House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

16. The Legislative Process

[451] 
Standing Order 76(10).
[452] 
See, for example, Journals, April 16, 1997, p. 1474.
[453] 
Standing Order 74.
[454] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 288.
[455] 
See, for example, Debates, September 19, 1996, pp. 4467-8.
[456] 
See, for example, Debates, November 9, 1995, p. 16402.
[457] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 288. See, for example, the rulings of the Chair, Debates, March 2, 1967, p. 13658; March 24, 1969, p. 7055; May 12, 1969, p. 8595; December 11, 1969, pp. 1858-60; December 16, 1971, pp. 10545-7.
[458] 
See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1970, pp. 1416-7; Journals, April 23, 1993, p. 2854.
[459] 
Debates, December 20, 1966, p. 11427; March 1, 1967, pp. 13636-7.
[460] 
Debates, December 18, 1990, pp. 16916-7.
[461] 
Journals, March 9, 1999, pp. 1580-1; Debates, March 9, 1999, p. 12646.
[462] 
Standing Order 72.
[463] 
In 1968, a tax bill introduced by the Pearson government was defeated at third reading (Journals, February 19, 1968, pp. 702-3). See also Journals, February 23, 1968, p. 713; Debates, February 23, 1968, p. 6923; Journals, February 28, 1968, pp. 719-21.
[464] 
See, for example, Senate Journals, October 31, 1995, p. 1235. The Senate may defeat a bill (see, for example, Bill C-43, An Act respecting Abortion, Senate Debates, January 31, 1991, p. 5307) and even, although it rarely does so, refuse to consider a bill (see, for example, Bill C-280, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan Act (disability pension), Senate Journals, February 13, 1992, pp. 528-31; House of Commons Journals, February 13, 1992, p. 1020).
[465] 
Senate Rule 74(1). This procedure arose during the 1940s, when the Estimates were examined by the Senate Finance Committee even before the subsequent Supply bills were sent to the Senate. During the 1970s, this practice was extended to other bills at the initiative of Senator Hayden, and since then it has also been referred to as the “Hayden formula”.
[466] 
See, for example, Journals, April 9, 1997, p. 1369.
[467] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 446; May, 22nd ed., p. 485. See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[468] 
See, for example, Journals, April 16, 1997, pp. 1479-80.
[469] 
See, for example, Journals, January 23, 1990, pp. 1091-101.
[470] 
See Speaker Fraser’s rulings, Debates, July 11, 1988, pp. 17382-5; April 26, 1990, pp. 10719-26. See also Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, November 19, 1996, pp. 6410-11, and the ruling of Deputy Speaker Milliken, Debates, June 9, 1999, pp. 16104-5.
[471] 
Standing Order 77(1). It was not until 1991 that a provision relating to the consideration of Senate amendments was incorporated into the Standing Orders (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2915).
[472] 
See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1998, p. 10901.
[473] 
See, for example, Debates, August 21, 1987, pp. 8283-4.
[474] 
See, for example, Debates, August 21, 1987, pp. 8283-4.
[475] 
See, for example, Journals, July 18, 1959, pp. 750-1; May 8, 1990, p. 1661.
[476] 
See, for example, Debates, June 11, 1996, p. 3642.
[477] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 535.
[478] 
See, for example, Journals, July 12, 1988, p. 3160; May 8, 1990, p. 1663. Speaker Parent ruled that a sub-amendment requesting the Senate to respond to a message from the House within a specific time was out of order because it went outside the scope of the amendment (Debates, November 19, 1996, p. 6452).
[479] 
Standing Order 43(1).
[480] 
Standing Order 78. See Debates, November 28, 1996, pp. 6831-2; Journals, March 20, 1997, pp. 1322-3.
[481] 
Standing Order 57. See Journals, March 13, 1990, pp. 1331-2; June 20, 1995, pp. 1817-8.
[482] 
The last conference was held in 1947 (Journals, July 14, 1947, p. 905).
[483] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 274.
[484] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 278.
[485] 
Standing Order 77(4).
[486] 
SeeMay, 1st ed., pp. 249-58; Campion, 3rd ed., pp. 227-32; Hatsell, Vol. IV, pp. 1-55; Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 79-88; Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 274-80; F.A. Kunz, The Modern Senate of Canada 1925-1963, A Re-Appraisal, Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 1965, pp. 347-65; Blair Armitage, “Parliamentary Conferences,” Canadian Parliamentary Review, Summer 1990, pp. 29-30.
[487] 
The first conference, which was held at the initiative of the House, took place at 8:30 p.m. on October 22, 1903 (Journals, p. 716); the second, at the initiative of the Senate, took place a little later in the evening, at 11:00 p.m. (Journals, p. 723). After hearing the report of the representatives when they returned from the second conference, the House asked that a third, free, conference be held “forthwith” (Journals, October 23, 1903, p. 727). The representatives at that conference reported to the House on October 23 (Journals, October 23, 1903, p. 758) and the issue was resolved on October 24 (Journals, October 24, 1903, p. 759).
[488] 
Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80. At the time of Confederation, there was only one Standing Order providing that when the House requested a conference with the Senate, the reasons for disagreement had first to be “prepared and agreed to before a Message” was to be sent “forthwith”.
[489] 
Journals, July 12, 1905, pp. 500-1.
[490] 
Standing Order 77(3).
[491] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 280.
[492] 
A review of the indexes to the Journals does not reveal a single instance of a conference being held between 1867 and 1902.
[493] 
These 13 conferences were held on the following dates: Journals, May 4, 1910, pp. 619-20; June 18, 1919, p. 386; July 4, 1919, p. 521; May 27, 1921, p. 382, and May 28, 1921, p. 385; June 27, 1922, p. 519 (two conferences); July 16, 1924, p. 572; June 25, 1925, p. 532; May 27, 1933, p. 650; June 29, 1934, p. 562; June 24, 1938, p. 522; July 31, 1940, p. 307; July 14, 1947, p. 905. On one occasion, the Senate declined an invitation to participate in a free conference (Journals, July 19, 1924, p. 653).
[494] 
In the British Parliament, the exchange of messages between the Commons and the House of Lords has made conferences obsolete (May, 22nd ed., p. 610, note 4). In Canada, in recent years, the Senate has tried to revive the procedure on two occasions. On November 18, 1987, the Senate passed a motion that the Leader of the government in the Senate ask his Cabinet colleagues whether they would agree to a conference on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act. On November 19, the Leader of the government in the Senate informed the Senators that the government would not recommend such a conference to the House of Commons (Senate Debates, November 18, 1987, pp. 2179-2184; November 19, 1987, pp. 2212-3). On May 22, 1990, when the Senate was examining the possibility of sending to the House a message respecting the amendments it wished to make to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, Senator Allen MacEachen moved that the motion being considered be referred to a conference between the two Houses of Parliament. Senator MacEachen’s amendment was negatived on October 22, 1990 (Senate Journals, May 22, 1990, pp. 991-2; October 22, 1990, pp. 1848-9).
[495] 
In 1995, following an exchange of messages between the House and the Senate concerning Bill C-69, Electoral Boudaries Readjustment Act, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs expressed its serious concerns in its 108th Report to the House regarding the handling of Bill C-69 by the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs (see Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, Issue No. 54, pp. 8-9; Debates, December 8, 1995, p. 17445).
[496] 
The number of managers has varied for each conference. For the conferences held in 1903, the numbers of Members and Senators were twelve and six respectively. For the conferences held in 1919, the numbers were eleven and eight; in 1922, eight and five; and in 1924, five and three. In each of the other conferences, the numbers of Members and Senators were equal. For five of the fourteen free conferences, the breakdown was three managers from each House.
[497]
The records of proceedings show that the House adjourned for only four of the fourteen free conferences. In the other cases, the House continued to sit, had not yet been convened or had suspended the sitting for dinner.
[498] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 275.
[499] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 563.
[500] 
May, 11th ed., p. 459.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page