Private Members’ Business / Financial Limitation

Establishment of first Order of Precedence: Speaker’s statement regarding royal recommendation; forty‑eight hours’ notice requirement for exchange

October 19, 2011

Debates, pp. 2220–1

On October 19, 2011, the Speaker made a statement regarding the management of Private Members’ Business. He explained that all legislation that results in a public expenditure, including a private Member’s bill, must be accompanied by a royal recommendation by a Minister of the Crown. However, he explained that a private Member’s bill requiring a royal recommendation may be introduced in the House and considered up until third reading, at which time, if no royal recommendation has been provided, the Speaker must then decline to put the question. In accordance with practice, the Speaker identified three bills on the Order of Precedence which at first glance appeared to infringe the financial prerogative of the Crown. He then invited Members to make statements in relation to his observation at the earliest opportunity.

The Speaker added that the first Member on the Order of Precedence, Russ Hiebert (South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale), whose Bill C-317 was subject to a point of order,^[1] had given notice that he would be unable to move his motion should Private Members’ Business begin the following day. However, since no exchange can be requested prior to the tabling of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on votable items, only this Member was prevented from organizing an exchange that would meet the 48-hours’ notice required. Thus, using the powers accorded to him by Standing Order 94(1)(a),^[2] the Speaker allowed an exchange to proceed without the usual notice requirement. He also invited the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the matter.

Statement of the Chair

The Speaker: Order, please. The House will soon begin Private Members’ Business for the first time in this Parliament. I would, therefore, like to make a brief statement regarding the management of Private Members’ Business.

I want to remind all hon. Members about the procedures governing Private Members’ Business and the responsibilities of the Chair in the management of this process.

As Members know, certain constitutional procedural realities constrain the Speaker and Members insofar as legislation is concerned. One such procedural principle concerns whether or not a private Member’s bill requires a royal recommendation. The Speaker has underscored this principle in a number of statements over the course of preceding parliaments.

As noted on page 831 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition:

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 requirement for a royal recommendation is grounded in constitutional principles found in the Constitution Act, 1867. The language of section 54 of that Act is echoed in Standing Order 79(1),^[3] which reads:

This House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue, or of any tax or impost, to any purpose that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General in the session in which such vote, resolution, address or bill is proposed.

Any bill that authorizes the spending of public funds for a new and distinct purpose or effects an appropriation of public funds must be accompanied by a message from the Governor General recommending the expenditure to the House. This message, known formally as the “royal recommendation”, can only be transmitted to the House by a Minister of the Crown.

A private Member’s bill that requires a royal recommendation may, however, be introduced and considered right up until third reading, on the assumption that a royal recommendation will be provided by a Minister. If none is produced by the conclusion of the third reading stage, the Speaker is required to decline to put the question on third reading.

Following the establishment or the replenishment of the order of precedence, the Chair has developed a practice of reviewing items so that the House can be alerted to bills which, at first glance, appear to impinge on the financial prerogative of the Crown. The aim of this practice is to allow Members the opportunity to intervene in a timely fashion to present their views about the need for those bills to be accompanied by a royal recommendation.

Accordingly, following the establishment of the Order of Precedence on October 5, 2011, I wish to draw the attention of the House to three bills that give the Chair some concern as to the spending provisions they contemplate. These are Bill C-215, An Act to amend the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (deletion of deduction from annuity), standing in the name of the Member for Sackville—Eastern Shore.

There is also Bill C-291, An Act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (waiting period and maximum special benefits), standing in the name of the Member for Bourassa.

The third bill is Bill C-308, An Act respecting a Commission of Inquiry into the development and implementation of a national fishery rebuilding strategy for fish stocks off the coast of Newfoundland and Labrador, standing in the name of the Member for St. John’s South—Mount Pearl.

I would encourage hon. Members who would like to make arguments regarding the requirement of a royal recommendation for any of these bills, or with regard to any other bills now on the order of precedence, to do so at an early opportunity.

In addition, Members are likely aware that a point of order was raised yesterday by the Member for Windsor—Tecumseh regarding Bill C-317, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (labour organizations), standing in the name of the Member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale, arguing that this Bill should have been preceded by a ways and means motion. As Members know, limitations exist on the manner in which taxation measures may be amended in the absence of an accompanying ways and means motion. If a bill that requires a ways and means motion has not been preceded by one, our rules do not permit it to remain on the Order Paper.

As I stated in the House last night, should any other Members wish to provide additional information regarding Bill C-317, they are encouraged to raise them without unnecessary delay, as the Chair has taken note of the matter and would like to ensure the question is resolved as quickly as possible.

Finally, I should inform Members that earlier today I received written notice from the hon. Member for South Surrey—White Rock—Cloverdale that he would be unable to move his motion should Private Members’ Business begin tomorrow.

As Members well know, Private Members’ Business is set to start 24 hours following the presentation of the report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs indicating those items which remain votable, and no exchange can be requested prior to the tabling of the said report.

The report was indeed tabled earlier today, and the Member now finds himself in the unforeseen situation of not being able to provide the 48 hours’ notice required to proceed with an exchange.

In this particular case, and considering my role regarding the orderly and timely conduct of Private Members’ Business pursuant to Standing Order 94(1)(a),^[4] I will allow the exchange to proceed without the usual notice requirement.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs may wish to examine this matter and consider whether our practices in relation to the application of Standing Orders 94(1)(a) and 94(2)(a)^[5] continue to serve the House in an effective manner. As your Speaker, I see no reason why the Member occupying the first position on the Order of Precedence would not be afforded an opportunity to make an exchange, while all other Members can do so.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.

Editor’s Note

See a ruling concerning Bill C-317.

Postscript

The notice requirement having been waived, Mr. Hiebert proceeded with an exchange in the Order of Precedence such that Bill C-311, An Act to amend the Importation of Intoxicating Liquors Act (interprovincial importation of wine for personal use) in the name of Dan Albas (Okanagan—Coquihalla), was debated at second reading the following day.

During the Second Session of the Forty-First Parliament, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended in its Twenty-Eighth Report that Standing Order 94(1)(a)^[6] be amended so that, at the beginning of a Parliament, Private Members’ Hour begin no earlier than 48 hours after the presentation in the House of its report on votable items. The Report was concurred in by the House on February 4, 2015, and the changes to the Standing Orders took effect at the beginning of the Forty-Second Parliament.^[7]