Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Legislative phase: main estimates; form of the main estimates and admissibility of a vote

May 29, 2018

Debates, pp. 19778–9

On May 25, 2018, Daniel Blaikie (Elmwood—Transcona) rose on a point of order regarding the form of the Main Estimates 2018-19, more specifically, Treasury Board vote 40. According to Mr. Blaikie, this vote, also referred to as the “budget implementation vote”, did not provide sufficient information regarding the government’s spending plans. He also argued that the breakdown of the government’s proposed spending should have been referenced in the estimates themselves rather than in an annex to the budget documents. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] Later in the sitting, Pierre Poilievre (Carleton) and Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar) rose on a point of order with respect to the point of order raised earlier on the same subject. Mr. Blaikie also spoke again on the matter. After listening at length to the members on the point of order, the Speaker referred to the rule providing discretion to the Speaker to determine when he has heard enough in terms of arguments to rule on a particular matter. He also reminded that a ruling of the Chair cannot be challenged except through a motion. He reiterated that he had taken the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On May 29, 2018, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded hon. members of the budget process and the mandate given to committees in the study of the estimates. He explained that his role in finding irregularities with items in the estimates was limited to procedural matters and that Mr. Blaikie’s remarks were, rather, related to a policy disagreement. He stated that it was up to the government to determine the form its request for funds would take and that the role of the Speaker was to ensure compliance with the supply process. The Speaker found that there were no grounds to rule vote 40 out of order.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on May 25, 2018, by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona regarding the form of the main estimates 2018-19.

The hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona was concerned with vote 40 under Treasury Board Secretariat, also referred to as the budget implementation vote. That vote, in the amount of $7.04 billion, gives Treasury Board the authority to supplement other appropriations in support of initiatives announced in the budget of February 27, 2018.

The hon. member contended that this vote was not in the proper form, in that it failed to provide sufficient information regarding the government’s spending plans. He pointed out that many of the initiatives which vote 40 might fund are not addressed in the various departmental plans, which are considered part III of the estimates. He also felt that it was improper that the breakdown of the proposed spending is referenced in an annex to the budget documents rather than in the estimates themselves.

The hon. opposition House leader, who supported the point of order raised by the member for Elmwood—Transcona, argued that, when the Standing Orders were amended to delay the tabling of the main estimates, it was with the expectation of receiving more complete and accurate information. She did not feel that was the case with vote 40 and feared that its wording would allow the government to allocate funds without sufficient scrutiny by Parliament.

When the matter was raised, I expressed concern about whether the timing of the point of order was appropriate. I recognize that questions relating to the estimates are occasionally complex, and that my predecessors have sometimes agreed to hear arguments early to allow sufficient time to properly consider them. While the estimates are still before committee at this time, I am prepared to rule on the point of order now.

When the government presents estimates to the House, each vote contains an amount of money and a destination, which describes the purpose for which the money will be used. In some cases, the description is quite detailed and in other cases it can be rather general. That said, the estimates are referred to committee specifically to allow members to study them in further detail, which can involve calling witnesses or asking for further information regarding the government’s plans. While committees have no power to change the destination of the spending, as this would violate the crown’s right to initiate spending requests, they do have the power to reduce or even reject the amount of a vote if they are not satisfied with the information provided.

The authority of the Speaker to intervene as sought by the hon. member for Elmwood—Transcona is more limited than he might wish or believe. In fact, when past Speakers have found procedural irregularities with items in the estimates, these have generally been cases where the funds requested depended on an authority that required supporting legislation.

In the present case, the hon. member is asking the Speaker to rule vote 40 out of order on the basis that it does not contain sufficient information about the proposed spending. This is not so much a procedural issue on which the Speaker can rule, but rather a policy disagreement with the government over the way it has chosen to request these funds.

The member’s objection to vote 40 seems to mainly be that it is a central fund granted to Treasury Board, which has the authority to then allocate monies to various other departments.

I concede that the use of a budget implementation vote is unusual and I can understand why members may have preferred that these funds be requested in a different manner, under each of the specific departments, for example. That said, I cannot conclude that proceeding in the manner provided for in vote 40 is out of order. There are ample precedents of monies being granted to a central fund. The most well-known of these is vote 5 under Treasury Board for government contingencies.

Ultimately, the government determines the form its request for funds will take. While the government does have a responsibility to provide Parliament with sufficient information to allow it to make an informed decision, I do not believe it is for the Speaker to determine if the explanation of the particular request is sufficiently detailed or if the destination is the appropriate one. These are matters for members to consider when studying and voting on the estimates.

The Speaker’s role is limited to determining if the request for funds is in a form that does not require any separate legislative authorization, and if it respects the limits of the supply process. With that in mind, there are no grounds for the Chair to rule vote 40 out of order.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

Postscript

Following question period on Friday, May 25, 2018, Mr. Blaikie rose on a question of privilege regarding the right of members to raise points of order and to detail the arguments.^[3] In his decision of June 4, 2018, the Speaker found that, once satisfied that sufficient information has been given, the Chair may inform the member accordingly and then rule on the matter or take it under advisement.^[4] (Editor’s Note: The ruling can be found on page 120.)