This bill is from the 40th Parliament, 1st session, which ended in December 2008.
This bill, the first introduced in any session, is a formal tradition rather than proposed legislation. (It has nothing to do with oaths of office. The Senate equivalent is called An Act relating to Railways and—you guessed it!—in no way relates to railways.)
Stephen Harper Conservative
Not a real bill (bills C-1 and S-1 are weird procedural relics), as of Nov. 19, 2008
(This bill did not become law.)
All sorts of information on this bill is available at LEGISinfo, an excellent resource from the Library of Parliament.
Bill numbers are reused for different bills each new session. Perhaps you were looking for one of these other C-1s:
Stephen Harper ConservativePrime Minister
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-1, respecting the administration of oaths of office.
Oaths of Office
The Speaker Peter Milliken
It is moved that this bill be now read the first time and printed. Motion deemed adopted.
(Motion deemed adopted and bill read the first time)
Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, it is a long-standing parliamentary tradition for the Prime Minister to present pro forma legislation that asserts the right of the House of Commons to present legislation and, following in the practices adopted in some legislatures and in some of our provincial assemblies, I am proposing today to actually table an actual document that asserts that right.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, dealing with Bill C-1 in the proceedings at the opening of a Parliament is largely a symbolic gesture, as described in Marleau and Montpetit, to assert Parliament's right to act as it sees fit quite apart from what may or may not be in any Speech from the Throne.
Unfortunately, with the gesture the Prime Minister is making, there was no preliminary consultation with the opposition parties about what the government had in mind. We spent a good portion of the day yesterday talking about the importance of consultation, inclusion and reaching out to all members of the House to involve them in the proper procedures of this place to try to establish a better atmosphere and a more conducive feeling among members to work together on important topics of the day.
While the process that the Prime Minister is now proposing may not change anything in substance, I would on this occasion like to ask for two things. First, the assurance of the Prime Minister and, indeed, from the Chair, that this gesture does not change anything in substance since we have not had any opportunity to be consulted in advance or to examine the precedents that might exist in the provinces. I would like that assurance.
Second, I ask for the general assurance of the House, in the spirit of goodwill trying to make this place work better for all of us, that there is a sincere effort made at advance notice and consultation so this kind of awkward point does not need to arise again.
Stephen Harper Conservative Calgary Southwest, AB
Mr. Speaker, I can certainly give all assurances that this does not change any of our practices. In fact, it merely provides an actual hard copy documentation of our long established practices as is done elsewhere.
I would just point out that the tabling and first reading of all bills in the House of Commons is not debatable.
Jay Hill ConservativeLeader of the Government in the House of Commons
Just very quickly, Mr. Speaker, because I do not want to belabour the point, but I am sure the hon. House leader for the official opposition is well aware that we made the text of this available to his office at 12:30 p.m., some three hours ago.
Ralph Goodale Liberal Wascana, SK
Mr. Speaker, there is a new element involved in this and that is, as I understand the motion that you read, you are seeking the approval of the House for the bill to be printed. That has in fact never happened before and it must be clear that nothing of substance is changing by this new procedure. Otherwise there should have been notice and consultation.
Oaths of Office
The Speaker Peter Milliken
The Speaker made a mistake. I have read the words “be printed” into the motion because I always say it that way. I did not read it carefully, I was just babbling.
Accordingly, the words “be printed” should not have been included in the motion. The order is not to be printed.
The Prime Minister tabled a document after the motion had been carried. In my view the motion that should have been put to the House, and I was going to stand and correct the record but I was waiting for these points of order to sort themselves out, should have only been as follows. I think I did it in French, if I am not mistaken.
“That the bill be now read the first time.” Nothing more. The other words usually follow. I simply said it all at once.
I apologize to the House for my blunder. There is no bill being printed. We have followed the practice of the past except that there has been a document tabled.
I am sure the point by the hon. House leader for the official opposition will be considered if there is something irregular in the tabling, but the Prime Minister is free to table whatever he likes. The Chair will get back to the House.