Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order with regard to several items contained in the supplementary estimates (B) for 2001-02. I am rising at this time because in Marleau and Montpetit, at pages 734 and 735, it states:
—Members raise questions about the procedural acceptability of Estimates as early as possible so that the Chair has time to give “intelligent” consideration to these questions.
Speaker Jerome suggested that this take place on the next to last allotted day of a supply period, which is today.
On page 125 of the supplementary estimates (B) for 2001-02 there are a number of votes listed under the Department of Public Works and Government Services. I am referring specifically to votes 6b, 7b, 8b and 9b, which are all one dollar items.
On page 733 of Marleau and Montpetit there is a significant amount of information on one dollar items. It states:
Dollar items may be used to transfer funds from one program to another; to write-off debts; to adjust loan guarantees; to authorize grants; or to amend previous appropriation acts.
Marleau and Montpetit continues to state on the same page:
The inclusion of one dollar items in the Estimates also gave rise to the issue of using Estimates to “legislate” (i.e., Estimates going beyond simply appropriating funds and attempting to obtain new legislative authority which would otherwise require separate enabling legislation through the regular legislative process, outside the Supply procedure).
Continuing on page 735, Marleau and Montpetit states:
The Chair has maintained that Estimates with a direct and specific legislative intent...should come to the House by way of an amending bill.
I would like to quote Speaker Jerome who, on March 22, 1977, ruled:
—a supply item in my opinion ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.
Indeed, Speaker Jerome ruled an item that sought to extend and exceed a sum of money to be paid out according to the provisions of a statute was out of order.
Let us now examine the items I mentioned earlier. I will first deal with Department of Public Works and Government Services vote 6b of the Supplementary Estimates currently before the House.
Vote 6b for the optional services revolving fund in the amount of $1 states:
—in accordance with section 12 of the Revolving Fund Act R.S.C. 1985, c. R-8, to amend subsection 5.5(3) of the Act by reducing from $75,000,000 to $35,000,000, effective March 31, 2002, the amount by which the aggregate of expenditures made for the purpose of the fund may exceed the revenues.
Let me first quote subsection 5.5(3) of the Revolving Funds Act:
The aggregate of expenditures made under subsection (1) shall not at any time exceed by more than two hundred million dollars the revenues received in respect of the purposes mentioned in that subsection.
I believe I have the most recent copy of the Revolving Funds Act taken from the consolidated statutes and regulations on the Department of Justice's website, and according to the website, last updated on August 21, 2001.
Mr. Speaker, you will note the discrepancy of amending the supplementary estimates (B) from $75 million down to $35 million effective March 31, 2002 when it appears that the statute currently reads $200 million. I fail to see how one can amend a number that does not exist in the statute. Therefore, for that reason, vote 6b should be struck from the supplementary estimates.
Let me also quote section 12 of the Revolving Funds Act. It states:
The provisions of this Act may be amended or repealed by an appropriation act.
I repeat again from Marleau and Montpetit, which states that Speaker Jerome ruled an item that sought to extend and exceed a sum of money to be paid out according to the provisions of a statute was out of order.
There is a long parliamentary tradition which states that supplementary estimates cannot be used to amend an appropriations act. Yet section 12 of the Revolving Funds Act states that it may be amended by using an appropriation act. Clearly, we have a conundrum where the House of Commons reserves to itself only approving money through the appropriations act yet legislation says that a bill can be amended through the appropriations act.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I ask that you rule on this issue with sufficient rationale provided because no doubt the ruling I am requesting will be used as a precedent from this point forward.
It is clear that vote 6b of the Department of Public Works and Government Services seeks to amend already existing legislation by way of a supply bill. The government should seek this legislative authority by amending the legislation already in place but not with a supply bill, as indicated by your predecessors in the chair.
In Speaker Jerome's ruling of March 22, 1977, he stated that it was his 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 appropriations act.
Today, we have an instance where a supply bill is being used to amend legislation. No one is disputing that point but the question is, is it appropriate for the legislation to contain a clause which allows it to be amended by an appropriations act?
The same rationale applies to votes 7b, 8b and 9b of the Department of Public Works and Government Services.
Mr. Speaker, this might seem to be a trivial matter to the government across the way but, as you know, I maintain an active interest in assuring that the supply process is properly carried out. Indeed, your ruling of November 22, 2001 on the matter of Canada Foundation for Sustainable Development Technology was a clarion call that indicated that the government cannot take parliament for granted and break the rules when it sees fit.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I would ask that you give serious deliberation to the conflict between parliamentary procedure, parliamentary tradition and parliamentary supremacy on one hand and a piece of legislation on the other hand.
I do hope, Mr. Speaker, that you will uphold the supremacy of parliament and rule Department of Public Works and Government Services votes 6b, 7b , 8b and 9b of the supplementary estimates (B) for 2001-02 out of order and send a message to the government to get its house in order so it does not treat this House as an afterthought.