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

2000 Edition — More information …

17. Delegated Legislation

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[51]: Standing Order 123(2). See Journals, February 11, 1999, p. 1500 and February 12, 1999, p. 1504 for an example of the Committee presenting two disallowance reports on consecutive days in order to comply with this requirement.
[52]: Standing Order 123(3). See, for example, Debates, February 19, 1987, p. 3584 (Fruit, Vegetables, and Honey Regulations); October 10, 1991, p. 3557 (Agriculture Exhibitions Loans Order); November 19, 1991, p. 4987 (Indian Health Regulations); November 19, 1992, p. 13605 (Public Works Nuisances Regulations); May 11, 1995, p. 12445 (National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations); February 11, 1999, p. 11788 (Narcotic Control Regulations); February 12, 1999, p. 11843 (Food and Drug Regulations).
[53]: Standing Order 123(4).
[54]: Standing Order 125.
[55]: Sections of the Agriculture Exhibitions Loans Order (Journals, November 18, 1991, p. 677), the Indian Health Regulations (Journals, December 12, 1991, p. 938), the Public Works Nuisances Regulations (Journals, February 1, 1993, p. 2426), the National Capital Commission Traffic and Property Regulations (Journals, June 12, 1995, p. 1709), and the Narcotic Control Regulations and the Food and Drug Regulations (Journals, March 15, 1999, p. 1614) were revoked without debate. In the case of the Public Works Nuisances Regulations, the statutory instrument in question was revoked before the 15 sitting days had elapsed. The Public Works Nuisances Regulations designated specific areas of Parliament Hill for holding demonstrations and other activities and allowed the Minister of Public Works or a peace officer to prohibit or evict any persons not complying with this order. The Regulations were designed to improve control of disruptive noise during times the House was sitting and to improve control of access to the Parliament Buildings. The Committee objected to these regulations, arguing that they were in breach of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Although the Public Works Minister had assured the Committee that these regulations were not being enforced, only when the disallowance report was tabled in the House were the regulations revoked (see Standing Joint Committee for the Scrutiny of Regulations, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 18, 1993, Issue No. 24, p. 8).
[56]: See, for example, Journals, December 12, 1991, p. 938; Debates, pp. 6215-6.
[57]: Standing Order 124.
[58]: Standing Orders 54(1) and 124.
[59]: See, for example, Order Paper, March 17, 1987, p. 8.
[60]: Standing Order 128(1).
[61]: Standing Order 127.
[62]: Standing Orders 126(1) and 128(2).
[63]: Standing Order 126(1)(a).
[64]: Standing Order 126(1)(b). In 1987, Speaker Fraser questioned the form of the first disallowance report (Fruit, Vegetables, and Honey Regulations) presented in the House before the concurrence motion was put to the House. In particular, the Speaker advised the House that if it agreed to the concurrence motion as written, the House would not be ordering the Ministry to revoke a regulation, but rather would only be agreeing that the Committee could move a motion to revoke a regulation, a mechanism not provided for in the Standing Orders. However, the Chair advised that for this report only, he would accept that concurrence in the report would result in an Order of the House to the Ministry to revoke the regulations. The Chair also requested that the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure look into the ambiguity of the Standing Orders (see Debates, March 18, 1987, p. 4285). Standing Order 123(1) was subsequently amended to indicate that the report contain only a resolution which, if adopted, would become an Order of the House to revoke a statutory instrument (see Journals, December 18, 1987, p. 2017).
[65]: Standing Order 128(2)(b).
[66]: In 1986, the Minister responsible for Regulatory Affairs assured the Committee that votes taken pursuant to Standing Order 126(1) would not be considered matters of confidence in the government (see Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, April 15, 1986, Issue No. 29, p. 27).
[67]: Standing Order 126(1)(c).
[68]: Standing Order 126(2). It is, however, permissible for all Whips together to further defer divisions pursuant to Standing Order 45(7).
[69]: Standing Order 126(3).
[70]: Standing Order 128(2)(a). A motion to concur in such a committee report has been debated only once, in March 1987. After a short debate, an amendment to refer the report back to the Committee for further consideration was adopted. The main motion as amended was then agreed to. The sitting was suspended at 1:25 p.m. See Journals, March 18, 1987, p. 610; Debates, pp. 4285-8.