Historical British origins This provision is based historically on
British constitutional principles relating to public finances. After the
English Civil War and the passage of the
Bill of Rights, it was firmly established that legislation enacted by Parliament was needed for all taxes and all
appropriations of public funds. The English House of Commons took the lead on this point, and gradually acquired primary control over public finances.
Bills to impose taxes or appropriate public funds from the treasury, commonly called "
money bills", had to originate in the House of Commons, and the monarch could not personally impose taxes or appropriate funds. However, if every member of the House of Commons had an equal opportunity to introduce money bills, there would not be firm budgetary controls. In order to address this issue, the House of Commons passed a rule in 1713 stating that the House would not consider any money bill unless it came with a monarch's recommendation that the bill was essential for the public finances.
British North America Control over the public finances became a major point of contention in the British North American colonies in the 19th century, particularly in
Lower Canada and
Upper Canada. Disputes between the elected legislative assemblies and the governors, appointed by the British government, became a routine aspect of public life. Following the
Rebellions of 1837–1838 in Lower Canada and Upper Canada,
Lord Durham in his
Report on British North America recommended that the principle of a Crown recommendation be adopted in the proposed union of Lower Canada and Upper Canada, the same as in the British Parliament: money bills were to be approved by the elected Assemblies, but only on recommendation from the governor. As a subsequent editor of the Report summarised, "no money votes were to be proposed except with the consent of the Crown, i.e., by the responsible ministers". This policy was established in the
Union Act, 1840, which merged the two Canadas into the single
Province of Canada. The
Union Act provided that money bills had to originate in the elected
Legislative Assembly of the new province, but only on a recommendation from the governor. Although the recommendation is made by the governor general, it is often referred to as the "royal recommendation". A Cabinet member passes the governor general's recommendation to the Commons, now usually by means of a written notice accompanying a bill at any stage before
third reading, the final vote on a bill in the Commons. The recommendation must be given for any new financial legislation, and again for any proposal to change an existing tax or appropriation bill in any significant fashion. The effect of section 54 on
private member's bills has changed over the years. Formerly, if it appeared to the Speaker of the Commons that a private member's bill would require the spending of public money or an increase in taxes, the Speaker would rule the bill out of order when it was first introduced. However, changes to the procedural rules regarding private member's bills in 2003 have increased the possibility that those bills will come to a vote. That change, in turn, has resulted in a change in approach to the royal recommendation. Now, the Speaker will recognise that the sponsor of the private member's bill has the right to have it debated, but will urge the sponsor to seek the royal recommendation. If the royal recommendation has not been given by the time the bill is ready for final debate on third reading, the Speaker will rule it out of order. There is uncertainty regarding how far section 54 may limit the authority of the Senate and private members with regard to money bills. For one thing, no court action has clarified the precise scope of the section. In addition, the precedents from the Commons are ambiguous, and it is unclear whether the Senate can change a money bill that the Commons has passed to increase spending or taxation. In some cases, if the Senate has amended a money bill passed by the Commons, the
Speaker of the House of Commons has ruled the amended bill out of order and refused to allow it to be considered. On other occasions, the Speaker has simply pointed out the issue in debate to allow the members of the House of Commons to decide. In some cases, the Commons has rejected Senate amendments, as a breach of the powers of the House of Commons, but in other cases, the Commons has proceeded to consider the amendments. It is clear that the Senate can amend a money bill to decrease spending or taxation. == Relationship to Section 53 ==