Routine Proceedings / Motions

Committee report

Journals pp. 257-8

Debates pp. 3142-3

Background

On April 4, the Speaker made reference to certain procedural difficulties arising from the report of the Special Committee on Trends in Food Prices which had been presented two days before. In particular, the Speaker questioned the form of a specific recommendation which, he felt, was too direct and was thus a departure from standard practice. When the motion for concurrence in the report was moved on April 10, Mr. MacEachen (President of the Privy Council) raised the same issue as a point of order. He proposed that the language of the recommendation be changed to accord with the standard formula and thus preserve the financial initiative of the Government. After allowing some comments from the opposition House Leaders, the Speaker ruled.

Issue

Should committee report recommendations urging the expenditure of funds be phrased to preserve the financial initiative of the Crown?

Decision

Yes. Since this issue, however, touches only one aspect of the report and because there is an agreement among the parties for its consideration, the motion for concurrence will be put.

Reasons given by the Speaker

It is a fundamental principle of the parliamentary system that financial initiative belongs to the Crown. A long-established practice of this House is that committee recommendations requiring expenditure of money include the traditional words that the Government give consideration to the advisability of spending moneys. There is only one recent precedent cited contrary to this practice, but on that occasion the report was concurred in by unanimous consent.

Sources cited

Journals, June 23, 1970, p. 1106.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 219, c. 260(1).

References

Debates, April 4, 1973, p. 2948; April 10, 1973, pp. 3130-1, pp. 3140-2.