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

2000 Edition — More information …

23. Private Bills Practice

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[101]: Should the Committee receive new information after its report has been tabled, it may present a new report on the matter. For example, new evidence may be received showing that the other interested persons were sufficiently informed or that amended notices or additional notices have since appeared (Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 595; Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 349).
[102]: Standing Order 135(1). In actual practice, an entry of the tabling is recorded in the Journals for that day (see, for example, Journals, July 9, 1975, p. 691; November 5, 1975, p. 824; November 1, 1976, p. 89; October 21, 1977, p. 24). This procedure differs from that for public bills which are introduced during Routine Proceedings either under the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” or under the rubric “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills”. See Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”, and Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, for additional information.
[103]: Standing Orders 89 and 135(1). These bills are not subject to the random draw procedure.
[104]: Standing Order 92(3).
[105]: Standing Order 135(2). See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 547; May 5, 1999, p. 1812.
[106]: Standing Order 92(3).
[107]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 599. The House may not debate any printed evidence taken by a Senate committee during the second reading stage (see Speaker’s ruling, Journals, December 4, 1962, pp. 354-5).
[108]: See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, for detailed information on these kinds of amendments. If second reading is delayed three or six months (adoption of the hoist amendment), or if the bill is rejected, no new bill with the same intent may be introduced during the same session (Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 353). An amendment interjecting a matter of public policy into a private bill has been ruled out of order (see Speaker’s ruling, Debates, March 21, 1927, p. 1419). Similarly, an amendment expanding the scope of a private bill was also ruled out of order. In 1948, a Member moved that a private bill (An Act respecting The Bell Telephone Company of Canada) not be read a second time but “that it be resolved that in the opinion of this House no company should ask Parliament for an increase in authorized capital in excess of one hundred per cent”. The Deputy Speaker ruled the amendment out of order as it “would affect all bills which will hereafter be introduced into the house…” See Debates, April 30, 1948, pp. 3502-3.
[109]: Standing Order 141(1). In the first six years of Confederation, the House referred all private bills to the Standing Committee on Private Bills or to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce or the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines (Todd, 3^rd ed., p. 64). This rule was changed in 1873, when the House agreed that private bills should be sent to standing committees after second reading to allow time for the bills to be printed (Dawson, p. 247). From 1876 to 1965, all private bills were referred to the Standing Committee on Private Bills or to the Standing Committee on Banking and Commerce, the Standing Committee on Railways, Canals and Telegraph Lines or to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Bills. From 1965 to 1986, private bills were referred after second reading to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs, the Standing Committee on Transportation and Communications or to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills. In 1986, the Standing Order was amended to refer all private bills to legislative committees after second reading (Journals, February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10). However, since the beginning of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), all private bills have been considered in Committees of the Whole. See, for example, Journals, June 14, 1994, p. 584; June 22, 1994, p. 660; September 17, 1996, p. 633; April 14, 1997, p. 1383. See also Debates, May 10, 1966, pp. 4958-9; March 16, 1967, p. 14085, for comments on the consideration of private bills in a Committee of the Whole.
[110]: For examples of committees examining private bills referred to them, see Legislative Committee on Bill S-9, An Act to amalgamate the two Corporations known, respectively, as “The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, Canada East” and “The Governing Council of the Salvation Army, Canada West” and to make necessary provisions regarding the charter of the amalgamated corporation, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 15, 1990, Issue No. 1; Legislative Committee on Bill S-10, An Act respecting the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 22, 1990, and May 30, 1990, Issue No. 1.
[111]: Standing Order 141(6). See Journals, April 7, 1927, p. 476; July 15, 1931, p. 539; August 9, 1958, p. 397; July 17, 1963, p. 221. See also Beauchesne, 4^th ed., p. 361, for a list of reasons why private bills have been reported back without their preambles having been proven.
[112]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 611-2.
[113]: Standing Order 141(3). See Legislative Committee on Bill S-10, An Act respecting the Canadian Institute of Chartered Accountants, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, May 22, 1990, and May 30, 1990, Issue No. 1, p. 19, in regard to the Chairman’s decision to cast a vote only in the event of a tie.
[114]: Standing Order 141(7).
[115]: Standing Order 141(5). For examples of private bills being reported back to the House from committee with amendments, see Journals, February 17, 1976, p. 1031 (Bill S-30, An Act to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada); April 6, 1978, p. 578 (Bill C-1001, An Act respecting Bell Canada). While Standing Orders 141(7) and 141(8) describe the procedures to be followed in regard to the reprint of a private bill, the procedures for clause-by-clause consideration in committee of a private bill and the referral back to the House and reprint of a private bill are the same today as those procedures established for the consideration of a public bill in committee. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[116]: Standing Order 141(6). See Journals, July 16, 1931, p. 552; August 11, 1958, p. 401; July 18, 1963, pp. 225-6. After the bill is reported back to the House with its preamble unproven and if the House wishes to have the bill reconsidered in committee, the motion to refer the bill back to committee is considered during Private Members’ Business.
[117]: Standing Order 141(4). See Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 612.
[118]: See, for example, Journals, December 18, 1963, p. 697.
[119]: In 1968, prior to the House resolving into a Committee of the Whole to consider a private bill, the sponsor of the bill informed the House that the promoters were not in favour of having their bill amended. The sponsor then asked that the order for consideration of the bill in Committee of the Whole be discharged and the bill be withdrawn from the Order Paper. The motion was adopted. See Debates, March 14, 1968, p. 7641; Journals, p. 774. Pursuant to Standing Order 139, if the promoters do not appear before the committee to proceed with the bill on two separate occasions, the committee is to report the bill back with a recommendation that it be withdrawn. This Standing Order stems from the days when committees considered numerous private bills. If the order was called in committee for the consideration of a private bill and the promoters did not appear, the committee would proceed to the next private bill on its agenda. If the promoters did not appear the second time their private bill was scheduled for consideration, the order would be discharged.
[120]: Standing Order 142. See Journals, February 26, 1976, p. 1070, where the Speaker ruled that report stage is part of the legislative process for the passage of a private bill. For an example of a private bill being amended at report stage, see Journals, October 28, 1971, p. 896; March 16, 1972, p. 195.
[121]: See, for example, Journals, March 15, 1893, p. 161; March 17, 1893, p. 170.
[122]: Standing Order 143.
[123]: See, for example, Journals, May 4, 1886, p. 215; May 5, 1886, p. 228; May 14, 1886, p. 267; May 17, 1886, p. 275.
[124]: See, for example, Journals, April 15, 1889, pp. 259-61.
[125]: See, for example, Journals, March 13, 1990, p. 1338; March 29, 1990, pp. 1435-6; June 6, 1990, p. 1838; June 12, 1990, pp. 1872-3.