House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 EditionMore information …

16. The Legislative Process

The average man, bewildered and overpowered by the thousands of laws and regulations which press in upon him and increasingly restrict his freedom, his right to make decisions, would be left absolutely defenceless without an active parliament with the strength and vitality which it must possess.

G.W. Baldwin, m.p. (Peace River)
(Debates, December 10, 1968, p. 3791)

T

he examination and enactment of legislation are often regarded as the most significant task of Parliament. It is therefore not surprising that the legislative process takes up a major portion of Parliament’s time. [1]  But what exactly is the legislative process? There are those who have defined it as a series of actions leading to the proclamation of a statute. The parliamentary stages that are the subject of this chapter are the final links in a much longer process that starts with the proposal, formulation and drafting of a bill, normally by extra-parliamentary bodies.

In the Parliament of Canada, as in all legislative assemblies based on the British model, there is a clearly defined method for enacting legislation. A bill must go through a number of very specific stages in the House of Commons and the Senate before it becomes law. In parliamentary jargon, these stages make up what is called the legislative process. When the House of Commons and the Senate pass a bill, they are asking the Crown to proclaim that this text is the law of the land. Once Royal Assent is given to the bill, it is transformed from a bill to a statute. Because the process by which a legislative proposal becomes first a bill, and then a law, takes place in Parliament, the product — the statute — is often called an “Act of Parliament”. [2] 

Traditionally, the process begins with a bill being introduced in one of the Houses of Parliament and ends with the ceremony of Royal Assent, which brings together the three constituent elements of Parliament: the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons. The process is complex, but the validation of a statute is the result of the approval of the same text by the three constituent elements of Parliament.

This chapter will examine the stages that a public bill must go through before becoming law. Private bills follow essentially the same stages, but they must be initiated by a petition and are subject to certain special rules. [3]

Historical Perspective

Great Britain

The legislative process comes to us from medieval times. During the early days of the British Parliament, requests by the Commons in relation to legislation were made to the King in the form of petitions. [4]  When the King convened Parliament seeking supply, in return the Commons presented the petitions for which they wished to obtain his assent. Petitions could be either oral or in writing. Those that the King decided to grant [5]  were then written up by his advisors in the form of statutes [6]  which were entered on the Statute Rolls. The statutes reproduced the wording of the petition and the King’s reply, but the King and his advisors often took the initiative of amending the wording of the petition fairly extensively, and in some cases failed to keep to the reply that had been given. [7] 

One important step in the process was taken in 1414 when the Commons asked Henry V (1413-22) to be considered “as well Assentirs as Peticioners” and also asked that when their petitions were written in the form of law, they not be altered without their consent. [8]  A few years later, during the reign of Henry VI (1422-61; 1470-71), the Commons succeeded in establishing the practice of having their requests in relation to legislation presented to the King in the form of bills, and they obtained the King’s assurance that those bills would not be altered without their consent. [9] 

The evolution of the role of the Commons in the legislative process was also marked by the changes made to the enacting clause used in statutes. Starting at the beginning of the reign of Edward III (1327-77), the words “at the request of the Commons” were used as the enacting clause. Under Henry VI, the words “by authority of Parliament” first appeared in legislation, reflecting the growing influence of the Commons in the legislative process. [10] 

Once it had been agreed that the statutes should accurately reflect Parliament’s requests in relation to legislation, it became necessary to make procedural rules to guide the introduction and passage of bills. By the end of the reign of Elizabeth I (1558-1603), the practice of three readings, with no debate on the first reading and reference of the bill to a committee after second reading, was already firmly established. [11] 

Canada

Before Confederation

In the years preceding Confederation, the assemblies of the Canadian colonies relied on British parliamentary traditions in conducting their deliberations. The legislative assemblies of Upper and Lower Canada that were instituted by the Constitutional Act, 1791 followed British parliamentary procedure. [12]  The legislative process of the Assembly of Upper Canada, however, was not as elaborate as that of the Assembly of Lower Canada, which had adopted a larger number of rules of procedure in 1792 for passing its bills. [13] 

The first Canadian code of procedure, which was published in March 1793 under the title Rules and Regulations of the House of Assembly, Lower Canada[14] contained provisions to govern both the introduction and the passage of the bills of that assembly. At that time, committees were often assigned the task of formulating a bill. [15]  Every bill had to be introduced by motion, and be given three readings in both languages, [16]  and could not be amended or referred to a committee before receiving second reading. [17] Every bill also had to be printed before second reading. After being passed by the Assembly, bills were transmitted to the Legislative Council for adoption by members of the Council and ultimately for Royal Assent. [18] 

At the time of the Union of Upper and Lower Canada in 1840, the legislative assemblies had to agree on a common procedure. Most of the rules that were adopted at that time were those in force in the Assembly of Lower Canada. [19]  The procedure for the passage of public bills remained essentially the same. [20]  However, a number of provisions were adopted to deal with private bills. [21] 

Since Confederation

When the House of Commons of Canada met for the first time on November 6, 1867, it began its proceedings under the rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, which already contained provisions relating to the consideration of bills. On December 20, 1867, it approved the report of a special committee that had been instructed to assist the Speaker in establishing the rules of procedure for the House. The only major change that was made to the rules of the former Legislative Assembly of Canada related mainly to the process for considering private bills. [22]  Consequently, the sections that appear in the Rules of the former Legislative Assembly of Canada under the heading “Proceedings on Bills” [23]  were reproduced in full in the first edition of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

Some of the rules concerning the legislative process that were in effect at Confederation are still in effect today. Some examples are: the Standing Orders prohibiting the introduction of bills in blank or in an imperfect form, and stipulating that all bills be read three times on different days, be printed in both official languages and be certified by the Clerk of the House on each reading. [24] 

The rules of procedure governing the legislative process have been amended on several occasions since 1867 with the aim of facilitating the consideration of public bills, expanding the roles of committees and allowing for greater participation by Members of the House of Commons. For instance, until 1913, a Member had to seek leave of the House if he wanted to introduce a bill, and that motion could be debated and amended. [25]  In April 1913, the House decided that motions for leave to introduce a bill would no longer be debated or amended. [26]  As well, in 1955, it added another provision to the Standing Orders specifying the practice by which a Member who proposed such a motion would be given leave to provide a brief description of the bill. [27]  In 1991, the House again amended the Standing Orders to provide that motions for leave to introduce a bill be deemed to be carried, without debate, amendment or question put. [28] 

Some procedural rules were also amended to allow the House to expedite its business. From Confederation until 1927, there was practically no time limit on the length of Members’ speeches. Debates on bills might sometimes go on for several days. [29]  In 1927, the House adopted a Standing Order imposing a limit on the speeches of most Members. [30]  That fundamental rule remained in effect without amendment until 1982, the year when the House incorporated specific provisions into the legislative process governing the length of speeches and the period for questions and comments. [31] 

Over the years, a number of special committees have examined the Standing Orders governing the legislative process. [32]  In 1968, the House assigned the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House the task of performing a thorough review of the legislative process. [33]  In its Third Report, the Committee recommended changes designed to eliminate obsolete practices, [34]  provide more meaningful opportunities for Members to participate in the consideration and shaping of bills, and identify the crucial stages in a bill’s passage. [35]  The most important provisions adopted at that time include referring bills other than those based on Supply and Ways and Means motions to standing or special committees, reviving the report stage as a debating stage of the legislative process and reducing the maximum length of speeches in debates at the report stage, and giving the Speaker the authority to select and combine amendments. [36] 

In the early 1980s, special committees which had been instructed to examine House procedure once again undertook a consideration of the twin issues of expediting and broadening the scrutiny of bills and expanding the work assigned to committees. In March 1983, a report recommended that “legislative committees” be created and given the task of examining each bill in depth. [37]  Although the recommendations that came out of that study were not adopted, the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons recommended, in 1984, that legislative committees be created and that bills based on Ways and Means motions also be referred to legislative committees. The Committee also suggested that the scrutiny of such complex bills in small committees composed of a group of specialist Members was preferable to study by a Committee of the Whole. [38]  These two recommendations were incorporated into the amendments made to the Standing Orders on June 27, 1985. [39] 

A few years later, in April 1991, the House made extensive changes to its Standing Orders. Among the provisions amended were those relating to the automatic adoption of motions for the introduction and first reading of bills; to the referral, by a Minister after consultation, of a bill to a standing or special committee instead of to a legislative committee; to the requirement of a period of two sitting days, as opposed to 48 hours, between the time a bill is reported and the commencement of report stage; and to the requirement of a 24 hours’ written notice for any motion respecting Senate amendments to a bill. [40] 

At the beginning of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament in 1994, the Standing Orders were once again amended to make the legislative process more flexible. [41]  New provisions were added relating to the preparation and bringing in of bills by committees and to the option of referring bills to either standing, special or legislative committees. However, bills based on Supply motions continued to be referred to a Committee of the Whole. In addition, it became possible for a Minister to move that a government bill be referred to a committee before second reading.

Although the House has since returned to the previous practice of referring bills only to standing and special committees, the rules pertaining to the referral of bills to legislative committees have not been changed. They still exist but have not been resorted to since the changes to the Standing Orders in 1994.

Types of Bills

There are two main categories of bills: public bills and private bills. While public bills deal with questions of national interest, [42]  the purpose of private bills is to grant powers, special rights or exemptions to a person or persons, including corporations. [43] 

Public Bills

Public bills may be initiated by a Minister, in which case they are referred to as “government bills”. They may also be initiated by private Members, in which case they are called “private Members’ bills”.

Government Bills

A government bill is the text of a legislative initiative that the government submits to Parliament to be approved, and possibly amended, before becoming law. Such bills relate to a matter of public interest and may include financial provisions.

Private Members’ Bills

A private Member’s bill is the text of a legislative initiative that is submitted to Parliament by a Member who is not a Minister to be approved, and possibly amended, before becoming law. Most bills of this type originate in the House of Commons, but some of them are sent to the Commons by the Senate.

Debate on private Member’s bills can take place only during the hour set aside for “Private Members’ Business”. [44] Before this kind of bill can be taken up for debate by the House, it must have been selected following a random draw, as provided by the Standing Orders. [45]  At least two weeks must elapse between first and second readings of this type of bill. [46] 

Private Bills

The purpose of a private bill is to exempt a person or group of persons, including a corporate person, from the application of a statute. [47]  It may not be introduced by a Minister, and must be founded on a petition signed by the persons who are interested in promoting it. The distinction between a public bill and a private bill is primarily a function of the purpose of the bill.

Most private bills are introduced in the Senate, but they may also be introduced in the House of Commons, although this is a rarer occurrence. Private bills before the House are dealt with as Private Members’ Business, since they are moved by Members who do not hold ministerial office. Although private bills must go through the same stages as any other legislative measure, there are other stages that must be completed before they are introduced. [48]

Bills that seem to be both public and private in nature are referred to as hybrid bills. While British parliamentary practice allows this type of bill, that is not the case in the Canadian Parliament. [49]  Canadian parliamentary procedure requires that all bills be classified as either public bills or private bills. [50]  When a single bill contains both private bill and public bill considerations, it is dealt with as a public bill. [51] 

Form of Bills

The enactment of a statute by Parliament is the final step in a long process that starts with the proposal, preparation and drafting of a bill. The drafting of a bill, in particular, is one of the most important stages in the process. At that point, the decision makers and drafters must take into account certain constraints; the failure to abide by these constraints may have consequences in relation to the interpretation and application of the law and the proper functioning of the legislative process.

Limits on Legislative Action

The Constitution of Canada sets out a number of rules that define the limits on legislative action and circumscribe what may be done by the government and Parliament. [52]  The effect of the legal duality, which is one of the unique characteristics of Canada, may be to create differences in how a federal statute is applied and interpreted, depending on whether the part of Canada where it is being applied is governed by common law or civil law. [53]

Bills must be enacted, published and printed simultaneously in French and English. Section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 requires that bills proceed in both languages through the entire legislative process, including first reading. [54]  Section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1982 further provides that both versions of the statutes are equally authoritative.

Drafting Bills

Government Bills

The production of a government bill begins when the government decides to transform a policy initiative into a legislative proposal. [55]  The Department of Justice then prepares a draft bill, following the instructions given by Cabinet. [56]  The Minister of Justice is required to examine every bill introduced by a Minister, and to ascertain that it is consistent with the Canadian Bill of Rights and the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms[57] 

When a bill has been drafted in both official languages, it must be approved by Cabinet before being introduced in Parliament. The Government House Leader is responsible for reviewing the bill and recommending that it be introduced in Parliament. Generally, the Government House Leader asks Cabinet to delegate this responsibility to him or her. [58] 

Private Members’ Bills

Members of the House of Commons who are not in Cabinet may introduce bills that will be considered under Private Members’ Business. Members have access to legislative services, which are under the authority of the Speaker of the House, for drafting their bills. Before a bill is introduced in the House, the legislative services of the House of Commons will certify that it is acceptable as to its form and compliance with legislative and parliamentary conventions. [59]

Private Bills

A private bill, which is sponsored by a private Member, is founded on a petition which must first have received a favourable report by the Examiner of Petitions or by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. [60]  While the form of a private bill is similar to that of a public bill, a private bill must have a preamble, which is not mandatory for a public bill. [61]  The Standing Orders of the House also provide for certain rules of drafting and, specifically, rules relating to bills for an Act of incorporation and bills amending or repealing existing Acts. [62] 

Drafting by a Committee

A committee may be instructed to prepare and bring in a bill [63]  or a committee may be appointed for that specific reason. In both cases, a motion for the preparation of a bill by a committee may be moved by either a Minister or a private Member. A committee that has been instructed to prepare a bill shall, in its report, recommend the principles, scope and general provisions of the bill and may, if it deems it appropriate, include recommendations regarding legislative wording. [64]  If the House concurs in the committee report, this will be an order of the House to bring in a bill based on the report.

Other Drafting Characteristics

Bills may also have other drafting characteristics, depending on the purpose of the proposed legislation.

  • New legislation: Bills resulting from a policy decision or, in some cases, to implement treaties, conventions or agreements, to accept recommendations arising out of a report of a Task Force or Royal Commission of Inquiry, to carry out administrative measures, or to deal with emergencies. [65] 
  • Major revisions of existing Acts: Bills to revise an Act because it contains a sunset clause (certain Acts provide that they must be revised after a certain period of time) or because of changing economic or social standards or circumstances. [66] 
  • Amendments to existing Acts: Bills to amend existing Acts. The amendments may be of either a substantive or a housekeeping nature.
  • Statute law amendment bills: An initiative for the purpose of eliminating anomalies, inconsistencies, archaisms and errors in existing legislation and to deal with other matters of a non-controversial and uncomplicated nature. [67] 
  • Ways and Means bills: An initiative based on Ways and Means motions, the purpose of which is to create a new income or other tax, to continue a tax which is expiring, to increase a tax or to extend the scope of a tax. These bills are governed by specific provisions of the Standing Orders. [68]  Only a Minister may introduce a Ways and Means bill. [69] 
  • Appropriation bills: An initiative introduced in the House in response to the adoption of Main or Supplementary Estimates or Interim Supply. These bills are also governed by specific provisions of the Standing Orders. [70]  Only a Minister may introduce an appropriation bill.
  • Borrowing authority bills: An initiative to seek authority to raise money when public revenues are not adequate to cover government expenditures. [71] 
  • Pro forma bills: A pro forma bill is introduced by the Prime Minister at the beginning of each session. It affirms the right of the House to conduct its proceedings and to legislate, regardless of the reasons stated in the Speech from the Throne for convening the House. The bill is entitled An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office; it is numbered C-1 but is not printed. It is given first reading, but not second reading. [72] 
  • Draft bills: This expression is used to refer to the draft form of a bill that has not yet been introduced in either House. Occasionally, the House may have the draft of a government bill sent to a committee for examination. As the bill has not yet been given first reading, the committee may examine the proposed legislation without being constrained by the rules of the legislative process, and may recommend changes. The government can then take the committee’s report into consideration when finalizing the draft of the bill.
  • Omnibus bills: Although this expression is commonly used, there is no precise definition of an omnibus bill. In general, an omnibus bill seeks to amend, repeal or enact several Acts, and it is characterized by the fact that it has a number of related but separate parts. [73]  An omnibus bill has “one basic principle or purpose which ties together all the proposed enactments and thereby renders the Bill intelligible for parliamentary purposes”. [74]  One of the reasons cited for introducing an omnibus bill is to bring together in a single bill all the legislative amendments resulting from a policy decision to facilitate parliamentary debate. [75] 

    The use of omnibus bills is unique to Canada. The British Parliament does enact this kind of bill, but its legislative practice is different, specifically in that there is much tighter control over the length of debate. In the Australian Parliament, the opposite practice seems to be followed (the procedure allows for related bills to be considered together for the purpose of debate and vote). [76] 

    It is not known exactly when the first omnibus bills appeared, but as may be seen from the introduction of a private bill to confirm two separate railway agreements, the practice seems to go back to 1888. [77]  A number of omnibus bills have been introduced and passed without any procedural objection to their form being made by Members. [78] 

    It appears to be entirely proper, in procedural terms, for a bill to amend, repeal or enact more than one Act, provided that the necessary notice is given, it is accompanied by the Royal Recommendation (where necessary), and it follows the form required. [79]  However, on the question of whether the Chair can be persuaded to divide a bill simply because it is complex or composite in nature, there are many precedents from which it can be concluded that Canadian practice does not permit this. [80] 

    Members have often rejected the government’s reasons for introducing omnibus bills and have argued that some omnibus bills are not acceptable. Frequently, they have cited their “ancient privilege” to vote separately on each proposal which is contained in a complex question. However, the Speakers of the House have ruled that their power to divide complex questions could extend only to substantive motions, and not to motions dealing with the progress of bills. [81]  In calling for the division of an omnibus bill, Members sometimes argue that the bill contains more than one principle. [82]  Occasionally, Members also contend that the long title of an omnibus bill should refer to every act being amended. The Chair has ruled that this is not necessary. [83] 

    Motions to divide omnibus bills have on occasion been moved in committee, but these have been ruled out of order. Unless a committee has received an instruction from the House, it may only report the bill with or without amendment. [84]  Committee chairs have also ruled against motions to submit two reports on one bill in which each addressed specific topics in the bill, thus in effect dividing the bill. [85]  However, committee chairs have ruled in order motions which would allow a committee to seek an instruction to divide a bill. [86] 

    Despite the refusal to divide omnibus bills, the Speaker has expressed deep concerns about the right of Members to make themselves heard properly, [87]  and so has occasionally felt the need to suggest what remedies Members have to deal with the dilemma of having to approve several legislative provisions at the same time. [88] 

    While there has never been an occasion when the Chair has decided that a bill should be divided on the ground of complexity, there are however three cases that are of particular interest. In 1981, during examination of Bill C-54, An Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to provide other authority for raising funds, Speaker Sauvé ordered that Part I of the bill, relating to borrowing authority, be struck because the necessary notice had not been given. [89]  Later in the same session, another amending bill that dealt with both taxation and the borrowing authority was introduced (Bill C-93). At the insistence of the opposition, the government decided to withdraw the bill, on May 7, 1982, and introduced two separate pieces of legislation on May 10, 1982. [90]  The division of the omnibus bill in this case was brought about by the political process and was not the result of any procedural argument. The most noteworthy case is Bill C-94, Energy Security Act, 1982. On March 2, 1982, in response to a point of order raised the day before, asking the Chair to divide the bill, Speaker Sauvé ruled that there were no precedents which would permit her to divide the bill. [91]  This led to the famous “bell-ringing” incident, as a result of which the government ultimately moved, and the House passed, a motion to divide the bill into eight separate pieces of legislation. [92]  Once again, the division of the omnibus bill was brought about by political interaction.

Bills in Blank or in an Imperfect Shape

Since Confederation, the Chair has held that the introduction of bills that contain blank passages or are in an imperfect shape is clearly contrary to the Standing Orders. [93]  A bill in blank or in an imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed. [94]  Although this provision deals mainly with errors identified when the bill is introduced, Members have brought such defects or anomalies to the attention of the Chair at various stages in the legislative process. In the past, the Speaker has directed that the order for second reading of certain bills be discharged, when it was discovered that they were not in their final form and were therefore not ready to be introduced. [95] 

Occasionally, bills contain provisions that refer to legislation that has not yet been enacted. In April 1970, some Members argued that a bill should be regarded as imperfect and should not be debated because it incorporated provisions of two statutes which had not yet been enacted. Although Speaker Lamoureux ruled that the bill was in order, he pointed out that this question could be raised again on third reading, if the House was asked at that stage to adopt a bill which was dependent on the adoption of other legislation. [96] 

Printing and Reprinting of Bills

Within a few hours after a bill has been introduced and given first reading, it is printed and distributed to Members. Every bill must be printed in both official languages. [97]  The bill will be reprinted after the committee stage, if it has been amended and the committee orders that it be reprinted. It is then used as a working document for the House at the report stage. After adoption at third reading, the bill as passed by the House in its final form is reprinted for the Senate’s consideration. Ultimately, it is reprinted in the form of an Act after receiving Royal Assent, and it will then be published in the Canada Gazette and, at the end of the year, in the Annual Statutes[98]

Clerical Alterations

The Chair has clearly ruled in the past that when a bill is in possession of the House, it becomes its property, and cannot be materially altered, except by the House itself. Only “mere clerical alterations” are allowed. [99]  By issuing a corrigendum to the bill, the Speaker [100]  may correct any obvious printing or clerical error, at any stage of the bill. [101]  On the other hand, no substantive change may be made to the manner in which a bill was worded when it was introduced, or when a committee reported on it, otherwise than by an amendment passed by the House. [102] 

Structure of Bills

A bill is composed of a number of elements, some of which, such as the title, are essential or fundamental, while others, such as the preamble, are optional. The following is a description of the various elements of a bill.

Number

When a bill is introduced in the House, it is assigned a number to facilitate filing and reference. [103]  Government bills are numbered consecutively from C-2 to C-200, [104] while private members’ bills are numbered consecutively from C-201 to C-1000. Although private bills are rarely introduced in the House, they are numbered beginning at C-1001. In order to differentiate between bills that are introduced in the two Houses of Parliament, the number assigned to bills introduced in the Senate begins with an “S” rather than a “C”. Senate bills are numbered consecutively beginning at S-1, whether they are government bills, private Members’ bills or private bills, and are not renumbered or reprinted when they are sent to the Commons.

Title

The title is an essential element of a bill. A bill may have two titles: a full or long title and a short title. [105]  The long title appears both on the bill’s cover page, under the number assigned to the bill, and at the top of the first page of the document. It sets out the purpose of the bill, in general terms, and must accurately reflect its content. The short title is used mainly for citation purposes, and does not necessarily cover all aspects of the bill. [106]  The first clause of the bill normally sets out the short title (except in the case of bills amending other Acts, which do not have a short title).

Preamble

Sometimes a bill has a preamble, which sets out the purposes of the bill and the reasons for introducing it. [107]  The preamble appears between the long title and the enacting clause.

Enacting Clause

The enacting clause is an essential part of the bill. It states the authority under which it is enacted, and consists of a brief paragraph following the long title and preceding the provisions of the bill: “Her Majesty, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate and House of Commons of Canada, enacts as follows:”. Where there is a preamble, the enacting clause follows it. [108] 

Clause

A clause is a fundamental element of a bill. It may be divided into subclauses, and then into paragraphs and even subparagraphs. [109] A bill may be comprised of parts, divisions and subdivisions, but not necessarily; however, the numbering of the clauses is continuous from beginning to end. A clause should contain a single idea, which is most often expressed in a single sentence. A number of related ideas will be set out in subclauses within a single clause. [110] 

Interpretation Provisions

A bill will sometimes include definitions or rules of interpretation, [111]  which provide a legal definition of the key expressions used in the legislation and how those expressions apply, and which are often among the initial clauses of a bill. However, there is nothing that requires that a bill include interpretation provisions.

Coming-into-force Provisions

A bill may contain a clause, usually at the end of the bill, specifying when the bill or certain provisions of the bill will come into force. Sometimes, legislation is passed by both Houses of Parliament and receives Royal Assent, but does not come into force immediately if it contains a provision that it will come into force only on a specific date (other than the date of Royal Assent) or a date to be fixed by Order in Council. Otherwise, the bill ill come into force on the day it is assented to.

Schedules

A bill may contain schedules which provide details that are essential to certain provisions of the bill. There are two types of schedules: [112]  those that contain material that cannot be put into the form of sections, such as, for example, tables, diagrams, lists and maps, [113]  and those that reproduce an agreement that falls within Crown prerogative, such as, for example, treaties and conventions. [114] 

Explanatory Notes

When the purpose of a bill is to amend an existing Act, the drafters will insert notes to explain the amendments made by the bill. Among other things, these notes provide the original text of the provisions affected by the bill. They are considered not to be part of the bill, and they disappear from subsequent reprints of the bill. [115] 

Summary

The summary is a general description of the bill. It consists of “a clear, factual, non-partisan summary of the purpose of the bill and its main provisions”. [116]  The purpose of the summary is to improve the explanatory material that is available to understand better the contents of the bill. The summary is not part of the contents but appears separately at the beginning of the bill. Once the bill has been passed, it will also appear on a page preceding the resulting Act. [117] 

Marginal Notes

Marginal notes consist of short explanations that appear in the margin of the bill. They do not form part of the bill, and appear only as readers’ aids or for information purposes. [118] 

Underlining and Vertical Lines

In a bill that amends an existing Act, the new text is underlined when it consists of long passages, or simply indicated with a vertical line (in the margin beside the new clauses, subclauses or paragraphs). When a bill that has been amended in committee is reprinted, only the additions made since the last printing are indicated in this manner.

Headings

To make the reader’s job easier, legislative drafters insert headings throughout the text. However, those headings are not considered to be part of the bill and therefore cannot be amended. [119] 

Table of Contents

As an aid to readers, legislative drafters sometimes add a table of contents at the beginning or end of a bill. It is not, however, considered to be part of the bill.

Royal Recommendation

Bills that involve the expenditure of public funds must have a Royal Recommendation. [120]  The recommendation is made by the Governor General. Generally, it is communicated to the House before a bill is introduced, and it must be published in the Notice Paper and printed in or annexed to the bill. [121]  The Royal Recommendation is not part of the bill but appears separately at the beginning of the bill. [122]  After the bill is given first reading, the text of the Royal Recommendation is printed in the Journals. The Royal Recommendation may only be obtained by the government.

Stages in the Legislative Process

A bill is carried forward through all the stages of the legislative process “by a long chain of standardized motions” which must be adopted by the House before the bill becomes law. [123]  It is these motions, and not the bill, that are the subject of the decisions and debates of the House. These stages “constitute a simple and logical process in which each stage transcends the one immediately before it, so that although the basic motions — that the bill be read a first (second or third) time — ostensibly are the same, and seem repetitious, they have very different meanings”. [124]  Moreover, the House does not commit itself conclusively in favour of a bill until the final stage, when it takes a decision to let the bill pass from the House or not. [125] 

The Standing Orders of the House require that every bill receive three readings, on different days, before being passed. [126]  The practice of giving every bill three separate readings derives from an ancient parliamentary practice which originated in the United Kingdom. [127]  At that time, when the technology was not yet available to reproduce large numbers of copies at low cost, bills were introduced in handwritten form, one copy at a time. In order for Members to know what the content of the bill was, the clerk read the document to them; the idea of “reading” the bill was taken literally. [128] 

Today, a bill is no longer read aloud, but the formality of holding a reading is still preserved. When the Speaker declares that the motion for first reading has passed, a clerk at the Table rises and announces “First reading of this bill”, thus signifying that the order of the House has been obeyed. That scenario is repeated when the House has ordered a second and then a third reading of the bill.

A certification of reading must be affixed to every bill immediately after each of the three readings is adopted. The Clerk of the House is responsible for certifying each reading, and entering the date it passed at the foot of the bill. [129]  A bill remains in the custody of the Clerk throughout all the stages of consideration. No substantive alteration to the bill is permitted without the express authority of the House or a committee, in the form of an amendment. The original bills, certified by the Clerk, form part of the records of the House. [130] 

All bills must go through the same stages of the legislative process, but they do not necessarily follow the same route. Since the House adopted new rules to make the legislative process more flexible, [131]  three avenues now exist for the adoption of legislation (see Figure 16.1):

  • After appropriate notice, a Minister or a private Member may introduce a bill, which will be given first reading immediately. The bill is then debated generally at the second reading stage. It is then sent to a committee for clause-by-clause study.
  • A Minister or a private Member may propose a motion that a committee be instructed to prepare a bill. A bill will be presented by the committee and carried through the second reading stage without debate or amendment.
  • A Minister may move that a bill be referred to a committee for study before second reading.

Regardless of the avenue that the House decides to take, the bill will then have to be carried through report stage, be read a third time and be sent to the Senate for passage before receiving Royal Assent. At the start of a new session, a public bill may, if it is the same bill as was introduced in the preceding session, be reinstated at the stage it had reached at the time of prorogation. This procedure may be effected either by passing a motion to that effect [132]  or, in the case of a private Member’s bill, by invoking the provision of a new Standing Order adopted in 1998. [133] 

On urgent or extraordinary occasions, if the House so decides, a bill may be given two or three readings on the same day, or advanced two or more stages in one day. [134]  This provision of the Standing Orders refers only to the reading stages. [135]  It is up to the House itself, and not the Chair, to determine whether the matter is urgent. [136] 

The following are the stages that a bill must go through when it is introduced in the House of Commons:

  • Notice of motion for leave to introduce and place on the Order Paper;
  • Preparation of a bill by a committee (where applicable);
  • Introduction and first reading;
  • Reference to a committee before second reading (where applicable);
  • Second reading and reference to a committee;
  • Consideration in committee;
  • Report stage;
  • Third reading (and passage);
  • Consideration and passage by the Senate;
  • Passage of Senate amendments by the Commons (where applicable);
  • Royal Assent;
  • Coming into force.

A bill that is introduced in the Senate must go through essentially the same stages, except that it is considered first in the Senate and then in the House of Commons. [137]  Most bills may be introduced in either House, with the exception of bills which involve spending or relate to taxation, which must be introduced in the House of Commons.

Figure 16.1 – The Three Options of the Legislative Process
(Government Bills Originating in the House of Commons)
Image depicting three columns, composed of a series of boxes linked by lines, that shows each step in three different options for the legislative process: 1. the process by which a bill is referred to committee before second reading; 2. the process by which a bill is referred to committee after second reading; and 3. the process by which a committee prepares and brings in a bill.

Notice of Motion for Leave to Introduce and Place on the Order Paper

The introduction of any public bill requires 48 hours’ written notice. [138]  The notice of motion is a prerequisite in the legislative process. Once notice is given for the introduction of a bill, no further notice is required in respect of the bill at the other stages of consideration (with the exception of motions to amend at the report stage). There are separate requirements that apply in respect of the notice required for private bills. [139]

A private Member or a Minister who intends to introduce a bill in the House of Commons must first give notice to the Clerk of the House before 6:00 p.m. (2:00 p.m. on Friday). [140]  The title of the bill to be introduced is then placed on the Notice Paper. The day after it appears on the Notice Paper, the title will appear in the Order Paper in the order that the notices were received, for introduction in the House. This satisfies the 48-hour notice requirement in the Standing Orders. The title of the bill will remain on the Order Paper until the day when the private Member or Minister decides to introduce the bill.

There are special rules dealing with the introduction of bills that involve the expenditure of public funds and bills based on Ways and Means motions. Those provisions are described in Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.

Preparation of a Bill by a Committee

The Standing Orders provide that a motion to appoint or instruct a committee to prepare a bill [141]  may be moved by a Minister [142]  or by a private Member. [143]  However, the procedures to be followed in each instance are not entirely the same.

A Minister who wants to instruct a committee to prepare and bring in a bill must give 48 hours’ written notice of the motion he or she intends to move to do so. [144]  Once the notice period has passed, the motion will be placed on the Order Paper under “Government Orders”. When it is called by the government, it may be debated for a maximum of 90 minutes, after which the Speaker will interrupt debate and put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion. [145] 

If a private Member wants to instruct a committee to produce and bring in a bill, the Member must give at least two weeks’ written notice of the motion he or she intends to make. [146]  When that notice period has passed, the motion will be placed on the Order Paper under “Private Members’ Business”. It will then be governed by all the rules relating to Private Members’ Business (that is, it will be subject to the random draw procedure, it will have to be selected as a matter that can be voted on and it will be taken up during the time set aside for Private Members’ Business [147] ).

The adoption by the House of a motion to concur in a report of a committee instructed to prepare and bring in a bill is an order to bring in the bill. [148]  If, at the time the motion for first reading of a bill is moved, the Minister or Member states that the bill is based on the committee report, the motion for second reading will be moved at a later date, without debate or amendment. Consideration of a government bill at the second reading stage may not begin before the third sitting day after first reading. [149]  At least two weeks must elapse between first and second reading of private Member’s bills. [150]  After second reading, the bill goes through the other ordinary stages for public legislation.

Introduction and First Reading

The first real stage in the legislative process is the introduction and first reading of the bill in the House. When the notice period has elapsed and the Member or Minister is ready to introduce his or her bill, the Member or Minister informs the Chair of his or her intention to proceed during Routine Proceedings when the item “Introduction of Government Bills” or “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills” is called. Leave to introduce a bill is granted automatically, and the motion is deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put. [151]  A Minister does not normally provide any explanation when requesting leave to introduce a bill, but may do so. [152]  On the other hand, a private Member normally provides a brief explanation of the bill he or she is introducing in the House. [153] 

The purpose of first reading is to allow for the bill to be introduced so that it may be printed and distributed to all Members. It is at that point that a specific bill number is assigned to it. Passage of the motion for first reading simply means that the House agrees to the introduction of the bill without any commitment beyond the fact that it should be made generally available for the information of Parliament and the public. [154]  There can be no discussion at this stage. When leave to introduce the bill has been granted, the Speaker proposes the following motion to the House: “That this bill be read a first time and be printed.” That motion is deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put. [155]  The Speaker then asks: “When shall the billbe read a second time?”, and answers, “At the next sitting of the House.” The question is in fact a formality which enables the bill to be placed on the Order Paper under the heading “Government Orders” or “Private Members’ Business”. [156] 

Senate bills are already printed when they are sent to the House of Commons. Accordingly, the request for leave to introduce the bill is not required. The motion for first reading is deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put. [157]  Senate bills then go through the same stages as House of Commons bills.

Reference to Committee Before Second Reading

Traditionally, when the House proceeds to second reading of a bill, it is asked to give approval to the principle of the bill. However, the effect of adoption of the principle at this stage of the legislative process is to limit the scope of amendments that may be made during committee study and at report stage. In wishing to provide more flexibility in the legislative process, when the House amended its Standing Orders in 1994, [158]  it instituted a new procedure that allows a Minister to move that a government bill be referred to a committee before second reading. [159]  This enables Members to examine the principle of a bill before second reading, and to propose amendments to alter its scope. [160]  This procedure also applies to bills based on Ways and Means motions. [161] 

When the Order of the Day is read for the second reading of a government bill, a Minister may, [162]  after n.tifying representatives of the opposition parties, propose a motion that the bill be forthwith referred to committee before second reading. The Standing Orders are silent as to the manner in which the representatives of the opposition parties are to be notified. However, the practice which has been followed since 1994 is for the Minister to inform the House of the government’s intention at the time of the introduction and first reading of the bill. The motion to refer forthwith the bill to committee is not subject to any amendment, and debate is limited to three hours. At the end of the three hours, or when no more Members rise to speak, the Speaker puts the question on the motion. [163]  If the motion is adopted, the bill is referred to a standing, special or legislative committee for consideration.

In general, during clause by clause consideration of a bill, the committee follows the same rules and procedures that apply to the consideration of bills in committee after second reading. [164] It may hear witnesses and receive briefs. However, the scope of the amendments that may be made to the bill is much wider, given that the committee study is not limited to the principle of the bill, the principle not having been approved yet by the House. At the end of its study, the committee reports the bill to the House, with or without amendment. The report stage of the bill may not be taken into consideration prior to the third sitting day following the presentation of the report. [165] 

When the committee reports the bill to the House, the next stage is essentially a combination of the report stage and second reading. At this stage, Members may propose amendments, after giving written notice two sitting days prior to the bill being called. [166]  When consideration of report stage is concluded, a motion “That the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage and read a second time” or “That the bill be concurred in at report stage and read a second time” is put and forthwith disposed of by the House, without debate or amendment. [167]  Once concurred in at report stage and read a second time, the bill is set down for third reading and passage at the next sitting of the House.

Second Reading and Reference to a Committee

Second reading gives Members an opportunity to hold a general debate on the principle [168]  of a bill. Although the Standing Orders of the House make no specific reference to this point, tradition and practice hold that it is at this stage of the legislative process that debate on the general scope of a bill takes place. [169]  Consequently, debate must focus on the principle of the bill and not its individual provisions. [170] 

Recognition of the importance of this stage of the legislative process has evolved over the years. Traditionally, it was felt that second reading was the most important stage in the legislative process. [171]  In 1968, the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House stated in its report, after examining the stages of the process, that the significance of the second reading stage had been exaggerated in the past, and that the decisive stage should occur later in a bill’s passage after it had emerged from a committee. [172]  In the Committee’s view, passage of the motion for second reading simply implied that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill and that, without any commitment as to the final passage of the bill, it had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny. [173] 

Second reading of a bill and reference to a committee are moved in the same motion. The motion specifies the committee (standing, special, legislative) to which the bill is referred. [174]  The Standing Orders require, in specific cases, that a bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole. [175] 

Debate on second reading begins when the Minister or Member, as the case may be, rises when the Order of the Day is read for the second reading of the bill and moves “That Bill   be now read a second time and referred to the   Committee.”

The Standing Orders contain provisions concerning the length of speeches of Members during debate. [176]  There is no time limit for the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition. However, no other Member may speak for more than 40 minutes if he or she is the first, second or third Member to speak. In addition, during the five hours of debate that follow the first three Members, no Member may speak for more than 20 minutes, and a period not exceeding 10 minutes is then made available for questions and comments. If there are no questions or comments, or if the time has not been fully used, another Member may then speak. Questions and comments must be relevant to the Member’s speech. [177]  After five hours of debate, any other Member rising to speak has a maximum of 10 minutes, but no period for questions and comments is provided. The Whip of a party may indicate to the Chair at any time during a debate that one or more of the 20-minute or 10-minute periods of debate allotted to Members of his or her party will be divided in two. [178]  By custom, every Member who moves a substantive motion is allowed a reply. Practice is that a Member who proposes a motion for second reading of a bill is also allowed a reply. In the case of government bills, a parliamentary secretary may exercise that right on behalf of the Minister only with the unanimous consent of the House. [179] 

The Standing Orders of the House offer the government a mechanism for limiting debate at second reading, and also at other stages of the legislative process, by using time allocation motions. [180]  This permits the government to establish a timetable for consideration of a public bill. [181] As well, the government has another mechanism, referred to as “closure”, to compel the House to take a decision. [182]  However, this latter procedure is rarely used in relation to bills. [183] 

At the end of the debate, the Speaker puts the question on the motion “That the bill be now read a second time and referred to the committee”. The Speaker asks the House whether it is ready for the question and whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. A recorded division may be requested. [184]  Defeat of a motion for second reading results in the withdrawal of the bill; in fact, the bill is deemed to be no longer before the House, and no date is set for consideration of the bill to resume. [185]  Once the motion is adopted, the bill is referred to the appropriate committee.

Amendments to the Motion for Reading

A public bill which was not referred to a committee before second reading may not be amended before being read a second time and being referred to committee. [186]  However, a motion for second reading of a bill may be amended, [187]  but only three types of amendments may be moved without notice: a three months’ or six months’ hoist; a reasoned amendment; and a referral of the subject matter to a committee.

The Hoist Amendment

The hoist is an amendment that may be moved to a motion for the reading of a bill. Its effect is to prevent a bill from being “now” read a second time, and to postpone the reading for three months or six months. [188]  If it is adopted, the bill is withdrawn for the remainder of the current session. If it is defeated, the result of the procedure is nonetheless to have extended the debate and to have allowed Members to speak a second time.

The hoist amendment originated in British practice, where it appeared in the eighteenth century. It enabled the House of Commons to postpone the resumption of the consideration of a bill. It was subsequently agreed that the adoption of such an amendment by the House was tantamount to the rejection of the bill, since the postponement was deliberately set for a date after the end of the session. Normally, if the session went beyond that date, the bill was not placed again on the Order Paper[189] 

Historical events were responsible for the establishment of three or six months as the postponement period. A hundred years ago, sessions rarely lasted longer than six months, and so a six months’ hoist amendment would be proposed at the beginning of a session, and a three months’ hoist in the final weeks of a session. Today, sessions of the House of Commons of Canada are longer, but the length of sessions is neither regular nor fixed in advance.

An analysis of hoist amendments moved in the House of Commons since Confederation shows that the cases in which this procedure has been used fall into two specific periods. The first was from 1867 to about 1920, and the second from 1920 to the present day.

The first hoist amendment was moved on November 28, 1867. [190]  Prior to 1920, it was the government, not the opposition, that used hoist amendments most often. [191] Because the House had only a little time for government business during the short sessions of that era, the government sometimes felt obliged to dispose of a great number of private Members’ bills by using the hoist procedure so that it would have more time to devote to its own legislation.

Since 1920, the period set aside for government business has grown to take up the largest share of the time in the House, and hoist amendments have gradually come to be used almost exclusively by the opposition. From an examination of the precedents, it is clear that hoist amendments were moved to motions for second and third reading during periods when there was considerable tension between the parties. Those amendments rarely passed: of the scores of cases recorded in the Journals, only four succeeded. In each of those four cases, the hoist amendment was moved by the government with the intent of defeating a private Member’s bill.

A hoist amendment must meet a number of requirements if it is to be ruled in order. The purpose of the amendment is to neutralize the word “now” in the motion for reading. It must therefore amend the motion for reading by eliminating all of the words following the word “That” and replacing them with the following proposition: “Bill (number and title) be not now read a second time but that it be read a second time this day three months (or six months) hence.” A hoist amendment requires no notice, may be debated and may not be amended. [192] 

When a hoist amendment is rejected, debate continues on the main motion; however, no more than one hoist amendment may be moved in respect of the same reading motion. [193]  The adoption of a hoist amendment (whether for three months or six months) is tantamount to the postponement of the consideration of the bill for an indefinite period. [194]  Consequently, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and cannot be introduced again, even after the postponement time has elapsed. [195]  The bill is accordingly defeated indirectly. It is no longer possible to place the bill back on the Order Paper, because to do so would be ruled contrary to the decision of the House. Members have tried to apply the hoist amendment to a resolution [196]  or to include it in the text of a reasoned amendment, [197]  but these attempts were ruled out of order.

The Reasoned Amendment

The reasoned amendment, another type of amendment that may be moved at second reading of a bill, allows a Member to state the reasons why he or she opposes second reading of a bill, by introducing another relevant proposal to replace the original question. [198]  A reasoned amendment, which is introduced in the form of a motion, deletes all the words in the main motion after the word “That” and replaces them with other words.

It is difficult to determine precisely when a reasoned amendment was first moved in the House, but it is believed that the first such amendment was introduced in 1882. [199]  An analysis of the reasoned amendments that have been proposed since Confederation shows that there was an initial period, from about 1882 to 1930, which was remarkable for the latitude allowed in the wording of reasoned amendments. In that period, Members were not too concerned with contesting the receivability of reasoned amendments, and the Chair only rarely intervened. In the early 1930s, regular requests began to be made to Speakers to rule as to whether reasoned amendments were in order; during that second period, which lasted until the mid-1960s, a number of precedents were established. Beginning in the 1970s, it became increasingly difficult for Members to move reasoned amendments that were acceptable in procedural terms. [200]  The Chair is therefore now able to refer to a larger body of Canadian precedents in order to determine whether or not a reasoned amendment is in order.

The Standing Orders of the House of Commons contain no provisions respecting reasoned amendments. [201]  However, precedents have established rules of procedure over the years that cover both the form and substance of such amendments. Today, a reasoned amendment generally takes the form of a request to the House to decline to give a bill second reading, for a specific reason. [202]  There are only two broad categories of reasons that are now cited:

  • A reasoned amendment may be declaratory of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill; or
  • A reasoned amendment may express an opinion as to any circumstances connected with the introduction or consideration of the bill, or with any other initiative opposed to its progress.

For a reasoned amendment to be in order, it must observe the following rules:

  • It must be relevant and relate strictly to the bill being considered. [203]  A reasoned amendment is not relevant, for example, if it relates to another bill; [204]  is intended to divide the bill; [205]  proposes that the bill be withdrawn and replaced by another bill; [206]  relates to the parent Act rather than to the amending bill; [207]  goes beyond the scope of the bill; [208]  involves the expenditure of funds or proposes changes that go beyond the scope of the royal recommendation. [209] 
  • It must not be a direct negation of the principle of the bill. The procedure to be followed when a Member does not agree with the principle of a bill and wants to reject it is simply to vote against the motion for second reading of the bill. [210] 
  • It must not relate to particulars of the bill, [211]  if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in committee. [212] 
  • It must not attach a condition to the adoption of the second reading motion. [213] 

A reasoned amendment which is merely a statement of opposition to portions of the bill is not admissible. [214]  On the other hand, a reasoned amendment need not necessarily oppose the principle of a bill in order to be admissible. Opposition to the principle of the bill is only one of the possible conditions for a reasoned amendment to be in order. [215] 

Where a reasoned amendment is ruled to be in order, the House must dispose of it. To date, there have been no instances in which the House has decided in favour of a reasoned amendment. If it were to do so, that would end debate on the bill, and the House would have to forego second reading of the bill. [216]  The order relating to the bill would disappear from the Order Paper.

Referral of the Subject Matter of a Bill to a Committee

During debate on the motion for second reading, a Member may propose an amendment to refer the subject matter of a bill to a committee for it to consider and report on the matter to the House. This type of amendment replaces all the words after “That” with words proposing that the bill be not now read a second time, that the order for second reading be discharged, the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper and the subject matter be referred to a committee. [217] 

Certain conditions must be met, however, for this type of amendment to be in order. First, the subject matter of the bill may not be referred to more then one committee [218]  nor to a body not in existence. [219]  Second, an amendment that would attach a condition to the adoption of the motion for reading of a bill is out of order. [220]  Third, the actual provisions of the bill may not be referred to committee, as this would be tantamount to instructing a committee to consider certain provisions of a bill even before the bill has been read a second time and referred to committee. [221] 

Motions of Instruction

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may give the committee an instruction by way of a motion which authorizes it to do what it otherwise could not do, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, [222]  examining certain items in particular, [223]  dividing a bill into more than one bill, [224]  consolidating two or more bills into one bill, [225]  or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. [226]  On the other hand, a committee that so wishes may seek an instruction from the House. [227] 

The House may give instructions to a Committee of the Whole or any one of its committees. More than one motion of instruction to a committee for the same bill may be proposed, but each motion must be moved separately. [228]  Motions of instruction respecting bills are permissive rather than mandatory. [229]  It is left to the committee to decide whether or not to exercise the powers given to it by the House. [230] 

Motions of instruction derived from British practice during the second half of the nineteenth century. They were incorporated into the practices of the Canadian House of Commons, although they have been used only on rare occasions. Nearly all the precedents on instructions relating to bills took place during a period when bills were referred to a Committee of the Whole after second reading. During debate on the motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair”, a Member could move an amendment for the purpose of giving an instruction to that committee. Today, when a bill is referred to a Committee of the Whole, [231]  the House gives its instructions, if any, by a special order. [232] 

Motions of instruction are not admissible as an amendment to the motion for second reading of a bill, and may not be moved while the bill in question is still in the possession of the House. [233]  Motions of instruction may be moved immediately after the motion for second reading where it refers the bill to a Committee of the Whole. [234]  No notice is required. However, when a motion of instruction is made at this stage of the legislative process, it is not debatable or amendable. [235] 

A motion of instruction may also be moved in the form of an independent motion. [236]  Forty-eight hours’ written notice is required [237]  and, when the motion is moved in the House, it may be debated and amended. [238]  Debate on a motion of instruction must be strictly relevant to the instruction, and not be directed to the substance of the bill. [239]  A motion of instruction may be moved in the House even after a committee has begun its deliberations on the bill. [240] 

Whether proposed by a Minister or a Member, such a motion may be placed under “Motions” in Routine Proceedings on the Order Paper[241]  Otherwise, it is placed under Government Business, if the notice is given by a Minister, or under Private Members’ Business, if it is given by a private Member. When it is called during the daily period set aside for “Routine Proceedings”, a motion of instruction is then dealt with as an independent substantive motion, even though it is only meaningful in connection with the bill in the possession of the committee. If debate on the motion is adjourned or interrupted before the end of the sitting, the motion is transferred to “Government Orders” and the time for resumption of the debate is left to the pleasure of the government. [242] 

There are a number of reasons why the Chair may rule a motion of instruction to be out of order. A motion of instruction may not be used to deal with an item in a bill that could properly constitute a distinct measure, or to attempt to interfere in the work of a committee which has not yet reported. [243]  A motion of instruction which is not in proper form, or which is not worded in such a way that the committee will clearly understand what the House wants, will also be out of order. [244]  A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill, if it goes beyond the scope of the bill (for example, by embodying in it a principle that is foreign to it or by proposing to amend Acts that are not related to the bill), if it is not sufficiently specific, or if it attempts to delete a portion of the bill. [245]  A motion of instruction will also be ruled out of order if it attempts to confer powers to a committee which it already possesses, [246]  if it enables a committee to divide a bill that does not lend itself to such division, [247]  or if it extends the financial prerogatives of the Crown without a Royal Recommendation for that purpose. [248] 

Royal Consent

Royal Consent (which should not be confused with Royal Assent or Royal Recommendation) is taken from British practice and is part of the unwritten rules and customs of the House of Commons of Canada. Any legislation that affects the prerogatives, hereditary revenues, property or interests of the Crown requires Royal Consent, that is, the consent of the Governor General in his or her capacity as representative of the Sovereign. [249]  Consent is therefore necessary when property rights of the Crown are postponed, compromised or abandoned, or to waive some prerogative of the Crown. [250]  For instance, it was required for bills in connection with railways on which the Crown had a lien, [251]  property rights of the Crown (in national parks and Indian reserves), [252]  the garnishment, attachment and diversion of pensions [253]  and amendments to the Financial Administration Act[254] 

However, the consent of the Crown is not required where the bill relates to property that the Crown may hold for the Crown’s subjects. [255]  The fact that the Crown agrees to give consent does not, however, mean that it approves the substance of the measure; it merely means that it agrees to remove an obstacle to the progress of the bill so that it may be considered by both Houses, and ultimately submitted for Royal Assent. [256] 

Although Royal Consent is often given when a bill is read for the second time, [257]  it may be signified at any stage before final adoption. [258]  It may be given in the form of a special message, [259]  but normally it is transmitted by a Minister [260]  who rises in the House and states: “His/Her Excellency the Governor General has been informed of the purport of this bill and has given his/ her consent, as far as Her Majesty’s prerogatives are affected, to the consideration by Parliament of the bill, that Parliament may do therein as it thinks fit”. If consent has not been given, the Speaker will refuse to put the question for passage at third reading. [261]  If, through inadvertence, a bill requiring Royal Consent were to pass all its stages in the House without consent being given, the proceedings in relation to the bill would be declared null and void. [262] 

Consideration in Committee

During consideration in committee, Members examine the clauses of the bill in detail. It is at this stage that they have their first opportunity to propose amendments to the text of the bill. It is also at this stage that witnesses may be invited to present their views and to appear before the committee to answer Members’ questions. A bill is referred to a standing, special or legislative committee for consideration, [263]  normally after the adoption of second reading in the House, but sometimes before second reading. [264]  Occasionally, bills are referred to a Committee of the Whole. Any bill based on a Supply motion must be referred to a Committee of the Whole. [265]  As well, with the unanimous consent of the House, an urgent or non-controversial bill may be referred to a Committee of the Whole, [266] most often after having gone through more than one stage of the legislative process in a single sitting. [267]  The House may also decide, by adopting a special order, to refer a bill to a Committee of the Whole. [268] 

Mandate of the Committee

A bill that is referred to a committee comprises the order of reference to the committee. The committee’s sole mandate is to examine the bill and report it to the House, with or without amendment. [269]  If the bill has already received second reading, the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend the bill contrary to its principle. [270]  This is not the case when the committee is considering a bill that has not yet been given second reading. [271] 

During consideration of a bill, a committee may receive clarification from the House regarding its order of reference. The “instructions” from the House may expand the committee’s mandate by giving it additional powers. [272]

A committee may be asked by the House to reconsider a bill which it has already reported. This reference is normally proposed in the form of an amendment to the motion for third reading of the bill. The House may refer a bill back to a committee to have only certain clauses amended or reviewed; it may refer the bill several times, and it may refer it with or without any limitation. In the latter case, the whole bill is open to reconsideration. When a bill is referred with limitations, the committee can consider only the clauses or amendments referred to it. [273] 

Role of a Committee on a Bill

The role of the committee at this stage of the legislative process is to consider a bill clause by clause and, if necessary, word by word, and to approve the text or to modify it to reflect the committee’s intentions. [274] 

The committee has the power to change the provisions of a bill to such an extent that when it is reported to the House it may be completely different in substance from the bill which was referred to the committee. [275]  For example, the committee may, if it so decides, negative a clause or clauses of a bill (to the extent that nothing is left of the text of the bill) and report the bill to the House with amendments; the committee may also negative all the clauses of a bill and substitute new clauses, as long as the new clauses respect the rules of admissibility. [276] 

Length of Speeches

Every member of a committee may speak as often as he or she wishes and may also speak as long as he or she wishes, subject to the practice that the committee adopts in that respect. [277]  Frequently, a committee will pass motions to govern its proceedings, such as motions to regulate the length of time that members of the committee may speak, to establish the rotation of speakers (usually according to political parties) and to impose time limits for the proposal of certain types of motions or amendments. [278] As well, the length of speeches may be governed by constraints imposed by an order of the House [279]  or, in the case of a private Member’s public bill, by the Standing Orders. [280] 

A committee itself may also limit the time it will spend on consideration of a bill by adopting a motion to that effect. Such a motion may be debated and amended. A committee may also pass the equivalent of a time allocation motion, that is, allotting time for the examination of each clause, [281]  or terminating consideration of a bill at a particular time or date. [282] 

Hearing of Witnesses

A committee to which a bill is referred usually chooses to hold public hearings. [283]  The steering committee of the committee (referred to as the sub-committee on agenda and procedure) may discuss a timetable for meetings and a list of witnesses whom the members wish to invite to appear, and may present its recommendations to the whole committee in the form of a report. The committee may then adopt the report with any amendments deemed necessary. The committee may decide to call on the services of the research officers of the Library of Parliament, [284] or to retain any other specialist it considers necessary to assist in its work. [285] 

Before proceeding with the clause by clause examination of the bill, the Chair of the committee calls Clause 1 for debate (or Clause 2, if Clause 1 contains the short title [286] ) to allow the members of the committee to hold a general discussion on the bill and to question witnesses, if any witnesses are appearing. The practice is that the first witness to appear before the committee is either the sponsor of the bill or the Minister responsible for the bill (or the Minister’s parliamentary secretary). Other witnesses may then be invited to express their views on the bill. Those witnesses may include individuals, experts or representatives of organizations that would be affected by the legislative measure. At this stage, discussion is very open, and relates to both the general principle and the details of the bill. Later, when the committee undertakes its clause by clause consideration of the bill, the Minister responsible, or the Minister’s parliamentary secretary, may return to address the committee. [287]  The officials of the department will also make themselves available during this phase, to provide explanations of certain complex or technical aspects of the legislative measure. [288]

On occasion, committees have considered more than one bill at a single meeting to take advantage of the presence of a Minister and witnesses so that they can be questioned on all bills at the same time. [289]  The bills in question had points in common, so that it was practical to undertake consideration of both simultaneously. However, at the clause by clause stage, the bills were examined separately. [290]  A committee has also considered both a bill that had been referred to it and the subject matter of another bill. [291] 

Clause by Clause Consideration

Once the witnesses have been heard, the committee proceeds to clause by clause consideration of the bill. It is during this phase of the committees’ deliberations that members may propose amendments to the bill.

Order in Which the Elements of the Bill Are Examined

Unless the committee decides otherwise, clause by clause consideration of the bill follows the following order:

  • Clauses;
  • Clauses allowed to stand (if any);
  • Schedules;
  • Clause 1 (short title);
  • Preamble (if any);
  • Title.

The elements of a bill must be considered in a prescribed order: consideration of the preamble (if the bill has one) is postponed until after the clause by clause examination; [292]  consideration of Clause 1, if that clause contains only the short title, is also postponed; the other clauses and the schedules are considered in the order in which they appear in the printed version of the bill. [293]  The new clauses and new schedules are considered in the order in which they would appear in the bill. While some authorities on parliamentary procedure recommend a different order for examining new clauses and schedules, [294]  several years ago, committees adopted the practice of proceeding with new clauses and new schedules in the same manner as for proposed amendments to clauses, that is, in the order in which they would appear in the bill. Committees consider that this approach facilitates clause by clause consideration; it has been used to such an extent that it is now solidly entrenched in the practice of the House of Commons. [295]  Once all the provisions have been decided, the committee returns to consider Clause 1 (if it was postponed), the preamble and, finally, the title. [296] 

Consideration of the Clauses

Each clause of the bill is a distinct question and must be considered separately. The committee Chair calls each clause successively by its number and, after discussion, puts the question on the clause if no amendment is proposed. If an amendment is proposed, the Chair gives the floor to the member, who reads the amendment. A new question is then placed under consideration and there is a new debate. When debate has concluded, the Chair puts the question on the amendment to the clause and, once decided, puts the question on the clause itself (as amended, if applicable). Once the clause is carried, it may not be discussed again without unanimous consent. [297] 

The committee may pass a motion to divide a clause in order to debate the parts separately or to put the question on the parts separately. [298] 

Clauses Allowed to Stand

The committee may, by motion, decide to stand a clause, provided that the committee has not already adopted or negatived an amendment to the clause in question. [299]  If, however, an amendment has been proposed and withdrawn, the clause may be stood. In practice, however, committees often decide, by unanimous consent, to postpone examination of a clause even if an amendment to the clause has been proposed. A committee may also stand part of a bill, or a consecutive group of clauses en bloc. However, a motion to stand part of a clause, or to postpone consideration of the only effective clause of a bill until the subordinate clauses have been considered, is out of order. [300] 

Debate on a motion to postpone consideration of a clause is limited to the issue of postponement, and may not be extended to the merits of the bill or the clause in question. Unless provision to the contrary is made in the motion, clauses which were allowed to stand are considered after all the other clauses of the bill have been disposed of. [301] 

Amendments

Proposed during debate on a clause, an amendment attempts to amend the text of the clause under consideration so that it will be more acceptable, or to propose a new text to the committee. An amendment must be relevant to the clause it is proposed to amend, [302]  and must therefore relate to only one clause of the bill and not to two or more clauses at once. [303]  However, for practical reasons, the Chair may permit debate to range over several other amendments which are interconnected or which raise different aspects of the amendment under consideration. [304]  The purpose of a sub-amendment is to alter an amendment to make it clearer. A sub-amendment must relate to the amendment; it may not enlarge upon the scope of the amendment by bringing up a matter that is foreign to it. [305]  A committee may consider only two amendments at a time, that is, an amendment to a clause and a sub-amendment to the amendment. Once an amendment has been proposed, it may be withdrawn only at the request of the member who moved it and with the unanimous consent of the members of the committee. [306] 

Only a member of the committee, or his or her designated substitute, [307]  is entitled to move an amendment or vote on an amendment. [308]  The Chair of the committee, like the Speaker of the House, may not move motions or vote, except in the case of an equality of voices. [309]  It is generally acknowledged that in the case of an equality of voices, a Chair should vote in such a way as to permit the discussion to continue. A Chair is not required to state reasons for his or her casting vote, or to explain it. [310]  However, when a private bill is before a committee, the Chair may vote on any matter concerning the bill and even has a casting vote if there is an equality of voices. [311] 

Legislative drafting services are available to committee members who wish to move amendments to a bill. Each amendment must be submitted in writing to the Chair of the committee and may be moved in either official language. Unlike the rules that apply to motions presented in the House, it is not necessary for a motion moved in a committee to be seconded. [312] 

Athough a member who intends to move amendments to a bill does not have to provide notice, the normal practice is for the member to communicate with the Chair and clerk of the committee in order to arrange for the translation, compilation and circulation of the amendments to the other members of the committee. [313]  If the Chair has advance notice, he or she will then be able to ensure that a proposed amendment is considered in the right place during consideration of the bill. To ensure that clause by clause consideration proceeds in an orderly manner, a committee may pass a motion setting a deadline for the acceptance of proposed amendments. [314] 

Order in Which Amendments Are Considered

Three types of amendments may be moved during consideration of a clause of a bill: [315] 

  • an amendment to leave out certain words in order to insert or add others;
  • an amendment to leave out a word or words;
  • an amendment to insert or add other words, or to add new clauses or schedules to the bill.

The committee Chair calls the proposed amendments in the order in which they should appear in the bill. However, when several amendments are moved to the same clause, an amendment to leave out words and insert other words takes precedence over an amendment to leave out words. The Chair may rule that an amendment is not moved in the right place, or that it should be moved as a new clause. [316] 

Amendments should be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. If part of a clause has already been amended by the committee, a member may not move an amendment to an earlier part of the clause. [317] 

Admissibility of Amendments

Amendments and sub-amendments that are moved in committee must comply with certain rules of admissibility. It is incumbent upon the Chair to decide on the admissibility of amendments. An amendment must first be moved by a member before the Chair rules as to whether it is admissible; the Chair does not rule on hypothetical motions. When the Chair has to rule on the admissibility of an amendment, he or she relies on the procedural rules that have been established as precedents over the years and on the authorities in parliamentary procedure and practice.

Unlike the situation in the House, where there is no appeal from the Speaker’s decisions, [318]  the decision of a Chair may be appealed to the committee by motion. [319]  However, neither the decision of the Chair nor the motion to appeal may be debated. The Chair’s decision may be reversed only by a majority vote. Consequently, if a motion asking that the Chair’s decision be upheld results in a tie, the decision is upheld. [320] 

If, during debate, the Chair determines that an amendment that was moved (but on which no decision has yet been made) is out of order, the Chair so informs the committee and halts consideration of the motion by the committee. [321] 

•  Rules

The rules concerning the admissibility of amendments are essentially the same for a bill referred to a committee before or after second reading, or for a bill being considered at report stage. [322] However, the rules respecting the principle or scope of a bill do not apply to a bill referred to a committee before second reading, since the principle of the bill has not yet been adopted by the House.

The rules governing the admissibility of amendments to the clauses of a bill may be grouped according to the following characteristics and elements:

Principle and Scope: An amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading is out of order if it is beyond the scope and principle of the bill. [323]  (This rule does not apply to a bill referred to a committee before second reading, since the principle of the bill has not yet been adopted by the House.) As well, an amendment which is equivalent to a simple negative of the bill or which reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading [324]  is out of order.

Relevance: An amendment to a bill must be relevant; that is, it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or the clause under consideration. For a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it amends a statute that is not before the committee [325]  or a section of the parent Act unless it is being specifically amended by a clause of the bill. [326]  An amendment of that nature would be admissible, however, in the case of a bill referred to a committee before second reading, as long as it was relevant. In that case, the principle and scope of the bill have not yet been defined, and so a broader examination is possible.

Consistency: The committee’s decisions concerning a bill must be consistent; they must be compatible with earlier decisions made by the committee. An amendment is therefore out of order if it is contrary to or inconsistent with the provisions of the bill that the committee has already agreed to, if it is inconsistent with a decision that the committee has made regarding a former amendment, [327]  or if it is governed [328]  or dependent on [329]  amendments which have already been negatived.

Financial Initiative of the Crown: An amendment must not offend the financial initiative of the Crown. An amendment is therefore inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the Public Treasury, [330]  or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications as expressed in the Royal Recommendation. [331]  An amendment is also inadmissible if it goes beyond the scope of the Ways and Means motion on which a bill is based, or if it creates a new charge on the people [332] that is not preceded by the adoption of a Ways and Means motion or not covered by the terms of a Ways and Means motions already adopted. [333] 

Form: An amendment is out of order if it simply attempts to delete a clause, since in that case all that needs to be done is to vote against the adoption of the clause in question. [334]  An amendment is also out of order if it is moved at the wrong place in the bill, if it is tendered in a spirit of mockery, or if it is vague or trifling. [335]  As well, an amendment is out of order if it refers to, or is not intelligible without, subsequent amendments or schedules of which notice has not been given, or if it is otherwise incomplete. [336]  Lastly, an amendment which would make a clause unintelligible or ungrammatical is also out of order. [337] 

Interpretation Clause: The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill. [338]  In addition, an amendment to the interpretation clause of a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading must always relate to the bill and not go beyond the scope of or be contrary to the principle of the bill. This rule does not apply to a bill that has been referred to a committee before second reading. [339] 

Marginal Notes and Headings: Because the marginal notes attached to each of the clauses of a bill are not part of the text, they cannot be amended, nor can the headings of the various parts of a bill be amended. [340] 

Coming into Force Clause: An amendment to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order. [341]  This type of amendment goes beyond the scope of the bill and is an attempt to introduce a new question into the bill.

Schedules: An amendment may generally be moved to a schedule, and it is also possible to propose new schedules. [342]  However, there is an exception in the case of a bill to give effect to an agreement (a treaty or convention) that is within the prerogatives of the Crown. If the schedule to such a bill contains the Agreement itself, the schedule cannot be amended. However, amendments may be proposed to the clauses of the bill, as long as they do not affect the wording of the Agreement in the schedule, and even if the consequence of the amendments is to withhold legislative effect from the Agreement or its parts. [343] 

Preamble: In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee after second reading, a substantive amendment to the preamble is admissible only if it is rendered necessary by amendments made to the bill. [344]  In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when the purpose is to clarify it or make the English and French uniform. [345]  If the bill does not contain a preamble, it is not competent for the committee to introduce one. [346]  In the case of a bill that has been referred to a committee before second reading, if there is not already a preamble, one may be presented as long as the proposal is relevant to the bill; in addition, substantive amendments to an existing preamble are admissible. [347] 

The Enacting Formula: The enacting formula is not submitted for the approval of the committee or the House and therefore may not be debated or amended. [348] 

The Title: The long title is postponed until consideration of the bill is concluded. [349]  The title may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment. [350]  Any change made to the title by a committee becomes effective when the bill is adopted by the House at report stage. [351] 

Putting the Question on Amendments

When an amendment and a sub-amendment have been moved in committee, the Chair of the committee puts the question first on the sub-amendment. If it is negatived, the question is then put on the amendment; if the sub-amendment is carried, the question is then put on the amendment, as amended. Sometimes, with unanimous consent, the committee may arrange a group of amendments to be disposed of as if each amendment had been moved and voted on separately. [352] 

Adoption of the Bill

Once the committee has concluded its clause by clause consideration, the bill in its entirety, with or without amendments, is submitted for the approval of the committee.

Leave to Report to the House

After the bill is adopted, the Chair asks the committee for leave to report the bill to the House. The standard formula is as follows: “Shall I report the bill (as amended) to the House?” If the committee agrees, the Chair reports the bill to the House as soon as possible. However, if a committee does not agree to report the bill immediately, it must do so later.

Reprinting of the Bill

If the number of amendments made by the committee necessitates it, the committee generally orders that the bill be reprinted for the use of the Members who will have to consult it at report stage. [353] 

Report to the House

The committee is bound by its Order of Reference — the bill — and may only report the bill with or without amendment to the House. [354]  Consequently, the committee may not include substantive recommendations in its report. [355]  On several occasions in the House, the Speaker has ruled a report containing recommendations [356]  or a motion to adopt a report containing recommendations out of order. [357]  In 1973, Speaker Lamoureux ruled that “… there is no authority to support the contention that a committee of the House when considering a bill should report anything to the House except the bill itself”. [358] 

On the other hand, after a bill has been reported, there is nothing to prevent a standing committee, under its permanent mandate in the Standing Orders, from presenting another report in which it sets out substantive recommendations concerning that bill. [359] 

Obligation to Report

Every committee is bound to report to the House on a bill and the amendments which have been made to the bill, [360]  and every bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, must be received by the House. [361]  However, a committee has no authority to submit two reports to the House on one bill, as the effect of this would be to divide the bill. [362]  A committee may negative all the clauses, the title, and even reject the bill. The committee then reports the bill with amendments, although the only thing which may be left is the number. [363] 

Unless an order of the House [364]  or a provision in the Standing Orders [365]  imposes a deadline by which a committee must report a bill to the House, it is up to the committee to decide when it reports the bill. [366]  The House always has the right to modify the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee. If a Minister or a Member believes that a committee to which a bill has been referred is defying the authority of the House by refusing to consider the bill or report it to the House, he or she may choose to bring this fact to the attention of the House and propose that the committee be given a time limit. This may be done by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to report by a certain date. The notice may, where appropriate, be placed under “Government Orders” or “Private Members’ Business”. The Speaker may also allow such a motion to be placed under the rubric “Motions” and be dealt with under Routine Proceedings, on the condition that it is strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to the committee and is not an attempt to interfere with the committee’s proceedings. In so doing, the House would have an opportunity to determine whether the bill should remain in committee or be reported back. [367] 

•  Private Member’s Public Bill

A committee to which a private Member’s public bill has been referred must, within 60 sitting days from the date of the bill’s reference to the committee, either report the bill to the House with or without amendment or present a report containing a recommendation not to proceed further with the bill [368]  or requesting a single extension of 30 sitting days to consider the bill, giving the reasons therefor. If no bill or report is presented by the end of the 60 sitting days, or the 30 sitting day extension if approved by the House, the bill is deemed to have been reported without amendment. [369] 

•  Abandonment of a Bill

On a number of occasions, a committee has presented a report to the House either recommending that a bill be withdrawn [370]  or informing the House that the committee has agreed that the bill not be further proceeded with. [371]  As well, a committee will occasionally decide not to proceed with the consideration of a bill, without reporting it to the House. [372] 

In those circumstances, the final decision as to the fate of a bill lies with the House as a whole, and not solely with the committee, whose function is to carry out the mandate it was given by the House and report the bill. The House alone has the power to prevent the adoption of a bill or to order its withdrawal. [373]  While reminding the House that the Chair does not become involved in matters within a committee, Speaker Fraser pointed out that there is nothing to prevent any Member or Minister from placing on notice a motion to have the House exercise its authority by ordering the committee to resume its consideration of the bill and report it to the House. [374] 

Report Containing Inadmissible Amendments

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair [375]  and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled by the Chairman to be out of order. The admissibility of those amendments, and of any other amendments made by a committee, may therefore be challenged on procedural grounds when the House resumes its consideration of the bill at report stage. [376]  The admissibility of the amendments is then considered by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order [377]  or on his or her own initiative. [378] 

In a 1992 decision, Speaker Fraser ruled: “When a bill is referred to a standing or legislative committee of the House, that committee is only empowered to adopt, amend or negative the clauses found in that piece of legislation and to report the bill to the House with or without amendments. The committee is restricted in its examination in a number of ways. It cannot infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown, it cannot go beyond the scope of the bill as passed at second reading, and it cannot reach back to the parent act to make further amendments not contemplated in the bill no matter how tempting this may be.” [379] 

Presentation of Report

The report of a committee which has completed its examination of a bill is presented to the House by the Chairman of the committee, [380]  during Routine Proceedings, when the rubric “Presenting Reports from Committees” is called. [381]  No debate is permitted at that point.

Report Stage

After a bill is examined in committee, it is considered by the House. At this stage (called “report stage”), Members — particularly those who were not on the committee — may propose amendments, after giving written notice, to the text of the bill as it was presented by the committee. Those motions are then debated.

Historical Perspective

At Confederation, the Standing Orders of the House already laid down the procedure to be followed for the consideration of bills in committee and the presentation of reports to the House. Although bills could be referred to a standing or special committee, they then had to be re-examined by a Committee of the Whole. [382]  The amendments made in committee had to be communicated to the House, which received them immediately. In addition, the Standing Orders provided that if bills were reported with amendments by a Committee of the Whole, they could be debated and amended before the House ordered third reading. If bills were not amended during consideration in a Committee of the Whole, third reading would proceed forthwith at a time to be set by the House.

Over the years, it was oberved that amendments were being proposed only in committee, and that when they were presented to the House, a motion to concur in the amendments was made and the question on the motion called immediately. [383]  In 1955, the House amended its Standing Orders to reflect this practice. It was agreed that amendments had to be presented to the House and that the motion for concurrence in the amendments had to be disposed of forthwith before the bill was ordered for third reading at the next sitting of the House. [384]  The effect of these amendments to the Standing Orders was to eliminate what then constituted the equivalent of report stage. In 1968, the House performed a thorough revision of its legislative process. After that revision, all bills, except for those based on Supply or Ways and Means motions, were to be referred to standing or special committees, and would not be reconsidered by a Committee of the Whole House. In addition, the House revived report stage and gave the Speaker the power to select and group amendments. It also adopted provisions relating to notice of amendments and the length of speeches at this stage of the legislative process. [385] 

In recommending that report stage be revived, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure considered that stage to be essential in order to provide all Members of the House, and not merely members of the committee, with an opportunity to express their views on the bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. However, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage. Unlike committee stage where the bill is considered clause by clause, there was not to be any debate at report stage unless notices of amendment were given, and then debate would have to be strictly relevant to those proposed amendments.

The provisions relating to report stage have been amended slightly since 1968. The House has made changes in respect of the length of speeches, [386]  and clarified the purpose of report stage and the factors by which the Speaker is to be guided in selecting and grouping amendments. [387]  Other changes were also made in 1994 to reflect the new procedure which allows a Minister to propose that a government bill be referred to a committee before second reading. [388] 

Notice of Amendment

In order that a motion to amend a bill [389]  may be considered at report stage, notice must be given in writing [390]  at least one sitting day prior to the commencement of report stage, if the bill was referred to committee after second reading, [391]  and two sitting days before, if the bill was referred to committee before second reading. [392]  Notice must be received by the Clerk of the House before 6:00 p.m. Monday to Thursday, and before 2:00 p.m. on Friday, to appear on the Notice Paper for the next sitting day. [393]  During an adjournment period, the deadline for giving notice is 6:00 p.m. on the Thursday before the House resumes sitting. [394]  No notice may be given on the day on which consideration of report stage of a bill commences, or on the days following. [395] 

Amendment as to Form Only

The Standing Orders provide one exception to the notice requirements. A Minister may propose an amendment without notice, if the amendment is in relation only to the form of a government bill. [396]  In that case, debate must relate solely to the amendment. The purpose of this rule is to facilitate the incorporation into a bill of amendments that are made necessary by the acceptance of other amendments. It is then up to the Chair to determine whether the amendment is of a strictly consequential nature flowing from the acceptance of another amendment, or if it would change the intent of the bill.

Notice of Royal Recommendation

In the case of an amendment containing financial implications which requires a Royal Recommendation, [397] the Standing Orders provide that notice of the Royal Recommendation must be given no later than the sitting day before report stage is to commence. The notice must be printed on the Notice Paper along with the amendment to which it pertains. [398] 

Admissibility of Motions in Amendment

It is up to the Speaker to decide what amendments will be considered at report stage. The Speaker does not rule on whether the purport of the amendment or its substance is worthy of debate. The Speaker decides only whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable within the framework of the rules established for the admissibility of amendments presented at report stage. [399] 

At report stage, a bill is examined as a whole and not clause by clause as is the case at committee stage. Generally, the rules relating to the admissibility of amendments presented at committee stage also apply to motions in amendment at report stage. [400] However, certain rules apply only to report stage. For instance, since 1968 when the rules relating to report stage came into force, a motion in amendment to delete a clause from a bill has always been considered by the Chair to be in order, even if such a motion would alter or go against the principle of the bill as approved at second reading; [401]  and a motion to amend a number of clauses of a bill is out of order. [402] 

At report stage, the Speaker has ruled out of order a motion in amendment that offended the financial initiative of the Crown; [403]  that proposed to alter an agreement that was within the prerogatives of the Crown; [404]  and that proposed to alter the long title of a bill, when no substantial changes had been made to the bill that would have necessitated a change in the title. [405] 

The Chair has also ruled out of order motions in amendment to a bill that was referred to a committee after second reading, although the same motions in amendment would have been admissible if the bill had been referred to a committee before second reading. For example, the Speaker has ruled out of order a motion in amendment that went beyond the scope of the bill or the clause in question; [406]  that was contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading; [407]  that proposed to change the interpretation clause by making a substantive amendment which exceeded the scope of the bill; [408]  that would amend a statute not contemplated by the bill; [409]  that would amend, not a clause of the bill amending the parent Act, but a section of the parent Act itself; [410]  and that was equivalent to a simple negative of the bill. [411] 

The Chair has also ruled that because report stage is not a reading stage, motions in amendment cannot be moved in the form of reasoned amendments, as such amendments can only be moved on second and third reading of a bill. [412] 

Since motions in amendment at report stage are open to debate, they fall into the category of substantive motions that are subject to amendment and sub-amendment. [413]  An amendment to a report stage motion must be strictly relevant to that motion [414]  and the debate thereon is limited to the amendment itself. An amendment with the same objective as a motion already at report stage has been ruled out of order, because it was in reality a new substantive motion for which notice should have been given before report stage commenced. [415] 

Power of the Speaker to Select Amendments

In 1968, fearing that Members would take advantage of report stage to move similar amendments of little importance or which were dilatory in nature, [416]  the Special Committee on Procedure recommended in its report that a rule be adopted to permit the Speaker “to select and combine the amendments of which notice had been given”. [417]  Such a rule was then adopted. [418] 

In 1985, the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (McGrath Committee) deplored the fact that “[a]lthough successive Speakers since 1968 have used the power under the Standing Order to combine amendments, they have never used the power to select”. [419]  The Committee specifically recommended that the Speaker use the power to select motions in amendment at report stage. In 1986, the House decided to add a note to that effect to the Standing Order in question. [420] 

Under the Standing Order, the Speaker thus has the power to select or group motions in amendment to be proposed at report stage. [421]  The process of selecting and grouping motions in amendment has been refined since the 1970s. In the early years of the new rule, Speaker Lamoureux regularly consulted the House before making a final decision as to the admissibility and grouping of amendments. [422]  Over the years, however, Speakers started to consult the House only when they were experiencing difficulties as to whether an amendment was in order. As Speaker Fraser explained in a ruling, the Chair followed a review process whereby motions in amendment were the subject of very extensive discussion, in some cases, between the Member filing the motion and the Clerk’s staff. [423]  Until 1994, all motions in amendment proposed by Members appeared on the Notice Paper, even the ones that were out of order. In June 1994, the Standing Orders were changed to provide that only those motions found to be in order by the Speaker were to appear on the Notice Paper[424]  When a motion is found to be out of order, the Member is informed of the reasons for the decision by letter.

Normally, the Speaker will not select a motion in amendment previously ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for it being ruled out of order was that it required a Royal Recommendation. [425]  As well, the Speaker should only select motions in amendment that were not or could not be presented in committee. [426]  A motion previously defeated in committee will only be selected if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance as to warrant a further consideration at report stage. [427]  For the purpose of debate, the Speaker will also group motions that have the same intent and are interrelated. In so doing, the Speaker will consider whether individual Members will be able to express their concerns during the debate on another motion.

On the other hand, the Speaker may, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to give such explanation of the subject of the amendment as may enable the Speaker to form a judgement upon it. When an amendment is selected that has been submitted by more than one Member, the Speaker, after consultation, will designate which Member will propose it (normally, the Member who first gave notice of the motion). [428] 

The Speaker’s decision on the grouping of motions in amendment at report stage addresses two matters: the grouping for debate and the voting arrangements.

Motions in amendment are grouped for debate according to two factors: the content and the place where they are to be inserted in the bill. Motions are grouped according to content if they could form the subject of a single debate; if, once adopted, they would have the same effect in different places of the bill; or if they relate to the same provision or similar provisions of the bill. Motions in amendment are combined according to the place where they are to be inserted in the bill when they relate to the same line (or lines). These motions in amendment will then be part of a single scheme for voting purposes.

When the Speaker selects and groups motions in amendment, he or she also decides on how they will be grouped for voting, that is, the Speaker determines the order in which the motions in amendment will be called and the consequences of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to avoid the House having to vote twice on the same issue.

The Speaker delivers his or her decision regarding the grouping of motions in amendment after the order for the consideration of report stage of the bill has been read. The Speaker informs the House of the motions in amendment that he or she has selected and grouped for debate as well as the voting arrangements [429]  and, where applicable, of the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons. [430] 

Debate

When the Order of the Day for the consideration of report stage is called, the House commences its consideration of any amendment of which notice has been given, and each amendment is open to debate and amendment. [431]  However, if no notice of amendment has been given at report stage, no debate is held. [432] 

The report stage of any bill that has already been adopted at second reading cannot be taken into consideration prior to the second sitting day following the presentation of the committee’s report. [433]  The report stage of a bill that has not yet been adopted at second reading cannot be taken into consideration prior to the third sitting day following the presentation of the report. [434]  The minimum number of sitting days between the presentation of the committee’s report and commencement of debate at report stage must be strictly observed. [435] 

After ruling on the grouping of motions for debate, the Chair reads the motions in the first group (or the motion in that group, if there is only one). The motions that have been moved and seconded are then debated. Once a motion has been moved, it may be withdrawn only with unanimous consent. [436] 

When the Member who gave notice of a motion in amendment is absent, the motion may not be debated unless it is moved by another Member with the unanimous consent of the House. [437]  When notice of a motion in amendment is given by the government, it may be moved by any Minister in the absence of the Minister responsible.

During debate at this stage, no Member may speak more than once or longer than 10 minutes on any motion in amendment or group of motions. [438]  Unlike second reading and third reading stages, Members’ speeches are not followed by a questions and comments period. [439]  Of course, debate at report stage is subject to the general rules of debate, such as the rule of relevance. [440] 

Deferral of Recorded Division

When a recorded division is demanded on any motion in amendment proposed during report stage of a bill, the Speaker may defer the calling in of the Members for the vote until some or all subsequent motions in amendment to the bill have been debated. In practice, the Speaker defers all recorded divisions that are demanded until the consideration of report stage has been completed. A recorded division, or divisions, is deferred in this manner from sitting to sitting. [441]  In cases where there are an unusually large number of motions in amendment for consideration at report stage, the Speaker may, after consulting with the representatives of the parties, direct that deferred divisions be held before all motions in amendment have been taken into consideration. [442] 

Concurrence at Report Stage

The report stage of a bill that has not yet been read a second time is an integral part of the second reading stage of the bill. [443]  At the end of report stage, a motion “That the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage and be read a second time” or “That the bill be concurred in at report stage and read a second time” is moved, the question is put on the motion, and the House disposes of it forthwith, without amendment or debate. [444] 

At the end of report stage of a bill that has already been read a second time, the motion for concurrence at report stage is also put forthwith, without amendment or debate. The wording of the concurrence motion will vary, depending on whether the original bill has been amended or not, and depending on the stage at which the amendments were made. If, for example, a bill was not amended in committee or at report stage, the motion is as follows: “That the bill be concurred in at report stage.” However, if a bill was amended in committee, but not at report stage, the motion will read as follows: “That the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage.” When the bill was amended at report stage, but not in committee, the motion is as follows: “That the bill be concurred in at report stage, with amendments”. Lastly, if the bill was amended in committee and at report stage, the following motion is made: “That the bill, as amended, be concurred in at report stage, with further amendments”.

If no motion in amendment is moved at report stage of a bill that has already been read a second time, no debate may take place and consideration of report stage becomes a mere formality preceding third reading. [445]  A bill that is reported from a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendments, may not be debated or amended at report stage. [446]  The House must dispose of the bill at report stage as soon as it is received from a Committee of the Whole. [447] 

Third Reading (and Passage)

Third reading is the final stage that a bill must pass in the House of Commons. It is at this point that Members must decide whether the bill should be adopted, and ultimately become law. Although third reading is often regarded as a mere formality, it is still a decisive stage in the legislative process. In the case of a highly controversial bill, it could be a most crucial debating stage for Members. [448] 

Third reading and passage of a bill are moved in the same motion. They may take place in the same sitting as report stage if no amendment has been proposed at that stage or if the bill has been reported from a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendment. [449]  When debate has taken place on a bill at the report stage, it may not be presented for third reading and passage before the next sitting of the House. [450]  As well, when a bill has been considered by a committee before second reading and the report and second reading stages have then been combined, it may not proceed to third reading and passage until the next sitting of the House. [451] 

Debate on third reading commences when the Order of the Day is read for third reading and the Minister or Member, as the case may be, moves: “That the bill be now read a third time and do pass.” [452]  The rules relating to the length of speeches during debate are the same as the rules governing the length of speeches and questions and comments at second reading. [453] 

Debate at this stage of the legislative process focusses on the final form of the bill. The amendments that are admissible at this stage are exactly the same as those that were admissible at second reading stage. [454]  It is in order to propose an amendment for a three-or six-month hoist, [455]  as well as a reasoned amendment. [456]  However, at third reading stage, reasoned amendments must deal strictly with the bill and not be contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading. [457] 

An amendment to refer the subject matter of a bill to a committee at second reading stage becomes, at third reading, an amendment to recommit the bill to a committee with instructions to reconsider certain clauses for a specific purpose. [458]  The purpose of such an amendment may be to enable the committee to add a new clause, to reconsider a specific clause of the bill or to reconsider previous amendments. [459]  However, an amendment to recommit a bill should not seek to give a mandatory instruction to a committee. [460]  In addition, an amendment to recommit a bill to a committee other than the committee which previously considered it has been ruled out of order by the Chair. [461]  If the amendment to recommit a bill back to the committee is carried, the committee may consider only the part of the bill that is specified in the order of reference.

When the motion for third reading has been carried, the Clerk of the House certifies that the bill has passed, with the date, at the foot of the bill. [462]  The bill is then sent to the Senate for approval. Defeat of a motion for third reading will result in the withdrawal of the bill. [463] 

Consideration and Passage by the Senate

Once the House of Commons has passed a bill, a message is sent to the Senate asking it to pass the bill as well. [464]  When the Senate considers a bill, it follows a legislative process that is very similar to the one in the House of Commons. When the Senate has passed a bill, it so informs the House of Commons by message.

Because most government bills originate in the House of Commons, the Senate is sometimes asked to expedite its consideration of a bill. The Senate Rules provide for a procedure known as pre-study, which involves referring the subject matter of a bill that has been introduced in the House of Commons, but has not yet been adopted at first reading in the Senate, to a standing committee. [465]  In this way, the Senate may consider the bill and form its opinion even before the bill is sent to it by the House of Commons. Then, when the bill is received, the Senate is in a position to adopt or amend it in a very short time.

Passage of Senate Amendments (if any) by the House of Commons

When the Senate adopts a bill without amendment, a message is sent to the House of Commons to inform it that the bill has been passed [466]  and Royal Assent is normally given very shortly afterwards, or in the following few days. The bill itself is not sent back to the House, unless it is a Supply bill. [467]  However, when the Senate amends the bill, it informs the House of the amendments in the message it sends to the House, [468]  and sends the bill back to the House. The Senate sometimes sends the House messages containing the observations or recommendations of the Senate committee that examined the bill. [469]  Messages from the Senate are printed in the Journals when they are received by the House.

When the House receives amendments to a bill from the Senate, the amendments are then submitted to the House for consideration. It is not for the Speaker of the House of Commons to rule as to the procedural regularity of proceedings in the Senate and of the amendments it makes to bills. [470]  Rather, it is for the House itself to decide whether it accepts or rejects the amendments proposed by the Senate, and if the House so desires it may state the reasons for rejecting or amending them. A motion for the consideration of Senate amendments requires 24 hours’ written notice. [471]  The sponsor of a bill may use such a motion to move that the House concur in, [472]  amend or reject [473]  the amendments made by the Senate. The motion may at the same time reject certain amendments made by the Senate, and concur in or amend others. The motion must relate exclusively to the Senate amendments, and not to other provisions of the bill that are not contemplated by the amendments. The House may want to reject the Senate amendments for a variety of reasons, for instance, because it believes that they are in contradiction to the principle of the bill [474]  or infringe the financial initiative of the Crown and the House of Commons. [475] 

The motion will appear on the Notice Paper under the heading “Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills”. The motion will be considered during Government Orders, if the bill in question is a government bill, or during Private Members’ Business, if it is a private Member’s bill.

The Senate makes amendments to bills fairly often, and the House is normally quite disposed to accept them, since the amendments generally involve corrections to drafting errors or improvements to administrative aspects. [476]  When debate takes place on Senate amendments, Members who speak must confine themselves to the amendments being considered and may not address other aspects of the bill, or the bill as a whole. [477]  The motion for the consideration of Senate amendments itself is open to amendment and sub-amendment during debate. [478]  With the exception of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, no Member may speak for more than 20 minutes. [479]  Following each 20-minute speech, a period not exceeding 10 minutes is made available for questions and comments. Motions for time allocation [480]  and for closure [481]  may be moved by the government to limit or close debate.

When the House agrees to the Senate amendments, a message to that effect is sent to the Senate and the bill is sent back to it while awaiting Royal Assent. If the House amends or rejects the Senate amendments, it so acquaints the Senate by message as well. The Senate may then reconsider its amendments, having regard to the message from the House. It may decide to accept the decision of the House, to reject that decision and insist that its amendments be maintained, or to amend what the House has proposed. Regardless of what the Senate decides, it sends another message to the House to inform it of the decision. Communication between the two Houses goes on in this way until they ultimately agree on a text. If it is impossible for an agreement to be reached by exchanging messages, the House that has possession of the bill may ask that a conference be held.

Conference Between the Houses

When a disagreement arises between the House of Commons and the Senate as to the amendments to be made to a bill, there are two possible ways of proceeding: the disagreement may be communicated in a message (this is normally the first step taken), or an attempt may be made to resolve it by holding a conference. Although this practice has fallen into disuse, [482]  a conference may be requested by either of the two Houses in the following cases: to communicate a resolution or an address to which the concurrence of the other House is desired; to discuss the privileges of Parliament; to discuss any matter that warrants the use of this procedure; to require or to communicate statements of facts on which bills have been passed by either House; to offer reasons for disagreeing to, or insisting on, amendments to a bill. [483] 

Either of the two Houses may request that a conference be held, as long as it is in possession of the bill or other matter that is to be the subject of the conference. [484]  The Standing Orders of the House stipulate that the House is required to prepare and agree to the reasons to be given before a message is sent to the Senate requesting that a conference be held. [485]  However, the terms and conditions regarding consent to and preparation for the holding of the conference, and the course of proceedings at conferences, are governed by custom and tradition rather than by the Standing Orders. [486] 

Until 1906, the process relating to the holding of conferences was rather complex. The role of representatives at the conference was limited to communicating the reasons to the representatives of the other House. There could be no discussion. In October 1903, three conferences were held, only one of which was a free conference, to resolve a dispute regarding amendments that the Senate wished to make to a bill from the House. [487]  The process was found to be so complex that new rules were incorporated into the Standing Orders in 1906, [488]  following the passage of a joint resolution of the two Houses the preceding year. [489]  The purpose of that amendment to the Standing Orders was to make conferences “free” [490]  to facilitate agreement. The representatives (who are called managers) were thereby given the freedom to talk and negotiate as they saw fit. [491] 

Although the two Houss frequently transmit messages to each other, they have rarely held conferences. No conference has taken place since 1947, and there have been only 16 since 1903. [492]  Of these 16 conferences, 13 were held after the provisions relating to the holding of free conferences came into effect in 1906. [493]  All of these “free” conferences were held at the request of the House of Commons, and they were all held to resolve disputes in respect of bills.

Over the years, the exchange of messages and the appearance of Ministers before House and Senate committees have considerably reduced the need to use this procedure. [494]  However, if the two Houses were to reach a deadlock because of a disagreement respecting amendments to be made to a bill, a Member, usually the Member responsible for the bill, could propose that a message be sent to the Senate asking it to participate in a free conference on the amendment or amendments in dispute. [495]  Once the message was approved and sent to the Senate, the Senate in turn would send a message to the House to inform the House of its response. If the Senate agreed to participate in the conference, a message would also be sent to the House of Commons to inform it of the time and place chosen for the conference, and of the names of the Senators (who are called managers) who would be acting for the Senate. A similar motion would be moved in the House of Commons to designate the representatives of the House (who normally include the Member responsible for the bill) [496]  and order that a message to this effect be sent to the Senate.

At the time agreed upon, the managers would meet to try to get the two Houses out of the deadlock. The records of proceedings show that in the event that the House was sitting at the time chosen for the conference, the Speaker would rise and announce that the time had come to hold the conference, and the Clerk would give the names of the managers who would then go to the Senate. [497] When the House managers arrived in the Senate, the Speaker of the Senate would announce the names of the Senate managers, and they would leave the Senate chamber. Since no official report or minutes were prepared for those conferences, there is very little information available as to how free conferences were held in the past and on the other people who attended them in addition to the managers from the two Houses.

A free conference means that the discussion continues until an agreement is reached, but there are three possible outcomes: the conference fails; a compromise is reached; the House accepts the Senate amendments, or the Senate accepts the House amendments, as the case may be. If the conference fails, the matter is closed and the bill simply remains on the Order Paper where it dies at the end of the session. [498]  During that time, no new bill may be introduced in the House in respect of the same subject matter and containing similar provisions. If a compromise is reached, one of the representatives of the House submits a report to the Members concerning the conference and moves that the report be approved and a message be sent to the Senate so informing the Senate. Lastly, if the House decides not to press for its amendments to be approved, it accepts the Senate amendments and sends a message to the Senate to so notify it.

Royal Assent

Royal Assent brings all three constituent elements of Parliament together (the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons). Royal Assent, which is an integral part of the legislative process, is the stage that a bill must complete before officially becoming an Act of Parliament. A version of the bill that is identical to the version passed by the two Houses is approved by a representative of the Crown and is given “the complement and perfection of a law”. [499]  This essentially ceremonial procedure takes place in the presence of Members and Senators, after the Members have been summoned by the Usher of the Black Rod to go to the Senate to attend the Royal Assent ceremony.

The origins of Royal Assent go back to the time of Henry VI (1422-61; 1470-1). [500]  Under his reign, it became practice to introduce bills in both Houses in the form of complete statutes, and not in the form of petitions as had been the case since the early days of the constitution of the British Parliament. Royal Assent was given by the Sovereign in person until 1541; in that year, to spare King Henry VIII the indignity of having to give Royal Assent to the bill for the execution of his wife, Katharine Howard, the task was assigned for the first time to a royal commission. [501]  It then became common practice to appoint Lords Commissioners with responsibility for giving Royal Assent on behalf of the Sovereign. The last time that the Monarch granted Royal Assent in person in Great Britain was on August 12, 1854, under the reign of Victoria. [502]  In 1967, the British Parliament passed the Royal Assent Act which now allows a bill to acquire the force of law on simple report of Royal Assent by the Speakers of the two Houses. [503]  This procedure eliminates the need for holding a ceremony. [504] 

In the Canadian House of Commons, the ceremony of Royal Assent has sometimes been criticized, [505]  but Parliament has remained faithful to the conventions of Royal Assent, the rules of which come down directly from the rules that were in effect in Great Britain at the time of Confederation. [506]  Neither the Standing Orders of the House nor the Constitution Act specifically mention the precise procedure for giving Royal Assent. Initially, the practice was for Royal Assent to be deferred to the end of a parliamentary session, when the Governor General was present for the prorogation of Parliament. This practice gradually disappeared over time, and today Royal Assent is given to bills at any time during a session. [507]  As well, during adjournments of the House, the Speaker may, at the request of the government, give notice that the House will meet at an earlier time for the purposes of Royal Assent; being convened “for those purposes only”, the House cannot proceed to any other business. [508] 

When the House is sitting and there are bills that require Royal Assent, the House may suspend its proceedings until a specific time, [509]  until the call of the Chair [510]  or until the call of the bell. [511]  In the absence of any special arrangements to extend the sitting, the proceedings are interrupted at the normal hour of adjournment and the House stands adjourned until the next sitting day. [512]  If the ceremony is scheduled for the same time as other items of business, a decision must be made as to which matter will take precedence. [513] 

In the Canadian Parliament, the Governor General will normally give Royal Assent in person, in the case of laws of great importance and when Parliament is to be prorogued. At other times, it is given by a deputy: the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada or one of the other judges of the Supreme Court.

The Ceremony

When a bill has been passed by both Houses of Parliament and is ready to receive Royal Assent, a special copy is printed on parchment. The Clerk of the House and the Clerk of the Senate both sign the back of it. The Governor General’s residence then informs the Speaker of the House that the Governor General or the Deputy Governor will be going to the Senate to give Royal Assent to bills. The Speaker of the House then relays the message to the Members. [514] 

At the appointed time, the Usher of the Black Rod of the Senate informs the House that the Governor General or the Deputy Governor has asked them to proceed to the Senate. Before entering the Commons chamber, he or she knocks three times on the door. [515]  Debate that is then taking place is interrupted by the Speaker. [516]  Quorum is not required to receive the message from the Usher of the Black Rod. [517]  The Sergeant-at-Arms announces to the Speaker that the messenger from the Senate wishes to enter. The Speaker replies: “Admit the messenger”, after which the doors are opened to allow the Usher of the Black Rod to enter. Because the House cannot always arrange for its order of business to coincide with the time when Royal Assent is to be given, it sometimes has to make the messenger wait. This situation has prompted considerable discussion regarding the use of the House’s time, particularly in respect of the appropriateness of moving on to other business while the House is waiting for the Senate messenger. [518] 

When the Usher of the Black Rod has entered and bowed three times, he or she goes forward to the Table and acquaints the Speaker that it is the desire of the Governor General or his or her Deputy that the House attend him or her immediately in the Senate. [519]  The Usher of the Black Rod then leads the House to the Senate, followed, in order, by the Sergeant-at-Arms bearing the Mace, the Speaker, the Clerk and the Table Officers, and the Members.

While the Speaker and the Members gather at the Bar of the Senate, the Usher of the Black Rod moves towards the far end of the Senate Chamber. He or she bows to the Governor General or the Deputy Governor and says: “Order!” The Speaker of the House then raises his or her hat and bows to the Governor General (or the Deputy Governor). A clerk who is at the Table in the Senate then reads the titles of the bills that are to receive Royal Assent, in English and French, with the exception of Supply bills. The Clerk of the Senate displays the bills and states: “In Her Majesty’s name, His/Her Excellency the Governor General (the Honourable the Deputy of the Governor General) doth assent to these bills.”

If there is a Supply bill to be assented to, the Speaker of the House of Commons brings it into the Senate Chamber and reads a message, in both official languages, asking that it be given Royal Assent, using the following formula:

May it Please Your Excellency (Honour [520]): The Commons of Canada have voted supplies to enable the Government to defray certain expenses of the public service. In the name of the Commons, I present to Your Excellency (Honour) the following Bill: (title), to which Bill I humbly request Your Excellency’s (Honour’s) Assent.

A Senate clerk at the Table goes to the Bar, where the Speaker of the House of Commons gives the clerk the Supply bill, and then returns to the Table. After reading the title of the Supply bill in both official languages, the Clerk of the Senate reads the Royal Assent, using the following formula:

In Her Majesty’s name, His/Her Excellency the Governor General (the Honourable the Deputy to the Governor General) thanks her loyal subjects, accepts their benevolence and assents to this Bill.

The representative of the Crown consents to the enactment of all of the bills by nodding his or her head. This is the act by which Royal Assent is officially given and as of that moment the bills have the force of law, unless the bills provide another date on which they are to come into force. [521] The Usher of the Black Rod then turns to face the exit from the Senate, indicating that the ceremony is concluded. The Speaker of the House raises his or her hat, bows to the representative of the Crown, and withdraws from the Chamber with the Members returning to the House of Commons.

Upon returning to the House, the Speaker takes the Chair and informs the Members that the Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty’s name, Royal Assent to certain bills. The House resumes the business that had been interrupted, or adjourns if the hour for adjournment has already passed. Normally, the ceremony lasts no more than 20 minutes. [522] 

A bill may not be given Royal Assent if it has not gone through all of the stages of the legislative process in both Houses. However, a bill may be read three times and be given Royal Assent at the same sitting. [523]  The Constitution Act, 1867 provides for the circumstances in which statutes may be disallowed or Royal Assent withheld, but does not specify the procedure to be followed. [524] 

Coming into Force

A distinction must be made between the date on which a legislative measure is enacted by Parliament and the date on which it comes into force. The Interpretation Act contains provisions governing the coming into force of statutes. [525]  A bill becomes law after it has been passed by both Houses in the same form, but the Act comes into force either when it receives Royal Assent, if no date of commencement is provided for in the Act, [526]  or on another date provided for in the Act. Accordingly, an Act may come into force on one or more dates specified in the Act itself or fixed by an order of the Governor in Council.

[1] 
Gregory Tardi, The Legal Framework of Government: A Canadian Guide, Aurora, Ont.: Canada Law Book Inc., 1992, p. 122.
[2] 
Stewart, p. 79.
[3]
The stages relating to private bills are described in Chapter 23, “Private Bills Practice”.
[4] 
See A.R. Myers, “Parliamentary Petitions in the Fifteenth Century”, The English Historical Review, Vol. LII, (1937), pp. 590-613. For a historical overview of the legislative process in Great Britain, the following texts may be consulted: Sir William R. Anson, The Law and Custom of the Constitution, 4th ed., revised edition (1911), Oxford: Clarendon Press, Vol. I, pp. 240-54; Sheila Lambert, “Procedure in the House of Commons in the Early Stuart Period,” The English Historical Review, Vol. XCV (1980), pp. 753-81.
[5] 
A favourable reply was expressed by the words le roy le veult, a negative reply by the words le roy s’avisera.Until the latter part of the reign of Edward III (1327-77), all parliamentary proceedings were conducted in French. The use of English was extremely rare until the reign of Henry IV (1399-1413). Beginning with the reign of Henry VII (1485-1509), English was used for all proceedings, with the exception of Royal Assent, which was always expressed in Norman French (May, 11th ed., pp. 512-3; 22nd ed., p. 565).
[6] 
The expression “statut” is used in French to mean “loi” or “law” only in reference to Great Britain and, by extension, to the other Commonwealth Parliaments. However, in Canada, the expression “loi” is used in French.
[7] 
A favourable reply did not necessarily mean that the Commons obtained the legislation they wanted from the King. Sometimes, the matter would be forgotten, or intentionally laid aside until the legislature was dissolved. See Ronald Butt, A History of Parliament: The Middle Ages, London: Constable, p. 271; Anson, p. 247.
[8] 
Anson, p. 248.
[9] 
Although Henry VI and Edward IV (1461-70 and 1471-83) occasionally added new provisions to statutes without consulting Parliament, the form of legislating as we know it today has its origin in the reign of Henry VI (May, 11th ed., p. 459).
[10] 
Anson, p. 249.
[11] 
J.E. Neale, The Elizabethan House of Commons, Hammondsworth: Penguin Books, 1st ed. (1949), revised edition (1963), p. 356.
[12] 
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 19.
[13] 
O’Brien, pp. 86-9, 113-4, 173-4.
[14]
At that time, this was a 73-page document that had been prepared by a committee of the Assembly under the direction of Speaker Jean-Antoine Panet.
[15] 
O’Brien, p. 174.
[16] 
To preserve the uniformity of the texts, bills relating to the criminal laws of Great Britain were introduced in English and then translated. Bills relating to the civil laws, customs and rights were introduced in French and then translated. This meant that several days might go by between when the motion to introduce the bill was adopted and the motion for first reading (O’Brien, p. 174).
[17]
At that time, bills were referred to a Committee of the Whole or a select committee. See Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”, the section that gives a historical overview of Committees of the Whole in Canada.
[18] 
Every bill first had to be submitted to the Governor, or the Governor’s representative, for assent in His/Her Majesty’s name. Assent could be given or withheld, or the Governor could reserve assent and submit the bill for the “Signification of his Majesty’s Pleasure thereon” (Constitutional Act, 1791, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 3, ss. XXX, XXXI).
[19] 
O’Brien, p. 134.
[20] 
O’Brien, pp. 279-80.
[21] 
O’Brien, p. 279.
[22] 
Debates, December 20, 1867, p. 333.
[23] 
For a number of years, the expression “Bill” was used in both English and French to refer to bills. The expression “projet de loi” was first used in the French version of the Standing Orders of the House in 1982.
[24] 
See rules 40, 43, 44, 48 and 93 of the first edition of the Rules of the House, adopted on December 20, 1867.
[25] 
See, for example, Journals, March 4, 1884, pp. 184-5.
[26] 
Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9.
[27] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 930-1.
[28] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2913.
[29] 
See the comments in Debates, April 19, 1886, pp. 789-90.
[30] 
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9. Until 1982, the present Standing Order 43 governed the length of speeches during consideration of bills.
[31] 
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See also Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Third Report, presented to the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[32] 
See, in particular, the report of the Joint Committee on Legislation. That Committee was established in 1923 to consider various matters, including the form of bills (Journals, June 14, 1923, pp. 469-70). See also Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House, Report, presented to the House on December 19, 1963, paragraph 2 (Journals, pp. 705-6), and Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House, First Report, presented to the House on March 25, 1964, paragraph 9 (Journals, p. 125).
[33] 
Journals, September 24, 1968, p. 68; December 20, 1968, pp. 554-62. See also Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House, Fourth Report, presented to the House on March 13, 1968 (Journals, pp. 761-7), before the dissolution of the Twenty-Seventh Parliament.
[34] 
See Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 432.
[35] 
For example, the first version of Standing Order 69, which was adopted in December 1867, read as follows: “That this bill be now read a first time”. That text remained unchanged until the amendments adopted in December 1968, which gave it its present wording: “That this bill be read a first time and printed.” The Committee intended the effect of the amendment to be that the passing of the motion would mean only that the House consented to the introduction of the bill without any commitment beyond the fact that it should be made generally available for the information of Parliament and the public. The new version gave effect to some of the objectives of the Committee, which wanted the crucial stages in the passage of a bill to be identified. While it recommended retaining the three readings, the Committee proposed that the motion relating to each reading be rephrased in such a way as to illuminate the philosophy behind each of the stages in that process (Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 432-3; December 20, 1968, p. 576).
[36] 
Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 432-4; December 20, 1968, pp. 554-62.
[37] 
See Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Sixth Report, presented to the House on March 29, 1983 (Journals, p. 5765), Issue No. 19, pp. 3-12.
[38] 
See Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, First Report, presented to the House on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211), Issue No. 2, pp. 7-10, 21.
[39] 
Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 918-9.
[40] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2898-932.
[41] 
Journals, January 25, 1994, pp. 58, 61; February 7, 1994, pp. 112-20.
[42] 
See, for example, Bill C-15, An Act to amend, enact and repeal certain laws relating to financial institutions (Journals, March 8, 1996, p. 69).
[43] 
See, for example, Bill C-1001, An Act respecting Bell Canada (Journals, April 12, 1978, p. 638).
[44]
See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[45] 
Standing Orders 87 to 99.
[46] 
Standing Order 88.
[47] 
Private legislation may be defined as legislation “of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons, including individuals and private corporations, in excess of or in conflict with the general law” (Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 285-6).
[48]
See Chapter 23, “Private Bills Practice”.
[49] 
In a ruling dated February 22, 1971, Speaker Lamoureux stated that “the fact that [a bill that has both private and public characteristics] may correspond to what is a hybrid bill in… the British House, does not mean it should be treated that way in our own Parliament” (Journals, p. 351).
[50] 
In a ruling dated March 12, 1875, Speaker Anglin clearly ruled that a bill that involved private considerations could not be introduced as a public bill (Journals, p. 213). See also Journals, October 23, 1975, pp. 795-6.
[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.
[101] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 502. In June 1984, the Chair ruled that the presence of blanks in a bill introduced by a Member was the result of a printing error, and the House agreed to proceed with second reading (Debates, June 26, 1984, p. 5139). In January 1987, the Standing Order was cited to argue that a government bill contained two flaws: there was a blank where a parliamentary document number should have appeared, and a memorandum of understanding did not appear. Speaker Fraser ruled that these anomalies did not make the Bill defective under Standing Order 68(3) and directed the Clerk to alter the bill to correct the errors. The Speaker pointed out that such errors would have “to be addressed with regard to their impact on the draft legislation before the House and the consequences that will flow therefrom” (Debates, January 26, 1987, pp. 2667-9).
[102] 
May, 22nd ed., pp. 544-5.
[103] 
On March 12, 1974, Speaker Lamoureux announced the implementation of the numbering system now in effect in the House (Journals, pp. 31-2). At the beginning of each new session the numbering starts over.
[104]
The number C-1 is reserved for the pro forma bill that is traditionally introduced at the beginning of each new session.
[105] 
For example, Bill C-44 (1998) gives the long title as follows: An Act to authorize remedial and disciplinary measures in relation to members of certain administrative tribunals, to reorganize and dissolve certain federal agencies and to make consequential amendments to other Acts. The short title reads: Administrative Tribunals (Remedial and Disciplinary Measures) Act.
[106] 
See Ruth Sullivan, Driedger on the Construction of Statutes, 3rd ed., Toronto: Butterworths, 1994, pp. 253-8. A growing number of legislative assemblies, including some in Canada, are eliminating the use of long titles (Driedger, 3rd ed., p. 257, footnote 51).
[107] 
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 13. Preambles may assist the courts in understanding and construing legislation, and judges sometimes refer to the preamble in writing their judgements (see Driedger, 3rd ed., pp. 259-63).
[108] 
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 4.
[109]
In English, the practice is to use the expression “clause” until a bill becomes law, after which the expression “section” is used. In French, no such distinction is made and the expression “article” is always used.
[110] 
While there is no specific rule regarding the content of bills, there must still be a theme of relevancy among the various issues addressed in the bill. Those issues must be relevant to and subject to the umbrella which is raised by the terminology of the long title of the bill. See the ruling of the Chair, Journals, May 6, 1971, pp. 531-2.
[111] 
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 15.
[112] 
See Driedger, 3rd ed., pp. 279-84.
[113] 
See, for example, An Act respecting Employment Insurance in Canada, S.C. 1996, c. 23; Appropriation Act No. 4, 1995-1996, S.C. 1996, c. 4.
[114] 
See, for example, Geneva Conventions Act, S.C. 1990, c. 14.
[115] 
Members have opposed a bill where the explanatory notes appeared to be insufficient. Speaker Lamoureux has rejected the objection, stating that the Standing Orders do not require that an explanatory note accompany a bill (Debates, March 29, 1972, pp. 1267-8).
[116] 
Guide, p. 128.
[117] 
See, for example, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Reimbursement of Election Expenses), S.C. 1996, c. 26.
[118] 
Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 14. Traditionally, the courts have preferred to ignore marginal notes in construing statutes. However, that attitude is changing; in one of its judgements, the Supreme Court relied on marginal notes (see Driedger, 3rd ed., pp. 273-5).
[119] 
See Driedger, 3rd ed., pp. 268-73.
[120] 
This requirement is consistent with Standing Order 79(1) and Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867.The wording is as follows: “His/Her Excellency the Governor General recommends to the House of Commons the appropriation of public revenue under the circumstances, in the manner and for the purposes set out in a measure entitled [long title of the bill]”. See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[121] 
Standing Order 79(2).
[122] 
See, for example, Bill C-2, Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act (First Session, Thirty-Sixth Parliament, 1997-99).
[123] 
Stewart, p. 81.
[124] 
Stewart, p. 81.
[125] 
Stewart, p. 84.
[126] 
Standing Order 71. The prohibition on giving more than one reading on the same day appears in the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada (rule 43 in the 1866 version). At Confederation, that text became one of the rules of the new House of Commons of Canada. Standing Order 81(17) and (18) allows for an exemption from the rule requiring three readings on separate days in the case of Supply bills; where those bills are considered on the last allotted day in a Supply period, they must be passed in the same sitting.
[127] 
Lord Campion, An Introduction to the Procedure of the House of Commons, 3rd ed., London: MacMillan & Co. Ltd., 1958, pp. 22-3. Although the early Journals of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom mention the practice of giving a bill three readings on different days, it has never been laid down in the British Standing Orders (Stewart, p. 80).
[128] 
Before the reign of Queen Elizabeth I, it was not uncommon for a bill to be read four, five or even six times in the House to keep Members informed of its contents as amendments were made. By the end of the reign of Elizabeth I, the practice of adopting a limit of three readings was already established, and each reading was given to fill a specific need. A bill was given first reading in order to inform the House of its contents; this was generally the first the House knew of the purpose of the bill. Second reading gave interested Members a chance to hear the text of the bill again, in order that an informed debate could take place. If the House approved the legislation overall, but felt that amendments were required, the bill could be referred to a committee at this stage. However, it was not necessary or mandatory for a bill to be examined by a committee. The third reading enabled the House to hear the final, official text of the bill, including the amendments passed by the House. See Neale, pp. 356-61.
[129] 
Standing Order 72.
[130] 
Beauchesne, 3rd ed., pp. 239-40.
[131] 
See Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112-8.
[132] 
This procedure was used at the beginning of the Second Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (see Journals, March 4, 1996, pp. 34-5, 39-41). A total of 14 government bills and 11 private Members’ bills, which had been introduced during the First Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament and had already advanced through certain stages of the legislative process, were reinstated. Bill C-7, respecting controlled drugs and substances, and Bill C-22, respecting the Lester B. Pearson International Airport, which were in the Senate when Parliament was prorogued, were deemed to have been passed at all stages in the House. They were therefore sent directly to the Senate (Journals, March 6, 1996, p. 51; April 19, 1996, p. 235). See also Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[133] 
Standing Order 86.1. See Journals, November 30, 1998, pp. 1327-8.
[134] 
Standing Order 71. For example, Bill C-24, An Act to provide for the resumption and continuation of postal services, advanced through second reading, consideration in a Committee of the Whole, report and third reading stages on the same day (Journals, December 2, 1997, pp. 314-9). Although it seems that the usual and correct practice has been to let a day or two go by between the different stages in the consideration of a bill, the House has often agreed, since the First Parliament, to expedite the passage of bills by circumventing the prohibition in the Standing Orders. (See Edward Blake’s remarks in Debates, June 1, 1886, p. 1732. In the first three parliaments from 1867 to 1878, bills were expedited on 27 occasions.)
[135] 
In ruling as to the application of this provision of the Standing Orders, successive Speakers have repeatedly observed that it applied to “readings” of bills, and not to the stages of consideration of bills (Debates, April 15, 1878, pp. 2006-7; April 24, 1878, p. 2157; October 11, 1949, pp. 667-9; February 24, 1969, pp. 5893-4). In February 1969, in response to a point of order questioning whether a bill could be read the third time on the day when it passed the report stage, Speaker Lamoureux reiterated that the report stage is not a reading. He pointed out that Standing Order 72 (now Standing Order 71) “always prevails. If there has been a previous reading in that sitting there cannot be a subsequent reading on the same day” (Journals, February 24, 1969, pp. 738-9) unless, of course, the House decides otherwise.
[136] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 540.
[137] 
In 1997, a Member rose on a question of privilege in regard to the matter of introducing government public bills in the Senate. The Speaker ruled that this question could not be regarded as a question of privilege since the Standing Orders of the House allow for bills to be brought down from the Senate (Debates, October 9, 1997, pp. 732-5).
[138] 
Standing Order 54. For further information on notice requirements, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[139]
See Chapter 23, “Private Bills Practice”.
[140] 
Standing Order 54. A Member who wants to introduce a private Member’s bill must ensure that no other Member has already given notice of a bill that is so similar as to be substantially the same. If that has already occurred, the Member could support that bill by asking to be added as “seconder”. Up to 20 Members may jointly second a private Member’s bill (Standing Order 86(3), (4) and (5)).
[141] 
Standing Order 68(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8).
[142] 
On April 19, 1994, pursuant to a motion moved by a Minister, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs was instructed to prepare and bring in a bill respecting the system of readjusting the boundaries of electoral districts for the House of Commons (Journals, p. 363). A few months later, the Committee presented a report to the House which included the text of a draft bill (Debates, November 25, 1994, p. 8299). Bill C-69, An Act to provide for the establishment of electoral boundaries commissions and the readjustment of electoral boundaries, was given first reading on February 16, 1995 (Journals, p. 1141). The bill was passed by the House on April 25, 1995 (Journals, pp. 1368-9) but was not passed by the Senate.
[143] 
On October 30, 1997, pursuant to a motion by a private Member, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was instructed to prepare and bring in a bill, before May 15, 1998, to amend those sections of the Criminal Code which deal with impaired driving (Journals, pp. 174-5). On May 15, 1998, the Committee presented a report to the House in which it explained to the House that it was unable to meet the deadline and accordingly the matter was postponed until the fall (Debates, p. 7067). On October 22, 1998, the Committee presented another report to the House containing an overview of its activities for the coming months and a commitment to complete its work by May 15, 1999, at the latest (Debates, pp. 9304-5). On May 25, 1999, the Committee presented a report to the House containing a draft bill (Journals, p. 1905).
[144] 
Standing Order 54(1).
[145] 
Standing Order 68(4)(a).
[146] 
Standing Order 86(2).
[147] 
Standing Order 68(4)(b). See also Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[148] 
Standing Order 68(6).
[149] 
Standing Order 68(7)(a).
[150] 
Standing Order 88.
[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”.
[201] 
In the past, the Chair has expressed the wish that a committee would look at this matter (see Debates, May 19, 1972, p. 2433; October 19, 1978, p. 284).
[202] 
For examples of reasoned amendments that were found to be in order, see Debates, February 9, 1990, pp. 8146-7; February 14, 1990, pp. 8329-30; September 17, 1991, p. 2227; May 20, 1992, pp. 10955-6.
[203] 
See, for example, Journals, November 20, 1962, pp. 298-9; May 14, 1964, p. 323. In the early 1970s, a number of Members unsuccessfully tried to propose reasoned amendments, which in many cases were nothing more than substantive motions proposed “in the guise of so-called reasoned amendments” (Debates, May 8, 1972, p. 2412). Some Members, citing a revision of the Standing Orders and changes to the legislative process, then tried to introduce amendments which quite often had no direct and substantive connection with the principle of the bill (Debates, May 19, 1972, pp. 2428-34).
[204] 
See, for example, Debates, February 9, 1990, pp. 8109-10, 8134-5.
[205] 
See, for example,Journals, May 7, 1971, p. 534.
[206] 
Journals, May 14, 1971, pp. 554-5.
[207] 
Journals, May 13, 1959, pp. 436-7; October 15, 1962, pp. 76-7.
[208] 
Journals, June 5, 1972, p. 354.
[209] 
Journals, June 5, 1972, p. 354.
[210] 
See, for example,Debates, August 11, 1988, pp. 18212-3; October 3, 1989, pp. 4265, 4272.
[211] 
See, for example,Journals, February 2, 1954, p. 257; February 13, 1969, pp. 697-8; January 26, 1971, pp. 285-6.
[212] 
See, for example,Debates, February 9, 1990, pp. 8109-10, 8134-5.
[213] 
See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1984, pp. 689, 707. May, 22nd ed., p. 505.
[214] 
See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, February 6, 1975, pp. 2971-2.
[215] 
See, for example, Debates, August 30, 1966, p. 7808; March 13, 1995, p. 10363.
[216] 
See May, 22nd ed., p. 506.
[217] 
See Journals, February 13, 1992, p. 1018; February 24, 1992, p. 1065; September 26, 1995, p. 1952. This type of amendment does not exist in the British and Australian Parliaments (May, 22nd ed., p. 504; House of Representatives Practice, 3rd ed., p. 368).
[218] 
Journals, January 26, 1971, pp. 285-6.
[219] 
Journals, January 21, 1971, pp. 273-4.
[220] 
On February 17, 1970, Speaker Lamoureux ruled out of order an amendment providing that the bill not be read a second time, but that the subject matter of the bill first be put to a referendum (Journals, pp. 454-5). See also Journals, November 22, 1967, pp. 525-6.
[221] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 201.
[222] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 517.
[223] 
See, for example, Journals, May 6, 1982, p. 4803.
[224] 
See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1948, p. 269 (motion negatived); July 30, 1956, pp. 942-3 (motion negatived).
[225] 
See, for example, Journals, April 15, 1920, p. 146.
[226] 
See, for example, Journals, March 15, 1948, p. 255 (motion negatived).
[227] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 182.
[228] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 516.
[229] 
Beauchesne, 3rd ed., p. 152; Debates, December 18, 1990, pp. 16916-7. A mandatory instruction is an instruction whose purpose is to direct the deliberations of a committee.
[230] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 183. In one ruling, the Chair clearly decided that whatever effect a permissive instruction given to a committee may have on the committee, it is for the committee to decide what to do with it. What moral weight may be given to a permissive instruction is something for the committee itself to decide, and in his opinion the Chair should not interfere (Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17508).
[231] 
The motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” is no longer in use, since Standing Order 100 provides for the Speaker to leave the Chair without question put. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[232] 
See, for example, Journals, December 2, 1997, pp. 313-4; June 9, 1999, pp. 16123, 16140-1.
[233] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505.
[234] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505. See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1948, p. 269. See also the ruling of Speaker Beaudoin, Journals, May 23, 1956, pp. 602-3; July 30, 1956, p. 942.
[235] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505. See also Standing Order 56(2).
[236] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505. See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1888, p. 136.
[237] 
In 1956, after ruling that notice was not necessary, the Speaker subsequently reversed his ruling and acknowledged that notice was indeed required (Debates, May 28, 1956, p. 4370; Journals, July 30, 1956, p. 942).
[238] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 516. However, amendments must be drafted in such a way that, if accepted, the question as amended would retain the form and effect of an instruction (May, 22nd ed., p. 518).
[239] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 518.
[240] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, pp. 15706-7.
[241] 
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.
[242] 
Standing Order 66. See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.
[243] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 204.
[244] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 517.
[245] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 517.
[246] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 513. See, for example, Journals, May 2, 1872, p. 79; May 23, 1956, pp. 598-603.
[247] 
May,22nd ed., p. 516.
[248] 
May,22nd ed., p. 517.
[249] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 413; May, 22nd ed., p. 603.
[250] 
May, 11th ed., pp. 448, 561 (cited by Speaker Sévigny, Journals, March 29, 1916, p. 207).
[251] 
Bourinot, 4th 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, 4th ed., p. 413.
[257] 
Bourinot, 4th 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, 4th ed., p. 413.
[259] 
Bourinot, 4th 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, 4th ed., pp. 413-4).
[261] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 414. See also Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, April 25, 1966, pp. 434-5.
[262] 
Bourinot, 4th 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, 22nd 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, 4th ed., p. 287.
[274] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 519.
[275] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 231.
[276] 
May, 22nd 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, 5th ed., pp. 231, 234; May, 22nd 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, 22nd ed, p. 521.
[301] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 522.
[302] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 346.
[303] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 232.
[304] 
May, 22nd ed., pp. 524-5.
[305] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 14, 1985, Issue No. 12, p. 6.
[306] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 524. See, for example, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, March 26, 1998, Meeting No. 47.
[307] 
Standing Order 114.
[308] 
Standing Order 119. See, for example, Legislative Committee on Bill C-6, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, October 29, 1986, Issue No. 1, p. 95; Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 18, 1993, Issue No. 33, pp. 18-9.
[309] 
Standing Order 9.
[310] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Minutes of Proceedings, March 16, 1999, Meeting No. 109. For further information regarding the casting vote, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[311] 
Standing Order 141(3).
[312] 
Standing Order 116.
[313] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 232. See also May, 22nd ed., p. 522.
[314] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Minutes of Proceedings, November 26, 1998, Meeting No. 86. The Chair of the committee may also simply urge timely submission of amendments (see, for example, Legislative Committee on Bill C-126, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 27, 1993, Issue No. 3, p. 29).
[315] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 345.
[316] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 232.
[317] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 232. See, for example, Legislative Committee on Bill C-55, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 11, 1987, Issue No. 10, p. 24.
[318] 
Standing Order 10.
[319] 
Standing Order 117. For examples of decisions regarding the admissibility of amendments that have been appealed, see Standing Committee on Human Resources and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Minutes of Proceedings, April 30, 1998, Meeting No. 33; Standing Committee on National Resources and Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings, November 24, 1998, Meeting No. 47.
[320] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 18, 1995, Issue No. 47, p. 7.
[321] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 529.
[322]
For more information regarding report stage, see the section below entitled “Report Stage”.
[323] 
May, 22nd ed., pp. 525-6; see, for example, the decision of the Chair: Legislative Committee on Bill C-144, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 9, 1988, Issue No. 7, pp. 8, 10.
[324] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 526; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 13, 1982, Issue No. 52, pp. 5, 82-3; Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, August 31, 1983, Issue No. 124, pp. 8-9; September 14, 1983, Issue No. 134, p. 5; September 19, 1983, Issue No. 138, pp. 3-4.
[325] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 233; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 8, 1983, Issue No. 129, p. 4; Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 20, 1985, Issue No. 29, pp. 3-4, 29-30; Legislative Committee on Bill C-58, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, July 5, 1988, Issue No. 3, p. 9.
[326] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 233; see, for example, the decision of the Chair: Legislative Committee on Bill C-84, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, August 25, 1987, Issue No. 9, p. 9.
[327] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 526; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 21, 1985, Issue No. 30, pp. 5-6; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 28, 1992, Issue No. 50, pp. 8-9.
[328] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 526; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Legislative Committee on Bill C-62, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, January 23, 1986, Issue No. 13, pp. 3, 6-7; January 28, 1986, Issue No. 14, p. 7; Legislative Committee on Bill C-144, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 9, 1988, Issue No. 7, pp. 8, 11.
[329] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 526; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Regional Economic Expansion, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 17, 1985, Issue No. 24, pp. 15-6.
[330] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 233; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, July 10, 1980, Issue No. 12, p. 11; Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 13, 1984, Issue No. 20, p. 5; Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 5, 1995, Issue No. 111, pp. 64-6; Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, October 8, 1996, Issue No. 36, p. 2; November 27, 1996, Issue No. 50, p. 3; December 12, 1996, Issue No. 6, p. 5; Standing Committee on National Defence and Veterans Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, February 18, 1999, Meeting No. 90.
[331] 
See, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 2, 1982, Issue No. 19, p. 6; Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 19, 1983, Issue No. 138, p. 4; Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 13, 1984, Issue No. 19, p. 6; Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 18, 1985, Issue No. 27, pp. 3-4; Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, October 22, 1996, Issue No. 4, p. 10.
[332]
See Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[333] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 527. See, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 3, 1991, Issue No. 29, pp. 4-6, 16-32.
[334] 
May, 22nd ed., pp. 526-7; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, July 8, 1980, Issue No. 11, p. 8; Legislative Committee on Bill C-144, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 9, 1988, Issue No. 7, p. 20; Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 7, 1991, Issue No. 12, pp. 18, 29-30; Standing Committee on Human Resources and the Status of Persons with Disabilities, Minutes of Proceedings, April 30, 1998, Meeting No. 33; Standing Committee on National Resources and Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings, November 24, 1998, Meeting No. 47. See also the decision of the chairman: Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 13, 1978, Issue No. 20, pp. 5-6.
[335] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 233; May, 22nd ed., p. 527; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, July 7, 1982, Issue No. 75, p. 4; Legislative Committee on Bill C-79, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 7, 1985, Issue No. 7, p. 4; Legislative Committee on Bill C-45, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 10, 1986, Issue No. 8, pp. 7-8.
[336] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 526; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 13, 1984, Issue No. 19, pp. 4-5.
[337] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 527; see, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 18, 1986, Issue No. 40, p. 7.
[338] 
See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, May 21, 1970, pp. 835-7. See, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, August 31, 1983, Issue No. 124, p. 5; September 21, 1983, Issue No. 143, pp. 14-5; Legislative Committee on Bill C-45, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 10, 1986, Issue No. 8, pp. 5-6; Legislative Committee on Bill C-37, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 24, 1987, Issue No. 10, p. 4; Legislative Committee on Bill C-55, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 10, 1987, Issue No. 9, pp. 3-4; Standing Committee on Industry, Minutes of Proceedings, December 4, 1997, Meeting No. 16.
[339] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 28, 1996, Issue No. 51, p. 1.
[340] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 525; Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 220; Journals, May 17, 1956, p. 568; Debates, July 13, 1981, p. 11463. See, for example, the decision of the Chair: Sub-committee (of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture) on Bill C-62, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 12, 1993, Issue No. 9, pp. 51-3. Nonetheless, this kind of technical drafting change may be made in a subsequent reprinting of the bill, to reflect amendments to the bill and changes in the order of clauses and schedules (May, 22nd ed., p. 525). Editorial and technical amendments are not the responsibility of Parliament. That task falls instead to the legislative revisors who verify the accuracy of the marginal notes and headings before the statute is published.
[341] 
See the ruling of the Acting Speaker, Journals, May 14, 1970, p. 807; the ruling of Speaker Jerome, Journals, October 16, 1975, pp. 772-3; the ruling of Speaker Fraser, Debates, August 15, 1988, p. 18308; the decision of the Chair, Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 13, 1978, Issue No. 20, pp. 5-6.
[342] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 232.
[343] 
Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 235.
[344] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 533.
[345] 
See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, January 19, 1970, pp. 322-3.
[346] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 533. See, for example, decisions of the Chair: Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 25, 1981, Issue No. 69, pp. 82-3; Legislative Committee on Bill C-18, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 14, 1989, Issue No. 11, pp. 4-5.
[347] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Transport, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 7, 1996, Issue No. 10, p. 14.
[348] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 193. See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, June 11, 1973, pp. 394-5, and the decision of the Chair, Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 15, 1973, Issue No. 11, p. 3.
[349] 
Standing Order 75(1). It was only in 1964 that the House adopted a rule providing that the question be called on the title at the end of the consideration of the bill (Journals, October 9, 1964, p. 780).
[350] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 209. See, for example, Journals, February 13, 1970, pp. 433-4. See also Speaker Sauvé’s rulings, Debates, July 30, 1982, p. 19866; August 3, 1982, pp. 19958-9; the ruling of the Chair, Debates, July 7, 1988, p. 17287; the decision of the Chair, Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, Minutes of Proceedings, December 1, 1998, Meeting No. 57.
[351] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 209. See Journals, February 20, 1970, p. 477.
[352] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Industry, Minutes of Proceedings, November 5, 1998, Meeting No. 70; Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development, Minutes of Proceedings, November 17, 1998, Meeting No. 81.
[353] 
See Debates, April 6, 1970, p. 5520; Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 209.
[354] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 233.
[355] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 13, 1976, Issue No. 99, p. 4; Legislative Committee on Bill C-79, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 7, 1985, Issue No. 7, pp. 13-5, 19-20; Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 10, 1986, Issue No. 17, pp. 26-30; Legislative Committee on Bill C-130, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, August 4, 1988, Issue No. 23, pp. 19-20.
[356] 
See, for example, Debates, June 29, 1983, p. 26943; June 13, 1984, p. 4624.
[357] 
See, for example, Journals, December 20, 1973, pp. 774-5; December 9, 1974, pp. 179-81.
[358] 
Journals, December 20, 1973, p. 774. See also Journals, December 13, 1973, p. 745.
[359] 
Standing Order 108(2). See, for example, the Eighth and Ninth Reports of the Standing Committee on Industry on Bill C-20, An Act to amend the Competition Act and to make consequential and related amendments to other Acts (Journals, May 27, 1998, p. 896).
[360] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 520-1.
[361] 
Standing Order 75.
[362] 
Standing Committee on Justice and Legal affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 6, 1976, Issue No. 45, pp. 5-7.
[363] 
See, for example, Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, Minutes of Proceedings, March 24, 1999, Meeting No. 130; Journals, April 19, 1999, p. 1733. See also Legislative Committee on Bill C-289, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 18, 1993, Issue No. 3, pp. 4-5; Journals, February 23, 1993, p. 2546 (the Committee reported solely to inform the House that it disagreed to all the clauses, the title and the bill itself); Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 7, 1995, Issue No. 115, pp. 20-2 (the Committee decided not to report a bill that it had negatived, with all its clauses and its title).
[364] 
For example, an order made after the adoption of a motion to allot time that applies to the committee stage of a bill (Standing Order 78).
[365] 
Standing Order 97.1.
[366] 
See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, September 23, 1996, p. 4561.
[367] 
See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, September 23, 1996, p. 4561.
[368] 
See, for example, the Twentieth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented to the House on May 12, 1999 (Journals, p. 1864).
[369] 
Standing Order 97.1. This version of the Standing Order came into force on the first sitting day of 1999 (Journals, November 30, 1998, p. 1329).
[370] 
See, for example, Journals, April 20, 1909, p. 312; March 16, 1915, pp. 140-1; June 26, 1919, p. 467; May 16, 1929, p. 415; April 4, 1939, p. 297.
[371] 
See, for example, Special Joint Committee on Bill C-116 (Conflicts of Interests of Public Holders Act), Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 2, 1993, Issue No. 5, p. 4; Journals, June 3, 1993, p. 3107; Debates, June 3, 1993, p. 20292.
[372] 
See, for example, Legislative Committee H on Bill C-203, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 18, 1992, Issue No. 10, p. 3 (the Committee adjourned its proceedings sine die); Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 14, 1996, Issue No. 17, pp. 2-4; May 16, 1996, Issue No. 18, p. 1; June 18, 1996, Issue No. 35, pp. 1-2; October 21, 1996, Issue No. 54, p. 34; December 4, 1996, Issue No. 89, pp. 26-7 (the Committee decided not to report to the House).
[373] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 520-1.
[374] 
Debates, February 26, 1992, p. 7624. See also Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, September 23, 1996, pp. 4560-2.
[375] 
Standing Order 117.
[376] 
In 1993, the members of a committee rejected the decision of their Chair, who had ruled three proposed amendments to a bill to be out of order (Standing Committee on Agriculture, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 31, 1992, Issue No. 35, pp. 4-5, 38-43, 48). The amendments were then adopted by the Committee and included in the report to the House. Following a point of order raised in the House in respect of this matter, the Speaker upheld the ruling of the Chair and ordered that the three amendments be struck from the bill. The House subsequently agreed to two of the three amendments, by unanimous consent (Journals, April 28, 1992, pp. 1326-7; Debates, April 28, 1992, pp. 9801-2).
[377] 
In 1975, a point of order was raised in the House dealing with the admissibility of one of the amendments to a bill contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates (Debates, April 22, 1975, pp. 5072-8). Speaker Jerome ruled the amendment out of order because it exceeded the original Royal Recommendation that accompanied the bill, and ordered that the amendment be removed from the bill, and that the bill be reprinted (Journals, April 23, 1975, pp. 467-9).
[378] 
In 1981, Deputy Speaker Francis, on his own initiative (that is, no point of order having been raised in this respect), ruled an amendment agreed to by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates to be out of order, as it went beyond the terms of the original Royal Recommendation and offended the financial initiative of the Crown (Journals, April 7, 1981, p. 1671).
[379] 
Debates, April 28, 1992, p. 9801.
[380] 
A member of the committee may be designated by the Chair of the committee to present the report. See, for example, Journals, October 30, 1998, p. 1218.
[381] 
See, for example, Journals, March 5, 1999, p. 1562; April 15, 1999, p. 1720.
[382] 
See, for example, Debates, May 26, 1954, p. 5115; see also Stewart, p. 85 and Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[383] 
Dawson, p. 234.
[384] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 932-3.
[385] 
Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 432-4; December 20, 1968, pp. 554-62.
[386] 
Between 1968 and 1982, Standing Order 76(7) imposed a 20-minute limit on speeches at report stage, but provided certain exemptions. In 1982, the House decided to limit all speeches to 10 minutes at this stage (Journals, November 5, 1982, p. 5328; November 29, 1982, p. 5400; see also the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented to the House on November 5, 1982, Issue No. 7, pp. 3, 18).
[387] 
Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1665-6; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[388] 
Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 112. Sections (1) to (10) of the present Standing Order 76 were added at that time.
[389] 
This means “… any motion to amend [see, for example, Journals, May 25, 1998, p. 841], delete [see, for example, Journals, December 2, 1998, p. 1360], insert [see, for example, Journals, November 17, 1998, p. 1264] or restore [see, for example, Journals, May 26, 1999, pp. 1917-9] any clause in a bill” (Standing Orders 76(2) and 76.1(2)).
[390] 
Notice sent by facsimile is not proper notice. In 1993, Speaker Fraser ruled: “… all notices submitted for the Notice Paper and received by fax… are accepted as advance notice and cannot be considered official unless supported by the member’s original signature on the document in question…” (Debates, February 15, 1993, pp. 15899-900).
[391] 
Standing Order 76.1(2).
[392] 
Standing Order 76(2).
[393] 
Standing Order 54(1).
[394] 
Standing Orders 28(2) and 54(2).
[395] 
In practice, this may create a problem for Members because, with the exception of the minimum notice of two or three sitting days required by Standing Orders 76(1) and 76.1(1), the day on which consideration of the report stage commences is normally unknown. To overcome this difficulty, most notices are filed as soon as possible after the report of the committee is presented. In 1970, when a Member tried to move an amendment after consideration of report stage had commenced, the Chair refused to accept the motion, pointing out that the Chair’s task of selecting and grouping amendments at report stage would be “practically impossible” if the Chair “were faced a few days later with a discussion on another series of similar motions” (Journals, June 2, 1970, pp. 908-9).
[396] 
Standing Orders 76(4) and 76.1(4). See also the ruling of the Chair, Debates, December 30, 1971, pp. 10886-7.
[397]
See Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[398] 
Standing Orders 76(3) and 76.1(3). See, for example, Notice Paper, March 3, 1997, p. XXVI.
[399] 
See Speaker Fraser’s rulings, Debates, September 21, 1987, p. 9142; June 2, 1992, p. 11247.
[400]
See the section above entitled “Rules”.
[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).
[451] 
Standing Order 76(10).
[452] 
See, for example, Journals, April 16, 1997, p. 1474.
[453] 
Standing Order 74.
[454] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 288.
[455] 
See, for example, Debates, September 19, 1996, pp. 4467-8.
[456] 
See, for example, Debates, November 9, 1995, p. 16402.
[457] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 288. See, for example, the rulings of the Chair, Debates, March 2, 1967, p. 13658; March 24, 1969, p. 7055; May 12, 1969, p. 8595; December 11, 1969, pp. 1858-60; December 16, 1971, pp. 10545-7.
[458] 
See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1970, pp. 1416-7; Journals, April 23, 1993, p. 2854.
[459] 
Debates, December 20, 1966, p. 11427; March 1, 1967, pp. 13636-7.
[460] 
Debates, December 18, 1990, pp. 16916-7.
[461] 
Journals, March 9, 1999, pp. 1580-1; Debates, March 9, 1999, p. 12646.
[462] 
Standing Order 72.
[463] 
In 1968, a tax bill introduced by the Pearson government was defeated at third reading (Journals, February 19, 1968, pp. 702-3). See also Journals, February 23, 1968, p. 713; Debates, February 23, 1968, p. 6923; Journals, February 28, 1968, pp. 719-21.
[464] 
See, for example, Senate Journals, October 31, 1995, p. 1235. The Senate may defeat a bill (see, for example, Bill C-43, An Act respecting Abortion, Senate Debates, January 31, 1991, p. 5307) and even, although it rarely does so, refuse to consider a bill (see, for example, Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act (disability pension), Senate Journals, February 13, 1992, pp. 528-31; House of Commons Journals, February 13, 1992, p. 1020).
[465] 
Senate Rule 74(1). This procedure arose during the 1940s, when the Estimates were examined by the Senate Finance Committee even before the subsequent Supply bills were sent to the Senate. During the 1970s, this practice was extended to other bills at the initiative of Senator Hayden, and since then it has also been referred to as the “Hayden formula”.
[466] 
See, for example, Journals, April 9, 1997, p. 1369.
[467] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 446; May, 22nd ed., p. 485. See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[468] 
See, for example, Journals, April 16, 1997, pp. 1479-80.
[469] 
See, for example, Journals, January 23, 1990, pp. 1091-101.
[470] 
See Speaker Fraser’s rulings, Debates, July 11, 1988, pp. 17382-5; April 26, 1990, pp. 10719-26. See also Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, November 19, 1996, pp. 6410-11, and the ruling of Deputy Speaker Milliken, Debates, June 9, 1999, pp. 16104-5.
[471] 
Standing Order 77(1). It was not until 1991 that a provision relating to the consideration of Senate amendments was incorporated into the Standing Orders (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2915).
[472] 
See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1998, p. 10901.
[473] 
See, for example, Debates, August 21, 1987, pp. 8283-4.
[474] 
See, for example, Debates, August 21, 1987, pp. 8283-4.
[475] 
See, for example, Journals, July 18, 1959, pp. 750-1; May 8, 1990, p. 1661.
[476] 
See, for example, Debates, June 11, 1996, p. 3642.
[477] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 535.
[478] 
See, for example, Journals, July 12, 1988, p. 3160; May 8, 1990, p. 1663. Speaker Parent ruled that a sub-amendment requesting the Senate to respond to a message from the House within a specific time was out of order because it went outside the scope of the amendment (Debates, November 19, 1996, p. 6452).
[479] 
Standing Order 43(1).
[480] 
Standing Order 78. See Debates, November 28, 1996, pp. 6831-2; Journals, March 20, 1997, pp. 1322-3.
[481] 
Standing Order 57. See Journals, March 13, 1990, pp. 1331-2; June 20, 1995, pp. 1817-8.
[482] 
The last conference was held in 1947 (Journals, July 14, 1947, p. 905).
[483] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 274.
[484] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 278.
[485] 
Standing Order 77(4).
[486] 
SeeMay, 1st ed., pp. 249-58; Campion, 3rd ed., pp. 227-32; Hatsell, Vol. IV, pp. 1-55; Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 79-88; Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 274-80; F.A. Kunz, The Modern Senate of Canada 1925-1963, A Re-Appraisal, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965, pp. 347-65; Blair Armitage, “Parliamentary Conferences,” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 1990, pp. 29-30.
[487] 
The first conference, which was held at the initiative of the House, took place at 8:30 p.m. on October 22, 1903 (Journals, p. 716); the second, at the initiative of the Senate, took place a little later in the evening, at 11:00 p.m. (Journals, p. 723). After hearing the report of the representatives when they returned from the second conference, the House asked that a third, free, conference be held “forthwith” (Journals, October 23, 1903, p. 727). The representatives at that conference reported to the House on October 23 (Journals, October 23, 1903, p. 758) and the issue was resolved on October 24 (Journals, October 24, 1903, p. 759).
[488] 
Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80. At the time of Confederation, there was only one Standing Order providing that when the House requested a conference with the Senate, the reasons for disagreement had first to be “prepared and agreed to before a Message” was to be sent “forthwith”.
[489] 
Journals, July 12, 1905, pp. 500-1.
[490] 
Standing Order 77(3).
[491] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 280.
[492] 
A review of the indexes to the Journals does not reveal a single instance of a conference being held between 1867 and 1902.
[493] 
These 13 conferences were held on the following dates: Journals, May 4, 1910, pp. 619-20; June 18, 1919, p. 386; July 4, 1919, p. 521; May 27, 1921, p. 382, and May 28, 1921, p. 385; June 27, 1922, p. 519 (two conferences); July 16, 1924, p. 572; June 25, 1925, p. 532; May 27, 1933, p. 650; June 29, 1934, p. 562; June 24, 1938, p. 522; July 31, 1940, p. 307; July 14, 1947, p. 905. On one occasion, the Senate declined an invitation to participate in a free conference (Journals, July 19, 1924, p. 653).
[494] 
In the British Parliament, the exchange of messages between the Commons and the House of Lords has made conferences obsolete (May, 22nd ed., p. 610, note 4). In Canada, in recent years, the Senate has tried to revive the procedure on two occasions. On November 18, 1987, the Senate passed a motion that the Leader of the government in the Senate ask his Cabinet colleagues whether they would agree to a conference on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act. On November 19, the Leader of the government in the Senate informed the Senators that the government would not recommend such a conference to the House of Commons (Senate Debates, November 18, 1987, pp. 2179-2184; November 19, 1987, pp. 2212-3). On May 22, 1990, when the Senate was examining the possibility of sending to the House a message respecting the amendments it wished to make to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, Senator Allen MacEachen moved that the motion being considered be referred to a conference between the two Houses of Parliament. Senator MacEachen’s amendment was negatived on October 22, 1990 (Senate Journals, May 22, 1990, pp. 991-2; October 22, 1990, pp. 1848-9).
[495] 
In 1995, following an exchange of messages between the House and the Senate concerning Bill C-69, Electoral Boudaries Readjustment Act, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs expressed its serious concerns in its 108th Report to the House regarding the handling of Bill C-69 by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (see Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 54, pp. 8-9; Debates, December 8, 1995, p. 17445).
[496] 
The number of managers has varied for each conference. For the conferences held in 1903, the numbers of Members and Senators were twelve and six respectively. For the conferences held in 1919, the numbers were eleven and eight; in 1922, eight and five; and in 1924, five and three. In each of the other conferences, the numbers of Members and Senators were equal. For five of the fourteen free conferences, the breakdown was three managers from each House.
[497]
The records of proceedings show that the House adjourned for only four of the fourteen free conferences. In the other cases, the House continued to sit, had not yet been convened or had suspended the sitting for dinner.
[498] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 275.
[499] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 563.
[500] 
May, 11th ed., p. 459.
[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, 22nd 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, 22nd 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 81st 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, 3rd 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).

Please note —

As the rules and practices of the House of Commons are subject to change, users should remember that this edition of Procedure and Practice was published in January 2000. Standing Order changes adopted since then, as well as other changes in practice, are not reflected in the text. The Appendices to the book, however, have been updated and now include information up to the end of the 38th Parliament in November 2005.

To confirm current rules and practice, please consult the latest version of the Standing Orders on the Parliament of Canada Web site.

For further information about the procedures of the House of Commons, please contact the Table Research Branch at (613) 996-3611 or by e-mail at trbdrb@parl.gc.ca.