House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

16. The Legislative Process

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[251]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 414-5 and footnotes.
[252]: Journals, April 21, 1955, p. 418; July 14, 1959, pp. 706-7.
[253]: Journals, November 25, 1983, p. 6598.
[254]: Journals, June 13, 1961, p. 664.
[255]: Journals, December 14, 1970, pp. 201-2.
[256]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 413.
[257]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 414. The consent of the Crown may also be required for an amendment to an existing Act (Journals, April 26, 1978, p. 696).
[258]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 413.
[259]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 413.
[260]: A parliamentary secretary may not perform this function on behalf of a Minister. (See Debates, April 9, 1992, p. 9606; June 18, 1992, p. 12424; Journals, June 18, 1992, p. 1801.) When a private Member wishes to obtain Royal Consent, he or she must ask the House to agree to an address for leave to seek Royal Consent before the introduction of his or her bill (Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 413-4).
[261]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 414. See also Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, April 25, 1966, pp. 434-5.
[262]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 414; Journals, April 25, 1966, pp. 434-5.
[263]: Standing Order 73(3). While the Standing Order provides for the creation of legislative committees, practice since the opening of the First Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament in 1994 has been to refer bills to standing committees. Bills have also been referred to joint committees. See, for example, Bill C-136 (Canada Pension Plan Act) (Journals, November 16, 1964, p. 876); Bill C-170 (Public Service Staff Relations Act) (Journals, April 25, 1966, p. 437; May 9, 1966, p. 519); and Bill C-70 (Act to amend the Public Service Staff Relations Act) (Journals, July 15, 1975, p. 711). During the Third Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-1993), a special joint committee was created to examine Bill C-116 (Conflict of Interests of Public Office Holders Act). In its report to the House on June 3, 1993, the committee agreed that the study of the bill should be abandoned (Journals, March 30, 1993, pp. 2742-3; June 3, 1993, p. 3107).
[264]: Standing Order 73(1).
[265]: Standing Order 73(4).
[266]: See Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[267]: See, for example, Bill C-10, An Act to provide for the maintenance of west coast ports operations (Journals, February 8, 1994, pp. 131-2) and Bill C-13, An Act to amend the Parliament of Canada Act (Journals, October 29, 1997, pp. 166-7).
[268]: See, for example, Journals, March 23, 1999, pp. 1649-63.
[269]: Standing Order 75(2). See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, April 28, 1992, p. 9801.
[270]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 519.
[271]: Standing Order 73(1).
[272]: For example, authority to travel, to broadcast meetings or to divide a bill. See the section above entitled “Motions of Instruction”.
[273]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 287.
[274]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 519.
[275]: Beauchesne, 5^th ed., p. 231.
[276]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 520.
[277]: Standing Order 116 provides that the Standing Orders of the House apply in a standing committee so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to certain matters including the length of speeches.
[278]: For further information, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[279]: The House may adopt a time allocation motion (Standing Order 78) which applies to the committee stage of a bill (see, for example, Journals, March 22, 1995, pp. 1259-60; April 25, 1996, pp. 260-1). The House may also adopt a special order to that effect (see, for example, Journals, March 22, 1982, pp. 4626-8).
[280]: Standing Order 97.1.
[281]: Standing Committee on Industry, Minutes of Proceedings, March 23, 1999, Meeting No. 104.
[282]: Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, December 4, 1995, Issue No. 115, p. 16; Standing Committee on Human Resources Development, Minutes of Proceedings, November 28, 1996, Issue No. 36, p. 33; Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings, October 15, 1997, Meeting No. 3; April 2, 1998, Meeting No. 67; May 5, 1998, Meeting No. 80. On occasion, a committee’s examination of bills may become particularly acrimonious and the committee may find that it has reached a deadlock. On March 19, 1990, when the Standing Committee on Finance was considering Bill C-62, An Act to implement the goods and services tax,a motion was made to establish a timetable for completing the examination of the bill which resulted in a debate that went on for 31 hours. The Chair then decided to terminate the debate and imposed a form of closure. His action was based on a case which occurred in the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in 1984, where the Chair had made an identical ruling in similar circumstances (see Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 6, 1984, Issue No. 36, pp. 3-7). The Chair’s right to make such a ruling was challenged and appealed, but the ruling was upheld by a majority of the Committee. The Finance Committee then commenced its consideration of the bill, in accordance with the ruling of the Chair (Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 19, 1990, Issue No. 103, pp. 665-9). Later, when the action of the Chair was challenged in the House, the Speaker ruled that this was a matter within the competence of the Finance Committee, and stated that it was not the role of the Speaker to supervise committee chairmen (Debates, March 26, 1990, pp. 9756-8). The Standing Committee on Finance subsequently presented a report in the House in which it asked that the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections examine the rules and procedures as they relate to the limitation of debate in cases where a committee has reached an impasse. The House concurred in the report and, consequently, the Committee on Privileges and Elections undertook the study in question (Journals, April 30, 1990, pp. 1612-3; Standing Committee on Finance, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 30, 1990, Issue No. 111, pp. 3-7). In its Twenty-Fifth Report, presented to the House on March 20, 1991, the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections indicated that Standing Order 78 on time allocation is the appropriate mechanism to limit debate on a bill when there is an impasse in committee. The report was never adopted by the House (Journals, March 20, 1991, p. 2727; Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 14, 1991, Issue No. 41, pp. 3-15).
[283]: For a variety of reasons, some committees have not heard any witnesses other than the Minister and his or her officials, and have immediately commenced clause by clause consideration of the bill (see, for example, Legislative Committee on Bill C-124, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 9, 1988, Issue No. 1, p. 5; Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, February 18, 1999, Meeting No. 90). An uncontroversial bill may be considered at a single meeting (see, for example, Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 27, 1984, Issue No. 24, pp. 5-7; March 29, 1988, Issue No. 149, p. 5; April 28, 1988, Issue No. 159, p. 5; Legislative Committee on Bill C-91, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 15, 1987, Issue No. 1, p. 5).
[284]: In addition to offering the services of research officers, the Library of Parliament produces “legislative summaries”. These documents provide Members of Parliament with explanatory information on most government bills. In addition, the departments often provide members of the committee and their staffs with very detailed information packages on the bill.
[285]: Standing Order 120.
[286]: In that case, examination of Clause 1 is postponed, as provided by Standing Order 75(1).
[287]: See, for example, for the appearance of a Minister during clause by clause consideration: Special Committee on Electoral Reform, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 15, 1993, Issue No. 16, pp. 3, 7; for the appearance of a Minister’s parliamentary secretary during clause by clause consideration: Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minutes of Proceedings, November 6, 1997, Meeting No. 9.
[288]: In general, officials who are specialists in the matters affected by the bill regularly attend all meetings of the committee devoted to the consideration of the bill.
[289]: In 1987, the Standing Committee on Transport, by unanimous consent, and in anticipation of hearing witnesses, considered Bills C-18 and C-19 at the same time; the first bill dealt with transportation in general, and the second with motor vehicle transportation (Minutes of Proceedings, February 17, 1987, Issue No. 11, p. 4). Again in anticipation of hearing witnesses, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, by unanimous consent, undertook simultaneous consideration of Bill C-42 that same year, An Act respecting financial institutions and the deposit insurance system, and Bill C-56, An Act to amend certain Acts relating to financial institutions (Minutes of Proceedings, June 2, 1987, Issue No. 59, p. 4).
[290]: See, for example, Legislative Committee on Bill C-66 and Bill C-67, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 22, 1990, Issue No. 1, p. 7; June 11, 1990, Issue No. 6, p. 3; June 12, 1990, Issue No. 7, p. 5; Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 24, 1994, Issue No. 65, p. 3; March 15, 1995, Issue No. 89, p. 3; March 16, 1995, Issue No. 91, p. 3.
[291]: Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, June 17, 1996, Issue No. 32, pp. 1-2.
[292]: During its consideration of Bill C-32 (Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1998), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development decided to examine the preamble before considering the clauses. The Committee had first decided, on unanimous consent, to allow the clauses and schedules to stand. A general discussion of the preamble was held, and no amendments were proposed. The preamble was then allowed to stand and examination of the preamble resumed at the end of the process, at which time amendments to it were proposed (Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Minutes of Proceedings, November 3, 1998, Meeting No. 79).
[293]: Standing Order 75(1). See also Journals, October 9, 1964, p. 780.
[294]: Beauchesne, 5^th ed., pp. 231, 234; May, 22^nd ed., pp. 520, 531-2.
[295]: See, for example, Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings, May 7, 1996, Issue No. 10, pp. 3-4, 9-13; Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, March 26, 1998, Meeting No. 47.
[296]: During its consideration of Bill C-32 (Canadian Environmental Protection Act 1998), the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development examined the preamble and, after it was carried, began its consideration of an element of the bill called the “Declaration”; it then went on to examine the title (Minutes of Proceedings, March 25, 1999, Meeting No. 116).
[297]: See, for example, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Minutes of Proceedings, November 19, 1997, Meeting No. 8; Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Minutes of Proceedings, November 19, 1998, Meeting No. 83.
[298]: See, for example, Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 29, 1983, Issue No. 132, pp. 8, 48.
[299]: See, for example, Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 8, 1982, Issue No. 75, pp. 13-4.
[300]: May, 22^nd ed, p. 521.