Financial Procedures / Supply

Appropriations Bill; requirement for Royal Recommendation if Bill contains Governor General's Special Warrants issued during previous session

May 4, 1989

Debates, p. 1346

On May 4, 1989, immediately following the reading of the motion for second reading and referral to Committee of the Whole of Bill C-14, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March. 1990. Mr. Peter Milliken (Kingston and the Islands) rose on a point of order to argue that the Bill should be accompanied by a Royal Recommendation because it included Special Warrants issued during the previous session, contrary to the provisions of section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867. and Standing Order 79. Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker delivered his decision immediately. It is reproduced in part below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: [...] The essential issue that the Member for(Kingston and the Islands) puts forward raises the question: Does a supply Bill, because it contains the warrants issued in the previous session, require a Royal Recommendation? That is in effect the issue. The honourable Member has cited Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 and Standing Order 79. The Chair concedes that Standing Order 79 requires that a Royal Recommendation be attached to any Bill for appropriation of any part of the public revenue.

On the present case in the present Bill, Clause 3 contains the amounts that were appropriated by warrants prior to April 1. They are included in the Bill by virtue of Section 30(4) of the Financial Administration Act.

I want to quote that Act because it is important. Subsection 4 reads, in English:

Where a special warrant has been issued pursuant to this section, the amounts appropriated thereby shall be deemed to be included in and not to be in addition to the amounts appropriated by the Act of Parliament enacted next thereafter for granting to Her Majesty sums of money to defray expenses of the public service of Canada for a fiscal year.

If there is any doubt as to what that means, it reads, in French:

Les montants affectés par mandat spécial sont réputés être des avances; ifs font partie des montants affectés par la première loi de crédits votée par le Parlement par la suite et ne s’y ajoutent pas.

We are bound by the plain wording of the Financial Administration Act. I have to conclude that the warrants have already received Her Excellency's approval and they were tabled in the House. They are now before the House because they are required to be so by the statute to which I have just referred and not as a requirement of the Standing Orders.

I repeat to the honourable Member for(Kingston and the Islands) that the point he is pursuing, as I said with tenacity and diligence, is in itself an important point. However, as I said earlier this afternoon, it is not within the prerogative of the Chair to resolve what may clearly be a legitimate grievance. It will have to be settled in some other place and in some other way.

I regret to have to inform the honourable Member that his point of order cannot be sustained. As I said earlier today, he may have a grievance and that is a matter for the whole House to deal with.

F0604-e

34-2

1989-05-04