Infringing on financial initiative of the Crown

<div class="DecisionMain" role="main"> <p class="decision-chapter">Questions Related to Content of Bills / Infringing on Financial Initiative of the Crown</p> <p class="d-DecisionDate"> <time>February 6, 1973</time> </p> <p class="e-Debates">Journals <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.HOC_2901_119_01/92?r=0&amp;s=1">pp. 97-8</a></p> <p class="e-Debates">Debates <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_01/1020?r=0&amp;s=1">p. 1018</a></p> <div> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Background</h2> </div> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">At the beginning of private Members' hour, when Bill C-6, an Act to amend the National Housing Act, was presented for second reading, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger) reminded the House of the reservations previously expressed by the Speaker on January 18, concerning the inclusion of financial provisions in several private Members' bills. The Acting Speaker then invited comments from Mr. Alexander (Hamilton West), who was sponsoring Bill C-6. He argued that the money clause of the bill was a "negation of an appropriation"; that "expenditures mentioned are to be provided only then, and as, moneys . . . are made available out of the public revenue by Parliament in accordance with law"; and that the bill sought only to increase the rate of forgiveness of a loan to a municipality.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Issue</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Does the bill infringe on the financial prerogatives of the Crown?</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Decision</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Yes, and is therefore out of order.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Reasons given by the Acting Speaker</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">The bill is, in effect, a money bill. Clause 1 would "extend availability of loans for a further purpose"; Clause 2 would "provide for an easing of terms and restrictions governing loans"; and Clause 3 would provide for "appropriation of funds by Parliament for the purposes of the bill and eventual elimination of limits on disbursements out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, allowing for loans of unlimited amounts". Such provisions prevent the bill from proceeding without the benefit of a Royal Recommendation.</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">Sources cited</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Standing Order 62(1).</p> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 206-7, c. 246(1); p. 214, c. 249; p. 218, c. 256(1).</p> <h2 class="f-ContextResoEdNotePostscriptTitle">References</h2> <p class="g-contextResoEdNotePostscript">Debates, January 18, 1973, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_01/446">p. 444</a>; February 6, 1973, <a href="https://parl.canadiana.ca/view/oop.debates_HOC2901_01/1017">pp. 1015-8</a>.</p> </div>