Precedence and Sequence / Estimates

Concurrence in committee reports

Journals pp. 419-20

Debates pp. 4827-8

Background

On June 15, Mr. Orlikow (Winnipeg North) sought to move the motion to concur in the third report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications. He explained that the motion was in order even though objections had been raised under the rule changes of 1968 that a report on Estimates made by a standing committee is limited in its terms of reference and cannot be substantive or include recommendations. Moreover, as Mr. Reid (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council) pointed out, motions to concur in reports on Estimates should be moved only on an allotted day.

Issue

Can reports of standing committees on Estimates be substantive in nature?

Decision

No. The proposed motion in the name of the Member for Winnipeg North cannot be moved in such terms and at this time.

Reasons given by the Speaker

"Prior to 1968 the Committee of Supply could consider, reject, reduce and adopt Estimates, but the ultimate concurrence in the Estimates rested in the House after report from Committee of Supply. In like fashion, standing committees may now consider, adopt, reject, reduce and report to the House on Estimates, but ... the ultimate concurrence in the Estimates still rests with the House ... There is no enlargement of powers of standing committees on Estimates by virtue of the new Standing Order 58 ... There can be no doubt that standing committees are empowered to make reports in relation to their study of Estimates." Nonetheless, the role of the House remains paramount:" ... it cannot be contended that the committees have powers which exceed those of the House . . . It could be said that the 'report of a committee, both in its form and as to its substance, ought to correspond with the authority with which the committee is invested'."

Sources cited

Standing Orders 58(14), 58(16) and 59.

References

Journals, June 15, 1973, p. 417.

Debates, June 15, 1973, pp. 4802-13.