Selected Decisions of Speaker Lucien Lamoureux 1966 – 1974
Precedence and Sequence / Miscellaneous
Authorizing bill; Appropriation Act
Journals pp. 94-5
Debates pp. 974-5
Background
During a procedural debate on the admissibility of a motion in amendment standing in the name of Mr. Baldwin (Peace River), proposed for the report stage of Bill C-124, an Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, 1971 (No. 1), Mr. Nielsen (Yukon) raised a caveat respecting the terminology of a clause in the bill. When Mr. Alexander (Hamilton West) rose to speak in support of this position, the Speaker suggested consideration of the matter be delayed until a decision on the motion in amendment had been made. Once this had been done and the motion for third reading of the bill had been moved, Mr. Alexander again raised the issue, this time as a point of order. He held that the funds required under the terms of the bill had not been "authorized" as suggested in one of its clauses. Since this was the case, he said, the House should not proceed with the third reading and passage of the bill. The Deputy Speaker heard arguments from Members before ruling.
Issue
Can the House proceed with third reading of a bill authorizing the expenditure of moneys before the supply bill containing the relevant estimate is adopted?
Decision
Yes. The House can proceed with third reading.
Reasons given by the Speaker
There are numerous examples of interdependent bills being considered concurrently by the House. Interrelated provisions can be found almost annually in the budgetary taxation bills. Only when substantial provisions of a bill or a related estimate were altered or amended so that one would no longer be consistent with the other, would it be necessary to resolve the difference at the Committee of the Whole or the report stage of the second bill. As an alternative approach, consideration of this bill and the item in the Supplementary Estimates taken in all its stages could be set aside. This would not only involve the approval of the estimate, but would also, in effect, mean amending a statute of Parliament through an item in the Estimates. "This procedure in the past has always been vigorously resisted by Members."
Sources cited
Journals, January 25, 1973, pp. 68-9.
Debates, July 30, 1958, pp. 2872-4; April 20, 1970, pp. 6047-8; January 25, 1973, p. 661.
May, 18th ed., p. 731.