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

[251]: See, for example, Notice of opposition to a sum of $3,765,000 in Vote 1 under INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT in the amount of $63, 272,000 (Notice Paper, June 9, 1998, p. VIII).
[252]: See rulings of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, June 22, 1972, pp. 401-2; February 7, 1973, p. 102; December 10, 1973, pp. 736-7.
[253]: Standing Order 81(20).
[254]: See ruling of Speaker Jerome, Journals, March 24, 1976, pp. 1144-5. A Vote in Supplementary Estimates, for which a notice of opposition had been given, was defeated in the House (see Debates, March 26, 1973, pp. 2620-7).
[255]: See, for example, Notice Paper, September 18, 1996, p. VI, and Journals, September 18, 1996, pp. 639-40.
[256]: See Notice Paper, June 8, 1999, pp. VII-LIV; Debates, June 8, 1999, pp. 16069, 16079-81.
[257]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 551, and September 18, 1996, pp. 639-40.
[258]: Standing Order 81(17) and (18)(d).
[259]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1994, pp. 546-7.
[260]: Standing Order 81(17). See also ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, December 10, 1973, p. 736.
[261]: Standing Order 81(18)(a).
[262]: Standing Order 81(18)(b). See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1999, pp. 2064-6.
[263]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1999, pp. 2066, 2069-71.
[264]: Standing Order 81(21).
[265]: Standing Order 81(21).
[266]: See, for example, Bill C-45, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1999 (Journals, June 9, 1998, pp. 984-5).
[267]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, December 10, 1973, p. 737; ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, March 20, 1991, p. 18732; ruling of Speaker Parent, Debates, June 8, 1999, p. 16065. See also Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 417; Debates, April 30, 1879, p. 1668; Journals, April 30, 1879, p. 335; May 6, 1879, p. 367.
[268]: See the point of order raised by John Williams (St. Albert) on Bill C-86 (An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial years ending March 31, 2000 and March 31, 2001) and the ruling of Speaker Parent (Debates, June 8, 1999, pp. 16053, 16065-6).
[269]: See Debates, June 8, 1999, p. 16082.
[270]: From 1867 to 1939, the Estimates were published separately in English and French, with neither version ordered alphabetically. From 1939 to 1970, the Estimates continued to be published separately but each version listed the departments alphabetically, according to their English titles. In 1970, the first bilingual edition of the Estimates was published, in tumble format and ordered alphabetically according to their title in the language in which they were printed. Only the schedules in the Supply bills continued to list the departments alphabetically in the English text, with the French translation of those schedules appearing on the opposite pages. Following complaints by Members (see, for example, Debates,February 16, 1973, pp. 1385-6; June 26, 1973, p. 5098; December 10, 1973, p. 8609; December 6, 1989, pp. 6581-2), departments began to be listed alphabetically in the schedules, in each language. The first such bill was Appropriation Act No. 2, 1990-91, S.C. 1990, c. 33 (see remarks by Marcel Prud’homme (Saint-Denis), Debates, June 6, 1990, pp. 12420-1).
[271]: Standing Order 81(17) and (18).
[272]: See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1998, p. 7795.
[273]: See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[274]: Standing Orders 81(21) and 73(4). See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[275]: On occasion, through special orders, the House has agreed to debate a Supply bill at the second reading stage (see, for example,Journals, March 21, 1977, p. 598; March 24, 1977, p. 621; June 22, 1989, p. 431; June 27, 1989, p. 467) and at the Committee of the Whole stage (see, for example, Debates, October 23, 1974, p. 639; Journals, October 23, 1974, p. 82; October 24, 1974, p. 83; October 25, 1974, p. 86).
[276]: Standing Order 81(22).
[277]: See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[278]: See Debates, June 9, 1998, p. 7908; June 8, 1999, p. 16082.
[279]: Standing Order 76.1(12).
[280]: The Deputy to the Governor General is referred to as “Your Honour”.
[281]: See, for example, Journals, December 10, 1998, p. 1440. On May 17, 1995, the House concurred in the Seventy-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs requiring that the Journals reproduce the form of words used by the Speaker and the Clerk of the Senate (see the Seventy-Seventh Report presented to the House on May 10, 1995 (Journals, p. 1456) and concurred in on May 17, 1995 (Journals, p. 1492)).
[282]: See, for example, Journals, April 29, 1980, pp. 95-6; April 4, 1989, pp. 20-1; May 23, 1991, p. 59; March 4, 1996, pp. 34-5, 39-41; September 23, 1997, p. 14.
[283]: See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, p. 20.
[284]: See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 14.
[285]: See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 14.
[286]: See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, pp. 20-1; May 23, 1991, p. 59; March 4, 1996, pp. 34-5; September 23, 1997, p. 14.
[287]: See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, p. 21; September 23, 1997, p. 14.
[288]: See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1989, p. 431.
[289]: Standing Order 82.
[290]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals,February 7, 1973, pp. 102-3. See also Debates, February 7, 1973, pp. 1052-61.
[291]: See ruling of Speaker Lamoureux, Journals, February 7, 1973, p. 103.
[292]: R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 43.
[293]: See Debates, December 16, 1975, pp. 10054-5.
[294]: R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 46. See also Debates, March 24, 1977, p. 4298.
[295]: See Debates, December 10, 1974, pp. 2138-9; December 11, 1974, p. 2143; March 20, 1975, pp. 4357-62; March 21, 1975, pp. 4364-5.
[296]: See ruling of Speaker Jerome, Journals, December 9, 1975, p. 924. See also Debates, December 9, 1975, pp. 9880-3. In 1977, the House agreed to a debate at second reading of a Supply bill, based on Interim Supply, which contained a borrowing clause. (See Debates, March 24, 1977, p. 4298; Journals, March 21, 1977, p. 598; March 22, 1977, pp. 610-1; March 24, 1977, p. 621.)
[297]: See ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319. See also ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, February 16, 1982, p. 15053.
[298]: Standing Order 73(5). See, for example, Journals, February 27, 1995, p. 1174; March 2, 1995, p. 1195; March 3, 1995, pp. 1199 and 1202. For more information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[299]: In 1985, the Minister of Finance tabled a paper which set out recommendations aimed at improving the borrowing process based on the basic principle that the government should not seek borrowing authority for a fiscal year without first providing Parliament with all relevant details relating to the financial requirements. (See Journals, May 23, 1985, pp. 648-9. See also The Canadian Budgetary Process — Proposals for Improvement, pp. 9-12.)
[300]: It is important to differentiate between Governor General’s Warrants and the Governor General’s Special Warrants. Every time an Appropriation Act receives Royal Assent, the Governor General must sign a Warrant before the government can make the authorized withdrawal from the Consolidated Revenue Fund; these are referred to as Governor General’s Warrants. (See ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, May 2, 1989, p. 1177.) The 1878 Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act first authorized the use of Governor General’s Special Warrants. The original intent was to allow payment for urgent or unexpected matters when the House was not sitting. In the early years following Confederation, when Parliament sat for only a few weeks or months of the year, it was difficult to convene quickly and the need for such a device was obvious. For most of their history, Special Warrants have been used solely for authorizing emergency expenditures, usually while Parliament was dissolved to allow for a general election. However, in 1988, the House of Commons reconvened in December following a general election and subsequently adjourned. The House did not consider the Business of Supply during the short time it sat. Parliament was then prorogued and a new session began on April 3, 1989, a new fiscal year. During the period of adjournment, and subsequent prorogation, the government resorted to the use of Special Warrants on three occasions. Although the Speaker concluded that the government had met all the requirements — the warrants were tabled in the House within the first 15 days following the commencement of the next session, and retroactively included in the next Appropriation Act — there remained concerns about the legitimacy and propriety of this practice. (See Debates, April 6, 1989, pp. 175-84. See also ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, May 2, 1989, pp. 1175-9.) In 1997, a private Member’s bill, sponsored by Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands), was enacted. It amended the Financial Administration Act and limited the government’s use of Special Warrants solely to the period of dissolution (An Act to amend the Financial Administration Act (session of Parliament), S.C. 1997, c. 5).