The Legislative Process / Miscellaneous

November 19, 1996

Debates, pp. 6409-11

At the beginning of the s1ttmg on November 19, 1996, John Williams (St. Albert) rose on a point of order concerning the motion on the Order Paper for consideration of Senate amendments to Bill C‑42, An Act to amend the Judges Act and to make consequential amendments to another Act. According to Mr. Williams, the Senate amendments to Bill C-42 were out of order in that they altered the public nature of the bill. He argued that the Senate amendments would have the effect of deleting all matters of public policy from the bill, rendering it a private bill dealing with the particular circumstances of one person.

After hearing Mr. Williams, the Speaker ruled immediately. Citing Speaker Fraser and Erskine May he stated that the Speaker of the House cannot unilaterally rule out of order amendments made by the Senate. It is for the House to accept or reject the amendments.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I thank the honourable member for St. Albert for bringing this specific point of order to the House. I listened with interest to what the parliamentary secretary had to say, both being put in juxtaposition.

We have here two amendments by the Senate for which concurrence of the House is sought. What the member is asking me to do is to rule on the procedural acceptability of changes made by the Senate. My view is that your Speaker cannot stand as a procedural judge on what is done by the Senate. What they do over there, they do over there.

I would refer members to a ruling made April 26, 1990, at page 10723 of the Commons Debates, where Mr. Speaker Fraser notes:

The Speaker of the House of Commons cannot unilaterally rule out of order amendments from the other place. I can comment, as I am doing, but the House as a whole must ultimately make the decision to·accept or reject amendments from the Senate, whether they be in order according to our rules or not.

It comes down to a decision of the House.

I am going to reach back just a little further to Erskine May, 20th edition, Parliamentary Practice. I am quoting from page 582. Subsection (2) states:

No objection can be taken to a Lords Amendment—

—which means a Senate amendment for our purposes—

—on the ground of order.

These amendments are sent to us from the Senate. Your Speaker cannot rule procedurally on what the Senate does. That is a matter for the House to decide. The House should rule on these amendments.

I thank both honourable members for their interventions and for bringing this to my attention.

P0504-e

35-2

1996-11-19