Financial Procedures / Supply

November 25, 1997

Debates, pp. 2208-9

On November 24, 1997, John Williams (St. Albert) rose on a point of order concerning the Main Estimates tabled in the House on Wednesday, October 1, 1997.^[1] Mr. Williams argued that five of the items sought to bypass the legislative process because certain bills related thereto were now before the House or had died on the Order Paper at the dissolution of the 35th Parliament. In the case of three other items, he claimed, there was no legislative authority at all. He considered that this represented a contempt of the House and he asked that the Chair rule these items out of order. After hearing interventions from other members, the Speaker declared that he would consider the information provided and the opinions of both sides and that he would return to the House as soon as possible.^[2] On November 25, 1997, Marcel Massé (President of the Treasury Board) rose on a point of order to provide additional information concerning the point of order. Following further interventions, the Speaker announced that it was his intention to give a ruling later that day before the votes on the items took place.^[3]

On November 25, 1997, before the taking of the recorded divisions on the Main Estimates, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared the five items to be in order, stating that they did not attempt to amend existing statutes or seek to obtain authority which should be sought through legislation.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Colleagues, I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the honourable member for St. Albert on Monday, November 24, 1997. At that time the honourable member raised a point of order relating to the following items in the Estimates: vote 1, Policy and Farm Programs under Agriculture; vote 15, Convention Refugee Determination Division under Immigration; vote 1, Health, Environment and Safety from Environmental Hazards under Environment; vote 5, Lands and Trust Services under Indian. Affairs; vote 1, Policy and Programs and Divestitures under Transport; vote 35, International Trade Tribunal under Trade; vote 15, Supply and Services under Public Works; vote 40, Canada Information Office under Heritage.

Supported by the honourable member for Langley—Abbotsford, the honourable member argued that the first five items seek to bypass the legislative process because certain bills related thereto are now before the House or died on the Order Paper in the 35th Parliament. As to the remaining three, he claimed there was no legislative authority at all.

This morning the honourable President of the Treasury Board returned to the House and responded with his explanation of the eight items complained of.

Before I go into the details of my review of this matter, might I suggest with all respect to the honourable member, as have suggested several Speakers before me, that points of order on estimates are usually very serious and almost always very complex. To leave these matters to the eve of the final decision by the House puts the Chair in a difficult position to say the least, if intelligent consideration is to be given to such procedural issues. In the absence of an appropriate procedure to challenge specific items in the House, honourable members should bring these matters forward as soon as they are aware of difficulties.

In presenting his arguments the honourable member for St. Albert made abundant reference to past rulings by Speakers Lamoureux, Jerome and Sauvé. Over the last several hours I have refreshed my memory and reviewed these rulings and in particular Speaker Jerome’s ruling of March 22, 1977,^[4] and Speaker Sauvé’s ruling of June 12, 1981.^[5]

The rulings make it clear that the supply procedure ought not to be used to bypass the normal or regular legislative process. In other words, items in the estimates must not attempt to amend existing statutes or be used to obtain authority which normally would be sought through proper legislation.

In order to better understand what on these occasions was the basis on which certain provisions of the estimates were challenged, let me quote two examples of the exact wording used in the estimates as tabled in the House.

The first example relates to Industry, Trade and Commerce, vote 77d of the Supplementary Estimates (D) for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1977, as referred to in Speaker Jerome’s ruling of March 22, 1977. The description of the vote was as follows:

Vote 77d—Export Development

(a) To increase from $750,000,000 to $2,500,000,000 the amount set out in Section 26 of the Export Development Act; and

(b) To increase from $750,000,000 to $1,000,000,000 the amount set out in Section 28 of the Export Development Act.

The second example concerns Energy, Mines and Resources, vote 45 of the Main Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 1982, as referred to in Speaker Sauvé’s ruling of June 12, 1981. Again the description of the vote was as follows:

Vote 45—Canada Oil Substitution Program—Payments, in accordance with regulations made by the Governor in Council and payments pursuant to agreements with a province or a person in respect of—

It was based on the wordings as they appeared in the estimates that both examples were ruled out of order.

Having gone back to the basis for the rulings referred to by the honourable member for St. Albert, I then examined the wording used to describe the eight votes which he challenged in his point of order.

In the first five votes grouped by the honourable member, that is, vote 1, Agriculture; vote 15, Immigration; vote 1, Environment; vote 5, Indian Affairs; and vote 1, Transport, nowhere could I find in the wording an attempt to bypass the legislative process by seeking approval for funds which have not yet received legislative authority. I therefore cannot agree with the honourable member’s conclusions.

In his second group the honourable member included vote 35, Canadian International Trade Tribunal; vote 15, Supply and Services Program; and vote 40, Canada Information Office. Again in examining the wording of these three votes, I cannot conclude that an attempt is being made to amend legislation through the use of an appropriation act.

I want to refer to arguments that were made yesterday and again today that the House is being asked to grant supply before it legislates. May I respectfully remind honourable members that when granting funds through the adoption of an appropriation act, the House is in fact legislating. Again let me repeat that what was objected to in the past and what different Speakers have ruled out of order were attempts to amend existing acts or legislate new programs as part of a legislative measure granting supply.

This morning the honourable member for St. Albert in response to the honourable President of the Treasury Board further argued that the information provided to Parliament in the part IIIs of the estimates requires improvement. The honourable minister himself indeed agreed with such an objective. I should remind the House that part III expenditure plans, if imperfect, are a recent innovation by the government. The content of most expenditure plans goes beyond the next fiscal year and covers several supply cycles. That some projections contained therein are at variance with stated past, present or future government policies is in my view understandable. Things change. Events affect plans. That anticipated legislation or bills now on the Order Paper or bills outstanding at the dissolution of the 35th Parliament be referred to in these documents in no way impacts on the supply proceedings or the legislative proceedings of the House.

What is important and paramount is the accuracy of the votable items reflected in part II of the estimates. Once concurred in, the estimates in part II become the schedule to the supply bill which itself becomes the appropriation act granting authority to spend to the government. This authority must be renewed on an annual basis. As was stated this morning by the honourable President of the Treasury Board, the statutory items are included in the part II for information only so that the House can get the whole picture on spending.

In his reply, this morning the President of the Treasury Board quoted part of a paragraph in the preface of part II of the 1997-98 Estimates. I will quote more extensively from page 1 to 5 under the heading “Changes in the 1997-98 Estimates”:

The purpose of this section is twofold. As in previous years, it will describe changes in Vote, Program and other presentations in order to permit the reconciliation of the 1996-97 Main Estimates with the 1997-98 Main Estimates. In addition, this section will detail those Votes that contain specific authority that differs from that included in the previous year’s Main Estimates as well as new expenditure authorities appearing for the first time. In light of the House of Commons Speaker’s rulings in 1981, the government has made a commitment that the only legislation that will be amended through the estimates process, other than cases specifically authorized by statute, will be previous Appropriation Acts.

I used this statement, which is based on Speaker’s rulings made in 1981, to review the votes to which the honourable member for St. Albert objected. In none of them was I able to find any violation of the principles established by my predecessors.

Consequently, the said votes are in order and the House can now proceed with the taking of the recorded divisions.

P0603-e

36-1

1997-11-25