Questions Related to Content of Bills / Infringing on Financial Initiative of the Crown

Infringing on financial initiative of the Crown

Journals p. 493

Debates pp. 5096-7

Background

During private Members' hour, the Deputy Speaker questioned the acceptability of allowing the second reading of Bill C-34, an Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan (Pension Index), standing in the name of Mr. Macquarrie (Hillsborough). The Deputy Speaker expressed concern that the bill contained financial provisions that seemed to be in conflict with the Standing Orders related to imposing a charge or impost, and did not have the necessary Royal Recommendation. The Chair invited comments from Members. Mr. Macquarrie maintained that the pension plan was not funded by public revenue, but from the contributions of "the would-be pension recipients".

Issue

Can a private Member's bill that appropriates a part of the revenue obtained by way of an impost be read a second time if it does not have a Royal Recommendation?

Decision

No. A Royal Recommendation is an indispensable requirement in such cases.

Reasons given by the Deputy Speaker

Although the Standing Order refers specifically to imposts, without defining what these might be, it is clear that the rules and practices of the House concerning money bills present an insuperable barrier to the proposed bill.

Sources cited

Standing Order 62.

Debates, October 20, 1970, pp. 385-6.

Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 10, c. 8.

References

Debates, April 20, 1971, pp. 5093-6.