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

[501]: P.D.G. Hayter, “Royal Assent: A New Form”, The Table, Vol. XXXVI, 1967, pp. 53-4.
[502]: For a description of the ceremony in the presence of a monarch, see May, 22^nd ed., p. 565, note 4. King George VI gave Royal Assent in person to certain bills of the Parliament of Canada (Journals, May 8, 1939, p. 437; May 19, 1939, pp. 525-6).
[503]: May, 22^nd ed., pp. 564-5. In 1965, an incident occurred in the British Parliament that led to the abolition of the ceremony of Royal Assent. While the House was engaged in passionate debate, Black Rod knocked on the door of the House of Commons. A number of Members protested and rushed the Bar of the House to prevent him from entering. They refused to attend the ceremony and continued to debate, even after the Speaker had left the chair (Hayter, p. 54).
[504]: However, the adoption of this procedure did not lead to the abolition of the traditional ceremony, which the British Parliament still uses at the time of prorogation, nor does it offend the Queen’s prerogatives in this regard (Hayter, pp. 55-7).
[505]: Debates, March 30, 1933, pp. 3551-2; March 29, 1984, p. 2544. In the last 15 years, there have been a number of proposals for reforming the procedure for giving Royal Assent. In 1985, the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons (McGrath Committee) recommended that a formula be adopted for Royal Assent to be given in writing (see the Second Report of the Committee, p. 118, presented to the House on March 26, 1985 (Journals, p. 420)). In its response to the Committee’s report, the government at the time indicated that it wanted to modernize the procedure for signifying Royal Assent, in consultation with the Senate (Journals, October 9, 1985, p. 1082). The Committee’s recommendation was supported by the Board of Internal Economy at its meeting on June 11, 1986 (Journals, October 10, 1986, p. 72). In 1993, the Standing Committee on House Management presented a report on parliamentary reform. In its 81^st Report, the Committee agreed to act on the recommendation in the McGrath Report (Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 53, April 1, 1993, p. 31). The Senate has also expressed interest in reforming Royal Assent. In 1985, the Fourth Report of the Senate Standing Committee on Standing Rules and Orders recommended that a simplified procedure be adopted (Senate Debates, November 6, 1985, pp. 1448, 1469). That report prompted a debate (Senate Debates, November 7, 1985, pp. 1480-2; January 22, 1986, pp. 1860-2; January 23, 1986, pp. 1873-5) and was followed by the introduction of a government bill, Bill S-19, Royal Assent Act, which was debated at second reading in July and September 1988, a few days before dissolution of the Thirty-Third Parliament (Senate Debates, July 26, 1988, pp. 4122-3; September 20, 1988, pp. 4463-4). On April 2, 1998, another bill (Bill S-15) to reform Royal Assent was introduced in the Senate, this time by the Leader of the Opposition in the Senate, Senator Lynch-Staunton (Senate Journals, p. 576). After being debated at second reading, the bill was referred to the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on June 9, 1998 (Senate Journals, p. 788). The Committee reported it with amendments on June 18, 1998 (Senate Journals, pp. 862-3; 898-9). On December 8, 1998, after being debated, the bill was withdrawn (Senate Journals, pp. 1170-2). On March 10, 1999, Senator Lynch-Staunton introduced a new bill (S-26) that was virtually identical to the former Bill S-15, as amended by the Committee (Senate Journals, p. 1334).
[506]: According to some observers, the Canadian ceremony seems to be the one that most closely resembles the original ceremony (Wilding and Laundy, 3^rd ed., 1968, p. 642). Most countries with a parliamentary system on the British model have abandoned the ceremony of Royal Assent. In the Australian Parliament, the ceremony has not taken place since the early years of the Australian Commonwealth. The usual practice is for the chamber that has initiated the bill to transmit copies of it to the residence of the Governor General, who affixes his or her signature. In New Zealand, the Governor General has not attended in person to assent to bills since 1875. The Governor General simply signs the two copies presented and returns them to the House with a message informing the House that assent has been given.
[507]: Normally, assent is given only once in a sitting. There was a deviation from this practice on July 17, 1980, when the House was called to the Senate at noon and again at 9:00 p.m. in order for other bills to be assented to as well (Debates, July 17, 1980, pp. 2998, 3044-5, 3051).
[508]: Standing Order 28(4). This provision was added to the Standing Orders in June 1994 (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Twenty-Seventh Report, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 3; Debates, June 8, 1994, p. 4997; June 10, 1994, p. 5183).
[509]: See, for example, Debates, March 9, 1966, pp. 2472-3; February 27, 1969, p. 6034.
[510]: See, for example, Debates, July 12, 1940, p. 1644; March 29, 1985, p. 3547; June 27, 1986, p. 14997.
[511]: See, for example, Debates, March 9, 1966, p. 2472; July 14, 1966, p. 7728; March 24, 1975, p. 4446; December 20, 1975, p. 10257; October 22, 1976, pp. 390-1; June 27, 1985, pp. 6331-2; December 19, 1986, pp. 2337-8.
[512]: For example, on December 14, 1990, Deputy Speaker Champagne adjourned the House at the normal hour of daily adjournment even though the House had already been informed that the Royal Assent ceremony would soon take place and that the Usher of the Black Rod was on his way to request the attendance of the House (Debates, pp. 16787, 16797-9).
[513]: On June 23, 1971, a recorded division and Royal Assent were both scheduled for the same time, 5:45 p.m. A member rose on a point of order, and it was decided to proceed with the vote first, and then go to the Royal Assent ceremony (Debates, June 23, 1971, p. 7265).
[514]: See, for example, Debates, March 28, 1996, p. 1386.
[515]: The origins of this practice go back to 1641 when the Gentleman Usher of Great Britain received a reprimand for entering the House before being expressly invited to do so (The Table, Vol. XLVI, 1978, p. 129).
[516]: Occasionally, the interruption of debate has prompted reaction from Members (Debates, December 16, 1953, pp. 1012-5; March 31, 1954, p. 3547).
[517]: Standing Order 29(5).
[518]: Debates, February 19, 1981, pp. 7483-7; March 31, 1982, pp. 16029-32; November 3, 1982, pp. 20383-5. On occasion, Members have challenged the custom that the Usher be admitted to the House immediately (see Debates, February 16, 1972, pp. 10959-60).
[519]: It is the custom that the House should go to the Senate for Royal Assent only when it is invited to do so by the Usher of the Black Rod. However, the Commons has occasionally attended at the bar of the Senate without being accompanied by the Usher. One such incident occurred on June 12, 1925, when the office of the Black Rod was vacant (Debates, June 12, 1925, p. 438).
[520]: “Your Honour” is used to refer to the Deputy Governor.
[521]: The other date, which is fixed by the Governor in Council, is published in Part II of the Canada Gazette.
[522]: After the ceremony, the Clerk of the Senate, who is also the Clerk of the Parliaments, endorses on every Act, immediately after its title, the day, month and year when the Act was assented to in Her Majesty’s name, and the endorsement is a part of the Act, in accordance with Section 5(1) of the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21. When a bill has been initialled, it is sent to the residence of the Governor General to be signed on the back by the Governor General, after which it is sent to the Senate where it is kept in a vault. Because it is a single bilingual document, the new Act carries only one signature. The Clerk of the Senate then informs the Canada Gazette that bills have been given Royal Assent.
[523]: See, for example, Journals, August 9, 1977, pp. 1542-7; October 23, 1978, pp. 50-3.
[524]: R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 55-7.
[525]: R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21.
[526]: Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 5(2).