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

2000 Edition — More information …

12. The Process of Debate

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[201]: Standing Order 65.
[202]: There have been occasions when the Chair has not received unanimous consent to dispense with the reading of a motion (see, for example, Debates, June 2, 1987, p. 6618; April 3, 1990, p. 10156; March 26, 1991, pp. 19025-7; June 2, 1992, pp. 11249-51).
[203]: Standing Order 46.
[204]: Debates, March 19, 1992, pp. 8479-80, 8490-1. See also Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[205]: For further information on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[206]: May, 22nd ed., pp. 334-5; Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 116-7.
[207]: Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 154.
[208]: See, for example, Journals, March 13, 1959, p. 238; July 3, 1969, pp. 1289-90; July 7, 1969, pp. 1316-8.
[209]: See, for example, Journals, February 24, 1936, pp. 67-8; January 23, 1961, pp. 176-7.
[210]: However, the Speaker advised the House that neither the consideration of the opposition motion nor the vote taken on it could prejudice in any way the progress of the bill to which the motion related; see Journals, November 14, 1975, pp. 861-2.
[211]: Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 147-8. See also Speaker’s ruling on the conduct of Question Period, Journals, April 14, 1975, pp. 439-41, in particular p. 441.
[212]: See Speaker’s ruling, Journals, June 26, 1975, p. 665.
[213]: Debates, February 24, 1983, pp. 23181-3.
[214]: Debates, March 4, 1997, pp. 8594-5; Journals, March 21, 1997, p. 1334.
[215]: Debates, April 7, 1997, p. 9377. For additional information, see Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[216]: Standing Order 64. See, for example, Journals, November 25, 1992, p. 2213 (withdrawal of a private Members’ motion); March 11, 1999, p. 1594 (withdrawal of a motion for the production of papers).
[217]: See, for example, Journals, April 7, 1941, p. 260.
[218]: See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1988, p. 2950 (withdrawal of amendments to a government motion).
[219]: See, for example, Debates, April 29, 1980, p. 542; May 26, 1993, p. 19858; May 5, 1994, p. 3958. Even corrections to apparent errors in wording require unanimous consent (see, for example, Debates, May 3, 1993, pp. 18783-4; November 24, 1994, p. 8255), unless accomplished by means of an amendment moved by another Member.
[220]: Bourinot states that no motion can be withdrawn in the absence of the Member who proposed it; in current practice, however, it is more a matter of courtesy to do so in the presence of the sponsoring Member. See, for example, Debates, March 3, 1997, p. 8482 (Member sought and received unanimous consent to withdraw report stage motions in the names of Members of his party); March 4, 1997, p. 8643 (Member sought and received unanimous consent to withdraw another Member’s motion under Private Members’ Business); February 16, 1999, p. 11982 (Government House Leader, with sponsoring Member’s consent, sought and received unanimous consent to withdraw her private Member’s bill). Another practice exists whereby a Minister may request the withdrawal of a motion in the absence of the sponsoring Minister (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 300); see, for example, Debates, November 13, 1981, p. 12743).
[221]: See, for example, Journals, March 12, 1993, p. 2627 (unanimous consent to discharge the order for second reading and referral to committee of a private Members’ bill, and to withdraw the bill).
[222]: See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[223]: Journals, June 15, 1964, pp. 427-31.
[224]: Journals, March 23, 1966, p. 334.
[225]: Debates, April 10, 1991, p. 19312.
[226]: Some types of motions do not result in a vote; debate on these motions expires at the end of the time provided without the Speaker putting the question. For example: non-votable opposition motions on Supply days (Standing Order 81(19)); non-votable items of Private Members’ Business (Standing Order 96(1)).
[227]: R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49.
[228]: Although no longer used, motions have been recorded as being adopted by the House nemine contradicente, that is, without dissenting voice. From 1867 to 1909 and from 1916 to 1917, the Journals routinelyused the term for entries related to the election of the Speaker (see, for example, Journals, November 6, 1867, p. 2; January 12, 1916, p. 6). This term was also used in the Debates for entries relating to the Speaker beginning in 1891 until 1980 (see Debates, April 29, 1891, col. 3; April 14, 1980, p. 2). See also the Journals for November 21, 1979, where it is recorded that the House agreed nemine contradicente to a resolution respecting former Prime Minister Trudeau (p. 244).
[229]: Standing Order 45(1). When selecting a Speaker, the House makes its choice by secret ballot (Standing Order 4); see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[230]: In the British House of Commons, a division entails a physical separation into two lobbies of those voting for a question (yeas) and those voting against it (nays); see May, 22nd ed., pp. 350-2.
[231]: Standing Order 27(2). See Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[232]: Standing Order 50 (5), (6) and (8). See also Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[233]: Standing Order 57. See also Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 1000. For additional information on the closure rule, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[234]: Standing Order 61.
[235]: Standing Order 78. See also Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[236]: Standing Order 81(17), (18). See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[237]: Standing Order 84(4), (5) and (6). See also Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[238]: Standing Orders 93 and 98(4)). See also Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[239]: Standing Order 97(2). See also Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[240]: The Speaker will reread the question after Members have been summoned for a recorded division.
[241]: Standing Order 45(1). When a question arose as to whether or not Members rising to request a recorded division were required to do so from their assigned places in the House, the Deputy Speaker stated that the rule does not impose such a requirement (Debates, June 23, 1992, p. 12686).
[242]: See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1997, p. 1721.
[243]: During the first 60 years following Confederation, Members were required to vote if they were in the House during a division (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 381). In 1928, Speaker Lemieux ruled first that Members must vote and then later amended his decision, indicating that not to vote was acceptable (Debates, March 27, 1928, p. 1755; May 26, 1928, p. 3420; February 19, 1929, pp. 266-7). In 1931, a committee was set up to consider the question of voting, but made no recommendations regarding compulsory voting (Debates, June 26, 1931, pp. 3076-7). In 1944, a procedure committee proposed that voting be made obligatory and explicit in the Standing Orders, but the House did not adopt the committee’s report (Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 149). In subsequent years, the Chair stated that there was no obligation for Members to vote (see, for example, Debates, September 28, 1945, p. 541; June 24, 1963, pp. 1522-3; March 26, 1965, p. 12857).
[244]: See, for example, Debates, December 5, 1990, p. 16325 (act of protest); February 24, 1993, p. 16425 (chairing the legislative committee to which a bill was being referred).
[245]: See, for example, Debates, November 4, 1997, p. 1557.
[246]: Standing Order 21. This Standing Order, derived from British practice, has remained unchanged since 1867. See Debates, May 27, 1996, p. 3041, when the House was informed that a Member’s vote on one question would not be applied to another question in which the Member had a personal interest.
[247]: Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 387-8. See Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7470-3, for a wide-ranging discussion on this topic.
[248]: See, for example, Debates, September 10, 1985, p. 6473; November 25, 1985, p. 8794.
[249]: See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1886, p. 1011; June 4, 1900, cols. 6607-8.
[250]: See Speaker Beaudoin’s ruling,Debates, May 22, 1956, pp. 4244-5; on this occasion, a Member’s vote was challenged but the matter was not taken up by the House.