empowered to hold “pre-budget” consultations. ^[339]  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 Finance Committee already had the authority to undertake this type of consultative study. ^[340]  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. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee may report the outcome of its budgetary consultations to the House up to and including the tenth sitting day prior to the last scheduled sitting day in December as provided for in the parliamentary calendar. ^[341]  Although there is no requirement for the House to do so, on each occasion that a report has been presented, either the report itself, or the subject matter of the consultations, became the object of a debate in the Chamber. The practice has been that a special “take note” debate is held under Government Orders some time before the Budget is actually presented. ^[342] 

Financial Statement

On occasion, the Minister of Finance has also made an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a “mini-budget”. Unlike a Budget presentation, these statements were delivered without notice and did not precipitate a Budget debate. Notices of Ways and Means motions have also been 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, ^[343]  on a motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate, ^[344]  during Routine Proceedings under “Statements by Ministers”, ^[345]  and on moving the motion for second reading of a borrowing authority bill. ^[346]  The rules of debate pertinent to each situation have applied. ^[347] 

The Budget Debate

At the conclusion of the Budget presentation, ^[348]  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. ^[349] 

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. ^[350]  The four days of debate do not have to be consecutive ^[351]  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. ^[352] 

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. ^[353] In 1962, the Budget was presented and Parliament was dissolved before any debate on the Budget could take place. ^[354]  The House adopted Special Orders providing for fewer days of debate in 1966 and 1969. ^[355]  Another two debates (in 1974 and 1979) were cut short when the Prime Minister sought and was granted a dissolution of Parliament after sub-amendments were adopted. ^[356]  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 sub-amendment were negatived and debate on the main motion was not resumed before prorogation occurred in May. ^[357]  In 1993, only two days of debate took place on the Budget presented on April 26; the sub-amendment was negatived and debate on the amendment and the main motion was not resumed before dissolution occurred in September 1993. ^[358] 

Precedence of Debate

In 1955, the House established that debate on the Budget motion should be given precedence over all other orders. ^[359]  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 proceedings on the Budget motion are completed. ^[360] 

Length of Speeches

The Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition and the Leader of the Opposition have unlimited speaking time and their speeches are not followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period. ^[361]  All other Members may speak for not more than 20 minutes with their speeches subject to a 10-minute period for questions and comments. 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 sub-amendment may be proposed to the Budget motion. ^[362]  This is contrary to the usual rules of debate where Members are permitted to move an unlimited number of amendments and sub-amendments, 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 speaker 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 the speech. The next speaker, a Member of the next largest opposition party, typically moves a sub-amendment at the end of his or her speech. Occasionally, no sub-amendment is proposed. ^[363] There is no rule preventing the amendment or the sub-amendment from being moved on a day after the first day of resumed debate (although this has not occurred since the number of days of resumed debate was reduced to four in 1991). ^[364] 

The Standing Orders define the exact procedures to be followed for the disposal of the amendment and sub-amendment. On the second day of resumed debate, if a sub-amendment has been proposed, the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings 15 minutes before the expiry of time provided for government business to put the question to dispose of the sub-amendment. ^[365]  On the third day of resumed debate, the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings, as on the second day, and put the question on the amendment under consideration. ^[366]  Finally, on the fourth day of resumed debate, unless the debate has been previously concluded, the Speaker will likewise interrupt the proceedings to put the question on the main motion. ^[367]  During the 1970s, the main motion was frequently adopted on division, ^[368]  but since the 1980s, with one exception, ^[369]  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. ^[370]  In two cases in the 1970s, the adoption of amendments was followed by the Prime Minister seeking a dissolution of Parliament. ^[371] 

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. Industry levies and service fees imposed by departments do not constitute charges on the people in the context of Ways and Means. ^[372]  Legislative proposals which are not intended to raise money but rather to reduce taxation need not to be preceded by a Ways and Means motion before being introduced in the House. ^[373] 

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. ^[374]  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. ^[375]  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, ^[376]  or when the Ways and Means proceedings regarding the Budget have yet to be completed. ^[377]  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. ^[378]  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. ^[379] 

Ways and Means motions can be expressed in general terms, ^[380]  or be very specific, as in the form of draft legislation. ^[381]  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. ^[382]  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. ^[383]  To proceed otherwise would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown in taxation measures. “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.” ^[384]  When a new Ways and Means motion is required, it must also be adopted rather than simply tabled. ^[385]  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. ^[386] 

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. ^[387] 

Concurrence in a Ways and Means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of the motion. ^[388]  A Ways and Means bill must be “based on” but not necessarily “identical to” the provisions of its Ways and Means motion. ^[389]  Such a bill can then be read the first time and ordered to be printed, immediately after the motion is concurred in or at a subsequent sitting of the House. ^[390]  From this point on, the legislative steps for Ways and Means bills are exactly the same as those followed for other public bills. ^[391] 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. ^[392] 

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 normal rules respecting legislation. ^[393] 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. ^[394]  Since Ways and Means motions may only be proposed 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 only be proposed and considered 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. If the debate at report stage has begun before the required Ways and Means motion has been concurred in, the Minister will require the House’s consent to table and decide on the Ways and Means motion and to proceed to consider the 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. ^[395]  In such cases, the House must 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 are subject to the royal recommendation, before proceeding to the first reading of the bill. ^[396] 

In the event that the notice requirements for the royal recommendation are not met, the offending bill must be withdrawn and the order for second reading of the bill discharged and removed from the Order Paper; this would not affect the validity of any Ways and Means motion previously concurred in by the House. ^[397] 

The financial role of the House of Commons does not end with voting supply or authorizing measures to raise revenue. The House also acts as a “watchdog” to ensure that federal money is spent in the amounts and for the purposes authorized by Parliament. ^[398]  This monitoring function (often described as “closing the loop”) is delegated largely to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which examines and reports on the Public Accounts of Canada, as well as on all reports of the Auditor General of Canada. ^[399] 

Under the Financial Administration Act, the Receiver General ^[400]  is responsible for ensuring that accounts are kept for each department and agency of the Government of Canada. These accounts must show all expenditures made under each appropriation, all government revenues, and all other payments into and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, ^[401]  together with whatever assets, liabilities and related reserves are deemed necessary to present a fair picture of the country’s financial position. ^[402]  The accounts of each individual department and agency are rolled up into the Accounts of Canada.

Each year, the President of the Treasury Board tables a detailed report of the financial transactions of all government departments and agencies, entitled the Public Accounts of Canada. The report must be tabled ^[403]  on or before December 31 next following the end of the fiscal year to which the accounts apply; or, if the House is not sitting, on any of the next 15 sitting days of the House. ^[404]  As a matter of tradition only, the Public Accounts are addressed to the Governor General.

The fundamental purpose of the Public Accounts of Canada is to provide information to Parliament, and thus to the public, which will enable them to understand and evaluate the financial position and transactions of the government. Two constitutional principles underly the public accounting system: that duties and revenues accruing to the Government of Canada form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that the balance of the Fund after certain prior charges is appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public service. ^[405] 

Responsibility for the form and content of the Public Accounts of Canada rests with the President of the Treasury Board ^[406]  and the Minister of Finance. ^[407]  The financial statements are prepared under the joint direction of the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General for Canada. ^[408]  By law, the Accounts must include, for the fiscal year to which they apply, a statement of all the government’s financial transactions; a statement of all expenditures and revenues; a statement of the assets and direct and contingent liabilities of Canada; the Auditor General’s opinion on the Accounts, pursuant to the Auditor General Act; and whatever other accounts and information the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance deem necessary to represent fairly the financial position of Canada at the close of the year. ^[409] 

Currently, the Public Accounts of Canada are divided into two volumes published in three separately bound books. Volume I contains the opinion of the Auditor General; the financial statements of Canada on which the Auditor General has expressed an opinion; a 10-year summary of the government’s financial transactions; analyses of revenues and expenditures, and of asset and liability accounts; and a variety of government-wide summaries of revenues, expenditures, loans and investments. Volume II is divided into two parts: the first gives details of the government’s financial operations, segregated by ministry; and the second provides additional information and analyses, such as the financial statements for revolving funds, transfer payments and public debt charges. ^[410] 

Until 1993, the Public Accounts included a third volume which contained financial information on Crown corporations. Volume III has been replaced by the Annual Report to Parliament: Crown Corporations and Other Corporate Interests of Canada, a consolidated report on the businesses and activities of all parent Crown corporations and other corporate interests of the Government of Canada. ^[411]  The Annual Report is prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat for the President of the Treasury Board, who tables it in the House. ^[412] 

The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of Parliament, appointed by the Governor in Council under the Auditor General Act, to audit the accounts of Canada and investigate the financial affairs of the federal government. ^[413]  The Auditor General holds office for a period of 10 years, or until the age of 65, whichever comes first. The term is not renewable. The position was first established in the Audit Act, 1878. ^[414]  That legislation was replaced in 1886 and in 1931 by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, ^[415]  which, in turn, was repealed by the Financial Administration Act, 1951. ^[416]  Initially, the Auditor General was responsible only for auditing expenditures; before they were made (pre-payment audit) and after they were made (post-payment audit). In 1977, Parliament enacted the current Auditor General Act which broadened the Auditor General’s mandate beyond attesting to the accuracy of the government’s financial statements, to examining how well the government managed its financial affairs. ^[417] 

As auditor of the Accounts of Canada, the Auditor General examines the government’s financial statements to ensure that the information is presented fairly, in accordance with stated accounting policies, and on a basis consistent with the previous accounting year. Additional responsibilities for special examinations of Crown corporations are set out in the Financial Administration Act. ^[418]  The Auditor General is empowered to undertake whatever examinations and inquiries are deemed necessary to produce the reports required under the terms of the Auditor General Act. ^[419] 

The Office of the Auditor General carries out three types of audits — attest audits, compliance audits and value-for-money audits. Attest auditing verifies that the government is keeping proper accounts and records and that it is presenting its overall financial information fairly. ^[420]  Compliance auditing ensures that the government collects and spends only those amounts of money authorized by Parliament and only for the purposes approved by Parliament. Finally, value-for money auditing assesses whether or not government programs were run economically and efficiently, with due regard to their environmental effects. They also assure Parliament that the government has the means in place to measure the effectiveness of its programs. ^[421]  Since 1995, the Office has been responsible also for evaluating the extent to which department activities meet their environmental and sustainable development objectives. ^[422] 

Where such an assignment does not interfere with the primary responsibilities of the office, the Auditor General may also be asked by the Governor in Council to inquire into and report on any matter related to the financial affairs of Canada or to public property, or to inquire into and report on any person or organization that is seeking or has received financial aid from the Government of Canada. ^[423] 

The Annual Report

The Auditor General must report annually to the House of Commons, drawing the House’s attention to any cases where:

• accounts have not been properly maintained or money not properly accounted for;
• the accounting procedures used are insufficient to safeguard the collection and spending of public money;
• money has been spent without due regard for economy and efficiency, or other than for the purposes appropriated by Parliament; or
• appropriate procedures to measure and report program effectiveness have not been implemented. ^[424] 

The Auditor General Act requires that each annual report be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons on or before December 31 in the year to which the report relates and that, upon receipt of the Report, the Speaker table it forthwith. If the House is not sitting at that time, the Annual Report is tabled on any of the next 15 sitting days of the House. ^[425]  At the request of the Auditor General, the Speaker has frequently agreed to table the Report in the House at a predetermined time, usually just before “Members’ Statements”, although there is no requirement that it be tabled at that time. ^[426]  Once tabled, the Report is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts. ^[427]  Prior to the tabling of the Report in the House, the Auditor General typically gives a briefing on its contents to members of the Public Accounts Committee, at an in camera session. In addition, the Chairman of the Committee will normally invite Members to a “lock-up”, ^[428]  during which they may examine the Report to be tabled later in the day and be briefed in advance by officials. A lock-up for the media is also normally arranged.

Changes to the Act introduced in 1994 authorized the Auditor General to make up to three reports each year over and above the Annual Report, any special report on matters of pressing importance or urgency, or any special report on the funding of the Auditor General’s Office. ^[429]  Where such an additional report is to be tabled, the Speaker must be advised in writing of the subject matter, and the report itself is submitted to the Speaker 30 days after the notice is sent, or after any longer period which may be specified in the notice. ^[430]  The Speaker is required to table the report forthwith or, if the House is not sitting, on any of the next 15 sitting days of the House.

Since the enactment of the 1994 provisions, the Auditor General’s Annual Report has been submitted to the House in several volumes; the first of which has been tabled in the spring, a second in the fall and a final volume in November or December. ^[431]  The final volume tabled continues to be known as the “annual” report and contains the sections on “Matters of Special Importance”, as well as follow-ups to previous audits. Each volume contains a foreword from the Auditor General, in addition to the individually numbered chapters ^[432] reporting on the various studies undertaken and the value-for-money audits of departments and agencies. Audit notes and observations may be included in any or all of the volumes, where deemed appropriate.

Under the Standing Orders, all reports of the Auditor General, as well as the Public Accounts of Canada, are deemed permanently referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts as soon as they are tabled in the House. ^[433]  Since 1987, the Committee has also been responsible for scrutinizing the annual Estimates for the Office of the Auditor General.

Since 1958, the Committee has been chaired by a Member of the Official Opposition, while the parties are represented in proportion to their voting strength in the House. ^[434]  The Committee’s main functions are to ensure that public money is spent for the purposes authorized by Parliament, that extravagance and waste are minimized and that sound financial practices are encouraged in estimating and contracting, and in administration generally. The Committee does not concern itself with the appropriateness of government policy; rather, it focusses on the economy and efficiency of its administration. The Committee regularly reports its findings to the House. The reports typically state conclusions and recommendations on matters pertaining to the improvement of managerial and financial practices and controls of government departments, agencies and Crown corporations.