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

2000 Edition — More information …

16. The Legislative Process

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[351]: Beauchesne, 6^th 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, 6^th ed., p. 209.
[354]: Beauchesne, 6^th 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, 4^th 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, 4^th 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”.