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

[401]: See, for example, Notice Paper, June 11, 1999, pp. V-IX. See also Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, June 29, 1976, pp. 14961-5.
[402]: Debates, June 20, 1969, p. 10497.
[403]: A motion in amendment that requires the expenditure of additional public funds, and is not accompanied by a Royal Recommendation, is out of order (Debates, August 15, 1988, p. 18307; May 2, 1996, p. 2214). An amendment that would in some way change the objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications of the Royal Recommendation is also out of order (Debates, February 5, 1973, pp. 957-8; March 31, 1987, pp. 4744-5), as is an amendment that would impose a tax on the population that was not preceded by the adoption of a Ways and Means motion or that exceeds the scope or limitations of that motion (Debates, December 19, 1984, p. 1380). In the past, with the unanimous consent of the House, a new Ways and Means motion has been adopted and a Minister has moved amendments to bills that exceeded the provisions of the original Ways and Means motion. For an example in which the House gave unanimous consent at report stage, see Debates, May 26, 1981, pp. 9931-2, 9948.
[404]: Debates, August 15, 1988, p. 18306.
[405]: Debates, October 3, 1983, p. 27675.
[406]: See, for example, Debates, April 16, 1969, pp. 7604-5; October 16, 1975, p. 8290; June 23, 1977, pp. 7052-3; July 15, 1977, pp. 7717, 7727; July 15, 1988, p. 17617; December 9, 1997, p. 2947.
[407]: See, for example, Debates, July 20, 1973, pp. 5841-2; June 29, 1976, pp. 14960-1.
[408]: See, for example, Debates, May 21, 1970, pp. 7166-7; September 27, 1971, pp. 8189-90; August 15, 1988, p. 18306.
[409]: See, for example, Debates, June 7, 1971, pp. 6435-6; March 19, 1993, p. 17290; April 2, 1993, p. 18003.
[410]: See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1970, pp. 8368-9; June 11, 1973, pp. 4624-5.
[411]: See, for example, Debates, April 2, 1974, pp. 1101-2.
[412]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s rulings, Debates, April 16, 1969, pp. 7601-2; April 25, 1969, p. 7963.
[413]: Standing Orders 76(6) and 76.1(6). See the rulings of the Chair, Debates, April 28, 1969, p. 8068; November 28, 1973, p. 8233. See, for example, Journals, June 15, 1995, p. 1766; November 4, 1996, p. 818; December 9, 1997, pp. 365-6.
[414]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, April 29, 1969, pp. 8147-8.
[415]: See the ruling of the Chair, Debates, June 11, 1973, pp. 4647-8.
[416]: Stewart, p. 86.
[417]: Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 434.
[418]: See the present Standing Order 76.1(5).
[419]: See the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839), pp. 40-2, and more specifically p. 41.
[420]: Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710. See also Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1665-6; page 6 of the Response of the Government to the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on October 9, 1985 (Journals, p. 1082).
[421]: Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) (see, more specifically, the notes accompanying those Standing Orders).
[422]: See, for example, Debates, May 21, 1970, pp. 7166-7; June 11, 1973, pp. 4624-5.
[423]: Debates, December 6, 1990, p. 16357.
[424]: Standing Orders 76(2) and 76.1(2). See also Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 6; Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563.
[425]: In this case, the amendment may be selected if notice of the recommendation has been given in accordance with Standing Order 76(3) or 76.1(3).
[426]: Note accompanying Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5).
[427]: Note accompanying Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). See, for example, Debates, August 28, 1987, p. 8559; August 15, 1988, p. 18306 (motions defeated in committee and not selected by the Speaker).
[428]: Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) were amended to this effect on February 7, 1994 (Journals, pp. 113-4).
[429]: See, for example, Debates, November 17, 1998, pp. 10055-6; December 2, 1998, p. 10794.
[430]: See, for example, Debates, December 12, 1996, p. 7435 (the Royal Recommendation was not obtained for an amendment that required such a recommendation); April 28, 1999, p. 14454 (the same amendments had been negatived in committee).
[431]: Standing Orders 76(6) and 76.1(6).
[432]: See the rulings of the Chair, Debates, February 3, 1969, pp. 5084-5; November 17, 1982, p. 20746.
[433]: Standing Order 76.1(1).
[434]: Standing Order 76(1).
[435]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, October 6, 1970, pp. 1417-20; and Speaker Jerome’s rulings, Debates, July 15, 1977, p. 7712; March 9, 1979, pp. 3999-4000.
[436]: See, for example, Debates, June 14, 1995, p. 13847.
[437]: See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1993, p. 15828; June 5, 1995, p. 13267; November 26, 1998, p. 10525. For examples of motions that were not debated in the absence of the Member, see Debates, March 23, 1992, p. 8592; November 27, 1995, p. 16846; March 4, 1997, pp. 8603, 8613. For examples of motions that were not debated in the absence of the Member and where the House did not consent to the amendments being moved by another Member, see Debates, June 3, 1992, p. 11366; April 24, 1997, pp. 10156-7.
[438]: Standing Orders 76(7) and 76.1(7).
[439]: See, for example, Debates, April 12, 1994, pp. 2912, 2940.
[440]: See the rulings of the Chair, Debates, May 17, 1972, p. 2360; April 1, 1974, p. 1039. For more information on the rules of debate, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[441]: Standing Orders 76(8) and 76.1(8).
[442]: Note accompanying Standing Order 76(8) and Note accompanying Standing Order 76.1(8). During the 1970s, recorded divisions were held on a number of motions in amendment at report stage before consideration of all of the motions moved at that stage had been concluded. See, for example, Journals, July 8, 1976, pp. 1410-5; July 9, 1976, pp. 1417-9; July 13, 1977, pp. 1350-63; July 14, 1977, pp. 1371-8.
[443]: Standing Order 76(10).
[444]: Standing Order 76(9). See, for example, Debates, March 25, 1996, p. 1207.
[445]: Standing Order 76.1(11). See, for example, Journals, March 11, 1999, p. 1595.
[446]: Standing Order 76.1(12).
[447]: See, for example, Journals, October 6, 1998, pp. 1125-6.
[448]: The Special Committee on Procedure (1968) believed it to be very important that there be an opportunity for debate at this stage of the legislative process (Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 433).
[449]: Standing Order 76.1(11). See, for example, Journals, October 5, 1995, p. 2002. See also Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, February 24, 1969, pp. 738-9. However, the interpretation of this provision must take into account the prohibition in Standing Order 71, which provides that the three readings of a bill must take place on different days.
[450]: Standing Order 76.1(10).