«« older | newer »»

author photo

June 6, 2011

Ted Tjaden

The Silliness of Pro Forma Bills in the Canadian Parliament

It is not surprising that many Canadian are cyncial of their federal Parliamentarians.

Example in point: Bills C-1 and S-1 have been published. Despite respectively being – in name – "An Act respecting the administration of oaths of office" and an "Act relating railways" – of course neither bill has anything to do with either topic and neither bill will pass first reading.

Apparently, it all has to do with a "custom" dating back over 400 years ago for "pro forma" bills. I didn't find the explanation on LegisINFO or Wikipedia to be entirely satisfactory. Wouldn't it be simpler to amend the Rules of the House to make these pro forma bills unnecessary?

Time for Parliament to enter the 21st century. While they are at it, let's abolish the Monarchy in Canada and take "God" out of proclamations and other Parliamentary procedures (as in the proclamation summoning Parliament to meet).

Or perhaps I'll leave those last two items to another day . . . .

Ted Tjaden has been a lawyer for over 20 years during which time he also obtained his Master of Information and Master of Laws degree from the University of Toronto. He is currently immersed in various Knowledge Management projects.
[click on the author's name for more information]

Respond: make a comment | read the 3 comments

Share: Email | Save as PDF | Print | Bookmark & Share | Clip to Evernote | Reader later on Instapaper

More: in Substantive Law: Legislation | from

up

3 Comments on “The Silliness of Pro Forma Bills in the Canadian Parliament”

  1. Simon Chester says:
    June 6, 2011 at 10:05 pm

    Okay Ted, the late Senator Eugene Forsey is likely spinning like a top but let's have him explain why the Pro Forma Bills matter in his own words from the classic How Canadians Govern Themselves:

    If the opening of a session also marks he beginning of a newly elected Parliament, you will find the Members of the House of Commons milling about in their chamber, a body without a head. On a signal, the great doors of the Chamber are slammed shut. They are opened gain after three knocks, and the Usher of the Black Rod arrives from the Senate. He or she has been sent by the deputy of the Governor General, who is not allowed to enter the Commons, to announce that the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of Honourable Members in the Chamber of the Honourable the Senate. The Members then proceed to the Senate Chamber, where the Speaker of the Senate says: “I have it in command to let you know that His Excellency the Governor General does not see fit to declare the causes of his summoning the present Parliament of Canada until the Speaker of the House of Commons shall have been chosen according to law.” The Members then return to their own chamber and elect their Speaker.

    Once the Governor General arrives in the Senate, the Usher of the Black Rod is again dispatched to summon the House of Commons, and the Members troop up again to stand at the bar of the Upper House. The Speaker of the House of Commons then informs the Governor General of his or her election, and asks for the Crown’s confirmation of all the traditional rights and privileges of the Commons. The Speaker of the Senate delivers that confirmation, and the Governor General delivers the Speech from the Throne, partly in English, partly in French.

    The speech, which is written by the Cabinet, sets forth the government’s view of the condition of the country and the policies it will follow, and the bills it will introduce to deal with that condition. The Members of the House of Commons then return to their own chamber, where, normally, the Prime Minister immediately introduces a Bill Respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office. This is a dummy bill, never heard of again till the opening of the next session. It is introduced to reassert the House of Commons’ right to discuss any business it sees fit before considering the Speech from the Throne.

    This right was first asserted by the English House of Commons more than 300 years ago, and is reasserted there every session by a similar pro forma bill.

    This formal reassertion of an ancient right of the Commons has been of very great practical use in Canada more than once. In 1950, for example, a nation-wide railway strike demanded immediate action by Parliament. So the moment the House came back from the Senate Chamber, the Prime Minister introduced Bill C-1, but this time no dummy; this time a bill to end the strike and send the railway workers back to work, and it was put through all its stages, passed by both Houses, and received Royal Assent before either House considered the Speech from the Throne at all. Had it not been for the traditional assertion of the right of the Commons to do anything it saw fit before considering the speech, this essential emergency legislation would have been seriously delayed.

  2. John Gregory says:
    June 6, 2011 at 11:00 pm

    Ontario does the same thing – i.e. a dummy bill – for the same purpose – to assert the right of the Commons to set its own agenda, not to yield to the wishes of the Crown. See an Act to perpetuate an ancient parliamentary right, Bill 1 of the last Ontario session (and of many before that.)

    Whether it makes sense for the Chief Minister of the Crown to introduce this bill is another question. In Ontario it is always the Premier who introduces it – and he (or she) typically introduces no other legislation during the session.

  3. Jason says:
    June 7, 2011 at 10:47 am

    I think anything that serves to remind parliamentarians that they are independent of the government is a good thing. However, I agree that the Prime Minister is no longer the correct person to be asserting that independence, as the Prime Minister is now the author of the speech from the throne.

Make a comment:

Note that some comments may be moderated. If you have not had an approved comment here before, your comment will be held for approval. We are glad to publish comments that address issues raised in the post or other comments on it and that contribute to a fruitful discussion. We do not publish comments that seek to promote commercial products, that make personal attacks, or that seek personal legal advice.

Although we do not require it, we ask that in making a comment you use your full name. You must supply a valid email address, which will not appear with your comment.

 

SlawTips      

SlawTips United Nations Documents
Wednesday, May 23

Today’s Tip: Monitor UN documents with RSS Since I last looked, the United Nations Documents site has a new look and feel. For what the site is trying to deliver, … »»

Research

SlawTips Updated Version of Great Social Media Guide for Lawyers Released
Wednesday, May 23

Last spring, Meritas’ Leadership Institute released a Social Media Guide for Lawyers. This helpful resource provided lawyers with an overview of the three main social media tools — LinkedIn, Faceb. […] »»

Technology

SlawTips Cash Flow Reports – Part 1
Thursday, May 17

Following on our earlier Top 10 Financial Errors posts, this is the first in a series of 10 posts dealing with Cash Flow Reports and in particular, cash flow management.… »»

Practice

noted on Slaw    

MLB Selected Case Summaries    

These summaries of selected recent cases are provided each week to Slaw by Maritime Law Book.
More information.
  • Harkat, Re 2012 FCA 122

    Aliens - Exclusion and expulsion - Power to detain and deport - Minister’s certificate - Review - Evidence

    In 2002, Harkat was detained pursuant to a ministerial security certificate issued under the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA) as a person inadmissible to Canada on grounds ...

  • Girouard v. Druet 2012 NBCA 40

    Contracts - Formation of contract - Signing - Electronic signature

    The plaintiff expressed an interest in purchasing the defendant’s (vendor’s) condo. The parties agreed to carry on their discussions through e-mail. Following an exchange of e-mails, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant was contractually bound to ...

  • Donell et al. v. GJB Enterprises Inc. et al. 2012 BCCA 135

    Barristers and Solicitors - Relationship with client - Confidential communications - General

    The petitioner was a Receiver appointed in March 2009 by a California court over the assets of GJB Enterprises Inc. (a “Ponzi scheme”) and its principals, the Berkes (the GJB parties). The court ordered ...

  • Dish Network L.L.C. et al. v. Rex et al. 2012 BCCA 161

    Practice - Costs - Funding before judgment - When interim or advance costs available

    The plaintiffs were “direct to home” satellite based subscription program providers. Rex and other defendants offered “grey market” services to Canadian residents to facilitate the unauthorized reception in Canada of the plaintiffs’ ...

TalkLaw/ParLoi    

This is a listing of a few upcoming events in Canada of interest to lawyers, law students, legal librarians, and others involved in the practice of law.

Clicking on any event in the list below will give you access to more information and to links allowing you to see the full entry and to add the event to your own calendar.

Click this link for a fuller version of the TalkLaw/ParLoi calendar of events and for instructions as to how to add events and calendars to your own calendar.