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

2000 Edition — More information …

16. The Legislative Process

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[201]: In the past, the Chair has expressed the wish that a committee would look at this matter (see Debates, May 19, 1972, p. 2433; October 19, 1978, p. 284).
[202]: For examples of reasoned amendments that were found to be in order, see Debates, February 9, 1990, pp. 8146-7; February 14, 1990, pp. 8329-30; September 17, 1991, p. 2227; May 20, 1992, pp. 10955-6.
[203]: See, for example, Journals, November 20, 1962, pp. 298-9; May 14, 1964, p. 323. In the early 1970s, a number of Members unsuccessfully tried to propose reasoned amendments, which in many cases were nothing more than substantive motions proposed “in the guise of so-called reasoned amendments” (Debates, May 8, 1972, p. 2412). Some Members, citing a revision of the Standing Orders and changes to the legislative process, then tried to introduce amendments which quite often had no direct and substantive connection with the principle of the bill (Debates, May 19, 1972, pp. 2428-34).
[204]: See, for example, Debates, February 9, 1990, pp. 8109-10, 8134-5.
[205]: See, for example,Journals, May 7, 1971, p. 534.
[206]: Journals, May 14, 1971, pp. 554-5.
[207]: Journals, May 13, 1959, pp. 436-7; October 15, 1962, pp. 76-7.
[208]: Journals, June 5, 1972, p. 354.
[209]: Journals, June 5, 1972, p. 354.
[210]: See, for example,Debates, August 11, 1988, pp. 18212-3; October 3, 1989, pp. 4265, 4272.
[211]: See, for example,Journals, February 2, 1954, p. 257; February 13, 1969, pp. 697-8; January 26, 1971, pp. 285-6.
[212]: See, for example,Debates, February 9, 1990, pp. 8109-10, 8134-5.
[213]: See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1984, pp. 689, 707. May, 22^nd ed., p. 505.
[214]: See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, February 6, 1975, pp. 2971-2.
[215]: See, for example, Debates, August 30, 1966, p. 7808; March 13, 1995, p. 10363.
[216]: See May, 22^nd ed., p. 506.
[217]: See Journals, February 13, 1992, p. 1018; February 24, 1992, p. 1065; September 26, 1995, p. 1952. This type of amendment does not exist in the British and Australian Parliaments (May, 22^nd ed., p. 504; House of Representatives Practice, 3^rd ed., p. 368).
[218]: Journals, January 26, 1971, pp. 285-6.
[219]: Journals, January 21, 1971, pp. 273-4.
[220]: On February 17, 1970, Speaker Lamoureux ruled out of order an amendment providing that the bill not be read a second time, but that the subject matter of the bill first be put to a referendum (Journals, pp. 454-5). See also Journals, November 22, 1967, pp. 525-6.
[221]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 201.
[222]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 517.
[223]: See, for example, Journals, May 6, 1982, p. 4803.
[224]: See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1948, p. 269 (motion negatived); July 30, 1956, pp. 942-3 (motion negatived).
[225]: See, for example, Journals, April 15, 1920, p. 146.
[226]: See, for example, Journals, March 15, 1948, p. 255 (motion negatived).
[227]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 182.
[228]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 516.
[229]: Beauchesne, 3^rd ed., p. 152; Debates, December 18, 1990, pp. 16916-7. A mandatory instruction is an instruction whose purpose is to direct the deliberations of a committee.
[230]: Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 183. In one ruling, the Chair clearly decided that whatever effect a permissive instruction given to a committee may have on the committee, it is for the committee to decide what to do with it. What moral weight may be given to a permissive instruction is something for the committee itself to decide, and in his opinion the Chair should not interfere (Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17508).
[231]: The motion “That the Speaker do now leave the Chair” is no longer in use, since Standing Order 100 provides for the Speaker to leave the Chair without question put. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[232]: See, for example, Journals, December 2, 1997, pp. 313-4; June 9, 1999, pp. 16123, 16140-1.
[233]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505.
[234]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505. See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1948, p. 269. See also the ruling of Speaker Beaudoin, Journals, May 23, 1956, pp. 602-3; July 30, 1956, p. 942.
[235]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505. See also Standing Order 56(2).
[236]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17505. See, for example, Journals, March 26, 1888, p. 136.
[237]: In 1956, after ruling that notice was not necessary, the Speaker subsequently reversed his ruling and acknowledged that notice was indeed required (Debates, May 28, 1956, p. 4370; Journals, July 30, 1956, p. 942).
[238]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 516. However, amendments must be drafted in such a way that, if accepted, the question as amended would retain the form and effect of an instruction (May, 22^nd ed., p. 518).
[239]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 518.
[240]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, pp. 15706-7.
[241]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.
[242]: Standing Order 66. See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.
[243]: Beauchesne, 6^th ed., p. 204.
[244]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 517.
[245]: May, 22^nd ed., p. 517.
[246]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 513. See, for example, Journals, May 2, 1872, p. 79; May 23, 1956, pp. 598-603.
[247]: May,22^nd ed., p. 516.
[248]: May,22^nd ed., p. 517.
[249]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 413; May, 22^nd ed., p. 603.
[250]: May, 11^th ed., pp. 448, 561 (cited by Speaker Sévigny, Journals, March 29, 1916, p. 207).