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

2000 Edition — More information …

10. The Daily Program

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[201]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, July 13, 1988, pp. 17504-9. A private Member was allowed to place a notice of motion under this rubric to deal with the reporting back of a private Member’s bill from committee (see Speaker Parent’s rulings, Debates, September 23, 1996, pp. 4560-2; November 21, 1996, pp. 6519-20).
[202]: See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, June 18, 1996, pp. 3981-2.
[203]: Bourinot, 4^th ed.: “As a rule these motions require notice, but some are of such a purely formal nature that by general consent notice is not insisted upon” (p. 301).
[204]: See, for example, Journals, June 27, 1989, p. 463; February 5, 1992, p. 975; March 11, 1992, p. 1124; November 24, 1994, pp. 927-8.
[205]: See, for example, Journals, November 4, 1987, p. 1831; June 2, 1988, pp. 2778-9; May 6, 1994, p. 435.
[206]: See, for example, Journals, April 21, 1994, p. 380; May 6, 1994, p. 435.
[207]: See, for example, Journals, April 5, 1989, pp. 40-2; March 23, 1990, p. 1397; January 25, 1994, pp. 58-61.
[208]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545.
[209]: See, for example, Journals, June 10, 1992, p. 1678; April 5, 1995, p. 1334.
[210]: See, for example, Journals, April 29, 1992, pp. 1336-7; April 13, 1994, p. 339.
[211]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; September 27, 1995, p. 1959.
[212]: See, for example, Journals, September 18, 1991, p. 363; October 30, 1991, p. 568; February 14, 1992, p. 1026.
[213]: See, for example, Journals, October 16, 1985, p. 1107; July 13, 1988, pp. 3174-5; June 22, 1994, p. 655.
[214]: See, for example, Journals, May 17, 1991, p. 45; September 27, 1995, p. 1959; September 23, 1996, p. 666.
[215]: See, for example, Journals, June 19, 1991, p. 239; December 2, 1997, p. 313; April 22, 1998, pp. 692-3. See also Debates, June 6, 1990, pp. 12339-40, where Speaker Fraser ruled that the motions concerning the appointment of the Information Commissioner and the appointment of the Privacy Commissioner could be filed either under the rubric “Motions” or the rubric “Government Motions”. In 1998, the appointment of the Information Commissioner was debated under Government Orders (Journals, June 10, 1998, pp. 999-1000).
[216]: See, for example, Journals, November 28, 1990, p. 2311; October 30, 1991, p. 568; December 10, 1991, p. 908.
[217]: See, for example, Journals, June 4, 1956, pp. 691-3; June 6, 1956, pp. 713-4; June 7, 1956, pp. 719, 723; June 8, 1956, pp. 725-6; March 18, 1964, pp. 103-4; March 19, 1964, pp. 106-7; Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 4, 1992, pp. 11, III-IV. See also Journals, May 28, 1956, pp. 645-7, where the Speaker instructed the Clerk that if a motion of censure against the Chair was received, it was to be put under “Motions” in Routine Proceedings.
[218]: On February 1, 1993, during Routine Proceedings, a private Member moved a motion with the consent of the House congratulating a Canadian recording artist who had received a musical award (Journals, p. 2422). Later in the sitting, another Member rose to question whether or not this type of motion was appropriate and if it should be raised under “Motions” without notice. The Speaker responded that a problem could have arisen if the motion had been on a more divisive matter, placing the Chair in a difficult position. Speaker Fraser undertook to bring the matter to the attention of the Standing Committee on House Management (Debates, February 1, 1993, pp. 15213, 15220-2).
[219]: See, for example, Journals, March 25, 1993, p. 2720; June 22, 1994, p. 655; April 1, 1998, p. 659; June 2, 1998, pp. 920-1.
[220]: See, for example, Journals, December 13, 1994, pp. 1026-7; June 20, 1996, pp. 592-3; March 26, 1998, pp. 633-4.
[221]: See, for example, Journals, April 23, 1997, pp. 1518-9; April 26, 1999, pp. 1766-7.
[222]: Standing Order 66.
[223]: Standing Order 40(2). The government rarely resumes debate during Government Orders on a motion first proposed by a private Member during Routine Proceedings.
[224]: Journals, January 20, 1970, pp. 327-9, in particular p. 328.
[225]: Debates, October 17, 1983, pp. 28078-9. Unanimous consent is not required for motions sponsored by a Minister; motions for which notice was given by one Minister may be moved by any member of the Cabinet.
[226]: See, for example, Journals, February 6, 1995, pp. 1080-1. In one instance in 1985, the Member presenting a report explained that it contained a recommendation to change the name of the committee and that he intended to seek concurrence in the report later in the sitting. The Speaker advised the House that the report appeared to go beyond the committee’s order of reference and that it would not be in order to proceed with the concurrence motion. The Member argued that it could be concurred in by unanimous consent. The Speaker ruled immediately that the House could not concur in a report that had been found to be out of order (Debates, February 28, 1985, pp. 2602-4). Later in the sitting under “Motions”, the Member sought leave to propose a motion to simply amend the Standing Orders, effecting the change the Member originally had wanted in the report which was ruled not in order. The House gave its consent and the motion was adopted (Debates, pp. 2604-5).
[227]: See Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2912-3. This rule is also examined in Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, and in Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[228]: Standing Order 56.1(1)(b).
[229]: Standing Order 56.1(1)(a).
[230]: Standing Order 56.1(2).
[231]: See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1994, pp. 756-7; June 9, 1998, p. 954; March 19, 1999, p. 1640; March 22, 1999, p. 1645.
[232]: Standing Order 56.1(3). See, for example, Journals, December 10, 1992, pp. 2387-8; October 7, 1994, p. 780; March 16, 1995, p. 1226; June 8, 1995, p. 1594; June 15, 1995, p. 1754; April 24, 1997, pp. 1524-5; December 1, 1997, pp. 290-1; February 9, 1998, p. 430; April 12, 1999, p. 1687.
[233]: Standing Order 36(5).
[234]: Standing Order 36(6).
[235]: Standing Order 36(1).
[236]: Standing Order 36(6).
[237]: See ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, October 28, 1983, pp. 28457-8.
[238]: See, for example, Debates, June 10, 1998, p. 7935.
[239]: Standing Order 36(7). See, for example, Debates, February 25, 1998, pp. 4408-9; October 2, 1998, p. 8709.
[240]: See, for example, Debates, October 24, 1997, p. 1103; February 13, 1998, p. 3867; March 18, 1998, p. 5055.
[241]: Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535-6.
[242]: Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1646, 1665; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[243]: See, for example, Journals, May 19, 1983, pp. 5910-1; October 27, 1983, pp. 6356-9; October 28, 1983, pp. 6362-7; December 19, 1985, pp. 1444-8.
[244]: Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8.
[245]: Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905-6, 2908-9.
[246]: Indeed, from 1867 until 1964 when certain procedures for oral questions were codified, the rules of the House only provided for written questions.
[247]: Journals, March 14, 1975, pp. 372-6, and in particular pp. 373-4; March 24, 1975, p. 399.
[248]: Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8.
[249]: Standing Order 39(4).
[250]: Standing Order 39(5)(a).