House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 EditionMore information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

18. Financial Procedures

[301] 
Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 30, as amended, S.C. 1997, c. 5.
[302] 
Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 30(1.1), as amended, S.C. 1997, c. 5, s. 1. See also Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[303] 
See, for example, Journals, April 12, 1989, pp. 88-9, and Appropriation Act No. 1, 1989-90, S.C. 1989, c. 1, s. 3.
[304] 
R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53.
[305] 
Standing Order 80(1): “All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate.”
[306] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 732.
[307] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 776. The Royal Recommendation has the same limiting effect with respect to amendments relating to spending. (See section above on “The Royal Recommendation”.)
[308] 
The Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means were Committees of the Whole House. The rules held that all financial measures — to tax as well as to spend — should be given the fullest possible consideration, both in committee and in the House (Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada (1868), Rule 88).
[309] 
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 495.
[310] 
This occurred in 1867, 1868, 1875, 1878, 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1911.
[311] 
This occurred in 1870, 1874 and 1879.
[312] 
See Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 922-7. See also Debates, July 1, 1955, pp. 5558-65.
[313] 
Criticism of Ways and Means proceedings focussed on two concerns: the right to move sub-amendments to the motion to resolve into Committee, and the length of debate on the motion applying to the Budget presentation. The first was resolved in 1927, when the House agreed to the right to move a sub-amendment (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 316-68). The second issue — the length of debate — was more complex. The questions of limiting individual speeches and the overall proceedings were often discussed in the context of time allotment for debate in general. (See, for example, the resolution debated and adopted April 19, 1886 (Journals, pp. 167-8).) In 1927, a new rule limited speeches to 40 minutes on most occasions and for most speakers (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9), although some Members attempted unsuccessfully to exempt the Budget debate from the application of these limits (Debates, March 18, 1927, pp. 1352-7, 1364-71).
[314] 
Journals, July 25, 1960, p. 826; August 8, 1960, p. 898.
[315] 
These changes were introduced provisionally at first and made permanent on April 12, 1962 (see Journals, April 12, 1962, p. 350). They remained in force until 1968.
[316] 
See Stewart, pp. 102-4.
[317] 
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-79, and in particular pp. 559-60.
[318] 
In its Third Report, presented to the House on December 6, 1968, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House declared the existing Ways and Means procedure “if anything, even less readily comprehensible than that relating to supply”, with an underlying purpose which appeared “to be lost in obscurity” (Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 429, 431-2). See also Stewart, pp. 102-4.
[319] 
In 1985, amendments were made to the Standing Orders whereby Ways and Means bills would no longer be dealt with in a Committee of the Whole, but would be referred after second reading to a legislative committee (Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 919). Standing Order 73 was further amended in 1994 to allow for all bills, except Supply bills, to be referred after second reading either to a standing, special, or legislative committee (Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112-20).
[320] 
See the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 559-60.
[321] 
See Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[322] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2919.
[323] 
Wilding and Laundy, p. 61.
[324] 
In the United Kingdom, a general Finance Act must be enacted annually because certain taxes, most notably the income tax, are authorized for one year only. Since Canadian taxation statutes continue in effect from year to year without need of renewal, there is no obligation on the part of the government to present a budget at all although one is normally presented once a year. (For more detail, see Stewart, p. 101.) In 1987, the Minister of Finance announced that henceforth the Budget would be presented during the middle weeks of February each year, just prior to the beginning of the new fiscal year (Debates, January 30, 1987, p. 2924). There have been exceptions to this commitment: April 27, 1989 (Journals, p. 150), April 26, 1993 (Journals, p. 2859), and March 6, 1996 (Journals, p. 54).
[325] 
It does not have to be the Minister of Finance; see, for example, Debates, April 19, 1989, p. 690; February 24, 1992, p. 7522; April 23, 1993, p. 18385.
[326] 
Standing Order 83(2).
[327] 
See, for example, Debates, February 11, 1994, p. 1235; February 21, 1995, p. 9901; February 28, 1996, p. 42; February 3, 1997, p. 7579; February 10, 1998, p. 3686. The question has also been asked by a Member from the government side (Debates, February 5, 1999, p. 11508).
[328] 
Standing Order 83(2). The provision for the House to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a Budget presentation was added to the Standing Orders in 1991 (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2918-9) and eliminated the requirement for the House to pass a special order to suspend the regular schedule of business to allow the Minister of Finance to deliver the Budget (see, for example, Journals, January 30, 1987, p. 425; February 8, 1988, pp. 2158-9; April 19, 1989, p. 116).
[329] 
Standing Order 83(2).
[330] 
Standing Order 84(1).
[331] 
Standing Order 83(3).
[332] 
It is the long-standing practice of Canadian governments to put tax measures into effect as soon as notice of the Ways and Means motions on which they are based are tabled in the House of Commons, with the result that taxes are collected as of the date of this notice, even though it may be months, if not years, before the implementing legislation is actually passed by Parliament (The Canadian Budgetary Process: Proposals for Improvement, p. 15).
[333] 
In 1989, the House had agreed by special order that the Budget would be delivered at 5:00 p.m. on April 27. Following a significant Budget leak in the late afternoon of April 26, the substance of the Budget speech was presented in a televised press conference on that evening, at a time when the House had already adjourned for the day despite an earlier attempt by the Government House Leader to continue the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment (Debates, April 26, 1989, p. 1001). The next day, the Opposition tried unsuccessfully to withdraw their consent for the special order authorizing the Budget presentation, on the grounds that it had already been presented. However, the Speaker ruled that the Chair was bound by the order of the House, as previously agreed to (see ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1060).
[334] 
See, for example, ruling of Speaker Jerome, Debates, April 17, 1978, p. 4549; ruling of Speaker Sauvé,Debates, November 18, 1981, p. 12898; ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, June 18, 1987, p. 7315.
[335] 
See Debates, November 18, 1981, p. 12898.
[336] 
Journalists are informed in advance that they will not be permitted to leave the briefing room until after the Budget presentation has begun in the House. Members in attendance, however, may not be prevented from leaving the room in order to attend to their official business (see ruling of Speaker Jerome, Debates, November 27, 1978, p. 1515).
[337] 
See ruling of Speaker Jerome, Debates, November 27, 1978, pp. 1518-9; ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, February 25, 1981, p. 7670; ruling of Speaker Francis, Debates, January 19, 1984, p. 563; ruling of Speaker Parent, Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693.
[338] 
See, for example, comments of Speaker Francis, Debates, January 19, 1984, p. 563; and Speaker Parent, Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693.
[339] 
Standing Order 83.1. (See Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 117 and 119-20.) The actual wording authorizes the Committee to consider and make reports on proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. (For example of reports presented to the House, see Journals, December 8, 1994, p. 1004; December 12, 1995, p. 2241; December 5, 1996, p. 967; December 1, 1997, p. 290; December 4, 1998, p. 1397.)
[340] 
Such a study could be undertaken under the provisions of Standing Order 108(2), which gives the Committee authority to review the mandate and operations of the Department of Finance.
[341] 
Standing Order 83.1. In some cases, the Committee was authorized by the House to present its report past the deadline (see Journals, November 30, 1994, pp. 957-8; December 8, 1994, p. 1004; November 21, 1995, pp. 2135-6; December 12, 1995, p. 2239; February 2, 1996, p. 2273; November 23, 1998, p. 1288; November 25, 1998, p. 1313; December 4, 1998, p. 1397).
[342] 
See Journals, November 28, 1994, p. 943; November 30, 1994, p. 957; December 14, 1995, pp. 2262-4; December 9, 1996, pp. 977-9; December 11, 1996, p. 996; December 10, 1997, pp. 384-5; December 11, 1997, pp. 393-5; February 1, 1999, pp. 1442, 1446; February 2, 1999, p. 1461.
[343] 
Journals, October 20, 1977, p. 19; April 21, 1980, pp. 61-2. See also Debates, October 20, 1977, pp. 98-102; April 21, 1980, pp. 242-8.
[344] 
Journals, October 14, 1971, pp. 870-1; Debates, October 14, 1971, pp. 8688-90.
[345] 
Debates, October 27, 1982, p. 20077.
[346] 
See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1992, pp. 14417-27.
[347] 
On November 7, 1984, however, the House adopted a special order enabling the Minister of Finance to make an economic statement and providing for replies from representatives of recognized parties following the example used for ministerial statements (see Journals, November 7, 1984, pp. 32-3; November 8, 1984, pp. 37-8).
[348] 
In 1990, in response to a point of order raised seeking clarification as to whether or not Members could question the Minister following the Budget speech, the Speaker ruled that since 1984 the practice of the House had been to not allow a 10-minute questions and comments period following this speech (see Debates, February 20, 1990, pp. 8578-9).
[349] 
Standing Order 83(2). See also, for example, Journals, February 18, 1997, p. 1147, and February 24, 1998, p. 527.
[350] 
Standing Order 84(2). See Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2919.


Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page