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. It is these motions, and not the bill, that are the subject of the debates and decisions of the House. The stages to which the motions correspond “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—appear the same, and seem repetitious, they have very different meanings”. Moreover, the House does not commit itself conclusively to a bill until the final stage, when it takes a decision on whether or not the bill should receive final passage.

The Standing Orders of the House of Commons require that every bill receive three readings, on different days, before being passed. That practice derives from an ancient parliamentary practice which originated in England. 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 discern the content of the bill, the Clerk read it to them; thus, the idea of “reading” the bill was originally taken literally.

Today, while a bill is no longer read aloud, the readings have remained as formalities. 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. This 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 the motion for each of the three readings is adopted. The Clerk of the House is responsible for certifying each reading, and entering the date of passage at the foot of the bill. A bill remains in the custody of the Clerk throughout the stages of consideration. No substantive alteration to the bill is permitted without the express authority of the House or of a committee, in the form of an amendment. The original bills, certified by the Clerk, form part of the official records of the House.

All bills must pass through the same stages of the legislative process, but they do not necessarily follow exactly the same route. Since the House adopted new rules to make the legislative process more flexible, three avenues have existed for the adoption of legislation (see Figure 16.1, “The Three Options of the Legislative Process (Government Bills Originating in the House of Commons)”):

After appropriate notice, a Minister or a private Member may introduce a bill, which is given first reading immediately. The bill is then debated generally at the second reading stage, after which it is sent to a committee for clause-by-clause study.

A Minister 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.

Figure 16.1 The Three Options of the Legislative Process (Government Bills Originating in the House of Commons)

Regardless of the avenue taken, the bill will have to be carried through report stage, be read a third time and be sent to the Senate for consideration and passage before receiving Royal Assent.

At the start of a new session, a government bill may, if it is identical to a bill introduced in the preceding session, be reinstated at the stage it had reached at the time of prorogation. This may be accomplished by passing a motion to that effect. Private Members’ bills, on the other hand, are not affected by prorogation and do not, therefore, require reinstatement at the beginning of a new session. A separate procedure is set out for the reinstatement of Senate bills.

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

The following are the stages that a bill must pass through before becoming law:

Notice of motion for leave to introduce and placement on the House of Commons 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; and

Coming into force.

A bill that is introduced in the Senate must pass through essentially the same stages, except that it is considered first in the Senate and subsequently in the House of Commons. Most bills may be introduced in either House, except for bills which involve spending or relate to taxation, which must be introduced in the House of Commons. There are special rules dealing with the introduction of such bills.

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

Forty-eight hours’ written notice is required prior to the introduction of any public bill. Once notice has been 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 concur in Senate amendments and to amend at the report stage. Separate requirements apply in respect of the notice required for private bills.

A Minister or a private Member 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. Monday to Thursday and before 2:00 p.m. on Friday. The title of the bill to be introduced is then placed on the Notice Paper . The day after it appears in the Notice Paper , the title of the bill will appear in the Order Paper in the order in which the notices were received, together with the titles of other bills awaiting introduction in the House. This is understood to satisfy the 48-hour notice requirement in the Standing Orders . The title of the bill remains on the Order Paper , under the rubric “Order of Business”, until such time as the Minister or private Member decides to introduce the bill.

Preparation of a Bill by a Committee

The Standing Orders provide that a motion to appoint or to instruct a committee to prepare a bill may be moved by a Minister.

In order to instruct a committee to prepare and bring in a bill, a Minister must give 48 hours’ written notice of the requisite motion. Once the notice period has elapsed, the motion is 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 the debate and put all questions necessary to dispose of the motion.

Once a motion to concur in a report of a committee instructed to prepare and bring in a bill is adopted by the House, it becomes an order to bring in the bill. If, at the time the motion for first reading of the bill is proposed, the mover 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. After second reading, the bill will then be subjected to 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 a bill in the House. The notice period having elapsed, the sponsor of the bill, once ready to do so, notifies the Chair of his or her intention to proceed during Routine Proceedings when the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” (if the sponsor is a Minister) 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. A Minister seldom provides any explanation when requesting leave to introduce a bill, but may do so. On the other hand, a private Member normally provides a brief explanation of the bill he or she is introducing in the House.

First reading allows a bill to be formally brought before the House, printed and made available publicly. It is at that point that it is assigned a specific bill number. Passage of the motion for first reading involves no commitment on the part of the House beyond agreement that the bill be made generally available for the information of Parliament and the public. No discussion is permitted at this stage. Once leave to introduce the bill has been granted, the Speaker proposes the following motion to the House “That this bill be now read a first time and be printed”. The motion is deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put. The Speaker then asks: “When shall the bill be 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, as the case may be.

Since Senate bills have already been printed when they are sent to the House of Commons, no request for leave to introduce the bill is required. The motion for first reading is deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put. Senate bills then pass through the same stages as House of Commons bills.

Reference to Committee Before Second Reading

Traditionally, adoption of the motion for second reading amounts to approval by the House of the principle of the bill. This effectively limits the scope of any amendments that may be made during committee study and at report stage. In order to provide more flexibility in the legislative process, the House amended its Standing Orders in 1994, instituting a new procedure that allows Ministers to move that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading. This empowers Members to examine the principle of a bill before second reading, and enables them to propose amendments to alter its scope. The procedure can also be used with respect to bills based on ways and means motions.

When the Order of the Day is read for second reading of a government bill, a Minister may, after notifying representatives of the opposition parties, propose a motion that the bill be forthwith referred to a 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. The current practice is for the Government House Leader to give such notice during the Thursday Statement, although it is not uncommon for a Minister to inform the House of the government’s intention at the time of introduction and first reading of the bill. The motion to refer forthwith the bill to a committee is not subject to amendment, and debate is limited to five hours. At the end of the five hours, or when no Member rises to speak, the Speaker puts the question. 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 as those that apply to the consideration of bills in committee after second reading. 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 by the principle of the bill, the principle not yet having been approved by the House. At the conclusion of its study, the committee reports the bill to the House, with or without amendment. The report stage of the bill may not commence prior to the third sitting day following the presentation of the report.

After the committee has reported the bill to the House, the next stage essentially fuses report stage and second reading. Members may propose amendments, after giving written notice two sitting days prior to the bill being called. When consideration of report stage is concluded, a motion “That the bill (as amended) be concurred in at report stage (with (a) further amendment(s)) and read a second time” is put and forthwith disposed of by the House, without debate or amendment. Once concurred in at report stage and read a second time, the bill is set down for third reading and passage at a subsequent sitting of the House.

Second Reading and Reference to a Committee

Central to the second reading stage is a general debate on the principle of a bill. Although the Standing Orders make no specific reference to this practice, it is deeply rooted in the procedural tradition of the House. Accordingly, debate must focus on the principle of the bill and not on its individual provisions.

Perceptions of the importance of this stage of the legislative process have evolved over the years. Traditionally, it was felt that second reading was the most important stage in the legislative process. 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 over-emphasized in the past, and that the decisive stage should occur later in a bill’s passage, after it had been reported by a committee. In the Committee’s view, passage of the motion for second reading simply implied that the House had given preliminary consideration to the bill, without any commitment to its final passage, and had authorized its reference to a committee for detailed scrutiny and possible amendment.

Second reading of a bill and reference to a committee are moved in a single motion which specifies the committee (standing, special, legislative) to which the bill is referred. In most cases, this allows the sponsor of the bill to select the committee to which it is to be referred. The Standing Orders require, in certain cases, that a bill be referred to a Committee of the Whole.

Debate on second reading begins when the Minister or private 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 (number and title) be now read a second time and referred to the (name of committee)”.

The Standing Orders regulate the length of speeches of Members during debate. Only speeches by the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition are not subject to time limits. Otherwise, on government bills, during the initial round of speeches and during the first five hours of debate that follow, Members may speak for no more than 20 minutes, after which a period not exceeding 10 minutes is 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.

With the exception of the initial round of speeches on government bills, the Whip of a party may indicate to the Chair that one or more of the 20-minute periods of debate allotted to Members of his or her party will be divided in two. Alternatively, Members may themselves advise the Speaker of their intention to divide their time when they are recognized to speak. After the initial round of debate and the five hours of debate that follow, any other Member rising to speak has a maximum of 10 minutes, followed by a five-minute period for questions and comments. By custom, every Member who moves a substantive motion is allowed a reply. In current practice, a Member who proposes a motion for second reading of a bill is also permitted 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.

Amendments to the Motion for Reading

A public bill not referred to a committee before second reading may not be amended before being read a second time and referred to a committee. On the other hand, the motion for second reading of a bill may itself be amended, but only three types of amendments may be moved without notice: a three or six months’ hoist; a reasoned amendment; and a motion for 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 second or third reading of a bill. Its effect is to prevent a bill from being “now” read a second or third time, and to postpone the reading for three or six months. If it is adopted, the bill is deemed withdrawn for the remainder of the current session. If it is defeated, the debate nonetheless has been extended as a result and Members enabled to speak a second time.

The hoist amendment originated in British practice during the 18th century as a method of postponing the resumption of 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 length of the postponement was intended to prevent further consideration before the end of the session. Normally, if the session continued beyond the anticipated date, the bill was not placed again on the Order Paper .

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 their length is neither regular nor fixed in advance.

An analysis of hoist amendments moved in the House of Commons since Confederation reveals that the cases in which this procedure has been used fall within two specific periods: 1867 to about 1920, and 1920 until the present day.

The first hoist amendment was moved on November 28, 1867. Prior to 1920, it was the government, not the opposition, that resorted to hoist amendments most often. Because the House had little time for government business during the short-lived sessions of that era, the government sometimes felt obliged to make use of hoist amendments in order to dispose of a great number of private Members’ bills, thereby gaining more time to devote to its own legislation.

Since 1920, the period set aside for government business has expanded to occupy the largest share of the time in the House, and hoist amendments have gradually come to be used almost exclusively by the opposition as a means of prolonging debate. The precedents indicate that hoist amendments were moved to motions for second and third reading during periods of considerable tension between the parties, and that they rarely passed. Indeed, of the scores of occurrences 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 disposing of a private Member’s bill.

A hoist amendment must satisfy a number of requirements if it is to be ruled in order. Since the amendment seeks to neutralize the word “now” in the motion for reading, it must propose the elimination of all of the words following “That” in the motion and replace 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 and is debatable but may not be amended.

When a hoist amendment is rejected, debate continues on the main motion; however, only one hoist amendment may be moved per reading motion. The adoption of a hoist amendment (whether for three or six months) postpones further consideration of the bill for an indefinite period. For this reason, the bill disappears from the Order Paper and may not be introduced again, even after the period specified in the hoist amendment has elapsed. The bill is thus defeated indirectly and any attempt to place it back on the Order Paper would be ruled contrary to the decision of the House. Attempts to apply the hoist amendment to a resolution or to include it in the text of a reasoned amendment have been ruled out of order by the Chair.

The Reasoned Amendment

The reasoned amendment allows a Member to state the reasons for his or her opposition to second or third reading of a bill with a relevant proposal replacing the original question. A reasoned amendment is introduced in the form of a motion, and deletes and replaces all of the text of the main motion after the word “That”.

It is believed that the first reasoned amendment was introduced in 1882. An analysis of those that have been proposed since Confederation reveals an initial period, from about 1882 to 1930, in which great latitude was allowed in their wording. Throughout that period, the admissibility of reasoned amendments was rarely contested and the Chair rarely intervened. In the early 1930s, regular requests began to be made to Speakers to rule as to whether reasoned amendments were in order and a number of precedents were established. By the 1970s, it had become increasingly difficult for Members to move reasoned amendments that were procedurally acceptable thanks to the accumulating body of precedent in this regard.

While the Standing Orders of the House of Commons make no explicit provision for reasoned amendments, rules of procedure respecting the latter have become established over the years by precedent. These rules govern both the form and the substance of such amendments. Today, a reasoned amendment generally takes the form of a proposal that the House decline to give a bill second reading, for a specific reason. The reasons put forward fall into two broad categories:

the reasoned affirmation of a principle adverse to or differing from the principles, policy or provisions of the bill; or

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 strictly relevant to the bill being considered. A reasoned amendment is irrelevant, for example, if it relates to another bill, is intended to divide the bill, proposes that the bill be withdrawn and replaced by another bill, relates to the parent Act rather than to the amending bill, goes beyond the scope of the bill, or involves the expenditure of funds or proposes changes that exceed the scope of the royal recommendation.

A reasoned amendment is irrelevant, for example, if it relates to another bill, is intended to divide the bill, proposes that the bill be withdrawn and replaced by another bill, relates to the parent Act rather than to the amending bill, goes beyond the scope of the bill, or involves the expenditure of funds or proposes changes that exceed the scope of the royal recommendation. 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.

It must not relate to particulars of the bill if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in committee.

if what is sought may be accomplished by amendments in committee. It must not attach a condition to the adoption of the second or third reading motion.

A reasoned amendment which is merely a statement of opposition to portions of the bill is not admissible. On the other hand, a reasoned amendment need not necessarily oppose the principle of a bill in order to be admissible.

When a reasoned amendment is ruled in order, the House must dispose of it. To date, the House has never decided in favour of a reasoned amendment. Were it to do so, debate on the bill would end, as would debate on the motion for second or third reading of the bill. The order relating to the bill would then 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 withdraw the bill and to refer its subject matter to a committee for the latter to consider and report to the House. This type of amendment replaces all the words after “That” with a proposal 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 referred to a committee.

The earliest attempt to instruct a committee to study the subject matter of a bill can be traced back to the early-1870s. This type of amendment was originally seen as an opportunity to allow a committee to recommend if a bill should proceed. Throughout the years, the wording of the amendment evolved in order to clarify that this type of motion would empower a committee to study only the subject matter of the bill and not its provisions. In the mid-1970s, the notion that such an amendment would effectively defeat the bill was underscored with the addition of the words “that the order be discharged, the bill withdrawn”.

Certain conditions must be met, however, for this type of amendment to be in order. First, the subject matter of the bill may be referred neither to more than one committee nor to a non-existent body. Second, an amendment that would attach a condition to the adoption of the motion for reading of a bill is out of order. Third, the actual provisions of the bill may not be referred to a committee since this would amount to instructing the committee to consider certain provisions of a bill even before it has been read a second time and referred to a committee.

Unless the amendment specifies a deadline for reporting to the House, the committee to which the subject matter of a bill is referred is free to do so within a time frame of its own choosing.

Motions of Instruction

Once a bill has been referred to a committee, the House may instruct the committee by way of a motion authorizing what would otherwise be beyond its powers, such as, for example, examining a portion of a bill and reporting it separately, examining certain items in particular, dividing a bill into more than one bill, consolidating two or more bills into a single bill, or expanding or narrowing the scope or application of a bill. A committee that so wishes may also seek an instruction from the House.

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

Motions of instruction derive from British practice during the second half of the 19th century and were carried over into the practice of the Canadian House of Commons. Nearly all of the precedents on instructions relating to bills are drawn from a period when bills were referred to a Committee of the Whole after second reading.

A motion of instruction is 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. Motions of instruction may be moved immediately after the motion for second reading where it refers the bill to a Committee of the Whole. No notice is required and a motion of instruction made at this stage of the legislative process is neither debatable nor amendable.

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

A Minister proposing such a motion may choose to have it placed either under Government Business or under “Motions” in Routine Proceedings on the Order Paper . When moved by a private Member, however, such a motion would usually be placed under Private Members’ Business, unless the motion were in connection with a bill presently before a committee. In the latter event, the motion may be placed under “Motions” in Routine Proceedings on the Order Paper . When it is called, a motion of instruction is dealt with as an independent substantive motion, even though it is meaningful only in connection with the bill before the committee. Should debate on the motion be 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.

There are a number of reasons for which the Chair may rule a motion of instruction 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. 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, is also out of order. A motion of instruction will be ruled out of order if it does not relate to the content of the bill if it is unclear, or if it attempts to delete a portion of the bill. A motion of instruction will also be ruled out of order if it attempts to confer upon a committee powers which it already possesses, if it enables a committee to divide a bill that does not lend itself to such division, or if it extends the financial prerogatives of the Crown without a royal recommendation for that purpose.

Royal Consent

Royal Consent (which should not be confused with Royal Assent or royal recommendation) is derived from British practice and is among 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, which in Canada originates with the Governor General in his or her capacity as representative of the Sovereign. Consent is necessary when property rights of the Crown are postponed, compromised or abandoned, or for any waiver of a prerogative of the Crown. It was, for example, required for bills in connection with railways on which the Crown had a lien, with property rights of the Crown (in national parks for example), with the garnishment, attachment and diversion of pensions and with amendments to the Financial Administration Act .

The consent of the Crown is not required where the bill relates to property held by the Crown for its subjects. The consent of the Crown does not, however, signify approval of the substance of the measure; it means only that the Crown agrees to remove an obstacle to the progress of the bill so that the latter may be considered by both Houses, and ultimately submitted for Royal Assent.

Although Royal Consent is often signified when a bill is read for the second time, this may take place at any stage prior to final adoption. It may take the form of a special message, but it is normally transmitted by a Minister 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 is not given in advance, the Speaker will refuse to put the question for passage at third reading. If, through inadvertence, a bill requiring Royal Consent were to pass all its stages in Parliament without receiving consent, it would be necessary to declare the proceedings in relation to the bill null and void.

Consideration in Committee

During consideration in committee, Members examine the clauses of a bill in detail. It is at this stage that they have their first opportunity to propose amendments to its text. It is also at this stage that witnesses may be invited to present their views and to answer Members’ questions. A bill is referred to a standing, special or legislative committee for consideration, normally after second reading in the House, but sometimes before second reading. While any bill based on a supply motion must be referred to a Committee of the Whole, any bill may be referred to a Committee of the Whole by unanimous consent, typically after having passed through more than one stage of the legislative process in a single sitting. The House may also adopt a special order to refer a bill to a Committee of the Whole.

Mandate of the Committee

When a bill is referred to a committee, the order of reference is understood exclusively as a mandate to examine the bill and to report it to the House, with or without amendment. If the bill has already received second reading, the committee is bound by the decision of the House and may not amend it contrary to its principle. This is not the case when the committee considers a bill that has not yet been read the second time.

During consideration of a bill, a committee may receive clarification from the House of its order of reference. Such “instructions” from the House may extend the committee’s mandate by giving it additional powers.

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.

Role of a Committee on a Bill

The role of the committee is to consider a bill clause by clause, and if necessary, word by word, and to approve the text or to modify it.

The committee has the power to modify the provisions of a bill to the extent that when it is reported to the House it may be completely different in substance from the bill referred to the committee. For example, the committee may negative a clause or clauses of a bill (even 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.

Length of Speeches

Every member of a committee may speak as often and as long as he or she wishes, subject only to the provisions of any relevant motions previously adopted by the committee. Frequently, a committee will pass motions governing its proceedings, such as motions limiting the length of speeches, establishing a rotation of speakers (usually according to political parties) and imposing time limits for the proposal of certain types of motions or amendments.

A committee itself may also limit the time it devotes to consideration of a bill by adopting a motion to that effect. Such a motion may be debated and amended. A committee may also adopt the equivalent of a time allocation motion, allotting time for the examination of each clause, or terminating consideration of a bill at a particular time or date. Motions have also been adopted to suspend consideration of particular bills until certain conditions have been met.

Hearing of Witnesses

A committee to which a bill is referred usually chooses to hold public hearings. Its steering committee (referred to as the subcommittee on agenda and procedure), or the whole committee, if no steering committee has been established, may discuss a timetable for meetings and compile a list of witnesses whom the members wish to invite to appear. A steering committee will usually present its recommendations to the whole committee in the form of a report. The committee may then adopt the report with or without amendments. It may also elect to call upon the services of the analysts of the Library of Parliament, or to retain any other specialist it deems necessary to assist it in its work.

At the outset of the first meeting on the examination of the bill, the Chair of the committee calls Clause 1 for debate (or Clause 2, if Clause 1 contains the short title) to permit general discussion of the bill and questioning of witnesses, if any are appearing. Ordinarily the first witness to appear before the committee is either the sponsor of the bill, the Minister responsible for it or the Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary. Other witnesses may then be invited to express their views on the bill. Such witnesses may include individuals, experts or representatives of organizations potentially affected by the legislative measure. At this stage, discussion is wide-ranging and relates both to the general principle and to the details of the bill. Later, upon commencement of clause-by-clause consideration of the bill, the Minister responsible, or the Minister’s Parliamentary Secretary, may again address the committee. Departmental officials will also make themselves available during this phase to provide explanations of complex or technical aspects of the legislative proposal.

On occasion, committees have considered two bills at a single meeting in order to question a Minister and witnesses on both bills at the same time. The bills in question had issues in common that made it practical to consider them simultaneously. Notwithstanding these similarities, the bills were examined separately at the clause-by-clause stage. A committee has also simultaneously considered a bill referred to it and the subject matter of another bill.

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 committee’s 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 is ordered as follows:

clauses;

clauses allowed to stand (if any);

schedules;

clause 1 (short title);

preamble (if any); and

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. Consideration of Clause 1, if that clause contains only the short title, is also postponed. If the bill contains an alternative title in place of a short title, current practice is to treat the alternative title in the same manner as a short title and postpone its consideration. The other clauses and the schedules are considered in the order in which they appear in the printed version of the bill. 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, committees have generally preferred the practice of proceeding with new clauses and new schedules in the same manner as with proposed amendments to clauses; that is, in the order in which they would appear in the bill. Indeed, this approach has been used to such an extent that it is now solidly entrenched in the practice of the House of Commons. Once all the provisions have been decided, the committee considers Clause 1 (if it was postponed), the preamble, and finally, the title.

Consideration of the Clauses

Each clause of the bill is a distinct question requiring separate consideration. The committee Chair calls each clause successively by number and, after discussion, puts the question on the clause if no amendment is proposed. If an amendment is proposed, the Chair recognizes the mover, who is given the opportunity to move the amendment and explain the provision to the committee. A new question is then placed under consideration and there is a new debate. When debate has concluded, the Chair first puts the question on the amendment to the clause and then on the clause itself (as amended, if applicable). Once the clause is carried, it may not be discussed further without unanimous consent.

The committee may adopt a motion to divide a clause in order to debate its parts separately or to put the question on the parts separately.

Clauses Allowed to Stand

The committee may, by motion, decide to stand a clause, or a group of consecutive clauses en bloc . Debate on a motion to postpone consideration of a clause is limited to the issue of postponement, and may not touch upon the merits of the bill or of 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.

Amendments

Proposed during debate on a clause, an amendment attempts to modify the text of the clause under consideration so that it will be more acceptable, or to propose an alternate text to the committee. An amendment must be relevant to the clause it is seeking to amend, and may therefore relate only to a single clause of the bill. This said, the Chair, for practical reasons, may permit debate to range over several other amendments which are interconnected or which raise different aspects of the amendment under consideration. Once an amendment has been proposed, it may be withdrawn only at the request of the mover and with the unanimous consent of the members of the committee.

A subamendment may be moved. Its purpose is to alter or clarify an amendment. It must relate to the amendment and may not increase the scope of the amendment by bringing up a matter that is foreign to it. A committee may consider only two amendments at a time; that is, an amendment to a clause and a subamendment to the amendment.

Only a member of the committee, or his or her designated substitute, may move an amendment or vote on an amendment. The Chair of the committee, like the Speaker of the House, may neither move motions nor vote, except in the event of an equality of voices. It is generally acknowledged that, in the case of an equality of voices, a Chair should vote in such a way as to permit further discussion of the question. Thus, in casting a vote on a clause of a bill, the Chair would vote in the affirmative and on an amendment or subamendment, the Chair would vote in the negative in order to maintain the status quo and to keep the question open to further amendment either in committee or in the House at report stage. A Chair is not required to state reasons for his or her casting vote, or to explain it. This practice does not apply when a private bill is before a committee; in this event, the Chair may vote on any matter concerning the bill and is entitled to a second (casting) vote if there is an equality of voices.

The Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel provides legislative drafting services to committee members who wish to move amendments to a bill. When Members choose to avail themselves of these services, it is understood that all communications between them, the staff of the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and any other House of Commons staff in connection with the proposed amendments are to be treated as strictly confidential. Each amendment must be submitted in writing to the clerk of the committee, and may be moved in either official language. In contrast to the rules that apply to motions presented to the House, no seconder is required.

Although there is no formal notice requirement for amendments, the normal practice is for movers to communicate with the clerk of the committee in order to arrange for the translation, compilation and circulation of the amendments to all members of the committee. If the Chair has advance notice, he or she will then be able to ensure that a proposed amendment is considered at the appropriate point during consideration of the bill. To ensure that clause-by-clause consideration proceeds in an orderly manner, a committee may consider a motion imposing a deadline for the acceptance of proposed amendments.

Order in Which Amendments Are Considered

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

an amendment to leave out certain words in order to insert or add others;

an amendment to leave out a word or words; and

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 would appear in the bill, except when several amendments are moved to the same line. In the latter case, the amendments are proceeded with in the chronological order in which they were submitted. The Chair may rule that an amendment is not moved in the right place, or that it should be moved as a new clause.

Amendments must be proposed following the order of the text to be amended. Once a line of a clause has been amended by the committee, it cannot be further amended by a subsequent amendment as a given line may be amended only once.

Admissibility of Amendments

Amendments and subamendments that are moved by Members in committee must comply with certain rules of admissibility. It is incumbent upon the Chair to decide upon the admissibility of amendments once they have been moved; the Chair does not rule on hypothetical motions. He or she relies on the procedural rules that have been established as precedents over the years and upon the authorities on parliamentary procedure and practice.

In contrast to practice in the House, where there is no appeal from the Speaker’s decisions, the decision of a committee Chair may be appealed to the committee by motion. 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.

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.

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. 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. (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 agreed to by the House.) Similarly, an amendment which is equivalent to a simple negation of the bill or which reverses the principle of the bill as agreed to at second reading is out of order.

Relevance: An amendment to a bill must be relevant in that it must always relate to the subject matter of the bill or to the clause thereof under consideration. In the case of a bill referred to a committee after second reading, an amendment is inadmissible if it proposes to amend a statute that is not before the committee or a section of the parent Act, unless the latter is specifically amended by a clause of the bill. Conversely, an amendment of that nature would be admissible in the case of a bill referred to a committee before second reading, as long as the amendment was relevant. In that case, the principle and scope of the bill would not yet have been defined, making a broader examination possible.

Consistency: The committee’s decisions concerning a bill must be consistent with earlier decisions made by the committee. An amendment is accordingly out of order if it is contrary to or inconsistent with 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, or if it is governed by or dependent on amendments which have already been negatived.

Financial Initiative of the Crown: Since an amendment may not infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown, it is inadmissible if it imposes a charge on the public treasury, or if it extends the objects or purposes or relaxes the conditions and qualifications specified in the royal recommendation. An amendment is also inadmissible if it exceeds the scope of the ways and means motion on which a bill is based, or if it imposes a new charge on the people that is not preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion or not covered by the terms of a ways and means motion already adopted.

Form: An amendment that attempts to delete an entire clause is out of order since voting against the adoption of the clause in question would have the same effect. 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. Moreover, 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. Last, an amendment which would render a clause unintelligible or ungrammatical is also out of order.

Interpretation Clause: The interpretation clause of a bill is not the place to propose a substantive amendment to a bill unless other amendments have been adopted that would warrant amendments to the interpretation clause. 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 may neither exceed the scope of nor 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.

Headings: It has long been held that because the headings attached to various parts of a bill are not part of the text, they cannot be amended. However, on occasion, committees have amended headings without objection, and relevant jurisprudence has caused some authorities on the legislative process to take a more permissive view in this regard.

Coming into Force Clause: An amendment intended to alter the coming into force clause of a bill, making it conditional, is out of order since it exceeds the scope of the bill and attempts to introduce a new question into it. However, an amendment to delay the coming into force is admissible as long as the delay is considered to be reasonable and not seen as an attempt to thwart the implementation of the provisions of the bill.

Schedules: An amendment may be moved to a schedule and it is also possible to propose new schedules, except in the case of a bill giving 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 may not be amended. Notwithstanding this, 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.

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. In addition, an amendment to the preamble is in order when its purpose is to clarify it or to ensure the uniformity of the English and French versions. If the bill is without a preamble, the committee may not introduce one. 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 proposed as long as it is relevant to the bill; in addition, substantive amendments to an existing preamble are admissible.

The Enacting Formula: The enacting formula is not subject to the approval of the committee or the House and therefore may neither be debated nor amended.

Titles: Titles, whether it be the long, short or alternative title, may be amended only if the bill has been so altered as to necessitate such an amendment. Any change made to a title by a committee becomes effective when the bill, as amended, is concurred in at report stage.

Consequential Amendments: When an amendment is ruled inadmissible, the ruling applies as well to any other amendments consequential to it.

Putting the Question on Amendments

When an amendment and a subamendment have been moved in committee, the Chair of the committee puts the question first on the subamendment. If it is negatived, the question is then put on the amendment; if the subamendment is carried, the question is put on the amendment, as amended. Sometimes, by 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. This is called disposing of amendments “severally”.

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. While the normal practice is for the committee to agree at this point to the question “Shall the bill carry?”, opposition to the bill is normally expressed either by voting against all the clauses of the bill before adoption, or by adopting a motion that the bill not be further proceeded with (see section in this chapter entitled “Abandonment of a Bill”).

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, and unless otherwise directed, the Chair reports the bill to the House as soon as possible.

Reprinting of the Bill

If any amendments have been adopted, the committee generally orders that the bill be reprinted for the use of the Members who will have to consult it at report stage.

Report to the House

The committee is bound by its order of reference—the bill—and may report the bill only with or without amendment to the House. Consequently, the committee may not include substantive recommendations in its report. On several occasions, the Speaker has ruled reports containing recommendations or motions to concur in reports containing recommendations out of order. 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”.

However, there is nothing to prevent a standing committee, under its permanent mandate in the Standing Orders , from presenting a separate report in which it sets out substantive recommendations with respect to the subject matter of the bill.

Obligation to Report

Every committee is bound to report to the House every bill referred to it, together with any amendments which have been made to the bill, and every bill reported from any committee, whether amended or not, must be received by the House. However, no committee has the authority to submit two reports to the House on one bill, as the effect of this would be to divide the bill. A committee may negative all of the clauses, the title, and even reject the bill. It then reports the bill with amendments, even though only the bill’s number may be left.

Unless an order of the House or a provision of the Standing Orders 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. The House retains 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 to report it to the House, he or she may choose to bring this fact to the attention of the House and to propose a time limit for consideration of the bill in committee. This may be done by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to report by a certain date. The notice may, as appropriate, be placed under Government Orders or Private Members’ Business.

Private Member’s Public Bill

A committee to which a private Member’s public bill has been referred must, within 60 sitting days of 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 or requesting a single extension of 30 sitting days, giving the reasons therefore. 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.

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 or informing the House that the committee has agreed that the bill not be further proceeded with. As well, a committee will occasionally decide not to proceed with consideration of a bill, without reporting it to the House.

In such 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 discharge its mandate from the House and to report the bill. The House alone has the power to refuse the passage of a bill or to order its withdrawal. While reminding the House that the Chair does not become involved in the conduct of business 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.

Report Containing Inadmissible Amendments

Since a committee may appeal the decision of its Chair and reverse that decision, it may happen that a committee will report a bill with amendments that were initially ruled out of order by the Chair. 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. The admissibility of the amendments is then determined by the Speaker of the House, whether in response to a point of order or on the Speaker’s own initiative.

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.

Presentation of Report

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

Report Stage

Once a bill has been examined in committee, it is considered again by the whole House. At this stage, called “report stage”, Members may, after giving written notice, propose amendments to the text of the bill as it was reported by the committee. Those motions are then debated.

Historical Perspective

At Confederation, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons set out 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 had nonetheless to be considered in a Committee of the Whole. The amendments adopted 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, these could be debated and amended before the House ordered third reading. If bills were not amended during consideration in a Committee of the Whole, consideration at third reading would proceed forthwith or at a time to be set by the House.

Over the years, it was observed 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. 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 debate at third reading at the next sitting of the House. The effect of these amendments to the Standing Orders was to eliminate what then constituted the equivalent of report stage. In 1968, the House undertook a thorough revision of its legislative process with the result that all bills, except for those based on supply or ways and means motions, were thenceforth to be referred to standing or special committees, and would not be reconsidered by a Committee of the Whole House. In addition, the House restored report stage and empowered the Speaker 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.

In recommending that report stage be restored, the 1968 Special Committee on Procedure believed 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 bills under consideration and to propose amendments, where appropriate. For all that, the intent of the Committee was not for this stage to become a repetition of committee stage. Unlike committee stage during which the bill is considered clause by clause, there was not to be any debate at report stage unless notices of amendment had been given, and then debate would have to be strictly relevant to those proposed amendments.

The provisions of the Standing Orders relating to report stage have been amended on a number of occasions since 1968. In 1986, the House made changes in respect of the length of speeches, clarified the purpose of report stage and added a “note” setting out guidelines for the Speaker in selecting and grouping amendments. In 1994, further changes were made respecting the procedure allowing a Minister to propose that a government bill be referred to committee before second reading.

Then, in 2001, an additional paragraph was added to the above-mentioned “note”. This occurred in response to the flooding of the Notice Paper with hundreds of amendments in respect of certain controversial bills. The new text emphasized that the Speaker will not select motions which are “repetitive, frivolous, vexatious or serve only to prolong debate unnecessarily”. Most recently, in a 2012 ruling, the Speaker encouraged the House to find ways to allow independent Members to submit amendments to bills in an effort to limit the number of motions in amendment at report stage.

Drafting of Motions in Amendment at Report Stage

Members frequently obtain drafting advice and assistance from the Office of the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel. While there is general agreement that the communications necessary to this process should be treated as confidential, questions of privilege asserting this principle led to the adoption, in March 2000, of a motion referring the issue to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The Committee recommended “That the process for drafting Members’ amendments to bills, and Private Members’ Bills and Motions, including the confidentiality accorded thereto and the people with whom information is shared, be clearly outlined in practice guidelines”, but the report was not concurred in. Nonetheless, existing administrative practices were modified to reinforce the confidentiality of the drafting process.

Notice of Amendment

In order that a motion to amend a bill may be considered at report stage, notice must be given in writing at least one sitting day prior to the commencement of report stage, if the bill was referred to committee after second reading, and two sitting days before, if the bill was referred to committee before second reading. 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. During an adjournment period, the deadline for giving notice is 6:00 p.m. on the Thursday before the House resumes sitting. No notice may be given on the day on which consideration of report stage of a bill commences, or on the days following.

Amendment as to Form Only

The Standing Orders provide one exception to the above notice requirements. A Minister may propose an amendment without notice, if the amendment is in relation only to the form of a government bill. 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 consequential to other amendments adopted by the committee. It is then up to the Chair to determine whether each such amendment flows necessarily from the acceptance of another amendment, or whether 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, the Standing Orders require that notice of the royal recommendation 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 text of the amendment to which it pertains.

Admissibility of Motions in Amendment

It is up to the Speaker to decide which amendments will be considered at report stage. The Speaker rules not on whether the purport of the amendment or its substance is worthy of debate, but rather on whether the amendment is procedurally acceptable within the framework of the rules established for the admissibility of amendments presented at report stage.

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. 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, and a motion to amend a number of clauses of a bill has been considered out of order.

At report stage, the Speaker has ruled out of order a motion in amendment that: infringed upon the financial initiative of the Crown; proposed to alter an agreement that was within the prerogatives of the Crown; proposed to amend a statute or a section of a statute not amended by the bill; and proposed to alter the title of a bill when no substantial changes had been made to the bill that would have necessitated a change in the title.

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 had the bill been referred to a committee before second reading. For example, the Speaker has ruled out of order a motion in amendment that: exceeded the scope of the bill or the clause in question; was contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading; proposed to change the interpretation clause by making a substantive amendment which exceeded the scope of the bill; would amend a statute not contemplated by the bill; would amend, not a clause of the bill amending the parent Act, but a section of the parent Act itself; and was equivalent to a complete negation of the bill.

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, since the latter can be moved only on second and third reading of a bill.

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 subamendment. An amendment to a report stage motion must be strictly relevant to that motion. An amendment with the same objective as a motion already at report stage could be ruled out of order since it could be seen as a new substantive motion for which notice should have been given before the commencement of report stage.

Power of the Speaker to Select Amendments

In 1968, fearing that Members would take advantage of report stage to move similar amendments which were insubstantial or dilatory in nature, the Special Committee on Procedure recommended in its report that a rule be adopted to empower the Speaker “to select and combine the amendments of which notice had been given”. Such a rule was thereupon adopted.

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”. The Committee pointedly recommended that the Speaker exercise the power to select motions in amendment at report stage. In 1986, the House decided to add a “note” to that effect to the relevant Standing Order. Speakers were thereby encouraged to exercise their power to select amendments, particularly after the addition to the note, in 2001, of an additional paragraph emphasizing the breadth of the Speaker’s discretion in this regard.

Under the Standing Orders , the Speaker has the power to select or group motions in amendment to be proposed at report stage. 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. Over the years, however, Speakers came 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. Until 1994, all motions in amendment proposed by Members appeared on the Notice Paper , even those that were subsequently determined to be 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 . When a motion is found to be out of order, the motion is returned to the Member along with the reasons for the decision.

As a general principle, the Speaker seeks to forestall debate on the floor of the House which is simply a repetition of the debate in committee. Normally, the Speaker will not select a motion in amendment previously ruled out of order in committee, unless the reason for that ruling was the requirement for a royal recommendation or that the amendment moved in committee had proposed the deletion of an entire clause of the bill. Furthermore, the Speaker will normally select only those motions in amendment that could not have been presented in committee. In such cases, Members can send a written submission to the Speaker explaining why it was not possible to present these motions in committee. A motion previously defeated in committee will be selected only if the Speaker judges it to be of such significance to Members as to warrant further consideration at report stage. 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 could, if he or she thinks fit, call upon any Member who has given notice of an amendment to explain it so as to enable the Speaker to form a judgment upon it, but in practice, Members would send a written submission to the Speaker if there were any doubt as to the selection of their amendments for debate. When an amendment that has been submitted by more than one Member is selected, the Speaker, after consultation, will designate the Member who will propose it (normally, the Member who first gave notice of the motion).

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 criteria: their content; and their position in the bill. Motions which could form the subject of a single debate are grouped according to content if, once adopted, they would have the same effect in different parts 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 location at which 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 effect of one vote on the others. The purpose of the voting scheme is to obviate any requirement for two or more votes 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, the voting arrangements, and, where applicable, the motions in amendment that have not been selected, stating the reasons for this. Speakers have sometimes intervened at a later stage of the debate to revise the selection and grouping for debate of the motions in amendment.

Debate

When the Order of the Day for the consideration of a bill at report stage is called, the House first considers any motion in amendment of which notice has been given. Each motion in amendment is open to debate and amendment. However, if no notice of motion in amendment has been given at report stage, no debate is held. Consideration at report stage may commence without regard to the availability to Members of committee evidence or minutes.

The consideration at report stage of any bill that has already been adopted at second reading cannot begin prior to the second sitting day following the presentation of the committee’s report. In the case of a bill that has not yet been adopted at second reading, consideration at report stage must await the third sitting day following the presentation of the report. These procedural intervals are strictly observed.

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.

When the time comes for a particular motion in amendment to be taken up by the House, and the Member who gave notice of it is absent, the motion may not be debated unless it is moved by another Member with the unanimous consent of the House. When notice of a motion in amendment is given by the government, the motion 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 (or group of motions) in amendment. The sole exception to this is the 20-minute limit applicable to the first round of speeches on the first motion in amendment at report stage of a bill that has not yet been read the second time. Members’ speeches are followed by 10-minute (following the 20-minute speeches discussed above) or 5-minute (after all other speeches) questions and comments periods. Of course, debate at report stage is subject to the general rules of debate, such as the rule of relevance.

Deferral of Recorded Division

When a recorded division is demanded on any motion in amendment proposed during consideration of a bill at report stage, 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 usually defers all recorded divisions until the consideration at report stage has been completed. A recorded division, or divisions, is deferred in this manner from sitting to sitting. In cases in which 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 considered.

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. At the end of report stage, a motion “That the bill (as amended) be concurred in at report stage (with (a) further amendment(s)), and be read a second time” is moved, the question is put on the motion, and the House disposes of it forthwith, without amendment or debate.

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 an amendment or 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 (a) further amendment(s)”. In any event, for the bill to be concurred in at report stage, a motion to do so must be moved by the sponsor of the bill. If the motion is not moved, the order for concurrence at report stage is discharged and the bill is then dropped from the Order Paper .

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 the simple adoption (or rejection) of the motion for concurrence at report stage, before proceeding to third reading. A bill that is reported from a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendments, may not be debated or amended at report stage. The House must dispose of the bill at report stage as soon as it is received from a Committee of the Whole.

Third Reading (and Passage)

Third reading is the final stage through which a bill must pass in the House of Commons. It is then that Members must decide whether the bill should be adopted by the House. Although third reading is often regarded as a formality, it is in fact a decisive stage in the legislative process. This is particularly so in the case of a highly controversial bill.

Third reading and passage of a bill are proposed in the same motion, which may be debated in the same sitting as report stage, if no amendment has been proposed at report stage or if the bill has been reported from a Committee of the Whole, with or without amendment. Otherwise, when debate has taken place on a bill at report stage, it may not be presented for third reading and passage before the next sitting of the House. In like manner, 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.

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

Debate at this stage of the legislative process focuses on the final form of the bill. The amendments that are admissible at this stage are similar to those that were admissible at second reading stage. It is in order to propose an amendment for a three- or six-month hoist, as well as a reasoned amendment. However, at third reading stage, reasoned amendments must deal strictly with the bill and may not be contrary to the principle of the bill as adopted at second reading. If the hoist amendment or reasoned amendment were adopted, the bill would not go any further and would be removed from the Order Paper .

It is also in order to propose an amendment to the third reading motion to recommit the bill to a committee with instructions to reconsider certain clauses for a specific purpose. 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. Despite this, an amendment to recommit a bill should not seek to give a mandatory instruction to a committee, nor should it seek to recommit a bill to a committee other than the one which previously considered it. If the amendment to recommit a bill to a committee is carried, the committee may consider only that part of the bill specified in the order of reference.

When the motion for third reading has carried, the Clerk of the House certifies that the bill has passed and records the date of passage at the foot of the bill. 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.

Consideration and Passage by the Senate

Once the House of Commons has passed a bill, a copy of it (in the form of a parchment paper) is sent to the Senate with a message requesting its passage by that House. Any bill may be returned summarily to the House of Commons in the event that it is determined to have been sent to the Senate by mistake or that a serious error is discovered in the bill. The legislative process through which bills must pass in the Senate is very similar to that 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 Rules of the Senate 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 of the Senate. In this way, the Senate may consider the bill and form its opinion even before the bill is sent to it. When the bill does arrive, the Senate is accordingly in a position to adopt or to amend it in a very short time. As always, these and other requests to the Senate are dependent on the willing cooperation of the latter. As Speaker Parent, in other circumstances, reminded the House, “The rules of one House cannot be applied to the other, nor can one House compel the other to conduct its work in a specific manner or according to a specific timetable”.

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, and it normally receives Royal Assent very shortly thereafter, or during the following few days. The bill itself is not sent back to the House, unless it is a supply bill. However, when the Senate amends a bill, it informs the House of the amendments in the message it sends back to the House, along with the bill. The Senate sometimes includes observations or recommendations of the Senate committee that examined the bill in its message to the House. Messages received from the Senate are printed in the Journals .

Once they are received, Senate amendments to a bill are brought before 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; rather, it is for the House itself to decide whether it accepts or rejects the amendments proposed by the Senate and whether it wishes to inform the latter of the reasons for its decision.

A motion for the consideration of Senate amendments requires 24-hours’ written notice. In such a motion, the sponsor of a bill may propose that the House concur in, amend or reject the amendments made by the Senate. The motion may simultaneously reject some 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 not contemplated by the amendments. The House may elect to reject the Senate amendments for a variety of reasons, for instance, because it believes that they contradict the principle of the bill or that they infringe upon the financial initiative of the Crown (and the House of Commons). “Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills” appear on the Notice Paper under that heading. Such motions are 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.

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. The motion for the consideration of Senate amendments is itself open to amendment and subamendment during debate. Members opposed to Senate amendments may move reasoned amendments to them. The Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister moving the motion or the Member speaking first on behalf of the Minister and the Member speaking immediately afterwards have unlimited speaking time, followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period. Other Members may speak for not more than 20 minutes and they may share their time with another Member. Following each 20-minute speech, a period not exceeding 10 minutes is made available for questions and comments. Motions for time allocation and for closure may be moved by the government to limit or close debate.

When the House agrees to Senate amendments, a message to that effect is sent to the Senate and the bill is returned to it while awaiting Royal Assent. If the House amends or rejects 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 continues in this fashion until they ultimately agree on a text. If agreement cannot be reached by exchanging messages, the House in possession of the bill may request 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 a conference may take place. Although this practice has fallen into disuse, 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; or to offer reasons for disagreeing to, or insisting on, amendments to a bill.

Either of the two Houses may request that a conference be held, as long as the initiator of the request is in possession of the bill or other matter that is to be the subject of the conference. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons stipulate that the House is to agree upon the reasons to be given before a message is sent to the Senate requesting a conference. On the other hand, the terms and conditions for 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 .

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 and no discussion was permitted. In October 1903, three conferences were held, only one of which was a “free conference”, to attempt resolution of a dispute arising from amendments that the Senate wished to make to a bill passed by the House. New rules were incorporated into the Standing Orders in 1906, following the passage of a joint resolution of the two Houses the preceding year. The purpose of that amendment to the Standing Orders was to make conferences “free” in order to facilitate agreement. The representatives (referred to as managers) were thereby given the freedom to talk and to negotiate as they saw fit.

Although the two Houses 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. Of these 16 conferences, 13 were held after the provisions relating to the holding of free conferences came into effect in 1906. All of these “free” conferences were held at the request of the House of Commons to resolve disputes in respect of bills. A long-standing disposition on the part of the Senate to leave the initiative in such matters to the House of Commons is reflected in the Senate rule respecting conferences, which specifies messages as the normal method of resolving differences and adds, “unless at any time the House of Commons wishes to communicate the same at a conference”.

Over the years, the exchange of messages and the appearance of Ministers before House and Senate committees have considerably reduced the need for this procedure, which is nevertheless held in reserve in case of a deadlock in connection with Senate amendments to a bill. In this event, 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. Once the message was approved and sent to the Senate, the Senate would in turn respond to the House by means of a message. 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 (“managers”) who would represent the Senate. A similar motion would be moved in the House of Commons to designate the representatives of the House (who would normally include the Member responsible for the bill) and to order that a message to this effect be sent to the Senate.

At the time agreed upon, the managers would meet to try to resolve the impasse. 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 announce the names of the managers who would then go to the Senate. When the House managers arrived in the Senate, the Speaker of the Senate would announce the names of the Senate managers, who would immediately 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 who attended them in addition to the managers from the two Houses.

A “free conference” is one in which discussion may continue as long as is required for an agreement to be reached, but a successful outcome is by no means guaranteed. There are, in fact, three possible outcomes: the conference fails; a compromise is reached; or 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 (or Parliament if it is a private Member’s bill). 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 House concerning the conference and moves that the report be approved and a message informing the Senate be sent to the latter. Lastly, if the House decides not to press for the approval of its amendments, it accepts the Senate amendments and sends a message to this effect to the Senate.

Royal Assent

Royal Assent brings together all three constituent elements of Parliament (the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons). An integral part of the legislative process, it is the stage that a bill must complete before officially becoming an Act of Parliament. A version of the bill identical to that passed by the two Houses is approved by a representative of the Crown and thereby attains “the complement and perfection of a law”. This approval may be conveyed in either of two ways: by ceremony; or by written declaration. The traditional way is an essentially ceremonial procedure which 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. Since relevant statutory provisions came into effect in 2002, this formal ceremony is frequently dispensed with and Royal Assent to bills is signified by written declaration.

The origins of Royal Assent date back to the reign of Henry VI (1422–61; 1470–71), during which the practice arose of introducing 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 English Parliament. Royal Assent was granted by the Sovereign in person until 1541; in that year, to spare King Henry VIII the discomfort 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. It then became common practice to appoint Lords Commissioners with responsibility for signifying Royal Assent on behalf of the Sovereign. Royal Assent was last refused by a Sovereign on March 11, 1707, when Queen Anne refused to assent to a bill for settling the militia in Scotland. The last time that the Monarch granted Royal Assent in person in Great Britain was on August 12, 1854, during the reign of Queen Victoria. In 1967, the British Parliament passed the Royal Assent Act whereby a bill now acquires the force of law on simple report of Royal Assent by the Speakers of the two Houses. This procedure eliminates the need for holding a ceremony.

In the Canadian House of Commons, while the formal ceremony of Royal Assent has sometimes been criticized, these criticisms were effectively addressed in 2002 by the adoption of the Royal Assent Act . In its retention of the formal ceremony, however, Parliament has remained faithful to conventions expressed in rules derived from those in effect in Great Britain at the time of Confederation. Neither the Standing Orders of the House of Commons nor the Constitution Act specifically mentions the procedure for granting Royal Assent (although the Royal Assent Act now does so). Initially, Royal Assent was customarily deferred to the end of a parliamentary session, when the Governor General’s presence was in any case required 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.

Since it was assented to on June 4, 2002, the Royal Assent Act has provided for the signification of Royal Assent by written declaration (by the Governor General or his or her Deputy). The Act preserved the traditional ceremony in the Senate Chamber by requiring its use at least twice each calendar year and in the case of the first appropriation bill of each session of Parliament. Moreover, 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. This has seldom been necessary since provision was made for the signifying of Royal Assent by written declaration while the House stands adjourned. New Standing Orders added in 2002 require that Members be informed of this in a special issue of the Journals , and that messages received from the Senate during an adjournment be deposited with the Clerk. Such messages are deemed received by the House the same day.

When the House is sitting and a formal ceremony is desired for the signifying of Royal Assent, the House may suspend its proceedings until a certain time, “to the call of the Chair”, or un