Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order subsequent to my intervention of March 18 with regard to the Supplementary Estimates (B) for 2001-02.
I have uncovered additional information through further research and would like to amplify my argument for striking the votes from the Supplementary Estimates (B) which I mentioned in my previous intervention.
In 1968 the standing orders were amended to clearly separate debate on legislation and the supply process. It was agreed, and I pointed out numerous references yesterday, that we cannot legislate through the estimates process. Marleau and Montpetit on page 742 states:
Although, theoretically, a Supply bill is debatable, and therefore amendable, at all stages after first reading, it generally passes without debate or amendment on the last allotted day.
There is generally no debate because the supply bill does not contain legislative amendments. Footnote 275 on the same page states:
On occasion, through special orders, the House has agreed to debate a Supply bill at the second reading stage and at the Committee of the Whole stage.
And examples are given.
The estimates are presumably debated in committee prior to the supply bill being introduced which is why there is normally no debate on the supply bill itself assuming there are no legislative changes. Proposed legislative changes are always debatable in this House, therefore Mr. Speaker, if you rule that my point of order yesterday is out of order and that the votes are to remain in the supply bill, I ask that you allow debate on the supply bill when it is before the House later this day.