Financial Procedures / Business of ways and means

Budget: announcements made outside the House

March 18, 2003

Debates, pp. 4368-9

On February 26, 2003, Loyola Hearn (St. John’s West) rose on a point of order. He charged John Manley (Minister of Finance) with failing to inform the House of changes to the Government’s budgetary policy since the presentation of the budget on February 18, 2003.^[1] Mr. Hearn argued that Jean Chrétien (Prime Minister) had made a statement outside the House that contradicted the budget statement with respect to Olympic funding and policy, and that if the Government had decided to alter the budget, the Minister should have informed the House. Mr. Hearn asked that any vote on the budget motion be preceded by a statement by a Minister which would inform the House of the Government’s changes to its budgetary policy.^[2] After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.

On March 18, 2003, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that there was no procedural requirement for the Minister of Finance to make a budget speech, or that such a speech be accompanied by supporting documentation. He added that, although the rules impose strict obligations with respect to financial legislation, these do not relate to how the Government sets its policy objectives. He concluded that the fact that the supporting documents were no longer completely accurate did not provide sufficient grounds on which to challenge the right of the House to continue considering the budget motion.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the hon. Member for St. John’s West on February 26, 2003, concerning a change in the budgetary policy of the Government. I would like to thank the hon. Member for St. John’s West for having drawn this matter to the attention of the Chair, as well as the hon. Government House Leader for his comments.

The hon. Member for St. John’s West referred to media reports of a statement made by the Prime Minister. The hon. Member asserted that the quotes attributed to the Prime Minister contradict the budgetary position of the Government as set out by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 18, 2003. The hon. Member points out that no formal notice of any alteration to the budget had been made in the House and, on this basis, he maintains that the Government cannot ask hon. Members to vote on the motion “That this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the Government”, which stands as ways and means Item No. 2 on the Order Paper. The hon. Member claims that the House cannot be asked to reach any decision on this motion until the Government has clarified its position and taken the appropriate steps formally to amend the budget.

The Chair appreciates the great seriousness surrounding any charge concerning budgetary matters. The Speaker has a special responsibility to ensure that the procedures and practices relating to financial procedures are respected and that the traditional privileges of the House in these matters are not violated.

It is perhaps useful to put in context House of Commons practice with regard to the budget. I should say that the Chair is well aware of the current controversy surrounding this question in the Ontario Legislative Assembly and I would not want these remarks to be construed as a comment on the situation at Queen’s Park. The Chair has no wish to embroil itself in matters arising in another jurisdiction.

Our rules here at the House of Commons make provision for the Minister of Finance to give a budget presentation, and the practices with regard to the presentation of the budget are well anchored in parliamentary practice. Still, our rules do not, strictly speaking, require that the Minister make a budget speech nor is there any procedural necessity for such a speech to be accompanied by supporting documentation. Both the budget speech and the tabling of background documents are, in that way, voluntary actions of the Government.

In the case before us, the hon. Member for St. John’s West takes issue with the apparent contradiction between a statement in the document entitled, “The Budget Plan 2003”, tabled by the hon. Minister of Finance on February 18, and statements made outside the House by the Prime Minister.

Specifically the document stated that:

—this budget will invest $10 million in the next two years for additional support to Canada’s elite athletes in the event that the 2010 Vancouver Winter Olympic bid is successful.

Media reports indicate that this condition would be lifted but no statement to that effect has been made in the House itself.

Neither the hon. Member for St. John’s West nor the media reports themselves suggest that this discrepancy represents an instance of the House being deliberately misled. The question is whether or not our procedure requires a statement in the House to correct or explain the discrepancy.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, at page 379, states:

A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.

The Government can alter its policies as it sees fit at any time. The obligations that our rules impose concerning financial legislation, while they are strict, do not relate to how the Government sets its policy objectives. That the supporting documents are no longer completely accurate is not sufficient grounds on which to challenge the right of the House to continue considering the budget motion. I must therefore rule that there has not been any breach of our rules or practices in this case.

I would also add a word with regard to the notices of ways and means tabled by the Minister of Finance on budget day. Standing Order 83(4) requires that any enabling budget legislation to be brought before the House must be based on the provisions set out in those motions as adopted. If the Government, as a result of a change in policy, wishes to propose legislation different from that which it had earlier intended, then it will have to file a new notice of ways and means. At present, however, the House does not appear to be faced with a need to insist on a new ways and means notice.

What the hon. Member for St. John’s West has drawn to the attention of the House is an apparent change in policy with regard to the terms under which the Government will invest in elite athletes.

Members who wish to seek clarification of the Government’s position on the funding of amateur athletes have a number of avenues open to them, notably, the budget debate and of course the oral question period. Meanwhile, I am ruling that there is no procedural requirement for the Government to table revised documents in the House reflecting its change in position.