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

[151]: Standing Order 81(15) and (18).
[152]: Standing Order 81(13).
[153]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, March 6, 1973, pp. 166-7; ruling of Speaker Jerome, Journals,November 14, 1975, p. 862; ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, June 8, 1987, p. 6820.
[154]: Standing Order 81(14)(a). The suspension of a sitting, as opposed to an adjournment, does not prevent Members from filing notices of motions. (See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Debates, January 27, 1969, p. 4813.)
[155]: An opposition motion which had not been filed in time to appear on the Order Paper was taken up with the agreement of the House. (See Order Paper, October 5, 1998, p. 13; Debates, October 5, 1998, p. 8729.)
[156]: See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583-4.
[157]: See ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, February 15, 1982, pp. 14997-8.
[158]: See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584.
[159]: See ruling of the Acting Speaker, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061, and ruling of Speaker Francis, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223-4.
[160]: See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584.
[161]: Standing Order 81(14)(b). See rulings of Speaker Lamoureux, Debates, March 3, 1969, p. 6121, and Journals, December 10, 1973, p. 734. See also ruling of the Acting Speaker, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061, and ruling of Speaker Francis, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223-4.
[162]: See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584. See also ruling of the Acting Speaker, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061, and ruling of Speaker Francis, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223-4.
[163]: Standing Order 81(16). Initially, only two votable motions were provided for in each Supply period. That was changed in 1987 to provide for a maximum of eight in any annual Supply cycle but not more than four in any Supply period (Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016 and 1023). That was changed again in 1991 to reduce to three the maximum number of votable opposition motions that could be considered in any Supply period (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905-6 and 2918). The House has, on occasion, agreed to increase the number of votable opposition motions in a Supply period. (See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 14.) When the Standing Orders in relation to Supply were changed in 1968, the wording respecting votable opposition motions referred to motions of “no-confidence” in the government. However, this is no longer the case. In June 1985, the House introduced changes to the Standing Orders which modified the wording to remove the reference to “no-confidence” (Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910, 914 and 919). For further information on non-confidence opposition motions, see section entitled “Supply Proceedings Since 1968”.
[164]: See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, March 26, 1990, p. 9760.
[165]: The Speaker has ruled that it is not the right of the Official Opposition to decide which party may put a votable motion on notice (Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223-4).
[166]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, May 4, 1970, pp. 742-3.
[167]: See, for example, Journals, February 12, 1992, pp. 1010-2; March 8, 1994, pp. 220-2; October 28, 1997, pp. 155-7; October 30, 1997, p. 175; February 9, 1999, pp. 1482-3; June 8, 1999, pp. 2064-6, 2069-71.
[168]: Standing Order 81(19). On occasion, the question on a non-votable motion was put by unanimous consent and agreed to. (Journals, May 14, 1987, pp. 917-8; November 24, 1989, pp. 880-2; Debates, May 14, 1987, p. 6093. See also ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, May 14, 1987, p. 6112.)
[169]: See, for example, Journals, March 18, 1969, p. 807 (deemed withdrawn); June 23, 1969, p. 1223 (deemed withdrawn); March 19, 1976, p. 1134 (adopted).
[170]: Standing Order 81(16).
[171]: Standing Order 45(6)(a).
[172]: Standing Order 81(16).
[173]: See, for example, Debates, January 23, 1969, p. 4716; Journals, January 29, 1969, p. 637; January 30, 1969, p. 646; Debates, November 17, 1970, p. 1250; Journals, November 18, 1970, p. 113; November 19, 1970, pp. 116-7; Debates, April 20, 1989, pp. 739-40, 760; Journals, April 21, 1989, pp. 124, 128; April 24, 1989, pp. 132, 134-5.
[174]: Standing Order 81(16). (See, for example, Notice Paper, April 21, 1989, p. v.)
[175]: During the Supply period ending December 10, 1997, when five recognized parties were present in the House, the time allocated to all speakers in the first round of debate, with the exception of the Member proposing the motion, was reduced to ten minutes, with a five-minute period reserved for questions and comments (Journals, September 26, 1997, p. 30). Subsequently, the House agreed to continue that order indefinitely during the session (Journals, February 9, 1998, p. 427).
[176]: See, for example, Debates, February 2, 1990, p. 7755; February 8, 1990, p. 8070; March 15, 1990, p. 9315; October 20, 1998, p. 9136; October 26, 1998, p. 9372; November 19, 1998, pp. 10174-7. On many occasions, where a party has signalled to the House that Members will be sharing their time, the Member following the Member who moved the motion has proposed an amendment to the motion. (See, for example, Debates, October 20, 1998, pp. 9136-9; October 26, 1998, pp. 9372-6; March 15, 1999, p. 12839.)
[177]: Standing Order 85.
[178]: See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1971, p. 4306; November 3, 1971, pp. 9304-6; October 12, 1989, p. 4588; February 1, 1990, p. 7731; March 12, 1991, p. 18378.
[179]: See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1971, p. 4306; November 3, 1971, pp. 9304-6; December 10, 1984, p. 1071; March 26, 1992, p. 8877.
[180]: See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1992, p. 6878; April 2, 1992, p. 9268.
[181]: A Vote in the Estimates may be referred to variously as a “vote”, an “estimate” or an “item”. The Votes for each Department or Agency are numbered consecutively 1, 5, 10, 15, etc. Supplementary Votes which modify an appropriation authorized under the Main Estimates will bear the same number followed by the letter which corresponds to the particular set of Supplementary Estimates in question (i.e., typically “a”, “b” or “c”). Entirely new Votes included in the Supplementary Estimates will be numbered 2 through 4, 6 through 9, 11 through 14, etc., for each department or agency.
[182]: The Main Estimates include: Program Expenditure Votes; Operating Expenditure Votes; Capital Expenditure Votes; Grants and Contributions Votes; Non-Budgetary Votes (identified by the letter L); Special Votes: Crown Corporation Deficits and Separate Legal Identities; Special Votes: Treasury Board Centrally Financed Votes. (See 1998-99 Estimates, Part II, The Main Estimates, “Preface”.)
[183]: See 1998-99 Estimates: Parts I and II, The Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates, inside cover.
[184]: Statutory items are expenditures which have been authorized by legislation other than appropriation acts, i.e., programs which have been provided with a continuing authority to spend and which do not require an annual appropriation from Parliament. (See the Ninth Report of the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance, March 21, 1990, Issue No. 20, p. 15.) However, because statutory items are not referred to committees for study, they may not be the object of any motion, vote or recommendation. Questions requesting information on statutory items are nevertheless allowed.
[185]: Until 1997, each department and agency also tabled, along with its Main Estimates, an individual expenditure plan, known as the Part III. Part IIIs were referred, along with the items in the Estimates, to the appropriate standing committees.
[186]: See 1992 Report of the Auditor General of Canada to the House of Commons, Supply and Services Canada, November 1992, Chapter 6, pp. 165-6.
[187]: See Debates, February 3, 1938, pp. 148-9.
[188]: Debates, February 11, 1970, p. 3468.
[189]: For comments on the new format, see, for example, Debates, February 26, 1981, pp. 7721-2.
[190]: Debates, February 23, 1982, p. 15289. On February 22, 1990, the President of the Treasury Board tabled in the House Parts I and II of the Estimates and 73 out of 87 departmental plans of Part III with the promise that the remaining 14 plans would be tabled by March 12 (Debates, pp. 8651-3). A point of order was raised arguing that the adoption by the House of the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Journals, December 17, 1981, p. 4460, and June 23, 1982, p. 5075) obliged the President of the Treasury Board to table all departmental Expenditure Plans (Part IIIs) by March 1. Speaker Fraser ruled that the Standing Orders only require that Part II of the Estimates be tabled by March 1 (Debates, March 16, 1990, pp. 9381-3). Nonetheless, he did indicate that since the standing committees require Part III in order to understand the Votes in Part II adequately, Part IIIs should be tabled with Part II.
[191]: 1992 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, paras. 6.21 to 6.23, p. 167.
[192]: 1992 Report of the Auditor General of Canada, para. 6.26, pp. 167-8.
[193]: See Journals, April 24, 1997, p. 1533. See also the Fifty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (The Business of Supply: Completing the Circle of Control), and in particular Section IV, “Completing the Circle: New Procedures for the Business of Supply”, presented to the House on December 10, 1998 (Journals, p. 1435).
[194]: 1998-99 Estimates: Parts I and II, The Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates, p. vii.
[195]: See, for example, Journals, March 25, 1998, pp. 617-20.
[196]: 1998-99 Estimates: Parts I and II, The Government Expenditure Plan and Main Estimates, p. vii.
[197]: See, for example, Journals, November 6, 1997, pp. 199-202; October 29, 1998, pp. 1207-11.
[198]: See, for example, Journals, March 25, 1998, p. 620; November 18, 1998, p. 1271; March 5, 1999, p. 1561. The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is normally charged with the consideration of the House’s Estimates.
[199]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 54; Standing Order 79. See, for example, Debates, May 14, 1991, p. 54; February 26, 1998, p. 4456.
[200]: See, for example, Journals, February 26, 1998, pp. 534-5. The tabling and referral of the Estimates have also occurred on different days. (See, for example, Journals,February 23, 1972, p. 17, and February 28, 1972, pp. 29-31.) For further information on Committee consideration of Estimates, see section entitled, “Consideration of Estimates in Committee”.