House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

16. The Legislative Process

[151] 
Standing Order 68(2).
[152] 
See the remarks of Speaker Fraser, Debates, December 1, 1987, pp. 11343-4; April 7, 1989, pp. 228-9.
[153] 
Standing Order 68(2) provides that any Member must be permitted to give an explanation. That section was incorporated into the Standing Orders in 1955 to “spell out the existing practice” (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 930-1). In the past, it sometimes happened that after hearing a Member’s explanation the House decided to reject the motion for leave (Debates, February 22, 1932, pp. 380-4; August 3, 1964, p. 6285; November 13, 1967, pp. 4165-6; December 5, 1967, pp. 5035-6; November 7, 1986, p. 1193). Since 1991, the motion has been deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2913-4).
[154] 
Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House, Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 432-3.
[155] 
Standing Order 69(1).
[156] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, May 24, 1988, pp. 15722-3.
[157] 
Standing Order 69(2).
[158] 
See Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 112. In 1991, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations had been instructed to do a pre-study, before second reading, of Bill C-22, An Act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof (Journals, June 19, 1991, p. 242). This was the first time that the House had used this procedure, and the initiative was very favourably received by opposition Members (see Debates, October 7, 1991, p. 3388). Subsequently, in 1993, in its study of parliamentary reform, the Standing Committee on House Management recommended that government bills be referred to committee after first reading. The Committee argued that this “process… would assist Members and the House in playing a more meaningful role in the development and passage of legislation” (see Eighty-First Report of the Committee, Proceedings and Evidence, April 1, 1993, Issue No. 53, pp. 23-4).
[159] 
Standing Order 73(1). This must not be confused with the pre-study procedure in the Senate, which applies before first reading of a bill. For an overview of the differences between the procedure followed in the House of Commons and the procedure in the Senate, see Roméo LeBlanc (Senator) and Gilbert Parent (Member of the House), “ Parliament of Canada: Pre-study of Legislation in the Canadian Parliament”, The Parliamentarian, Vol. LXXV, No. 3 (July 1994), (Canada Supplement) pp. C3-C6.
[160] 
During the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), 25 bills were referred to committees before second reading. Two examples are Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act (Journals, June 17, 1994, pp. 608, 611) and Bill C-12, An Act respecting employment insurance in Canada (Journals, March 7, 1996, p. 59). In the First Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament (1997-99) this procedure was not used frequently.
[161] 
See the ruling of the Chair, Debates, April 10, 1997, p. 9531.
[162] 
In 1994, Speaker Parent ruled that only Ministers may refer bills to committee, and that this prerogative “cannot be invoked by private members” (Debates, May 11, 1994, pp. 4226-7; June 1, 1994, pp. 4710-1). Subsequently, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended in its Fifty-Third Report presented to the House on December 9, 1994 (Journals, p. 1014) that the Standing Orders be amended to clearly indicate that only government bills can be referred to committee before second reading (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 8, 1994, Issue No. 36, p. 5). The House concurred in the report and the Standing Orders were amended on February 6, 1995 (Journals, p. 1081).
[163] 
Standing Order 73(1)(b), (c) and (d).
[164]
See section below, “Consideration in Committee”.
[165] 
Standing Order 76(1).
[166] 
Standing Order 76(2). One sitting day’s notice is required for amendments proposed at the report stage of bills that have already been read a second time (Standing Order 76.1(2)).
[167] 
Standing Order 76(9).
[168] 
Other expressions may be used to refer to the “principle” of a bill. Sometimes the expressions “scope”, “general scope” and “general objectives” are used. The expression “principle” is also used in the plural. A bill may have “general principles” (See May, 22nd ed., p. 468).
[169] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 509. The Senate Rules include a provision that the principle of a bill is “usually debated on second reading”.
[170] 
See, for example,Debates, March 24, 1970, p. 5434; April 27, 1970, p. 6334; June 10, 1970, p. 7973; see also the rulings of the Speaker, Journals, November 14, 1949, pp. 237-8; October 15, 1962, pp. 76-7.
[171] 
May, 13th ed., p. 389.
[172] 
See Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 433. The question of the importance of second reading is also raised in House of Representatives Practice, 3rd ed., p. 364.
[173] 
Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 433.
[174] 
See Chapter 20, “Committees”. While the Standing Orders have provided since 1985 (Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 918) for the establishment of legislative committees, it has been the practice since the First Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament to refer bills to standing committees.
[175] 
This is the case for Supply bills (Standing Order 73(4)). With the unanimous consent of the House, urgent or non-controversial bills which often go through more than one stage of the legislative process in a single sitting are generally referred to a Committee of the Whole. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[176] 
Standing Order 74. These provisions also apply to third reading. Under Standing Order 73(5), a maximum of two sitting days is set aside for the consideration of any bill respecting Borrowing Authority at second reading. Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for Government Orders, the Speaker interrupts the proceedings and puts forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary to dispose of the second reading stage of the bill.
[177] 
Standing Order 43(1).
[178] 
Standing Order 74(2). That provision applies to the length of speeches and, where applicable, the period set aside for questions and comments.
[179] 
Standing Order 42(2). See also Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[180] 
Standing Order 78.
[181]
See Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[182] 
Standing Order 57.
[183] 
See, for example, Journals, December 19, 1988, p. 52; December 23, 1988, p. 78. See also Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[184] 
If demanded by at least five Members (Standing Order 45(1)).
[185] 
Once a question has been put to and disposed of by the House, it cannot be raised again during the same session (Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 328-9; May, 22nd ed., pp. 560-1).
[186] 
Standing Order 73(2). Debates, October 28, 1991, p. 4085.
[187] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 199. An amendment to a motion for reading does not affect the provisions of the bill; rather, its purpose is to prevent the House from disposing of the bill, or to delay scrutiny of the bill.
[188] 
Postponement for one month has been ruled in order, as it was regarded, on the whole, as a hoist amendment (Debates, November 4, 1985, p. 8331).
[189] 
May, 10th ed., p. 446; 22nd ed., p. 504.
[190] 
Journals, November 28, 1867, p. 40.
[191]
Of the 62 hoist amendments recorded in the Journals for that initial period, no fewer than 44 were moved by the government and passed by the House.
[192] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 225. Debates, November 20, 1986, p. 1381; November 21, 1986, p. 1413.
[193] 
“On the rejection of a motion to postpone the second or third reading of a bill for three or six months, no further time amendment was to be permissible” (Redlich, Vol. I, p. 195).
[194] 
In the National Assembly of Quebec, an amendment to postpone the consideration of a bill for 20 years was ruled to be out of order (Journal des Débats, National Assembly of Quebec, December 14, 1977, pp. 4750-3).
[195] 
It seems that the House of Commons has always observed the principle of postponement for an indefinite period, except in one case. Canadian parliamentary annals contain an old case in which a bill was placed on the Order Paper again after expiry of the time for which it had been postponed (Journals, March 2, 1882, pp. 96-7). The postponement had been for one month only. The uncertainty surrounding the consequences of the postponement are undoubtedly the reason why the bill was placed back on the Order Paper one month later (in April) (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 510). Before and after that one case, passage of a hoist amendment has always resulted in the withdrawal of the bill, which was not placed back on the Order Paper afterward.
[196] 
See, for example, Journals, March 20, 1924, p. 67. A Member proposed to move an amendment to a government motion creating a special committee by adding the words “in eight months from this day”. In making his decision, the Chair stated, “because we do not know whether it will be possible to appoint this committee eight months from now, the same result would be produced if the original motion were simply negatived” (June 21, 1960, pp. 673-4).
[197] 
See, for example, Journals, February 24, 1970, pp. 485-7.
[198] 
See, for example, Debates, October 21, 1996, p. 5492.
[199] 
Journals, May 8, 1882, pp. 410-4.
[200] 
As early as 1958, Speaker Michener acknowledged to the House that it was not always easy “to draw the line between an amendment which is simply a negating of the principle of the bill and an amendment which is declaratory of a principle” (Debates, September 2, 1958, p. 4477). Similarly, in the early 1970s, Speaker Lamoureux reminded Members that they themselves had admitted that it was “difficult for the Chair to rule on the procedural aspect of reasoned amendments” (Debates, September 13, 1971, p. 7771). A few months later, on May 19, 1972 (Debates, p. 2433), the Acting Speaker also said that there was little doubt in the mind of the Chair that “a reasoned amendment at the second reading stage of a bill involves one of the more difficult parliamentary procedures”.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page