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

[51] 
Journals, February 22, 1971, p. 352; Debates, April 15, 1985, pp. 3699-700.
[52] 
For example, sections 91 and 92 of the Constitution Act, 1867 establish the legislative authority of the Parliament of Canada and of the provincial legislatures. Sections 53 to 57 set out rules relating to money votes and Royal Assent to bills. The Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms imposes certain requirements and restrictions on Parliament, specifically in relation to fundamental rights and freedoms.
[53]
Two legal systems coexist in Canada. Federal law, and the law of all provinces except Quebec, are governed by the common law in the Anglo-Saxon tradition. The law of Quebec follows rules that come down from the Romano-Germanic tradition, which make up what is called the “droit civil” or civil law.
[54] 
See the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Manitoba Language Rights [1985], 1 S.C.R. 721, 783, which interprets section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867. See also section 6 of the Act respecting the Status and Use of the Official Languages of Canada, S.C. 1988, c. 38.
[55] 
For more information regarding the process of preparing federal laws and the role of the main participants in that process, see the Department of Justice document entitled A Guide to the Making of Federal Acts and Regulations (hereinafter referred to as the Guide).
[56] 
Prior to 1948, the responsibility for drafting government legislation was left to the department or agency within whose jurisdiction the subject matter in question fell. Draft bills were scrutinized, revised and often redrafted under the direction of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel of the House of Commons. In 1948, the legislative drafting function was centralized into a single office: the Legislation Section of the Department of Justice.
[57] 
Department of Justice Act, R.S.C. 1985 (1st Supp.), c. 31, s. 93. See also Guide, pp. 26-9.
[58] 
See Guide, pp. 137-9.
[59]
A Royal Recommendation, which may only come from a Minister, must be provided before the adoption of bills containing provisions that involve the expenditure of public funds. In addition, Members may not introduce bills involving an increase in taxation: such bills must be preceded by a Ways and Means motion, which can only be moved by a Minister.
[60] 
The provisions relating to this type of bill are described in sections 129 to 147 of the Standing Orders. See also Chapter 23, “Private Bills Practice”.
[61] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 287.
[62] 
See, in particular, Standing Order 136(2) and (5). See also, in Chapter 23, “Private Bills Practice”, the section dealing with the form of private bills.
[63] 
Standing Order 68(4)(a) and (b). In February 1994, the House added new provisions to its Standing Orders relating to bills to be prepared and brought in by committees (Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 115-6). This option has always been available, but the House has used it only very rarely. See, for example, the motion by G.W. Baldwin (Peace River) in Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day (November 10, 1969, p. 31); the motion moved by Geoff Wilson (Swift Current–Maple Creek) under the rubric of Private Members’ Business (Journals, December 13, 1985, p. 1390); and the motion of Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister) (Journals, April 27, 1987, pp. 783-5).
[64] 
Standing Order 68(5).
[65] 
For example, the Investment Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21.8 (c. 28 (1st Supp.)); the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-23, which implemented a Royal Commission of Inquiry recommendation; the Canada-United States Tax Convention Act, S.C. 1984, c. 20, which resulted from a treaty; the Western Arctic (Inuvialuit) Claims Settlement Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. W-6.7 (S.C. 1984, c. 24), which implemented an agreement; and the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. G-2, which was an administrative measure (Department of Justice of Canada, The Federal Legislative Process in Canada, 1989, p. 6).
[66] 
For example, the Juvenile Delinquents Act, R.S.C. 1970, c. J-3, which was replaced by the Young Offenders Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. Y-1 (The Federal Legislative Process in Canada, p. 6).
[67] 
Proposed amendments must not be controversial, involve the spending of public funds, prejudicially affect the rights of persons, or create a new offence or subject a new class of persons to an existing offence (The Federal Legislative Process in Canada, p. 7).
[68] 
Standing Order 83. See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[69] 
Also called “tax bills”. The most important are those that result from the Budget Speech, and particularly amendments to the Income Tax Act (The Federal Legislative Process in Canada, p. 6). The provisions relating to this type of bill are described in detail in Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[70] 
Standing Orders 73(4), 81 and 82. See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[71] 
Standing Order 73(5). See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[72] 
See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 11. The custom is observed in other parliaments where, in most cases, the bill is read a first time and not heard of again until the start of the next session: the Australian House of Representatives refers to its “formal” or “privilege” bill (House of Representatives’ Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 234-5); in the British House, it is called the Outlawries Bill (May, 22nd ed., p. 245). In the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the pro forma bill is Bill 1, An Act to ensure the Supremacy of Parliament (see, for example, Votes and Proceedings for March 17, 1992, and March 26, 1998). See also Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[73] 
See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, April 11, 1994, p. 2861.
[74] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1988, p. 16255.
[75] 
See Debates, March 1, 1982, pp. 15485-6.
[76] 
House of Representatives Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 415-6. It is interesting to note that on two occasions the Canadian House of Commons has used that procedure in examining bills (Journals, September 25, 1991, pp. 394-5; November 26, 1991, pp. 758).
[77] 
Journals, March 26, 1888, pp. 135-6.
[78] 
The first time that this procedure prompted any reaction was on April 2, 1953, when Brooke Claxton (Minister of National Defence) provided the following explanation regarding the reasons why the government wanted to amend three Acts in a single bill: “We have decided, and the house so far has concurred, that it would meet the convenience of hon. members, as it does very much that of the armed forces, if all amendments to existing legislation relating to the armed forces were contained in a single bill each year. In consequence the Canadian Forces Ac, 1950; the Canadian Forces Act, 1951; the Canadian Forces Act, 1952 have been enacted. All of these amended a number of different statutes, and this follows that precedent” (Debates, p. 3551). The enactment of the following bills, in fact, confirms that members are not always opposed to omnibus bills: Bill C-125, An Act to amend the Old Age Assistance Act, the Disabled Persons Act and the Blind Persons Act (S.C. 1963, c. 26); Bill C-40, Statute Law (Military and Civilian War Pensions, Compensation and Allowances) Amendment Act (S.C. 1980-1983, c. 19); Bill C-42, Canada Post Corporation Act (S.C. 1980-1983, c. 54); Bill C-43, An Act to amend the Lobbyists Registration Act and to make related amendments to other Acts (S.C. 1995, c. 12); and Bill C-41, An Act to amend the Divorce Act, the Family Orders and Agreements Enforcement Assistance Act, the Garnishment, Attachment and Pension Diversion Act and the Canada Shipping Act (S.C. 1997, c. 1). Members have on occasion commented favourably on certain omnibus bills. See, for example, Debates, March 1, 1982, p. 15482.
[79] 
When certain sections or parts of the Criminal Code are amended, it is often necessary to amend other Acts as well. This was the situation in the case of Bill C-55 (regarding high risk offenders), which also amended the Corrections and Conditional Release Act, the Criminal Records Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Department of the Solicitor General Act (S.C. 1997, c. 17). It was also the situation in the case of Bill C-95 (regarding criminal organizations), which amended other Acts in consequence (S.C. 1997, c. 23).
[80] 
See, for example, the rulings of Speaker Sauvé (Debates, March 2, 1982, p. 15532, and June 20, 1983, pp. 26537-8) and Speaker Fraser (Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16255-7, and April 1, 1992, pp. 9147-9). On June 8, 1988, when he informed the House that he could not divide Bill C-130, Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Speaker Fraser ruled as follows: “Until the House adopts specific rules relating to omnibus Bills, the Chair’s role is very limited and the Speaker should remain on the sidelines as debate proceeds and the House resolves the issue” (Debates, June 8, 1988, p. 16257).
[81] 
As Speaker Jerome explained in a ruling, “… a motion containing two or more substantive provisions is quite distinct from a procedural motion or a motion which is generally described as having only the effect of dealing with the progress of a bill. The practice in respect of substantive motions has never been extended to those motions which relate to the progress of a bill. The use of the omnibus amending bill is well enshrined in our practices, and I really can find no reason to set aside my predecessor’s very clear and sound reasoning, or the practice. Nor can I find any authority which would support an order of the Chair at this second reading stage that the bill be divided” (Debates, May 11, 1977, p. 5522). The conclusion reached by Speaker Lamoureux on January 23, 1969 (Journals, p. 617) was reiterated by Speaker Sauvé on June 20, 1983 (Debates, pp. 26537-8) and by Speaker Fraser on June 8, 1988 (Debates, pp. 16256-7).
[82] 
See, for example, Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, April 11, 1994, p. 2860.
[83] 
See, for example, Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1988, p. 16257. The Speaker had invited members to consult the text by Elmer A. Driedger entitled The Composition of Legislation: Legislative Forms and Precedents (2nd ed., Ottawa: Department of Justice, 1976). See pp. 153-4 of that text, where the author explains Canadian practice as it relates to long titles. According to the Speaker, Driedger clearly demonstrates that every Act being amended need not be mentioned in the title and that the Canadian practice has evolved differently from British practice by the use of generic language.
[84] 
Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 27, 1975, Issue No. 39, p. 106.
[85] 
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 6, 1976, Issue No. 45, pp. 5-7.
[86] 
Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 2, 1970, Issue No. 23, p. 40.
[87] 
See Journals, January 26, 1971, p. 284; Debates, May 11, 1977, pp. 5522-3.
[88] 
See, for example, Journals, January 26, 1971, p. 284; Debates, May 11, 1977, pp. 5523-4.
[89] 
Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319.
[90] 
Journals, May 7, 1982, pp. 4806-7; May 10, 1982, p. 4810.
[91] 
Debates, March 2, 1982, p. 15532.
[92] 
Journals, March 22, 1982, pp. 4626-8. At that time, the Standing Orders provided no time limit for bells rung for unscheduled votes. A recorded vote was demanded on a motion to adjourn. The opposition Whip refused to accompany the government Whip into the Chamber to indicate to the Speaker their readiness to proceed with the vote; the government and opposition parties each demanded concessions before allowing the vote to take place. Consequently, the division bells rang continuously for over 14 days (Debates, March 2, 1982, pp. 15539-41; March 18, 1982, pp. 15555-7).
[93] 
Standing Order 68(3). See Speaker Anglin’s ruling, Debates, April 2, 1878, p. 1583. On May 16, 1923, the House, with the Senate, appointed a Joint Committee to consider a number of matters, including the form of bills and the best means of making legislation available in both Houses, at all stages of the process (Journals, p. 373). Although the existing text of Standing Order 68(3) was not amended at that time, the Committee recommended in its report, and the House agreed, that certain very specific information should appear in the printed version of bills (Journals, June 14, 1923, pp. 469-70). The recommendations set out in the report were incorporated into the Senate Rules. However, they have never been incorporated into the Standing Orders of the House. Over the years, Members have occasionally cited the guidelines set out in the report in calling for certain bills to be ruled out of order (Debates, May 12, 1931, pp. 1514-7; Journals, May 10, 1938, p. 322).
[94] 
In April 1943, the Leader of the Official Opposition, Gordon Graydon, rose to speak against first reading of a bill that had not yet been written. He said that Members were being asked to pass what was just “a blank piece of paper” (Debates, April 16, 1943, pp. 2275-7).
[95] 
Debates, May 16, 1978, p. 5461; December 15, 1980, p. 5746. On the other hand, in a ruling made on May 17, 1956, the Chair said that a bill had to have blanks when it was introduced and given first reading in order for it to be ruled to be in blank or in an imperfect shape. Speaker Beaudoin then ruled that a bill referring to an agreement that was not included in extenso in the bill was in order (Journals, pp. 567-9).
[96] 
Debates, April 20, 1970, pp. 6046-8. Similar rulings were made by Speaker Lamoureux (Debates, February 24, 1971, p. 3712) and Speaker Fraser (Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16252-9, and in particular pp. 16257-8; November 28, 1991, pp. 5513-4).
[97] 
Standing Order 70. See Speaker Michener’s ruling, Journals, January 19, 1960, p. 28.
[98]
The Department of Justice is responsible for the publication of federal statutes in the Canada Gazette and the Annual Statutes.
[99] 
Journals, May 6, 1882, pp. 405-6.
[100] 
In the British House of Commons, the Speaker is given wide latitude to correct minor errors in motions or bills (May, 22nd ed., pp. 332, 336 and 502). See also Kaul and Shakdher, p. 518.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page