Category Archives: Administrative Law

Supply Procedures

Supply Procedures in Canada

The Public Business of Supply

The business of supply is the process by which the government asks Parliament to appropriate the funds required to meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already approved by Parliament. The Crown, acting on the advice of its responsible Ministers, transmits to the House of Commons the government’s projected annual expenditures, or “estimates”, for parliamentary scrutiny and approval.

The House of Commons has sole authority to grant the “supplies” needed to satisfy the government’s demands. All financial legislation (which includes all government expenditures) must originate in the House of Commons.[104] Once supply is granted, the government can draw on the Consolidated Revenue Fund to meet its financial obligations.[105]
Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Historical Perspective

The supply procedures established in 1867 remained basically unchanged for the first hundred years following Confederation. Deriving from a long‑standing rule of the British House of Commons, the business of supply was considered in a Committee of the Whole House, called the Committee of Supply. See more about the historical perspective of supply proceedings here.

The Continuing Order for Supply

In the Speech from the Throne, which begins each new session of Parliament, the Governor General traditionally advises Members of the House of Commons that they will be asked to appropriate (approve the spending of) the funds required to carry on the services and payments authorized by Parliament.[157]

Among its first items of business after the Speech from the Throne, the House considers a motion usually proposed by the Minister serving as President of the Treasury Board: “That the business of supply be considered at the next sitting of the House”.[158] By long‑established practice, the motion is not debatable and is traditionally decided without dissent. Once agreed to, the motion is an order of the House to add the business of supply on the Order Paper for the remainder of the session.[159] This process has the effect of establishing a continuing order of the day for the purposes of considering supply, which enables the government to call supply on any sitting day, within the framework laid out in the Standing Orders.

The business of supply consists of the consideration of motions:
* to concur in interim supply;

* to concur in main and supplementary estimates;

* to restore or reinstate any item in the estimates;

* to introduce or pass at all stages any bill or bills based on the estimates; and

* to be proposed by the opposition on allotted days.[160]

In any calendar year, 22 days are set aside under the Standing Orders for consideration of the business of supply and, on these days, supply has precedence over all other government business.[161] The business of supply can be divided into a general debate phase and a legislative phase. The general debate phase is taken up with the consideration of opposition motions proposed on allotted days.[162] During the legislative phase, the House considers and votes on the government’s proposed annual spending plans (the main and supplementary estimates)[163] and the legislation (appropriation bills) needed to authorize all consequential withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

General Debate Phase

Allotted Days

The setting aside of a specified number of sitting days on which the opposition chooses the subject of debate derives from the tradition which holds that Parliament does not grant supply until the opposition has had an opportunity to demonstrate why it should be refused. Of the 22 days allocated in each annual supply cycle for the House to consider the business of supply, seven days are allotted during the period ending December 10, seven during the period ending March 26 and eight during the period ending June 23. Of these 22 days, no more than one‑fifth may fall on a Wednesday and no more than one‑fifth on a Friday (the shortest sitting days of the week).[164] The 22 days are designated as “allotted days”. On each of these days, the House will debate an opposition motion.[165]

The normal supply cycle can be disrupted by an extended adjournment, a prorogation or a dissolution. In these cases, the number of opposition days in each supply period may be increased or decreased.[166] If the number of sitting days in any supply period is fewer than the number prescribed under the House of Commons calendar, the number of allotted days in that period will be reduced by an amount proportional to the number of sitting days the House stood adjourned. The Speaker will determine and announce to the House the reduction in the number of allotted days for that period.[167]

Conversely, should the House sit more than the prescribed number of sitting days, the total number of allotted days will be increased by one day for every five additional days the House sits,[168] excluding the days when the House meets solely for the purpose of granting Royal Assent to a bill, pursuant to Standing Order 28(4).[169] The House may also decide that any unused days from the six days allotted to the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, or from the four days allotted to the budget debate, be added to the number of allotted days in the supply period in which they would have been taken up.[170]

If, in the supply period ending June 23, concurrence is sought in supplementary estimates for the previous fiscal year, a further three sitting days will be allocated in that period for the consideration of a motion to concur in those estimates and for the passage at all stages of the related supply bill.[171] On occasion, changes have been made, with the consent of the House, to the length of a supply period or to the number of allotted days. For example, the House has agreed to extend the length of a supply period;[172] to add supply days;[173] to combine the supply days for two periods,[174] to eliminate one supply day[175] and to transfer unused supply days from one period to the next.[176] The House has also agreed that an allotted day in one supply period be deemed disposed of and one additional allotted day be designated in the subsequent supply period.[177]

Designating an Allotted Day

The government designates the days allotted to the consideration of the business of supply.[178] The established practice is for a Minister of the Crown, usually the Government House Leader, to rise in the House and designate a subsequent sitting day as an allotted day;[179] allotted days may also be designated during the “Thursday Statement” on the House business for the following week.[180] Furthermore, the Government House Leader may send a letter to the Speaker designating a subsequent day as an allotted day.[181] However, the date so designated is not binding on the government and may, like the scheduling of any other government order, be revised at any time.[182]

The designation is made orally by a Minister, usually the Government House Leader, during a sitting[183] or through a letter to the Speaker saying that a designated day will no longer be an allotted day.[184] If the government fails to designate the prescribed number of allotted days, the remaining days in that period will be designated by default.[185] When the sitting on a day designated as an allotted day ends before the House has reached Orders of the Day, the allotted day has not commenced, and therefore the sitting does not count as one of the days designated for the consideration of an opposition motion.[186] On the other hand, once the order for supply has been called, an allotted day is deemed completed if, subsequently, the proceedings are superseded.[187] If all supply business is exhausted, any other government order can be called.[188]

Opposition Motions

Opposition motions have precedence over all government supply motions on allotted days.[189] However, on the last allotted day for the period ending June 23, at not later than 6:30 p.m., the Speaker interrupts the proceedings on the opposition motion and puts, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion. Any recorded division requested is deferred to the end of the supply proceedings on that day, but not later than 10:00 p.m. Meanwhile, the House proceeds to consider a motion or motions to concur in the main estimates.[190]
Members in opposition to the government may propose motions for debate on any matter falling within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada;[191] that is, they may express approval or condemnation of the government and government policy. The Standing Orders give Members a very wide scope in proposing opposition motions on supply days and, unless the motion is clearly and undoubtedly irregular (i.e., where the procedural aspect is not open to reasonable argument), the Chair does not intervene.[192]

Concurrence motions on standing committee reports based on estimates may be considered under business of supply on an allotted day.[193] This is equally true for concurrence motions on standing committee reports relating to the expenditure plans and priorities of a government department or agency.[194]

Notice

Before an opposition motion can be taken up on an allotted day, a 48‑hour written notice of the motion must be given.[195] The notice must be filed before 6:00 p.m. during a sitting of the House (or before 2:00 p.m. on a Friday). The notice is effective for the sitting day on which it is submitted and appears in the following day’s Notice Paper. The item is transferred to the Order Paper the day after it appears in the Notice Paper.[196]
A Member may put an opposition motion on notice even though an allotted day has not yet been designated.[197] However, a decision by the government not to proceed with a designated allotted day is not in itself a reason for the Chair to remove a notice of an opposition motion from the Order Paper and Notice Paper.[198] It can remain on the Order Paper until it is proceeded with later or withdrawn by its sponsor or the sponsor’s House Leader. Only the sponsor or House Leader can have the motion removed, and the consent of the House to do so is not required.[199]

Speaker’s Power to Select

The Standing Orders are silent on the method of apportioning allotted days between the parties, when two or more recognized parties form the opposition. Although the government designates which days shall be used for the business of supply, the opposition parties decide among themselves which party will sponsor the motion.[200] The distribution has reflected the proportion of seats each recognized party occupies in the Chamber. It is not the purview of the Official Opposition to determine unilaterally who can propose a motion on an allotted day.[201] Notices of more than one motion may be given by one or several opposition parties.[202] Where notice of two or more opposition motions appears on the Order Paper for consideration on an allotted day and there is no agreement among the opposition parties as to which shall be taken up, the Speaker must decide which motion shall be given precedence.[203]

In deciding, the Speaker is not obliged to give any reason for his or her choice. However, most Speakers usually give a short explanation for their decision, once again usually (but not necessarily) based on the representation of the parties in the House; the distribution of sponsorship to date; fair play towards small parties; the date of notice; the sponsor of the motion; the subject matter; whether or not the motion is votable; and what has happened, by agreement among the parties, in the preceding supply periods.[204]

Votable Motions

All opposition motions considered on allotted days may be brought to a vote, unless the sponsor of such a motion informs the Clerk in writing that he or she wants the item designated non-votable.[205] Opposition motions on allotted days have occasionally been agreed to by the House.[206]

Proceedings on an Opposition Motion

Proceedings on non‑votable opposition motions expire at the conclusion of the debate or at the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders.[207] However, a motion can be moved to extend the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.[208] If the debate on the opposition motion concludes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, the House may then consider other items of supply (opposition motions first) and, following that, any other government order.[209] In the case of votable motions, the Speaker will interrupt the debate 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders and proceed to put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the motion.[210]

On supply days, a recorded division on a votable opposition motion may be deferred by the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip, even if the Speaker interrupted proceedings and the bells are scheduled to ring only for a maximum of 15 minutes.[211] In addition, if the motion was sponsored by a Member of a recognized party other than the Official Opposition, the recorded division may also be deferred at the request of the Whip of that party.[212] However, recorded divisions on votable opposition motions on the last allotted day in a supply period cannot be deferred.[213] The only exception is that on the last supply day in the period ending June 23, the vote on an opposition motion is deferred to later that same sitting, after the House has considered motions relating to the main estimates.[214] Recorded divisions on opposition motions are automatically deferred from a Friday to a Monday if Friday is not the last allotted day in the supply period.[215]

The proceedings on a votable opposition motion may continue for more than one allotted day;[216] usually, such proceedings have taken place over two consecutive sitting days where both have been designated together as allotted days.[217] The duration of such proceedings must be stated in the notice respecting the day or days set aside.[218]
The mover of the motion, who is a Member of the opposition, speaks first on a supply day. No Member may speak for more than 20 minutes; a 10‑minute period is also provided after each speech to allow other Members to ask questions and make brief comments.[219] It is often the case that two Members of the same party will agree to share the 20 minutes, with each speaker receiving 10 minutes for the debate and 5 minutes for questions and comments.[220] Moreover, Members may speak only once. On allotted days, the party of the opposition Member sponsoring the motion may be recognized more frequently on debate than otherwise might be warranted, given their relative numbers in the House of Commons.

Only one amendment and one subamendment are permitted to opposition motions considered on an allotted day.[221] Amendments which have the effect of providing the basis for an entirely different debate are not in order.[222] When a party has been allocated an allotted day and a subject has been proposed for debate by way of an opposition motion, the day should not be taken away by way of an amendment.[223] The House has consented, despite the rules, to allow amendments which had been ruled inadmissible by the Chair.[224]

The House of Commons has also permitted an amendment to be withdrawn and replaced with another.[225] Since 2001, an amendment to an opposition motion may only be moved with the consent of the mover of the motion, the purpose being to prevent other political parties from changing the content of the debate (and any future decision of the House) during an opposition day.[226] For the same reason, a subamendment cannot be moved to an opposition motion without the consent of the mover of the motion.

Legislative Phase

Main Estimates

The main estimates provide a breakdown, by department and program, of planned government spending for the upcoming fiscal year. The estimates are expressed as a series of “votes”, or resolutions, which summarize the estimated financial requirements in a particular expenditure category, such as operations, capital or grants.

Interim Supply

Since the fiscal year begins on April 1 and the normal supply cycle only provides for the House to decide on main estimates in June, the government would appear to be without funds for the interim three months. For this reason, the House authorizes an advance on the funds requested in the main estimates to cover the needs of the public service from the start of the new fiscal year to the date on which the appropriation act based on the main estimates of that year is passed. This is known as “interim supply”,[251] a spending authority made available to the government pending approval of the main estimates.

The government must give 48 hours’ notice of a motion setting out in detail the sums of money it will require, expressed in twelfths of the amounts to be voted in the main estimates.[252] Most are three‑twelfths of the total amount, corresponding to the three‑month hiatus between the beginning of the new fiscal year and the final passage of the main estimates, but the government may request more.[253]

The motion for interim supply is considered on the last allotted day of the period ending March 26. Concurrence in the motion is followed by the consideration and passage at all stages of an appropriation bill based on interim supply and authorizing the prescribed withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.[254] The granting of interim supply does not necessarily constitute immediate House approval for the programs to which it applies in the main estimates. However, during the examination of the main estimates, neither the House nor its committees can reduce a vote to an amount less than the amount already granted in interim supply.

Supplementary Estimates

Should the amounts voted under the main estimates prove insufficient, or should new funding or a reallocation of funds between already authorized budgetary items be required during a fiscal year, the government may ask Parliament to approve additional expenditures or the reallocations, that it sets out in supplementary estimates.

Consideration of Estimates in Committee

When the estimates are tabled in the House of Commons, they are deemed referred to standing committees for consideration.[274] When a committee decides to consider estimates, each budgetary item, or “vote”, is called, proposed and debated as a distinct motion.

Report to the House

A committee is under no obligation to report the estimates back to the House; however, in the case of main estimates, committees that do not report are deemed to have done so on May 31 and, in the case of supplementary estimates, are deemed to have done so on the third sitting day before the last allotted day or the last sitting day in the supply period.

Consideration of Main Estimates in Committee of the Whole

Since 2001, the Standing Orders have allowed for the consideration of specific votes in the main estimates in Committee of the Whole.

Concurrence in Estimates

The estimates, as reported or deemed reported by the standing committees or Committees of the Whole, must be concurred in by the House in order for the government to introduce the appropriation bill authorizing the necessary withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund.

The Supply Bill or Appropriation Act

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown”, is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons require that bills which appropriate (impose a charge on the public revenue) or levy any tax or duty (impose a charge upon the people) must first be introduced and passed in the House of Commons.

Borrowing Authority

The government exercises its borrowing authority when there is a shortfall between its expenditures, as authorized by Parliament in the main and supplementary estimates and in interim supply, and its revenues, whose projected levels are also approved by Parliament. The government borrows principally by issuing treasury bills, marketable bonds and Canada Savings Bonds, on domestic and foreign markets. The Financial Administration Act states that the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

Governor General’s Special Warrants

In special circumstances, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant permitting the government to make charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not otherwise authorized by Parliament.

The Business of Ways and Means

In 1968, the House agreed to abolish the Committee of Ways and Means in order to do away with the Committee’s role in considering resolutions to authorize any withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund following the adoption of supply, and to eliminate the repetitive process of debating budget proposals initially on the motion to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means, again in the Committee of Ways and Means, and yet again during the various stages of the bills subsequently introduced.

The Budget

By tradition, the Minister of Finance annually makes a formal budget presentation, offering a comprehensive assessment of the financial standing of the government and giving an overview of the nation’s economic condition. The Minister also declares if and where the burden on the taxpayer will be increased or reduced.

The Public Accounts of Canada

Under the Financial Administration Act, the Receiver General is responsible for ensuring that accounts are kept for each department and agency of the Government of Canada. These accounts must show all expenditures made under each appropriation, all government revenues, and all other payments into and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, together with the assets and liabilities, the contingent liabilities of Canada and the related reserves that are deemed necessary to present a fair picture of the country’s financial position.

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

Notes

[104] Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53; Standing Order 80(1).

[105] The Financial Administration Act states that no payment shall be made out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund without the authority of Parliament (R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 26).

[157] See, for example, Debates, October 5, 2004, p. 12; April 4, 2006, p. 10. There have been occasions where the traditional request for funds was not included in the Speech from the Throne: September 8, 1930; January 25, 1940; October 9, 1951; December 12, 1988; April 3, 1989; October 16, 2007; November 19, 2008. In 1989, a question of privilege was raised contending that, since the Crown had not requested supply, the House had no obligation to consider it (Debates, April 6, 1989, p. 177). In his ruling, Speaker Fraser noted that the Standing Orders do not require that a request for funds be included in the Speech from the Throne and that its inclusion has been a matter of tradition, not procedural necessity (Debates, May 2, 1989, p. 1177).

[158] Standing Order 81(1). See, for example, Journals, October 5, 2004, p. 15; April 4, 2006, p. 12; October 16, 2007, p. 4.

[159] On March 30, 1990, an allotted day, the House was adjourned for lack of quorum. At that time, the lack of quorum and the subsequent adjournment of the sitting superseded the supply proceedings then underway (Debates, p. 10050). The continuing order for supply was lost and removed from the Order Paper. Speaker Fraser subsequently ruled that losing the order for supply did not nullify all of the House’s previous decisions respecting supply. The order could be redesignated on a non‑debatable motion proposed by a Minister of the Crown (Debates, April 3, 1990, pp. 10119‑21). A motion to redesignate the continuing order for supply was moved and agreed to (Journals, April 3, 1990, p. 1486). In 1991, the Standing Orders were amended so that loss of quorum no longer had the effect of superseding proceedings then before the House (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910). For further information on quorum and superseded orders, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”, and Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[160] Standing Order 81(3).

[161] Standing Order 81(2) and (10)(a).

[162] Standing Order 81(3).

[163] Standing Order 81(7) also permits standing committees of the House to study and report on the future expenditure plans and priorities of the departments and agencies whose estimates they are considering. Such studies have previously been permitted under Standing Order 108(2), which sets out the general mandate for standing committees, but the inclusion of an explicit Standing Order for this purpose indicates the House’s willingness to empower its committees accordingly.

[164] Standing Order 81(10)(a). When the new supply procedures came into effect in 1969, the rules provided for 25 allotted days, 5 in the period ending December 10, 7 in the period ending March 26 and 13 in the period ending June 30 (Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554, 557). Effective June 8, 1987, the distribution was changed to 6, 9 and 10, respectively (Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1023). On May 13, 1991, the end date of the third period was changed to June 23 from June 30, the number of allotted days was reduced from 25 to 20 and the distribution was changed to 5, 7 and 8, respectively (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905‑6, 2917, 2931). The total number of days was increased to 21 to accommodate four opposition parties, seven to be allotted in each of the three periods, effective September 21, 1998 (Journals, June 12, 1998, p. 1028). This distribution was changed most recently on March 7, 2005, to 7, 7 and 8 days, respectively (Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451‑5, in particular p. 453).

[165] Standing Order changes approved in 1998 (Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027‑8) made provision to discuss an opposition motion on the last supply day in the period ending June 23. Before this change, that day was set aside entirely for the consideration of a motion or motions to concur in the main estimates.

[166] In reply to a point of order raised regarding the admissibility of this proposed amendment to the Standing Order in April 1991, Speaker Fraser stated that it was very difficult to see these changes as any more than an adjustment to the supply process, and went so far as to say that the proposed changes, by establishing a set formula to determine how adjustments are to be made, would add an element of certainty to what had until then been an ad hoc process (Debates, April 9, 1991, pp. 19233‑5).

[167] Standing Order 81(10)(b). See, for example, Journals, September 30, 2002, p. 2; February 2, 2004, p. 2; October 5, 2004, p. 15; October 16, 2007, p. 5; November 19, 2008, p. 12. The number of days the House sits is determined according to the House of Commons calendar set out under Standing Order 28(2).

[168] Standing Order 81(10)(c). See, for example, Journals, January 30, 2001, p. 13. In the fall of 2005, the House found itself in the unusual situation where both formulae could be applied. Since the end of the previous supply period, the House had sat two additional days, namely June 27 and 28. Moreover, the House had resumed its sittings on Monday, September 26, five sitting days later than usual. The Speaker ruled that a reduction of three sitting days was insufficient to cause a reduction in the number of supply days (Debates, September 26, 2005, p. 8015).

[169] See footnote No. 138.

[170] Standing Order 81(11).

[171] Standing Order 81(12).

[172] See, for example, Journals, November 30, 1970, p. 164, Debates, p. 1598.

[173] See, for example, Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 376; June 17, 1975, p. 641; April 30, 1993, p. 2884; September 23, 1997, p. 14; October 10, 2002, pp. 57‑8; October 5, 2004, p. 15.

[174] See, for example, Journals, April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4. The Standing Orders were temporarily amended so that 15 sitting days were allotted to the business of supply for the period ending December 8, 2006, provided that eight were allotted before June 23.

[175] Notwithstanding the Special Order of April 4, 2006 (Journals, pp. 13‑4), cited in the previous footnote, the number of supply days was reduced by unanimous consent from 15 to 14 on November 9, 2006 (Journals, p. 673).

[176] See, for example, Journals, June 2, 1971, p. 600; December 4, 1975, p. 911. See also Debates, March 14, 1975, p. 4115; June 17, 1975, p. 6829.

[177] Journals, June 3, 1991, p. 132.

[178] On Thursday, October 6, 2005, in response to a question from the Opposition regarding the designation of the seven opposition days for that period, the Leader of the Government informed the House that the business of supply would be considered following the Remembrance Day break (Debates, p. 8515).

[179] See, for example, Debates, February 26, 2008, p. 3329; March 14, 2008, p. 4197; June 3, 2008, p. 6449. Supply days have been designated by a Minister rising on a point of order. See, for example, Debates, February 16, 2000, p. 3604; May 16, 2001, p. 4102; September 17, 2001, p. 5147; March 10, 2005, p. 4243. On one occasion, the House agreed to consider the business of supply although the day had not been designated previously (Debates, May 28, 1987, p. 6467).

[180] See, for example, Debates, February 28, 2008, pp. 3440‑1; April 3, 2008, pp. 4448‑9. For further information about the “Thursday Statement”, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.

[181] When a point of order was raised concerning the method by which two opposition days were designated, the Speaker stated that he had checked the precedents and ruled that the Standing Orders had been followed to the letter. See Debates, February 3, 1986, pp. 10353‑5; Order Paper and Notice Paper, January 31, 1986, p. 7; February 3, 1986, p. 7. See also the letter from the President of the Privy Council and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons dated March 12, 1982. See Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 2, 1982, pp. 6, V; March 18, 1982, pp. 7‑8, XXI‑II. See also the letter from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform, dated April 24, 2008. See Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 18, 2008, p. 25; April 28, 2008, p. 25.

[182] See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 11, 1982, pp. 14899‑900; Deputy Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, October 27, 1983, p. 28375; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, March 26, 1990, p. 9759; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 29, 2007, pp. 8136-8, in particular p. 8137.

[183] See, for example, Debates, February 22, 2000, p. 3868; May 6, 2002, p. 11197; March 17, 2003, p. 4215; April 8, 2003, p. 5263; May 15, 2007, p. 9541. On occasion, the announcement has been made in the House on a point of order. See, for example, Debates, October 4, 2000, p. 8859; April 18, 2005, p. 5237. Exceptionally, the announcement by the Government House Leader, on April 18, 2005, was made after the Official Opposition had given notice of a motion which, if it had passed, would have designated the other supply days for the period, which by convention is the prerogative of the government (Notice Paper, April 19, 2005, pp. III‑IV). Similarly, on April 22, 2005, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House its Thirty-Fifth Report, in which it recommended that, if the government had not designated any of the remaining six allotted days so that an opposition motion could be considered on or before May 18, 2005, that May 19, 2005, be designated a supply day (Journals, p. 673). The report’s recommendation was not implemented. The six remaining days were designated May 31, June 2, 3, 7, 9 and 14, 2005, respectively (Status of House Business at Dissolution, November 29, 2005, pp. 68‑9).

[184] See the letter from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, dated November 28, 2008. See also the Projected Order of Business and the Projected Order of Business (revised) dated December 1, 2008.

[185] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, March 22, 1990, p. 9628.

[186] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 4, 1986, pp. 1811‑2. On one occasion, the House agreed that the debate on a question of privilege should be adjourned to the following day so that the House could move on to the consideration of the opposition motion (Journals, February 5, 2002, pp. 1006‑7, Debates, p. 8680).

[187] See, for example, Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, April 3, 1990, pp. 10119‑20. See also Journals, March 30, 1990, pp. 1476‑7, Order Paper and Notice Paper, p. 13; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 2, 1990, p. 13; April 4, 1990, p. 13.

[188] Standing Order 40. See Journals, November 16, 1999, p. 189.

[189] Standing Order 81(15).

[190] Standing Order 81(15) and (18).

[191] Standing Order 81(13).

[192] See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 6, 1973, pp. 166‑7; Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Journals, November 14, 1975, pp. 861-2; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1987, p. 6820; Speaker Milliken’s rulings, Debates, March 20, 2001, pp. 1873‑5, in particular p. 1875; October 31, 2002, pp. 1147‑50, in particular pp. 1149‑50. It is clear from previous rulings that the Chair was not disposed to interfere with the use of the allotted day “except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.” For instance, the Speaker has ruled out of order an opposition motion moving passage at all stages of four public bills sponsored by the government (Debates, March 29, 2007, pp. 8136‑8). He stated that the proposed motion would have the effect of imposing closure or time allocation on the four bills, and noted that the precedents, with the exception of cases dealing with the reinstatement of bills, would not permit the Chair to allow a government motion to deal with more than one bill. On another occasion, the Speaker refused to rule in favour of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons who believed the use of the word “condemn” in an opposition motion brought the confidence convention into play (Debates, March 6, 2008, pp. 3707‑8, 3754), and went on to say that confidence was not a matter of parliamentary procedure, nor was it something on which the Speaker could be asked to rule.

[193] Standing Order 81(9) and (13). See, for example, Journals, December 6, 1973, pp. 725‑6; Debates, December 10, 1979, p. 2189.

[194] Standing Order 81(7), (8) and (9).

[195] 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 Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, January 27, 1969, p. 4813.

[196] Standing Order 54(1). 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 Debates, October 5, 1998, p. 8729, Order Paper and Notice Paper, p. 13. On another occasion, the House agreed that an opposition motion that had not been placed on the Notice Paper be taken up instead of the one that had been placed on notice (Journals, March 19, 2001, p. 185, Order Paper and Notice Paper, pp. 15, III). During an adjournment period, notices may be filed any time up to 6:00 p.m. on the Thursday before the next scheduled sitting of the House, pursuant to Standing Order 54(2). The notice will appear on both the Notice Paper and the Order Paper for that sitting. See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 29, 2006, pp. 15‑6, IV‑V; March 31, 2008, pp. 25, VI‑VII.

[197] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5. See also, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, January 30, 2008, pp. 19, IV.

[198] See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 15, 1982, pp. 14997‑8. See, for example, Debates, April 18, 2005, p. 5237; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 19, 2005, pp. III‑IV; Debates, May 15, 2007, p. 9541; Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 16, 2007, p. III.

[199] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5.

[200] See Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 12, 2002, pp. 9547‑8. In the absence of an agreement between the House Leaders on the number of votable motions for the PC/DR Coalition, the Speaker told the Members that the interests of the House would not be well served if the Speaker were drawn into disputes among parties. He stated that it would be prudent for the Chair not to accept the designation of any motion as votable until an agreement had been reached. An agreement was introduced in the form of a motion and was passed by unanimous consent the following day (Journals, March 13, 2002, p. 1172). See also the statement on this matter by the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Debates, April 1, 2003, p. 5002.

[201] See the Acting Speaker’s ruling, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223‑4.

[202] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, November 5, 2002, pp. 1263‑4. See also Debates, October 30, 2002, pp. 1081‑2. On May 30, 2005, there were three notices of opposition motions on behalf of Conservative Members on the Order Paper, all of them with notice of 48 hours or more. They could therefore all be chosen for debate on the next supply day. However, at the request of the Conservative Party, the motion that was to take precedence on the supply day was the one that had been placed on the Notice Paper first (Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 30, 2005, pp. 25‑6). The next day, the three opposition motions were in the order in which they had been placed on notice (Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 31, 2005, p. 23). The motion that had been highlighted on May 30, 2005, was ultimately the one that was debated on the supply day.

[203] Standing Order 81(14)(b). See Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings, Debates, March 3, 1969, p. 6121; Journals, December 10, 1973, p. 734. See also Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 18, 1982, p. 15143; the Acting Speaker’s ruling, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223‑4; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 12, 2008, pp. 4055‑7. In the latter case, there were 30 opposition motions on the Order Paper and all had been placed on notice with more than 48 hours’ notice and were therefore eligible to be chosen for debate on days that had been awarded to the party that had placed them on notice (Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 12, 2008, pp. 23‑8). The New Democratic Party objected to the fact that the Liberal Party had only made its final decision regarding the motion for debate at 2 p.m. that day, just one hour before the period set aside for Government Orders. The Speaker ruled that, no matter which motion was chosen for debate, the motion had met the notice requirements of the Standing Orders.

[204] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, pp. 6583‑5; Speaker Milliken’s rulings, Debates, November 5, 2002, pp. 1263‑4; November 13, 2007, pp. 773‑6. See also the Acting Speaker’s ruling, Debates, November 22, 1983, p. 29061; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, May 31, 1984, pp. 4223‑4.

[205] Standing Order 81(16)(a). See, for example, Notice Paper, March 5, 2008, p. III; Order Paper, March 6, 2008, p. 28. 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, 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, 2918). In 1998, another amendment provided that a total of 14 opposition motions could be votable in the course of a year, with no limit on the number of votable motions in each period (Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027‑8). 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, 919). For further information on non‑confidence opposition motions, see the section in this chapter entitled “Supply Proceedings Since 1968”.

[206] 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. This occurs more frequently when there is a minority government. See, for example, Journals, November 2, 2004, pp. 182‑3; November 30, 2004, pp. 275‑6; November 21, 2005, pp. 1301‑3; November 28, 2005, pp. 1352‑3; November 13, 2007, p. 144; December 6, 2007, p. 271; March 3, 2008, pp. 501‑3; March 31, 2008, pp. 611‑2, 621‑2; April 8, 2008, pp. 665‑7; June 5, 2008, pp. 919‑21.

[207] 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, Debates, p. 6093; Journals, November 24, 1989, pp. 880‑2). See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, May 14, 1987, p. 6112.

[208] Standing Order 26(1). See, for example, Journals, June 23, 1969, pp. 1222-3; March 19, 2002, p. 1189 (deemed withdrawn); March 19, 1976, p. 1134 (adopted). On one occasion, the House agreed that the period set aside for supply proceedings be extended by the period of time corresponding to the time taken for Royal Assent the same day, and that the ordinary hour of daily adjournment be delayed accordingly (Debates, May 11, 2006, pp. 1222, 1280).

[209] Standing Order 81(2). On one occasion, the proceedings ended just before Statements by Members. Following Question Period, the government called the order for second reading and reference to a committee of Bill C‑10, An Act to amend the Municipal Grants Act. Unanimous consent was sought twice for the House to return to the supply day motion, but on both occasions it was instantly denied (Debates, November 16, 1999, pp. 1321, 1335‑6, 1338).

[210] Standing Order 81(16)(c). The Speaker interrupts the proceedings even if the House has already passed a motion to concur in the opposition motion at the end of the debate (Journals, March 14, 2002, p. 1176), or a motion stating that, at the conclusion of the day’s debate on the opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put and a recorded division deemed requested and deferred. See, for example, Journals, May 4, 2006, pp. 131‑2; April 19, 2007, pp. 1238‑9; November 1, 2007, pp. 130‑1.

[211] Standing Order 45(5)(b). The recorded division is deferred to an appointed time, which must be no later than the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday.

[212] Standing Order 45(5)(a)(iii).

[213] Standing Order 45(5)(b).

[214] Standing Order 81(18)(b).

[215] Standing Order 45(6)(a). See, for example, Journals, March 7, 2008, p. 547.

[216] Standing Order 81(16)(b).

[217] 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.

[218] Standing Order 81(16)(b). See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 21, 1989, p. V.

[219] Standing Orders 81(22) and 43(1)(b). 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 10 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).

[220] 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. Frequently in the past, where a party had signalled to the House that Members would be sharing their time, the Member following the Member who moved the motion had proposed an amendment to prevent the content of the debate from being changed. See, for example, Debates, October 20, 1998, pp. 9136‑9; October 26, 1998, pp. 9372‑6; March 15, 1999, p. 12839. This practice has fallen into disuse since the Standing Orders were amended in 2001 to provide that amendments to supply day motions could only be moved with the consent of the mover of the motion. See footnote No. 146.

[221] Standing Order 85. The subamendment must amend or clarify the amendment and not change the original question (Debates, February 8, 2001, pp. 430‑1).

[222] 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.

[223] 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.

[224] See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1992, p. 6878; April 2, 1992, p. 9268.

[225] See, for example, Journals, May 8, 2001, p. 374.

[226] See footnote No. 146. See also Debates, May 16, 2006, p. 1475; February 1, 2007, pp. 6259, 6263; February 22, 2007, p. 7184 (sponsor’s consent denied); November 22, 2005, p. 10015; June 15, 2006, pp. 2431‑2; April 8, 2008, p. 4598 (sponsor’s consent given). In the absence of the sponsor, it is permissible for consent to be either given or denied by the House Leader, the Deputy House Leader, the Whip or the Deputy Whip of the sponsor’s party. See Debates, February 8, 2007, p. 6558.

[251] See, for example, Journals, March 22, 2007, pp. 1145‑6; March 12, 2008, pp. 579‑81.

[252] See, for example, Notice Paper, March 20, 2007, p. IV; March 11, 2008, pp. IV‑V.

[253] See, for example, Debates, March 20, 1975, pp. 4357‑8; Journals, May 3, 2006, pp. 124‑5; March 22, 2007, pp. 1145‑6.

[254] Standing Order 81(17).

Special Warrant

Leave a reply

Special Warrants in Canada

Governor General’s Special Warrants

In special circumstances, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant[1] permitting the government to make charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not otherwise authorized by Parliament, provided that the following conditions are met:[2]

Parliament is dissolved;
a Minister has reported that an expenditure is urgently required for the public good; and
the President of the Treasury Board has reported that there is no appropriation for the payment.

This provision of the Act makes it possible for the government to continue its work during a dissolution. Special Warrants may be used only from the date of dissolution until 60 days following the date fixed for the return of the writs after a general election. Furthermore, no Special Warrants may be issued during that period if Parliament stands prorogued.[3]

The Financial Administration Act requires that every Special Warrant be published in the Canada Gazette within 30 days of its issue. A list of the amount authorized under such a warrant must also be tabled in the House within 15 days of the opening of the next session of Parliament.[4] Because a Special Warrant is deemed to be an appropriation for the fiscal year in which it is issued, authorization must be included retroactively in the first appropriation act passed in that session.[5]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

Notes

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 Speaker Fraser’s ruling, 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; 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).
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 30.
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 30(1.1). See also Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 30(3).
See, for example, Canada Gazette, Part I, Vol. 140, No. 14 (April 8, 2006), pp. 712‑40; Journals, April 11, 2006, p. 45; Appropriation Act No. 1, 2006‑2007, S.C. 2006, c. 2, ss. 2.1 and 2.2. In June 2003, a Member rose on a point of order regarding the use of an outdated Governor General’s Special Warrant to continue spending under the heating fuel rebate program (see Journals, February 12, 2001, p. 64; Appropriation Act No. 3, 2000‑2001, S.C. 2001, c. 1, s. 3). He asked the Chair to reduce Vote 1 under Canada Customs and Revenue Agency by $55,296,790 in the main estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2004. The Speaker indicated that an exception to the rule existed in the case of the Agency, as its appropriations were for two years rather than one. Furthermore, given the carry-forward provision, there seemed to be no reason to question the Agency’s authority to make the payments after March 31, 2001, using funds originally appropriated for 2000‑01. With regard to subsequent fiscal years, the Speaker pointed out that the ex gratia payments under the heating fuel rebate program were entered under Vote 1 as Agency operating expenditures and did not require the express approval of Parliament. The Speaker believed it was reasonable to conclude that payments issued in future fiscal years would be made on the same basis. See Debates, June 5, 2003, pp. 6908‑10; June 11, 2003, pp. 7142‑3; June 12, 2003, pp. 7220‑1.

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Leave a reply

Parliamentary Financial Procedures in Canada

The development of parliamentary procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown. As the executive power,[1] the Crown is responsible for managing all the revenue of the state, including all payments for the public service.[2] The Crown, on the advice of its Ministers, makes the financial requirements of the government known to the House of Commons which, in return, authorizes the necessary “aids” (taxes) and “supplies” (grants of money). No tax may be imposed, or money spent, without the consent of Parliament.

The direct control of national finance has been referred to as the “great task of modern parliamentary government”.[3] That control is exercised at two levels. First, Parliament must assent to all legislative measures which implement public policy and the House of Commons authorizes both the amounts and objects or destination of all public expenditures. Second, through its review of the annual departmental performance reports, the Public Accounts and the reports of the Auditor General, the House ascertains that no expenditure was made other than those it had authorized.[4]

The practices and procedures which govern how Parliament deals with the nation’s finances are set out principally in the Constitution Act, 1867,[5] the Financial Administration Act,[6] unwritten conventions, and the rules of the House of Commons and the Senate.

Basic Components of Financial Operations

The basic components of parliamentary financial procedure may be succinctly described as follows:
Consolidated Revenue Fund: the account into which the government deposits taxes, tariffs, excises and other revenues, once collected, and from which it withdraws the money it requires to cover its expenditures.[7]

Royal Recommendation: a message from the Governor General required for any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of public revenue.[8] Only a Minister can obtain such a recommendation.

Supply: the process by which the government submits its projected annual expenditures (the estimates) for parliamentary approval.

Borrowing authority: the authorization that may be granted to the Minister of Finance by the Governor in Council to make up any shortfall between revenues and expenditures.

Ways and means: the process by which the government sets out its economic policy (the budget) and obtains the necessary resources to meet its expenses.

Public Accounts: the annual statement and review of the government’s financial transactions.

The Financial Cycle

The fiscal year of the Government of Canada runs from April 1 to March 31.[9] However, the planning for the fiscal year begins much earlier with the preparation of departmental expenditure plans, which are developed in accordance with the government’s policy and budgetary priorities, and the pre‑budget consultations by the Standing Committee on Finance.[10] The expenditure plans are submitted to the House in their consolidated form as the “main estimates”. At the same time, the Department of Finance is compiling the information taken in during the pre‑budget consultations and preparing its economic forecasts.

The government’s efforts to reconcile its spending obligations and revenue projections are reflected in the budget.

The budget outlines the government’s fiscal, social and economic policies and priorities, while the estimates set out, in detail, its projected expenditures for the upcoming fiscal year. Typically, the budget is presented in the second half of February, although the government is under no obligation to do so.[11] Under normal circumstances, the main estimates are tabled in the House on or before March 1 and submitted for concurrence by the House no later than June 23.[12]

Should the government require funds while waiting for, or in the absence of, income from taxes and other revenue sources, it may borrow funds. Should there be a change in the government’s requirements as set out in the main estimates, Parliament will be asked to approve one or more “supplementary” estimates.

The tabling of the Public Accounts of Canada and the Annual Report of the Auditor General, and their review by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, completes the government’s annual cycle of financial transactions.[13]

Historical Perspective

The manner in which Canada deals with public finance derives from British parliamentary procedure, as practised at the time of Confederation.[14] The financial procedures adopted by the Canadian House of Commons in 1867 were formed by the following principles:

that although Parliament alone might impose taxes and authorize the use of public money, funds can be appropriated to Parliament only on the recommendation of the Crown (royal recommendation), in Canada represented by the Governor General;
that the House of Commons has the right to have its grievances addressed before it considers and approves the financial requirements of the Crown;
that the House of Commons has exclusive control over the business of public finance (taxing and spending) and all such business is to be initiated in the lower house;[15] and
that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation is to be given the fullest possible discussion, both in the House and in committee.[16]

Financial Procedure in Colonial Canada

By the end of the eighteenth century, most of the British North American colonies had acquired representative political institutions.[17] For many years, colonial governance was fraught with dissension as a result of the often irreconcilable interests of appointed governors and elected representatives. Much of that conflict arose over the issue of who should control the public purse.[18]

However, by the time of Confederation, the popular assemblies of British North America had asserted their right to decide what taxes should be raised and where they would be spent, thus fulfilling the principle of responsible government, which holds that the executive may only govern while it enjoys the confidence or support of the House of Commons. Parliament’s rights and role in the processes of taxing and spending may be found in the various rules and procedures of the legislatures from which they derive.[19] In 1867, the Canadian House of Commons adopted the rules of the former Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, including those covering the process of taxing and spending.[20]

Upper Canada

Initially, the colonial administration of Upper Canada was paid for entirely by the British Parliament. However, in 1817, the Executive asked the Assembly for a grant of money to cover certain administrative costs which exceeded the amount authorized by Westminster. Previously, Britain had covered any excesses; but, in view of the growing wealth and relative prosperity of the colony, the local community was asked to subsidize these expenditures. Not surprisingly, the elected representatives demanded a say in how the money would be spent. Moreover, they asked that the Governor and his Executive Council not spend money which the Assembly had not authorized, nor for purposes other than those it had designated.

Supply (the authority to spend) was rarely withheld.[21] Even when it was withheld (in 1818, 1825 and 1836), it was inconsequential. In fact, the Crown appeared relatively indifferent to the sums voted by the House. Nonetheless, the House continued to take the supply process seriously, resolving that the misapplication of parliamentary appropriations was a “high crime” and affirming the undoubted right of the elected House to determine how, and how much, public money was spent.

By 1840, supply proceedings in the Assembly had become relatively formalized. Estimates were referred upon presentation to a permanent Select Committee on Finance. The committee’s report would be referred to a Committee of Supply (a Committee of the Whole House)[34] which, in turn, would report back to the House a number of resolutions, each of which recommending that money be appropriated for some item. Once adopted, these resolutions would be referred to a special committee of two members charged with drafting the bills based thereon. A number of bills would then be presented.

Lower Canada

Prior to 1818, the Executive Council requested no funds from the House of Assembly of Lower Canada, with the result that no estimates were tabled. Nevertheless, the House attempted to exert some financial control by way of its annual review of the public accounts. Until 1812, the accounts were examined in a Committee of the Whole, after which they were referred to a special committee of five members. Beginning in 1818, estimates were also referred to this committee.

The committee’s frequent criticisms of the administration for appropriating money without the consent of the House of Assembly prompted the House to resolve that the appropriation of the public revenue without legislation was “a breach of the privileges of this House, and subversive of the Government of this Province, as established by Law”. The House further warned that it would hold the Receiver General responsible for all monies levied.[22]

The House of Assembly used various other procedures in its efforts to control the administration, including refusing supply, refusing to deal with all legislation until basic grievances were met and tacking on clauses to bills appropriating revenue for which there was no existing statute, a practice which forced the executive to choose between enacting the additional clauses or losing supply.

The Province of Canada

In 1840, the British Parliament passed the Union Act uniting Upper and Lower Canada.[36] With its enactment came the acknowledgement that a government should enjoy the confidence of the people’s representatives.[23] It is also by the Union Act that the royal prerogative in right of financial legislation was first introduced into Canadian parliamentary law. Prior to 1840, any elected member in the legislatures of Canada could introduce a bill with financial implications for consideration of the assembly.

This practice was much frowned upon by governors on the grounds that it interfered with the efficient operation of government.[24] Lord Durham felt strongly that “The prerogative of the Crown which is constantly exercised in Great Britain for the real protection of the people, ought never to have been waived in the Colonies; and [that if] introduced … it might be wisely employed in protecting the public interests, now frequently sacrificed in that scramble for local appropriations, which chiefly serves to give an undue influence to particular individuals or parties.”[25]

Provision was made for a Consolidated Revenue Fund against which would be charged all expenses related to the collection, management and receipt of revenue, all interest on the public debt and remuneration of the clergy and officials included on the Civil List.[26] Any surplus remaining in the fund after these charges had been deducted could be used for the service of the public, as the legislature thought fit.[27] All votes, resolutions or bills involving expenditure of public funds were to be first recommended by the Governor General.[28]

There were still disputes over the control of money. However, no administration was defeated over an appropriation act; in fact, even when governments changed, a supply bill was often taken over and carried through by the succeeding administration.[29] By 1867, the vote of confidence had virtually replaced withholding supply as the preferred mechanism by which the Assembly sought control over the administration of government.
Financial Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons

The Constitution Act, 1867 provided that any bill appropriating any part of the public revenue or imposing a tax or duty must originate in the House of Commons.[30] Furthermore, the Act made it unlawful for the House to pass any measure to appropriate any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or duty, which had not first been recommended by the Governor General in the session in which the measure was proposed.[31] Additional clauses provided for the creation and use of a Consolidated Revenue Fund by the Parliament of Canada for the public service.[32]

Standing Orders (1867-1968)

The first Standing Orders of the House of Commons codified long‑established rules of parliamentary practice and procedure which were rooted in British parliamentary history and, subsequently, also in the rules and procedures of the different colonial legislatures.

The cardinal principle governing Parliament’s treatment of financial measures was that they be given the fullest possible consideration in committee and in the House. This was to ensure that “parliament may not, by sudden and hasty votes, incur any expenses, or be induced to approve of measures, which may entail heavy and lasting burthens upon the country”.[33] To satisfy the requirement for debate, the 1867 rules required that financial business be considered first in a Committee of the Whole before being debated in the House.[34]

In 1874, the House agreed to appoint, henceforth, at the beginning of each session, a Committee of Supply and a Committee of Ways and Means.[35] The Committee of Supply approved the annual estimates of government expenditure, while the Committee of Ways and Means considered the government’s proposals to raise revenue and approved necessary withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund for the measures in the estimates.

Yet another measure safeguarding the House from hasty financial decisions was the rule that the debate on any motion proposed “for any public Aid or Charge upon the people” would not proceed immediately, but would be adjourned to a subsequent sitting day.[36] This was done so that “no member may be forced to come to a hasty decision, but that every one may have abundant opportunities afforded him of stating his reasons for supporting or opposing the proposed grant”.[37]

The first Standing Orders also included, directly under the heading “Aid and Supply”, a note in reference to the Constitution Act, 1867, which required that any measure seeking to raise or spend public money be initiated by the Crown. The rules provided further that all legislation respecting charges upon the public revenue (expenditure) or on the public (taxation) be introduced first in the House of Commons, that is, the Commons alone grants supply.[38]
In general, the financial procedures set out under these rules remained the same for the next hundred years.[39]

However, financial procedures came to be used by successive oppositions as a means of obstructing, delaying, and even preventing the government from passing financial business. As a consequence, beginning in the late 1960s, financial procedures, which had remained virtually unchanged for a century, were drastically revised and streamlined. These revisions had to recognize and protect two contradictory principles: that the government is entitled to get its financial legislation through Parliament; and that the opposition is entitled to identify, draw attention to, delay, and debate, items that it feels need attention and discussion.

Source: (Canada) House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

Notes

The Constitution Act, 1867 invests the “Executive Government and Authority of and over Canada” in the Crown, its Governor General and the Privy Council for Canada (ss. 9 to 11), and the Lieutenant‑Governors advised by the Executive Council for each province (ss. 58 to 67). Appointed by the Crown’s representative, the federal Cabinet constitutes the de facto or effective federal executive. However, it has de jure or statutory existence only as the effective part of the Privy Council for Canada (McMenemy, J., The Language of Canadian Politics: A Guide to Important Terms and Concepts, 4th ed., Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006, p. 130).
May, T.E., A Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings, and Usage of Parliament, 6th ed., rev. and enlarged, London: Butterworths, 1868, p. 546.
Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form, Vol. III, translated by A.E. Steinthal, New York: AMS Press, 1969 (reprint of 1908 ed.), p. 160. For a detailed description of the development in Canada of the various practices and institutions concerning parliamentary control of finance, see Ward, N., The Public Purse: A Study in Canadian Democracy, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1962.
May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 23rd ed., edited by Sir W. McKay, London: LexisNexis UK, 2004, pp. 848‑9. See also Ward, pp. 3‑10.
R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5.
R.S. 1985, c. F‑11.
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 103.
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 54.
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 2. Until 1906, the fiscal year ran from July 1 to June 30. See Debates, May 10, 1906, col. 3065; Journals, June 19, 1906, p. 400; Debates, July 13, 1906, p. 7918.
Standing Order 83.1.
There is no requirement that the government present an annual budget; however, this has been the practice followed since the mid‑1980s. In an effort to introduce an element of certainty into the timing of the budget, governments have tried, wherever possible, to present their budget in mid‑February, before the main estimates are tabled (Wilson, M.H., The Canadian Budgetary Process: Proposals for Improvement, Ottawa: Department of Finance, May 1985, pp. 1‑8; Treasury Board of Canada, The Expenditure Management System of the Government of Canada, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1995, p. 4). See the section in this chapter entitled “The Budget”.
Standing Order 81(4) and (18). Standing Order 81 sets out a precise House schedule for the consideration and disposal of the business of supply. If the March 1 deadline is met, the House typically considers and disposes of the main estimates for the then fiscal year before it adjourns for the summer. If, because of an unscheduled adjournment or a prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, the March 1 deadline is not met or the main estimates are not concurred in by the end of June, the government proposes a new supply schedule for the approval of the House, usually after negotiations with the parties in opposition. See, for example, Journals, March 4, 1996, pp. 34‑5, 39‑41; September 23, 1997, p. 14; October 5, 2004, pp. 12‑4; April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.
Standing Order 108(3)(g).
See the Preamble to the British North America Act, which decreed that Canada was to have a constitution similar in principle to that of the United Kingdom. Consequently, the rules of parliamentary procedure as practiced in Britain at that time would serve also to guide proceedings in the Canadian Houses of Parliament. The Act was renamed the Constitution Act, 1867 in 1982. For further information, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”.
Since 1625, the British Commons’ exclusive right to grant monies has been fully recognized and, since 1678, the Commons have also claimed the sole right to direct how those monies will be spent (Redlich, Vol. III, pp. 115‑6). This fundamental principle was firmly established in 1860 when the British Commons refused to acquiesce in the Lords’ rejection of one of its money bills. The House subsequently adopted a resolution affirming its sole right to grant aids and supplies (Redlich, Vol. III, pp. 116‑9). See the section in this chapter entitled “The Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters”.
A Commons rule that all legislation sanctioning expenditure or initiating taxation must be based on resolutions passed in a committee of the Whole House was introduced in the British Parliament in 1667. During the civil wars, these discussions had been undertaken in select committees to escape pressure and management by the Speakers, acting on the King’s behalf. The House of Commons again reverted to committees of the Whole House because select committees were seen to be too easily swayed by privy councillors and other prominent Members. The 1667 rule actually read: “If any motion be made in the House for any public aid or charge upon the people, the consideration and debate thereon ought not presently to be entered upon but adjourned to such further day as the House shall think fit to appoint; and then it ought to be referred to the Committee of the whole House and their opinion to be reported thereupon, before any resolution or vote of the House do pass therein” (Stewart, J.B., The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and Reform, Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1977, p. 99). At Confederation, the rule had been revised to read: “If any motion be made in the house for any aid, grant, or charge upon the public revenue, whether payable out of the consolidated fund, or out of monies to be provided by Parliament, or for any charge upon the people …” (May, 6th ed., p. 549).
See Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”.
Bourinot, Sir J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, 4th ed., edited by T.B. Flint, Toronto: Canada Law Book Company, 1916, p. 8.
O’Brien, G., “Pre-Confederation Parliamentary Procedure: The Evolution of Legislative Practice in the Lower Houses of Central Canada 1792‑1866”, Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 1988, pp. 89‑93, 175‑80, 286‑92, 361‑3. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 9‑11.
Journals, November 7, 1867, p. 5.
O’Brien, pp. 92‑3.
The Assembly sitting as a committee. For further information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
O’Brien, p. 176.
Union Act, 1840, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4.
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 12. Bourinot goes on to recount how, in 1849, Nova Scotia Governor Sir John Harvey was instructed by the Colonial Office that it was “neither possible nor desirable to carry on the government of any of the British provinces in North America in opposition to the opinions of the inhabitants”.
Bourinot, South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1884), p. 463.
Craig, G.M., (ed.), Lord Durham’s Report: An Abridgement, Ottawa: Carleton University Press, 1992, pp. 144‑5.
Union Act, 1840, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4, Arts. L‑LVI.
Union Act, 1840, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4, Art. LVII.
Union Act, 1840, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4, Art. LVII.
O’Brien, p. 361.
R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53. The language of section 53 was first written into Canada’s constitutional documents in the Union Act, 1840, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4, Art. LVII.
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 54.
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 102 to 106. A similar system was in use in the Province of Canada at the time of Confederation.
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 404‑5.
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 88.
Journals, March 31, 1874, p. 10; Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1876, Rule 87. Until 1874, the House was first required to agree to a motion, “That supply be granted to Her Majesty”. That motion, proposed immediately following the order to begin debate on the Throne Speech, was the mechanism used to designate a Committee of Supply and to place the business of supply on the House agenda. See also Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 477.
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 88.
Bourinot, 1st ed., pp. 462‑3.
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 89.
In 1968, the House modified its Standing Orders to incorporate a fixed, annual schedule for the consideration of the business of supply. See the section in this chapter entitled “The Business of Supply”.

Public Accounts

Leave a reply

Public Accounts of Canada

The financial role of the House of Commons does not end with voting supply or authorizing measures to raise revenue. The House also acts as a “watchdog” to ensure that federal money is spent in the amounts and for the purposes authorized by Parliament.[1] This monitoring function (often described as “closing the loop”) is delegated largely to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, which examines and reports on the Public Accounts of Canada, as well as on all reports of the Auditor General of Canada.[2]

Under the Financial Administration Act, the Receiver General[3] is responsible for ensuring that accounts are kept for each department and agency of the Government of Canada. These accounts must show all expenditures made under each appropriation, all government revenues, and all other payments into and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund,[4] together with the assets and liabilities, the contingent liabilities of Canada and the related reserves that are deemed necessary to present a fair picture of the country’s financial position.[5] The accounts of each individual department and agency are rolled up into the Accounts of Canada.

Each year, the President of the Treasury Board tables a detailed report of the financial transactions of all government departments and agencies, entitled the Public Accounts of Canada. The report must be tabled[6] on or before December 31 following the end of the fiscal year to which the accounts apply; or, if the House is not sitting, on any of the first 15 subsequent sitting days.[7] As a matter of tradition only, the Public Accounts are addressed to the Governor General.

The fundamental purpose of the Public Accounts of Canada is to provide information to Parliament, and thus to the public, which will enable them to understand and evaluate the financial position and transactions of the government. Two constitutional principles underlie the public accounting system: that duties and revenues accruing to the Government of Canada form one Consolidated Revenue Fund, and that the balance of the Fund after certain prior charges is appropriated by the Parliament of Canada for the public service.[8]

Responsibility for the form and content of the Public Accounts of Canada rests with the President of the Treasury Board[9] and the Minister of Finance.[10] The financial statements are prepared under the joint direction of the President of the Treasury Board, the Minister of Finance and the Receiver General for Canada.[11] By law, the Accounts must include, for the fiscal year to which they apply, a statement of all the government’s financial transactions; a statement of all expenditures and revenues; a statement of the assets and direct and contingent liabilities of Canada; the Auditor General’s opinion on the Accounts, pursuant to the Auditor General Act; and whatever other accounts and information the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance deem necessary to represent fairly the financial position of Canada at the close of the year.[12]

Since 2004, the Public Accounts of Canada have been divided into three volumes:

Volume I presents the financial statements of Canada on which the Auditor General has expressed an opinion and provided observations; an analysis of the financial statements and a 10‑year comparison of financial information; analyses of revenues and expenses, and of asset and liability accounts; and a variety of government‑wide summaries of revenues, expenditures, loans and investments.
Volume II presents the financial operations of the government, segregated by Ministry, while
Volume III provides additional information and analyses, such as the financial statements for revolving funds, transfer payments and public debt charges.[13]

Until 1993, the third volume of the Public Accounts contained financial information on Crown corporations. That volume has been replaced by the Annual Report to Parliament: Crown Corporations and Other Corporate Interests of Canada, a consolidated report on the businesses and activities of all parent Crown corporations and other corporate interests of the Government of Canada.[14] The Annual Report is prepared by the Treasury Board Secretariat for the President of the Treasury Board, who tables it in the House.[15]

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Definition of Standing Committee on Public Accounts by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The House of Commons committee that examines the Auditor General’s Report and criticizes government officials for illegal or unwise expenditures.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

Notes

As early as 1341, Edward III had conceded the principle that grants to the Crown should be audited to ensure they were spent for the purposes intended (Driedger, p. 30).
Standing Order 108(3)(g). See Royal Commission on Financial Management and Accountability, Final Report, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, March 1979, especially Part V, “Accountability to Parliament: Closing the Loop”, pp. 369‑419. See also Chapter 20, “Committees”.
The Minister of Public Works and Government Services Canada also serves as Receiver General for Canada (Department of Public Works and Government Services Act, S.C. 1996, c. 16, s. 3(3)).
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 63(1).
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 63(2).
The Public Accounts of Canada are usually filed with the Clerk of the House and the tabling is recorded in the Journals. See, for example, Journals, September 28, 2000, p. 2011; October 21, 2004, p. 132; October 29, 2004, p. 172 (erratum); October 17, 2007, pp. 17‑8; December 1, 2008, p. 59. However, the report has also been tabled by a Minister directly on the floor of the House. See, for example, Journals, October 31, 1978, p. 94; December 11, 1979, p. 336; September 28, 2006, pp. 469‑70, Debates, p. 3347. For further information on the tabling of documents, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 64(1).
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 102‑6. See also “Preface to the Financial Statements of the Government of Canada”, Public Accounts of Canada, 2007, p. 2.2.
The Treasury Board is a committee of Cabinet chaired by the Minister designated as the President of the Treasury Board. There are five other Ministers on the Board, including the Minister of Finance. The Treasury Board is responsible for the management of the public service, including administrative policy and financial management practices. The Treasury Board also acts as the federal employer and represents the government in all matters respecting the federal workforce (McMenemy, pp. 392‑3). As the administrative arm of the Treasury Board, the Secretariat has a dual mandate: to support the Treasury Board as a committee of Ministers and to fulfil the statutory responsibilities of a central government agency. Its executive head is designated as the Secretary of the Treasury Board. From 1993 to 2003, the Secretary of the Treasury Board also bore the title of Comptroller General of Canada. In 2004, the position of Comptroller General of Canada was created and the Office of the Comptroller General became a separate entity within Treasury Board Secretariat. The Comptroller General is responsible for standards of financial controls, reporting systems and program evaluation of federal departments and agencies (McMenemy, p. 69).
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 64(2).
“Statement of Responsibility”, Public Accounts of Canada, 2007, p. 2.3.
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 64(2); Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 6.
“Introduction to the Public Accounts of Canada: Format of the Public Accounts of Canada”, Public Accounts of Canada, 2007, Vol. I.
A Crown corporation is an organization with the structure of a private‑sector enterprise but which is established by legislation and is owned by the Crown. Although they report to the legislature through a designated Minister, Crown corporations are not subject to direct ministerial control (McMenemy, pp. 93‑4).
Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, ss. 151 and 152. Like the Public Accounts of Canada, this report is usually filed with the Clerk of the House and the tabling is recorded in the Journals. See, for example, Journals, December 16, 1999, p. 831; December 13, 2002, p. 311; June 12, 2003, p. 928 (revision), January 28, 2008, p. 345.

Auditor General

Leave a reply

Auditor General in Canada

Concept of Auditor General

Definition of Auditor General by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The official of Parliament whose staff audits the expenditures of government departments and who provides periodic reports on instances of funds being unlawfully or unwisely spent.

Auditor General and the Financial Procedures

The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of Parliament, appointed by the Governor in Council under the Auditor General Act, to audit the accounts of Canada and investigate the financial affairs of the federal government.[1] The Auditor General holds office for a period of 10 years, or until the age of 65, whichever comes first. The term is not renewable. The position was first established in the Audit Act, 1878.[2] That legislation was replaced in 1886 and in 1931 by the Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act,[3] which, in turn, was repealed by the Financial Administration Act, 1951.[4]

Initially, the Auditor General was responsible only for auditing expenditures; before they were made (pre‑payment audit) and after they were made (post‑payment audit). In 1977, Parliament enacted the current Auditor General Act which broadened the Auditor General’s mandate beyond attesting to the accuracy of the government’s financial statements, to examining how well the government managed its financial affairs.[5]

In 2006, Parliament adopted the Federal Accountability Act, which gives the Auditor General of Canada the authority to audit recipients of funding from the federal government.[6] The Auditor General now has the authority to audit recipients of most federal grants and contributions to determine whether obligations under the funding agreement have been complied with, whether money has been used with due regard to economy and efficiency, whether satisfactory procedures to measure and report on the effectiveness of activities are in place, whether accounts and essential records have been properly maintained, and whether due regard has been given to the environmental effects of expenditures.

As auditor of the Public Accounts of Canada, the Auditor General examines the government’s financial statements to ensure that the information is presented fairly, in accordance with stated accounting policies, and on a basis consistent with the previous accounting year. Additional responsibilities for special examinations of Crown corporations are set out in the Financial Administration Act.[7] The Auditor General is empowered to undertake whatever examinations and inquiries are deemed necessary to produce the reports required under the terms of the Auditor General Act.[8]

The Office of the Auditor General carries out three types of audits―attest audits, compliance audits and performance audits on value for money. Attest auditing verifies that the government is keeping proper accounts and records and that it is presenting its overall financial information fairly.[9] Compliance auditing ensures that the government collects and spends only those amounts of money authorized by Parliament and only for the purposes approved by Parliament.

Finally, performance auditing assesses whether or not government programs were run with due regard for economy, efficiency and their environmental effects. The audits also assure Parliament that the government has the means in place to measure the effectiveness of its programs, where it is reasonable and appropriate to do so.[10] Since 1995, the Office also has been responsible for evaluating the extent to which department activities meet their environmental and sustainable development objectives.[11]

Where such an assignment does not interfere with the primary responsibilities of the office, the Auditor General may also be asked by the Governor in Council to inquire into and report on any matter related to the financial affairs of Canada or to public property, or to inquire into and report on any person or organization that is seeking or has received financial aid from the Government of Canada.[12]

Auditor General Reports

The Auditor General must report annually to the House of Commons, drawing the House’s attention to any cases where:

accounts have not been properly maintained or money not properly accounted for;
the accounting procedures used are insufficient to safeguard the collection and spending of public money;
money has been spent without due regard for economy and efficiency, or other than for the purposes appropriated by Parliament; or
appropriate procedures to measure and report program effectiveness have not been implemented.[13]

The Auditor General Act requires that each annual report be submitted to the Speaker of the House of Commons on or before December 31 in the year to which the report relates and that, upon receipt of the report, the Speaker tables it forthwith. If the House is not sitting at that time, the annual report is tabled on any of the next 15 sitting days of the House.[14] At the request of the Auditor General, the Speaker has frequently agreed to table the report in the House at a predetermined time, usually just before Statements by Members, although there is no requirement that it be tabled at that time.[15]

Once tabled, the report is automatically referred to the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.[16] Prior to the tabling of the report in the House, the Auditor General typically gives a briefing on its contents to members of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, at an in camera session. In addition, the Chair of the Committee will normally invite Members to a “lock‑up”,[17] during which they may examine the report to be tabled later in the day and be briefed in advance by officials. A lock‑up for the media is also normally arranged.

Changes to the Act introduced in 1994 authorized the Auditor General to make up to three reports each year over and above the annual report, any special report on matters of pressing importance or urgency, or any special report on the funding of the Auditor General’s Office.[18] Where such an additional report is to be tabled, the Speaker must be advised in writing of the subject matter and the report itself is submitted to the Speaker 30 days after the notice is sent, or after any longer period which may be specified in the notice.[19] The Speaker is required to table the report forthwith or, if the House is not sitting, on any of the next 15 sitting days of the House.

Since the enactment of the 1994 provisions, the Auditor General’s annual report has been submitted to the House of Commons in several volumes.

The first, a status report, is usually tabled in the winter and follows up on progress made by the government in responding to recommendations contained in previous performance audits. The second report is tabled in the spring, and the third in the fall.[20] Each report contains individually numbered chapters[516] reporting on the various performance audits (formerly known as value-for-money audits) of departments and agencies. Alongside the Auditor General’s chapters there may also be chapters from the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development.

The final volume tabled continues to be known as the “annual” report and contains “Matters of Special Importance” from the Auditor General as well as the “Commissioner’s Perspective”.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

Resources

Notes

McMenemy, pp. 9‑10. An officer of Parliament is an appointed official who is responsible to Parliament for carrying out duties assigned by statute. For terms of appointment and tenure of office, see the Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 3.
An Act to provide for the better auditing of the Public Accounts, S.C. 1878, c. 7, ss. 11 to 56.
An Act respecting the Public Revenue, the raising of loans authorized by Parliament, and the auditing of the Public Accounts, R.S. 1886, c. 29, ss. 21 to 59; The Consolidated Revenue and Audit Act, 1931, S.C. 1931, c. 27.
An Act to Provide for the Financial Administration of the Government of Canada, the Audit of the Public Accounts and the Financial Control of Crown Corporations, S.C. 1951, c. 12, ss. 65 to 75.
R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, ss. 7(2)(b) to (e). In 1995, a point of order was raised in the House about the receivability of the Auditor General’s annual report on the grounds that the Auditor General had exceeded his mandate under the Auditor General Act by including “politically biased statements” about the role of Parliament in relation to the national debt (Debates, October 18, 1995, pp. 15530‑2). Speaker Parent responded that he had no authority in regard to matters of law, and therefore could neither interpret whether what was contained in the report was in conformity with the criteria set out under the Act nor, consequently, rule the report out of order (Debates, October 25, 1995, pp. 15812‑3).
An Act providing for Conflict of Interest Rules, Restrictions on Election Financing and Measures Respecting Administrative Transparency, Oversight and Accountability, S.C. 2006, c. 9, ss. 301 to 305. In this regard, the Act responded to Recommendation 24 made by the Standing Committee on Public Accounts in its Ninth Report entitled “Chapters 3 (The Sponsorship Program), 4 (Advertising Activities) and 5 (Management of Public Opinion Research) of the November 2003 Report of the Auditor General of Canada”, presented to the House on April 7, 2005 (Journals, p. 594). During its hearings on the Sponsorship Program, the Committee was frustrated by the fact that the Auditor General of Canada, unlike several provincial auditors general, did not have legislative authority to audit entities outside government that were in receipt of public funds.
R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, ss. 134(1) to (3). In addition to annual financial audits of those Crown corporations for which the Office is responsible, the Auditor General may carry out special examinations which evaluate whether the systems and practices of Crown corporations provide reasonable assurance that assets are safeguarded, resources are managed economically and efficiently, and operations are carried out effectively (Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2006-07 Estimates, Performance Report, tbs-sct.gc.ca, 2007, p. 6).
R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, ss. 5 and 6; Financial Administration Act, R.S. 1985, c. F‑11, s. 64.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2006-07 Estimates, Performance Report, p. 6. See, for example, “Report of the Auditor General on the Financial Statements of the Government of Canada”, Public Accounts of Canada, 2007, p. 2.4.
Office of the Auditor General of Canada, 2006-07 Estimates, Performance Report, p. 6.
Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 21.1. See also the Act to amend the Auditor General Act, S.C. 1995, c. 43, which established the position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development within the Office of the Auditor General of Canada (“Creation of the Position of Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development”, Office of the Auditor General, News Release, December 15, 1995).
Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 11. Such authority would be required for the Auditor General to undertake an audit assignment which did not otherwise fall within the statutory authority of the Office. The authority under section 11 is conferred by way of an Order in Council.
Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 7(2).
Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 7(3).
Statements by Members take place Monday through Thursday at 2:00 p.m., and Friday at 11:00 a.m. (Standing Order 30(5)). See, for example, Journals, November 23, 2004, p. 245; November 28, 2006, p. 820; October 30, 2007, p. 112.
Standing Order 108(3)(g).
A lock‑up is a closed‑door or in camera information session immediately prior to the presentation of a major initiative, such as a budget or the Auditor General’s annual report. Because the information in the Report is confidential until presented to the House, no copy may be removed from the lock‑up before it has been tabled. While Members are free to leave the lock‑up at any time, they must agree not to give interviews on or divulge the contents of the Report prior to tabling. Members’ research staff are usually allowed to attend the lock‑up; however, they must be sponsored by a specific Member and must remain in the room until the Report has been tabled. On November 27, 1978, a Member contended that the conditions for participating in the lock‑up violated his parliamentary privileges (Debates, November 27, 1978, pp. 1514‑7). The Speaker stated then, and consistently since, that lock‑ups are not a requirement for Members to participate in parliamentary proceedings either in the Chamber or in committee; access or lack of access to a lock‑up cannot constitute grounds for a question of privilege. See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, November 27, 1978, pp. 1518‑9; Speaker Sauvé’s rulings, Debates, February 25, 1981, p. 7670; February 26, 1981, p. 7714 ; Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693. However, Members may not be prevented from leaving a lock‑up room. See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, November 27, 1978, p. 1515.
Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, ss. 7(1), 8(1) and 19(2). The authority to submit several reports was conferred by way of An Act to amend the Auditor General Act (reports), S.C. 1994, c. 32. The Office of the Auditor General views the authority for additional reports as an opportunity to improve the timeliness and relevance of the information it provides to Parliament, thus promoting accountability. Efforts are made by the Auditor General to plan the tabling of reports in accordance with the calendar of the House of Commons.
Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, s. 7(5). In the event of the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament during the notice period, the Auditor General must withdraw the notice in question and submit a new one to extend the reporting date of his or her report.
See, for example, the 2005 report, Journals, February 15, 2005, p. 432; April 5, 2005, p. 580; November 22, 2005, p. 1306; the 2007 report, Journals, February 13, 2007, p. 996; May 1, 2007, p. 1300; October 30, 2007, p. 112. In 2006, the general elections delayed the tabling of the February volume, with the result that the winter and spring volumes were tabled in May as Volume 1. Volume 2 was tabled in November (Journals, May 16, 2006, p. 179; November 28, 2006, p. 820).
Chapters are numbered sequentially by year, not by volume.

Supply Bill

Leave a reply

The Supply Bill in Canada

The Supply Bill or Appropriation Act

Concurrence in the estimates or in interim supply is an order of the House to bring in an appropriation bill or bills giving effect to the spending authority (amounts and their destinations) that the House has approved.[327] Once adopted, the legislation will authorize the government to withdraw from the Consolidated Revenue Fund amounts up to, but not exceeding, the amounts set out in the estimates for the purposes specified in the votes.[328]
Supply bills must be based on the estimates or interim supply as concurred in by the House.[329] They bear the standard title: An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31 (year).[330]

They begin with a preamble which cites both the message from the Governor General recommending the estimates to the House, and the purpose of the estimates, which is “to defray certain expenses of the public service of Canada, not otherwise provided for” for a specified fiscal year. The Chair has cautioned that an appropriation act gives authority only for a single fiscal year and is therefore not appropriate for expenditure which is meant to continue for a longer period, or indefinitely.[331] On one occasion, Speaker Parent expressed strong reservations about the reference to two fiscal years in the long title of a supply bill.[332] He qualified the reference as “not needed” and “misleading”. Although a separate statute may grant a government agency legislative authority to carry the unexpended balance of money appropriated for a fiscal year over to the end of the following fiscal year,[333] the appropriation itself is and must be for one fiscal year only and not be referred to as a multi‑year appropriation.
The destinations and the amounts attributable to each spending item, or vote, are set out in the schedules attached to each bill. These provide the governing conditions under which expenditures may be made. The schedules are organized alphabetically, by department, in both the English and French versions of the bill.[334]

Supply bills are considered on the last allotted day in each supply period, at the end of the day, after the Speaker has interrupted the proceedings on the opposition motion or the main estimates, as the case may be, in order for the House to go through all the remaining steps to complete the business of supply for the period. At that time, the House must proceed through all the motions related to the estimates, the interim supply and the supply bills without further debate or amendments.[335]

As all bills are printed and made available once they have received first reading, Members would not normally be made aware of the content of the supply bills until late in the day, at a time when the proceedings are dealt with expeditiously in the House. To compensate for this lack of time, the practice established in recent years is therefore to allow for an early distribution of the draft copy of the bills to Members at the beginning of the supply proceedings on that day. The House invariably gives its consent to that special arrangement.[336]

Like all public bills, supply bills are “read” a second time, considered in committee, and read a third time before going to the Senate.[337] Because concurrence in the estimates or in interim supply is an order of the House to bring in the appropriation bill, first reading proceeds forthwith, without the formality of introduction, and a motion is proposed that it be read a second time and referred to a Committee of the Whole.[338]

Although, theoretically, a supply bill is debatable, and therefore amendable, at all stages after first reading, it generally passes without debate or amendment on the last allotted day.[339] However, if time for debate were to remain on that day, and debate were to occur at the second and third reading stages of the bill, speeches would be limited to 20 minutes, followed by a period not exceeding 10 minutes for questions and comments.[340] In a Committee of the Whole, the bill is considered clause by clause and then reported back to the House.[341] It is at the Committee of the Whole stage that a Member of the opposition usually seeks assurance from the President of the Treasury Board that the supply bill is in its usual form.[342]

Bills reported from a Committee of the Whole are concurred in without debate or amendment.[343] Once the bill has been read the third time, it is forwarded to the Senate, where it must be given a further three readings before receiving Royal Assent and becoming law.

Normally, bills which have passed in both Houses of Parliament are held by the Clerk of the Parliaments (the Clerk of the Senate) until the Governor General (or a deputy) grants them Royal Assent. However, because the granting of supply is a prerogative of the House of Commons, supply bills are always returned to the House and taken by its Speaker to the Senate Chamber to receive Royal Assent. In a traditional ceremony, the Speaker, as spokesperson for the House, assembles with Members from the House of Commons, at the Bar of the Senate Chamber. The Speaker addresses the Crown’s representative, saying:
“May it please Your Excellency (Honour[344]): The Commons of Canada have voted Supplies required to enable the Government to defray certain expenses of the public service. In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Excellency (Honour) the following Bill: (title), To which Bill I humbly request Your Excellency’s (Honour’s) Assent.”

The Speaker presents the bill to the Clerk of the Senate who reads out the title of the bill, to which the Governor General (or his or her deputy) nods consent. The Royal Assent is then pronounced by the Clerk of the Senate in the following words:

“In Her Majesty’s name, (the Honourable the Deputy to) His/Her Excellency the Governor General thanks His/Her Loyal Subjects, accepts their benevolence, and assents to this Bill.”

The Journals of the House of Commons carries the text of the Speaker’s address, together with the response from the Crown’s representative in granting Assent, and the title of the bill.[345]
When no traditional ceremony is held, the Journals of the House of Commons carry the text of the Speaker’s message that Royal Assent has been granted by a written declaration to one or more supply bills.[346]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Deviations from Supply Cycle

From time to time, circumstances may require a deviation from the normal supply process and cycle. For example, because of an unscheduled adjournment or a prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, the main estimates might not be tabled and referred to standing committees before the March 1 deadline, or the interim supply or the main estimates might not be concurred in by the June 23 deadline. In those cases, the Standing Order provisions relating to the business of supply (such as those respecting the timetable for the tabling of estimates, their reference to standing committees and their return to the House, the concurrence motions and the appropriation bills) no longer apply.

Such situations may be dealt with by temporarily suspending the relevant Standing Orders. There may be an arrangement worked out between the government and the opposition parties to finalize supply as expeditiously as possible. Typically, this involves adopting a special order[347] which, depending on the situation, may address the following matters: the length of the supply period;[348] the number of allotted days in the period;[349] the notice period for opposition motions, motions to concur in interim supply, main estimates and supplementary estimates; motions to restore or reinstate any item and notices to oppose any item in the estimates;[350] committee referral and the reporting date for main or supplementary estimates;[351] the date of concurrence in the estimates;[352] and the debating time allotted to the appropriation bill.[353]

Where the government feels that there is a matter of urgency and it cannot wait until the end of a supply period, it may use its own time to consider the estimates. The Standing Orders specifically provide a mechanism in the event of an emergency where a motion to concur in the estimates and the subsequent appropriation bill may be taken under Government Orders and not on days allotted for supply.[354] The concurrence motion and the bill are then treated like any other item of government business and are therefore debatable. There is no automatic time limit on the debate and the days used for that purpose are not considered as allotted days and may not be deducted from the number of days allocated to the business of supply.[355] Apart from these two exceptions, the rules respecting the consideration of supply under Government Orders are the same as those governing proceedings on any allotted day.[356]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Supplementary Estimates

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

Notes

[327] Standing Order 81(21).

[328] On March 22, 2005, the House concurred in Bill C‑42, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2006, based on interim supply concurred in earlier in the sitting (Journals, pp. 536‑8; Appropriation Act No. 1, 2005‑2006, s. 2). The motion to concur in interim supply stated that a sum not exceeding $20,524,196,055.76 be granted to Her Majesty on account of the fiscal year, including six‑twelfths of the total of the amount of SOLICITOR GENERAL (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), Votes 50 and 85 (Schedule 1.5), or $15,835,000.00. Bill C‑42, on the other hand, sought to obtain only authority to spend $20,516,278,555.76, including three‑twelfths of the total of votes 50 and 85 under SOLICITOR GENERAL (Public Safety and Emergency Preparedness), or $7,944,500.00. As the maximum amount provided in Bill C‑42 was less than the amount appropriated through interim supply, the difference between the two amounts did not infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.

[329] Standing Order 81(21).

[330] See, for example, Bill C‑49, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 2009 (Journals, March 12, 2008, p. 581).

[331] See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, December 10, 1973, p. 737; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, March 20, 1991, p. 18732; Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1999, p. 16065. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 417; Journals, April 30, 1879, p. 335, Debates, p. 1668; Journals, May 6, 1879, p. 367.

[332] 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 Speaker Parent’s subsequent ruling (Debates, June 8, 1999, pp. 16053, 16065‑6).

[333] See Debates, June 8, 1999, p. 16082. See also Debates, December 13, 1999, pp. 2775‑7, 2783‑4.

[334] From 1867 to 1939, the estimates were printed separately in English and French, with neither version ordered alphabetically. From 1939 to 1970, the estimates continued to be printed 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, departments began to be listed alphabetically in the schedules, in each language. 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. The first such bill was Appropriation Act No. 2, 1990‑91, S.C. 1990, c. 33. See remarks by Marcel Prud’homme (Saint‑Denis) on the matter (Debates, June 6, 1990, pp. 12420‑1).

[335] Standing Order 81(17) and (18).

[336] See, for example, Debates, June 5, 2008, p. 6573.

[337] See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[338] Standing Orders 81(21) and 73(4). See, for example, Journals, June 5, 2008, pp. 923‑5. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.

[339] 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, Journals, October 23, 1974, p. 82, Debates, p. 639; Journals, October 24, 1974, p. 83; October 25, 1974, p. 86).

[340] Standing Orders 81(22) and 43.

[341] See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.

[342] See Debates, June 8, 1999, p. 16082; June 5, 2008, p. 6659.

[343] Standing Order 76.1(12).

[344] The Deputy to the Governor General is referred to as “Your Honour”.

[345] See, for example, Journals, December 14, 2007, pp. 328‑9. 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 Committee’s Seventy‑Seventh Report, presented to the House on May 10, 1995 (Journals, p. 1456), and concurred in on May 17, 1995 (Journals, p. 1492).

[346] See, for example, Journals, March 13, 2008, pp. 600‑1. For further information about the declaration of Royal Assent to bills passed by the Houses of Parliament, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[347] See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, pp. 20‑1; May 23, 1991, p. 59; March 4, 1996, pp. 34‑5, 39‑41; September 23, 1997, p. 14; October 5, 2004, pp. 12‑4; April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.

[348] See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, p. 20; April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.

[349] See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 14; April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.

[350] See, for example, Journals, April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.

[351] 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; October 5, 2004, pp. 12‑4; April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.

[352] See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, p. 21; September 23, 1997, p. 14; April 4, 2006, pp. 13‑4.

[353] See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1989, p. 431.

[354] Standing Order 82.

[355] See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, February 7, 1973, pp. 102‑3. See also Debates, February 7, 1973, pp. 1052‑61.

[356] See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, February 7, 1973, p. 103.

Budget

Leave a reply

Budget in Canada

Concept of Budget

Definition of Budget by Rand Dyck and Christopher Cochrane (in their book “Canadian Politics: Critical Approaches”) in the context of political science in Canada: The annual financial statement of the government usually issued in the early spring by the minister of finance that introduces tax changes and gives an overview of government spending for the next fiscal year.

Budget in University Research

Concept of Budget in relation to legal research and research in general: A list of anticipated project costs that represent the Principal Investigator’s best estimate of the funds needed to support the work described in a grant or contract proposal.

The Public Budget

The term “budget” derives from budge, an anglicized form of the French word bouge, which denotes a small bag. A 1733 satirical pamphlet, The Budget Opened, caricatures Sir Robert Walpole, then British Prime Minister and Chancellor of the Exchequer, “explaining his financial measures as a quack doctor opening a bag filled with medicines and charms”.[399] The term “budget” appears to have acquired its current meaning around this time.
By tradition, the Minister of Finance annually makes a formal budget presentation, offering a comprehensive assessment of the financial standing of the government and giving an overview of the nation’s economic condition.[400] The Minister also declares if and where the burden on the taxpayer will be increased or reduced.

The Budget Speech

Whenever the government wishes to make a budget presentation, a Minister[401] will rise in the House to request that an Order of the Day be designated for this purpose; the Minister will also specify the date and time of the presentation.[402] Traditionally, the Minister of Finance makes the announcement during Oral Questions in the House, in response to a question from a Member of the Official Opposition.[403] However, a Minister may do so at any time while the House is sitting.[404] The Minister’s announcement has been deemed to be the request that a day be designated pursuant to the requirements of the Standing Orders, that is, for it to be placed on the Order Paper, and no further notice is required. The Order of the Day is also deemed to be an Order of the House to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment if required.[405]

At the specified time on the designated day, typically in the late afternoon after the financial markets have closed, the Speaker interrupts any proceedings then before the House, which are deemed adjourned,[406] and the House proceeds to the consideration of the Order of the Day for the budget presentation. The Minister of Finance then rises in the House to move a ways and means motion, “That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government”[407] and to deliver the budget speech.[408] The Minister may also table notices of ways and means motions setting out the various taxation and other financial measures that will be needed to implement the budget provisions and ask that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of each of these motions. However, concurrence in any of these motions, or of any ways and means motions tabled at any other time during the session, may not be proposed until the debate on the budget is completed. This is to allow the House to pronounce itself on the budgetary policy of the government before considering individual taxation measures.[409]
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.[410]

Budget Secrecy

There is a long‑standing tradition of keeping the contents of the budget secret until the Minister of Finance actually presents it in the House. Respect for a budget’s impact on financial markets has often been used as the basis of questions of privilege or points of order respecting the validity of budget proceedings where there has been a budget “leak”.[411] However, Speakers of the Canadian House have maintained that secrecy is a matter of parliamentary convention, rather than one of privilege.[412] Speaker Sauvé noted that while a breach of budget secrecy “… might have a very negative impact on business or on the stock market [and] might cause some people to receive revenues which they would not otherwise have been able to obtain … [it has] no impact on the privileges of a member. [It] might do harm―irrevocable in some cases―to persons or institutions, but this has nothing to do with privilege. It has to do with the conduct of a minister in the exercise of his administrative responsibility.”[413]

In order that Members of Parliament and the news media are able to respond to the budget speech, a closed‑door informal session, or “lock‑up”, is usually provided for them by Finance Department officials several hours before the actual budget presentation in the House.[414] Although questions of privilege have been raised concerning lock‑ups, the Speaker has ruled that admission to lock‑ups and the nature of lock‑ups are not a matter for the Chair to decide.[415]

Pre-Budget Consultations

With a growing emphasis on consultation, many of the budget’s financial provisions have been discussed publicly before the budget is ever drafted.[416] Since 1994, the Standing Committee on Finance has been specifically empowered to hold “pre‑budget” consultations.[417] Prior to this, only the Minister and the Department of Finance had consulted with the government’s economic and social partners during the budget preparation process. The Finance Committee already had the authority to undertake this type of consultative study.[418] However, the inclusion of an explicit Standing Order for this purpose indicates the House’s willingness to receive and consider a report on the matter.

On occasion, the Committee asks that the House authorize the Committee to travel throughout Canada during its proceedings and to broadcast its deliberations.[419] While it seems a tradition has now developed in this regard, these yearly trips are neither automatic nor obligatory. Under the Standing Orders, the Committee may report the outcome of its budgetary consultations to the House up to and including the tenth sitting day prior to the last scheduled sitting day in December as provided for in the House of Commons calendar.[420] Although the House is not required to do so, the House usually considers the subject matter of the report on pre-budgetary consultations in a take-note debate, which is normally held under Government Orders some time before the budget is actually presented.[421] Holding a take-note debate does not prevent a Member from moving concurrence in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance presented pursuant to Standing Order 83.1.[422]

Financial Statement

On occasion, the Minister of Finance makes an economic statement to the House, generally referred to as a “mini‑budget”,[423] that provides basic economic and fiscal information that will be the subject of policy review and public debate leading up to the next budget.[424] Unlike a budget presentation, these statements are delivered without notice and do not precipitate a budget debate. Notices of ways and means motions are also tabled on these occasions. Such statements have been made in the course of debate during consideration of the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne,[425] on a motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate,[426] during Routine Proceedings under “Statements by Ministers”,[427] on a government motion “That this House support the economic policies of the government”,[428] and on moving the motion for second reading of a borrowing authority bill.[429] The rules of debate pertinent to each situation have applied.[430]

The Budget Debate

Following the budget speech, the Speaker recognizes a representative of the Official Opposition, usually the finance critic, who, after a brief speech, moves the adjournment of the debate, which is then deemed adopted. In doing so, that Member reserves the right to speak first when debate on the motion resumes at a subsequent sitting. The Speaker then adjourns the House until the next sitting day.[431]

Duration of Debate

Once the budget has been presented, the Standing Orders provide for a maximum of four additional days of debate on the budget motion and any amendments proposed thereto.[432] The four days of debate do not have to be consecutive[433] and, if few Members wish to speak, the debate can be less than four days. The unused days may be added, if the House so agrees, to the number of opposition days in the same supply period, as suggested by the Standing Orders.[434]

Since the rule changes in 1955, there have been seven cases where budget debates have not continued for the full amount of time provided for in the Standing Orders.[435] In 1962, the budget was presented and Parliament was dissolved before any debate on the budget could take place.[436] The House adopted Special Orders providing for fewer days of debate in 1966 and 1969.[437] Another two debates (in 1974 and 1979) were cut short when the Prime Minister sought and was granted a dissolution of Parliament after subamendments were adopted.[438] In early 1991, when the Standing Orders required that there be six days of debate, only four days of debate were held on the budget presented on February 26; both the amendment and the subamendment were negatived and debate on the main motion was not resumed before prorogation occurred in May.[439] In 1993, only two days of debate took place on the budget presented on April 26; the subamendment was negatived and debate on the amendment and the main motion was not resumed before dissolution occurred in September 1993.[440]

Precedence of Debate

In 1955, the House established that debate on the budget motion should be given precedence over all other government orders.[441] When an Order of the Day is called for resuming debate on the budget motion, pursuant to the Standing Orders it stands as the first item of business for the sitting and no other government business may be considered during that sitting, unless the motion has been disposed of.[442]

Length of Speeches

The Standing Orders impose a 20-minute time limit on the speeches delivered by all Members, with the exception of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the first Opposition Member speaking to the motion, all of whom have unlimited time. A 10-minute questions and comments period is made available following any 20-minute speech, and following any speech by the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, a Minister moving a government order, or a Member speaking in reply immediately after such Minister[443] The general nature of the budget motion allows for a wide‑ranging debate, during which the rules of relevance are generally relaxed.

Disposal of Amendments and Termination of Debate

Only one amendment and one subamendment may be proposed to the budget motion.[444] The purpose of this rule is to permit third parties officially to present their proposals on an issue and have the House come to a decision. This is contrary to the usual rules of debate where Members are permitted to move an unlimited number of amendments and subamendments, provided that each one has been disposed of before the next is proposed. On the first day of resumed debate on the budget motion, the Opposition speaker who had previously moved the adjournment of the budget debate continues with his or her speech and traditionally moves an amendment at the end of the speech. The next speaker, a Member of the next largest opposition party, typically moves a subamendment at the end of his or her speech.[445] Occasionally, no subamendment is proposed.[446] There is no rule preventing the amendment or the subamendment from being moved on a day after the first day of resumed debate (although this has not occurred since the number of days of resumed debate was reduced to four in 1991).[447]

The Standing Orders define the exact procedures to be followed for the disposal of the amendment and subamendment. On the second day of resumed debate, if a subamendment has been proposed, the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings 15 minutes before the end of Government Business to put the question to dispose of the subamendment.[448] In the same manner, at the end of the third and fourth day’s resumed debate, the Speaker puts the question on the amendment and the main motion, respectively. If, for some reason, the subamendment was moved after the second day, it would be voted on before the amendment on the third day. If the subamendment and amendment were moved after the third day, they would be voted on at the end of the fourth day.[449] During the 1970s, the main motion was frequently adopted on division,[450] but since the 1980s, with one exception,[451] Members have requested recorded divisions.

As with amendments moved to the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, proposed amendments to the budget motion are opportunities for expression of non‑confidence in the government. On several occasions since 1930, proposed amendments to the budget motion have been worded as explicit statements of non‑confidence in the government.[452] In two cases in the 1970s, the adoption of subamendments was followed by the Prime Minister seeking a dissolution of Parliament.[453]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

Resources

Notes

[399] Wilding, N. and Laundy, P., An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed., London: Cassell & Company Ltd., 1972, p. 61.

[400] 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 further information, see Stewart, p. 101. Similarly, there is no procedural requirement for the government to table supporting documents for the budget (Debates, March 18, 2003, pp. 4368‑9). See also footnote No. 407. 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); March 6, 1996 (Journals, p. 54); December 10, 2001 (Journals, pp. 939‑40); March 23, 2004 (Journals, pp. 201‑2); May 2, 2006 (Journals, p. 119), and March 19, 2007 (Journals, pp. 1111‑2).

[401] 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. On February 10, 2003, the Secretary of State (International Financial Institutions) requested the designation of an order of the day to allow the presentation of the budget speech (Debates, p. 3361). The Minister of Finance had informed the House during Oral Questions on February 7, 2003, of the date when the budget would be presented, but had neglected to specify the time (Debates, p. 3306). See also Debates, April 24, 2006, pp. 424, 426; February 20, 2007, pp. 7070, 7077.

[402] Standing Order 83(2).

[403] 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).

[404] See, for example, Debates, February 10, 2003, p. 3361 (immediately following Oral Questions); April 24, 2006, p. 426 (at the beginning of Routine Proceedings).

[405] 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.

[406] Standing Order 83(2).

[407] Standing Order 84(1). On February 26, 2003 (Debates, pp. 4041‑2), a Member raised a point of order concerning the fact that the Prime Minister, in a statement reported in the media, had contradicted the government’s budgetary policy as set out by the Minister of Finance on February 18, 2003. He asserted that the government could not ask Members to vote on the motion “That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government” until the government had clarified its position and taken the appropriate steps to amend the budget formally. The Speaker reminded Members that the budget speech and the tabling of background documents were voluntary actions of the government, and that, even if the documents tabled on February 18 were no longer completely accurate, this was not sufficient ground on which to challenge the right of the House to continue considering the budget motion. However, he went on to remind the House that if, as a result of the change in policy, the government wished to propose legislation different from that which it had earlier intended, then it would have to file a new notice of ways and means (Debates, March 18, 2003, pp. 4368‑9).

[408] On March 19, 2003, a Member raised a point of order concerning the Ontario government’s intention to release its budget outside of the Ontario legislature. He asked the Speaker, on behalf of all Members, to send a message to the Ontario legislature and a message of support to the Ontario Speaker, “who is speaking up against this outrage.” The Speaker ruled that there was no point of order in terms of procedural matters arising in another jurisdiction. However, he said that the Member could arrange for a motion to be adopted by the House sending a message to the legislature of Ontario which he would be pleased to convey (Debates, pp. 4418‑9). See also Debates, March 18, 2003, pp. 4368‑9.

[409] Standing Order 83(3).

[410] See Wilson, p. 15.

[411] 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 he was bound by the Order of the House, as previously agreed to. See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1060.

[412] See, for example, Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, April 17, 1978, p. 4549; Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, November 18, 1981, p. 12898; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 18, 1987, p. 7315.

[413] Debates, November 18, 1981, p. 12898.

[414] 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 Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, November 27, 1978, p. 1515.

[415] See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, November 27, 1978, pp. 1518‑9; Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, February 25, 1981, p. 7670; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, January 19, 1984, p. 563; Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693.

[416] See, for example, Speaker Francis’ comments, Debates, January 19, 1984, p. 563; Speaker Parent’s comments, Debates, March 6, 1997, p. 8693.

[417] Standing Order 83.1 (Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 117, 119‑20. The actual wording authorizes the Committee to consider and make reports on proposals regarding the budgetary policy of the government. For examples of reports presented to the House, see Journals, December 8, 1994, p. 1004; December 4, 1998, p. 1397; November 26, 2001, p. 853; December 7, 2006, p. 880; February 7, 2008, p. 403.

[418] See Standing Order 108(2), which gives the Committee authority to review the mandate and operations of the Department of Finance.

[419] See, for example, Journals, June 27, 2005, p. 991; June 17, 2008, p. 1005.

[420] Standing Order 83.1. In some cases, the Committee was authorized by the House to present its report past the deadline. See, for example, Journals, November 30, 1994, pp. 957‑8; December 8, 1994, p. 1004; November 1, 1999, p. 145; December 10, 1999, p. 770; December 1, 2004, p. 280; December 10, 2004, p. 337; January 31, 2005, p. 367; November 29, 2006, p. 832; December 7, 2006, p. 880; November 23, 2007, p. 206; February 7, 2008, p. 403.

[421] See, for example, Journals, November 28, 1994, p. 943; November 30, 1994, p. 957; February 1, 1999, pp. 1442, 1446; February 2, 1999, p. 1461; December 10, 2002, pp. 289‑90, 295; December 12, 2002, pp. 305‑7; January 31, 2005, pp. 359‑60, 366; February 1, 2005, p. 374; February 7, 2008, pp. 405‑6; February 8, 2008, pp. 411, 413.

[422] On three occasions since 1994, the House debated a motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance dealing with the pre-budget consultations (Journals, December 15, 1999, pp. 819‑20; December 13, 2001, p. 953; April 22, 2005, pp. 673‑4; May 30, 2005, pp. 803-4). On November 1 and 7, 2001, the House debated the government motion “That this House take note of ongoing pre-budget consultations” (Journals, November 1, 2001, pp. 780‑2; November 7, 2001, p. 811). On November 26, 2001, the Standing Committee on Finance presented its Tenth Report on the pre-budget consultations (Journals, p. 853). On December 10, the budget speech was delivered; it was debated on December 11 and 12 (Journals, December 10, 2001, p. 939; December 11, 2001, p. 943; December 12, 2001, p. 950). On December 13, concurrence was moved in the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and debated that day (Journals, p. 953). In accordance with the procedural rules in effect at the time, the motion was transferred to Government Orders on the Order Paper. The budget was debated again on January 28 and on January 29, 2002, when it was adopted (Journals, January 28, 2002, p. 964; January 29, 2002, p. 976). At the time, no objections were raised as to the acceptability of moving a motion to concur in the Committee’s report presented under Standing Order 83.1. See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, May 5, 2005, pp. 5725‑7).

[423] More frequently, however, the Minister of Finance presents his Economic and Fiscal Update in the fall to the Standing Committee on Finance. See, for example, Minutes of Proceedings, November 2, 1999, Meeting No. 2; May 17, 2001, Meeting No. 24; October 30, 2002, Meeting No. 10; November 3, 2003, Meeting No. 96; November 16, 2004, Meeting No. 15; November 14, 2005, Meeting No. 147; November 23, 2006, Meeting No. 53. On October 29, 2007, long before the Standing Committee on Finance held its organization meeting, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and Minister for Democratic Reform sought unanimous consent to propose a motion for leave to present an economic statement under “Statements by Ministers” at 4:00 p.m. the following day (Debates, p. 529). As unanimous consent was denied, the Minister of Finance tabled the government’s Economic Statement before the House on October 30, 2007, without, however, giving a speech (Journals, p. 113).

[424] Furthermore, the Parliament of Canada Act tasks the Parliamentary Budget Officer with providing objective analysis to the Senate and House of Commons about the estimates of the government, the state of the nation’s finances and trends in the national economy (R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, s. 79.2(a)).

[425] Journals, October 20, 1977, p. 19, Debates, pp. 98-102; Journals, April 21, 1980, pp. 61‑2, Debates, pp. 242‑8. See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Journals, April 28, 1980, pp. 86‑8.

[426] Journals, October 14, 1971, pp. 870‑1, Debates, pp. 8688‑90.

[427] Debates, October 27, 1982, p. 20077; Journals, June 12, 1987, p. 1089; June 18, 1987, pp. 1200‑1.

[428] Journals, October 18, 2000, pp. 2074‑5.

[429] See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1992, pp. 14417‑27.

[430] However, on November 7, 1984, and November 25, 2008, 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; November 25, 2008, p. 37; November 27, 2008, p. 48.

[431] Standing Order 83(2). See, for example, Journals, February 23, 2005, pp. 474‑5; March 19, 2007, pp. 1111‑3; February 26, 2008, p. 473.

[432] Standing Order 84(2). See Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2919.

[433] Standing Order 40(2).

[434] Standing Order 81(11). This has never occurred.

[435] Prior to 1955, only one budget debate did not terminate with a decision by the House. The Twentieth Parliament dissolved on April 30, 1949, without votes being held on the subamendment, amendment or main motion.

[436] Journals, April 10, 1962, p. 344.

[437] Journals, April 21, 1966, p. 428; June 5, 1969, p. 1121.

[438] On May 8, 1974, following the subamendment being agreed to (Journals, pp. 175‑6), Prime Minister Trudeau sought a dissolution; the Twenty‑Ninth Parliament was dissolved the next day. On December 13, 1979, following the subamendment being agreed to (Journals, pp. 345‑6), Prime Minister Clark sought a dissolution; the Thirty‑First Parliament was dissolved the next day.

[439] Journals, February 28, 1991, pp. 2639‑40; March 4, 1991, pp. 2653‑4.

[440] Journals, April 28, 1993, pp. 2874‑5.

[441] Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 926.

[442] Standing Order 84(3).

[443] Standing Orders 43(1)(a) and (b) and 84(7). See Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451‑5; September 20, 2006, p. 404; October 20, 2006, p. 556; October 25, 2006, pp. 577‑9.

[444] Standing Order 85.

[445] On two occasions, a Member from the third opposition party has moved a subamendment at the end of his or her speech. See Journals, May 3, 2006, pp. 123‑4; March 20, 2007, p. 1116.

[446] See, for example, the debate on the budget presented on June 13, 1963.

[447] Amendments to the budget motion are rarely disallowed, the most recent example occurring in 1978 when a subamendment “modif[ied] the first proposition completely” (Debates, November 17, 1978, p. 1250). Other amendments deemed inadmissible include those dealing with matters before the House or already decided upon by the House (Journals, May 15, 1934, pp. 332‑3; July 1, 1942, pp. 454‑6) or one of its committees (Journals, May 7, 1934, pp. 311‑2) and those which are not relevant to the question on which the amendment is proposed (Journals, March 8, 1937, p. 208).

[448] Standing Order 84(4).

[449] Standing Order 84(5) and (6).

[450] Journals, April 23, 1970, p. 711; November 27, 1974, p. 150; July 4, 1975, p. 685; June 10, 1976, p. 1341; April 20, 1978, p. 668; November 24, 1978, p. 184.

[451] Journals, March 7, 1986, p. 1777.

[452] Journals, May 15, 1930, p. 318; April 11, 1933, p. 401; May 27, 1948, p. 485; March 31, 1949, p. 290 (Parliament was dissolved before the amendment came to a vote); December 21, 1960, p. 138; June 22, 1961, pp. 707‑8; May 7, 1974, p. 169; April 19, 1977, p. 680; June 29, 1982, p. 5101; February 16, 1984, p. 180.

[453] Journals, May 8, 1974, pp. 175‑6; December 13, 1979, pp. 345‑6.

Supply Procedures in Canada

The Public Business of Supply

Historical Perspective

The Continuing Order for Supply

General Debate Phase

Allotted Days

Designating an Allotted Day

Opposition Motions

Notice

Speaker’s Power to Select

Votable Motions

Proceedings on an Opposition Motion

Legislative Phase

Main Estimates

Interim Supply

Supplementary Estimates

Consideration of Estimates in Committee

Report to the House

Consideration of Main Estimates in Committee of the Whole

Concurrence in Estimates

The Supply Bill or Appropriation Act

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

See Also

Notes

Special Warrants in Canada

Governor General’s Special Warrants

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

See Also

Notes

Parliamentary Financial Procedures in Canada

Basic Components of Financial Operations

The Financial Cycle

Historical Perspective

Financial Procedure in Colonial Canada

Upper Canada

Lower Canada

The Province of Canada

Standing Orders (1867-1968)

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants

The Business of Ways and Means

The Budget

The Public Accounts of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada

Resources

See Also

Notes

Public Accounts of Canada

Standing Committee on Public Accounts

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The Royal Recommendation

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Business of Supply

Borrowing Authority

Governor General’s Special Warrants