Mr. Speaker, I am rising to address the point of order that was raised earlier today by the member for Edmonton West. I understand that there have been a few interventions on this point so far today, so I am happy to make a contribution to that debate on the part of the NDP.
Earlier today, the hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader referred to a Standing Order that said that the appropriation bill had to be based on the estimates, and had quite a loose interpretation of what “based” meant.
There are a few other authorities I would like to cite to you, Mr. Speaker, to help you in your deliberations, which show that the relationship between the estimates document and the appropriation bill has to be much tighter than what the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader has suggested.
House of Commons Practice and Procedures, third edition, page 864, reads:
Each budgetary item, or vote, has two essential components: an amount of money and a destination...Should the government wish to change the approved amount or destination of a vote, it must do so either by way of a supplementary estimate or by way of new or amending legislation.
The “destination” is the wording of the vote.
That makes it very clear that there is a way the government can change the destination, or wording of a vote, but it is not to do it willy-nilly between when those estimates are reported back by committee and the introduction of the appropriation bill, that there is a separate process.
Page 865 of House of Commons Practice and Procedures, third edition, reads:
Estimates, outlines spending according to departments, agencies and programs and contains the proposed wording of the conditions governing spending which Parliament will be asked to approve. This information directly supports the schedule of the related appropriation act.
In this case, the schedule of the appropriation act and the wording specifically for Treasury Board Secretariat vote 40 is different than what was presented in the estimates. Therefore, that means committees did not have the opportunity to study that destination. Therefore, vote 40 in the appropriation act is out of order.
I would remind you, Mr. Speaker, of some of your own recent rulings that have emphasized the importance of the committee study process to the estimates. I quote from your May 29 ruling, where you say:
When the government presents estimates to the House, each vote contains an amount of money and a destination, which describes the purpose for which the money will be used. In some cases, the description is quite detailed and in other cases it can be rather general. That said, the estimates are referred to committee specifically to allow members to study them in further detail.
However, the wording of this vote was not referred to committee. It has been changed between reporting back from committee and the appropriation act.
I would also remind you, Mr. Speaker, of your ruling on June 11, where you say:
...it is up to the government to determine the form its request for funds will take. It is for members to decide, in studying and voting on the estimates, whether or not the money should be granted. In the case of vote 40, some members may wish that the request had been in a different form. In the end, they are left to make a decision on the request as the government has presented it.
The way the government presented that request to committee and the way that request was structured when it was studied was one thing. Now it is another thing in the appropriation act. While you have rightly said, Mr. Speaker, that the government has some latitude in determining the form that the request will take initially, that does not mean the government has freedom once it has decided on the form of that request and sent it to committee and they have been deemed reported back, that the government then has a wide-ranging prerogative to change the nature of that request for funding, which is what is happening currently in the appropriation bill as it is worded.