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

2000 Edition — More information …

18. Financial Procedures

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[51]: Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 462-3.
[52]: Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 89.
[53]: In 1968, the House modified its Standing Orders to incorporate a fixed, annual schedule for the consideration of the Business of Supply. See sections below on “The Business of Supply”.
[54]: Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 462. Public expenditure is that deemed to be a charge upon the public revenue.See also ruling of Speaker Parent, Debates, February 12, 1998, p. 3765.
[55]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 54.
[56]: Standing Order 79(1).
[57]: See, for example, Journals, April 24, 1873, pp. 205-6; May 8, 1873, pp. 302-4; May 20, 1873, pp. 396-9; June 2, 1960, pp. 527-8; June 7, 1960, pp. 539-40.
[58]: See, for example, Journals, April 11, 1939, p. 325.
[59]: See the Fifth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 562, 573 and 579.
[60]: The rule was as follows: “The message and recommendation of the Governor General in relation to any bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue or of any tax or impost shall be printed on the Notice Paper and in the Votes and Proceedings when any such measure is to be introduced and the text of such recommendation shall be printed with or annexed to every such bill.” (See the 1968 Standing Order 61(2), Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 573.)
[61]: Standing Order 79(2). See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, June 9, 1994, Meeting No. 16, pp. 6-7. See also Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563.
[62]: See, for example, Bills C-14, An Act respecting the safety and effectiveness of materials that come into contact with or are used to treat water destined for human consumption (Journals, October 30, 1997, p. 173) and C-15, An Act to amend the Canada Shipping Act and to make consequential amendments to other Acts (Journals, October 30, 1997, p. 173). Occasionally, the government has provided a royal recommendation after first reading. See, for example, Bill C-45, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another Act, introduced and given first reading on June 11, 1996 (Journals, p. 510) and royal recommendation given at second reading stage on June 14, 1996 (Journals, p. 553).
[63]: For a discussion on the requirement of a royal recommendation, see R.R. Walsh, “Some Thoughts on Section 54 and the Financial Initiative of the Crown”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 1994, p. 24. In recent years, borrowing authority bills have also been accompanied by a royal recommendation (see, for example, Journals, February 23, 1994, p. 188; February 27, 1995, p. 1174; March 6, 1996, p. 55).
[64]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 733. See also Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, Proceedings,March 21, 1990, Issue No. 20, p. 6.
[65]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 763. Speaker Parent has ruled that, where statutory authority exists to cover the payment of compensation for something for which the government is authorized to assume liability, extending the liability does not itself require a royal recommendation (Debates, February 12, 1998, p. 3766). “Where sufficient statutory authority already exists for payments to which bills relate, no further… recommendation is required” (May, 21^st ed., p. 717). See also Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, February 10, 1998, pp. 3647-8.
[66]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, June 21, 1972, p. 396.
[67]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53, and Standing Order 80(1). See, for example, Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings, Journals, November 12, 1969, pp. 79-80; June 12, 1973, pp. 401-2. See also Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, February 12, 1998, p. 3765.
[68]: See Journals, April 11, 1939, p. 325. See also rulings of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, June 21, 1972, p. 396; February 5, 1973, p. 93.
[69]: Ruling of Speaker Parent, Debates, October 16, 1995, p. 15410.
[70]: For further information on private Members’ bills, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[71]: For examples of private Members’ bills ruled out of order because they infringed on the financial initiative of the Crown, see Debates, April 20, 1971, pp. 5093-4, 5096-7; February 6, 1973, p. 1018; September 18, 1973, p. 6690.
[72]: See, for example, Journals, December 6, 1994, p. 997; Debates, December 6, 1994, p. 8734.
[73]: See ruling of Deputy Speaker Laniel, Debates, November 9, 1978, pp. 975-7. See also ruling of Deputy Speaker Francis, Debates, November 3, 1983, pp. 28655-7.
[74]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53. Standing Order 80(1).
[75]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, November 12, 1969, pp. 79-80.
[76]: See ruling of Speaker Parent on Bill S-13, Debates, December 2, 1998, pp. 10788-91.
[77]: Standing Order 80(1).
[78]: In 1918, the Senate established a Special Committee to consider its rights with respect to money bills, under the chairmanship of Senator Ross. The Committee’s report was presented in the Senate on May 15, 1918. See Second Report of the Special Committee on the question of the rights of the Senate respecting Financial Legislation (Money Bills) (Ross Report), Senate Journals, May 15, 1918, pp. 193-204. See also James Robertson, Financial Legislation and the Senate, Library of Parliament, April 19, 1990.
[79]: This argument posits that a financial bill amended by the Senate becomes a different bill and is not the same as that which originated in the House of Commons (Dreidger, p. 41).
[80]: See the Ross Report, presented in the Senate on May 15, 1918 (Senate Journals, pp. 193-204), and adopted on May 22, 1918 (Senate Journals, p. 241). See also Robertson,pp. 10-12.
[81]: This arose with respect to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (Second Session (1989-91), Thirty-Fourth Parliament).
[82]: See, for example, Journals, May 23, 1873, pp. 429-30; July 18, 1959, pp. 750-1; July 6, 1961, p. 812; July 18, 1988, pp. 3210 and 3223-4; May 9, 1990, pp. 1668-70.
[83]: See, for example, Journals, May 23, 1874, pp. 335-6; September 15, 1917, pp. 662-3; May 23, 1918, p. 333; June 11, 1941, p. 491; and March 20, 1997, pp. 1326-7. The requirement that bills which appropriate or impose a tax originate in the Commons is included in the Constitution and may not be waived by the House; whereas the principle that such bills are not alterable by the Senate is a privilege claimed by the Commons (Standing Order 80(1)) and, as such, may be waived by the House.
[84]: The Speaker has ruled that to waive its privileges respecting financial legislation the House must suspend Standing Order 80(1). Typically, this is done with the consent of the House. However, where consent is denied, a motion to suspend must be proposed and decided, after appropriate notice of the motion has been given (see Speaker Michener’s ruling, Journal, July 14, 1959, pp. 708-10; see also Debates, July 14, 1959, pp. 5977-85).
[85]: See, for example, Journals, May 15, 1989, pp. 222-3.
[86]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 11, 1988, p. 17384; April 26, 1990, p. 10723. See also Speaker Rhode’s ruling, Journals, September 15, 1917, pp. 662-3.
[87]: See Speaker Michener’s ruling, Journals, July 14, 1959, p. 708.
[88]: See Speakers’ rulings: Journals, September 15, 1917, p. 663; July 14, 1959, p. 708; Debates, July 11, 1988, p. 17384; April 26, 1990, p. 10722.
[89]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, November 12, 1969, p. 80; June 12, 1973, p. 402, and Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, December 2, 1998, pp. 10788-91.
[90]: Standing Order 80(2).
[91]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53; Standing Order 80(1).
[92]: The Financial Administration Act states that no payment shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of Parliament (R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 26).
[93]: See May, 5^th ed., p. 547; Rule 88, Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[94]: Beginning in 1874, the Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means were struck at the same time. (Journals, March 31, 1874, p. 10; Rule 87, Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1876.) Prior to 1874, the Committee of Supply was struck during the debate on the Speech from the Throne (see, for example, Journals, November 19 and 20, 1867, p. 25; April 20, 1869, p. 25; March 1 and 3, 1870, p. 31; April 19, 1872, p. 28). The Committee of Ways and Means was not struck until the House had concurred in a resolution or resolutions reported from the Committee of Supply. (See, for example, Journals, December 11, 1867, p. 64; May 4, 1869, p. 58; April 5, 1870, p. 150; April 29, 1872, p. 60.) See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[95]: All financial measures were to be initiated by the Crown (Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Schedule II, No. 5, s. 54).
[96]: Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 477.
[97]: No motion to grant Supply could be taken up in the Committee of Supply during the same sitting day in which it was proposed (May, 5^th ed., p. 547; Rule 88, Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868).
[98]: This is the same motion that was proposed whenever the House wished to resolve into a Committee of the Whole, as Committees of the Whole are not presided over by the Speaker. Since 1968, however, when the order is called for the House to resolve itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker leaves the Chair without the question being put. (See Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 562 and 572; Standing Order 100. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.)
[99]: One amendment to the motion was permitted. However, if that amendment were withdrawn, another might be proposed. No sub-amendments were receivable (Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 478-9).
[100]: This “airing of grievances” is now achieved through what are variably referred to as “supply, allotted or opposition days”, when the opposition determines the subject of debate for that day.