Financial Procedures / Business of Supply

Legislative phase: main estimates; content brought into question

March 22, 2004

Debates, pp. 1512-4

On March 10, 2004, Loyola Hearn (St. John’s West) rose on a question of privilege with respect to the content of the Main Estimates for 2004-05. Mr. Hearn argued that the Main Estimates which had been tabled by the Government were fraudulent and misled the House because they did not reflect the restructuring of certain departments and agencies announced in December 2003 nor the Government’s real spending plans for the coming year. Mr. Hearn stated that committees would therefore be unable to assess accurately the Government’s request for funds. He added that Reg Alcock (President of the Treasury Board and Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board) had announced in a press release that those changes would be reflected in revised Estimates to be tabled later. He emphasized that the business of supply was at the very core of responsible Government and that the House was entitled to take the Estimates at face value. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on March 22, 2004. He began by setting out two requirements placed on the Government with respect to the estimates: to table the main estimates by March 1 each year; and to request funds only for programs and activities that have already received parliamentary approval. Pointing out that the legislation required to implement the Government reorganization announced in December was not yet before the House, the Speaker stated that it would be unacceptable for those potential changes to be anticipated in the main estimates. He reminded the House that the main estimates were just that, estimates reflecting the existing structure of the Government at the time they are presented. He affirmed, however, that any changes to the amounts or destinations of funds which may be required over the course of a fiscal year must be submitted to the House for approval. He concluded that the Main Estimates 2004-05 respected the requirements of the Standing Orders and that they conformed to what had been the practice of the House during previous reorganization exercises. Accordingly, he ruled there was no breach of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 10 by the hon. Member for St. John’s West concerning the format of the Main Estimates for 2004-05.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for St. John’s West for having raised this important matter and I would also like to thank the hon. President of the Treasury Board, the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough and the hon. Member for Yorkton–Melville for their contributions on this point.

In raising the form in which the Main Estimates 2004-05 were tabled in the House, the hon. Member for St. John’s West asserted that by its own [admission]^[2] the Government had tabled estimates which did not represent its real spending plans for the coming fiscal year. He made reference to a media release issued on February 24, 2004 which stated:

Due to the extent of the machinery of government changes announced in December 2003, it is the intention of the government to table a revised set of main estimates later during the 2004-05 fiscal year. This will allow new and restructured organizations sufficient time to finalize resource discussions as well as to develop their plans and priorities in time for Parliament to consider appropriation bills to authorize final spending. At the same time, it will allow the government to seek additional spending authority for expenditures that were not sufficiently known in time for the main estimates and which are normally sought from Parliament through supplementary estimates later during the fiscal year.

In the view of the Member for St. John’s West, these statements represent an admission by the Government that the Main Estimates, tabled on February 24, 2004, do not reflect the Government’s real spending plans and hence are invalid. He claimed, therefore, that committees to which the Estimates have been referred will be unable accurately to assess the Government’s request for funds and cannot properly carry out what all Members recognize as one of their most fundamental duties.

The President of [the] Treasury Board pointed out that the Government has an obligation under the Standing Orders to present the main estimates to the House by no later than March 1 each year. This obligation is set out in Standing Order 81(4) which reads:

In every session the main estimates to cover the incoming fiscal year for every department of government shall be deemed referred to standing committees on or before March 1 of the then expiring fiscal year. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than May 31 of the then current fiscal year.

He indicated that the Main Estimates were tabled in their current form in order to comply with that requirement in the Standing Orders. He also stated that, in addition to presenting the Main Estimates in their current form, the Government had also provided additional information concerning its reorganization plans and its intention to present revised spending Estimates following legislative approval of that reorganization.

The hon. Member for Yorkton–Melville pointed out that Standing Orders 81(4)(a) and (b) give the Leader of the Official Opposition the responsibility both for selecting a set of estimates to receive extended study in committee and, in consultation with the other opposition Leaders, to designate two sets of estimates for consideration in Committee of the Whole. He indicated that it would be difficult for the Leader of the Opposition to carry out these responsibilities if he were forced to base his decisions on estimates that are only provisional.

When this matter was raised, I undertook to examine the records of the House in order to ascertain what our practice had been during previous Government reorganizations. I have done that and will outline for the House the results of my inquiries. First, however, I think it may be useful to set out two facts concerning our procedures with respect to the study of estimates.

First, as the President of the Treasury Board has pointed out, the requirement that the main estimates be tabled by March 1 each year is an obligation placed on the Government by the House. There is an additional requirement that the Government may request funds only for programs and activities that have already received parliamentary approval. It may not present in the estimates, requests for departments, agencies or activities which have not yet been granted the appropriate legislative authority by Parliament. Mr. Speaker Jerome, in a ruling given on this point, stated, and I quote from the Journals of March 22, 1977, page 607:

—(I)t is my view that the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation;…

The President of [the] Treasury Board has indicated that the Government intends to introduce legislation related to the division of assets and responsibilities among departments. No such legislation is yet before the House and the House has therefore not had the opportunity either to approve or reject the Government’s proposals. It would be unacceptable for those potential charges to be anticipated in the main estimates now before committees of the House.

The second point I wish to make is perhaps elementary, but it is pertinent to the issue before us. The main spending estimates for a given fiscal year are just that: estimates. Our rules recognize this fact by explicitly providing for the tabling and consideration of supplementary estimates throughout the fiscal year.

All hon. Members understand that it is impossible to predict months in advance the exact amounts and destination of all Government expenditures during the year to come. Nor would the House wish to deprive the Government of the flexibility it may require to respond in the best interests of Canadians to emerging circumstances. At the same time, any changes to the amounts or the destination of funds which may be required over the course of the fiscal year must be submitted to the House for its approval.

I would now like to turn briefly to past practice with respect to changes to Government organization. In 1983 the Government introduced legislation, the Government Organization Act, 1983, which had as part of its purpose to replace the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce with the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion.

The Main Estimates tabled on February 22, 1983, and I refer to the Journals of that same date, at page 5628, contained votes under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. Although the Government introduced legislation to replace that department on May 5, and that was Bill C-152, the Government Organization Act, 1983, the House nevertheless approved the Main Estimates without reference to the new department on June 14, 1983. I refer the hon. Member to the Journals for that same date, at pages 6008 to 6028.

In another case, in 1978, as part of its reorganization, the Government sought legislative approval for the creation of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. In that instance, the Government presented legislation to reorganize Government departments on December 20, 1978, and that was Bill C-35, the Government Organization Act, 1979. I refer to the Journals of that same date, at page 274. I think hon. Members will agree that the tabling of such a bill represents a clear intention to modify the administrative structure of the Government.

Nevertheless, the Main Estimates for 1979-80, tabled two months later on February 19, 1979, contained no reference to a Department of Fisheries and Oceans. The Estimates for fisheries programs remained under the Department of the Environment, which continued to be responsible for them until the Government Reorganization Act, 1979 came into force.

My examination of the records of the House found no deviation from this practice. The main estimates reflect the existing structure of Government at the time that they are presented to the House.

I must conclude then, that the form of the Main Estimates 2004-05 not only respects the requirement of the Standing Orders and the principles set out by Mr. Speaker Jerome, but also conforms with what has been the practice of the House during previous reorganization exercises.

I therefore rule that there does not exist a prima facie breach of privilege in the present case.

I would like once again to thank the hon. Member for St. John’s West for raising this matter. Given the renewed importance that the scrutiny of the estimates has taken on both sides of the House, his close attention to questions of this kind is of benefit to all hon. Members.