House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

12. The Process of Debate

[1] 
Stewart, p. 34.
[2] 
Redlich, Vol. III, p. 51.
[3]
See Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[4] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 292.
[5] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 163.
[6] 
Stewart, p. 35.
[7] 
Motions in amendment to a bill at report stage are the exception. The Speaker has the authority to group motions in amendment at the report stage of a bill for debate and decision (Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5)).
[8] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 297.
[9] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 365.
[10] 
See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1998, pp. 8582-3.
[11] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 316.
[12] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 317.
[13] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 166-7.
[14] 
Examples of matters decided without debate were motions that a Member be now heard, appeals from Speakers’ decisions (abolished in 1965), and motions that a Member have leave to move the adjournment of the House to discuss an urgent matter (see 1912 rules 17, 18 and 39).
[15] 
In moving the adoption of the new text on April 9, 1913, Prime Minister Borden claimed that its objective was to give full opportunity of debate upon every substantial motion and to provide that motions which ought to be regarded as purely formal would no longer be debatable (see Debates, April 9, 1913, cols. 7403-6). This change was brought forward as part of the government’s effort to break an impasse created by an opposition filibuster against a government bill; the changes were adopted on April 23, 1913, after heated debate over several sittings (see Debates, April 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22 and 23).
[16] 
See Standing Order 67.
[17] 
Beauchesne (6th ed., pp. 173-4) classifies motions as either substantive, privileged, incidental or subsidiary. May (22nd ed., pp. 328-9) divides motions into two categories: substantive and subsidiary. Subsidiary motions are then divided into three categories—ancillary, superseding and motions dependent on other motions (such as amendments).
[18] 
Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 166; see also May, 22nd ed., pp. 328-9.
[19] 
See Standing Order 63.
[20] 
The motion for leave to introduce a bill requires notice, but the subsequent motions in the legislative process, with the exception of report stage amendments, require no notice to be filed by a Member — they are automatically inserted on the Order Paper (see Standing Orders 54(1), 76(2)and 76.1(2)).
[21] 
If a Member has indicated an intention to propose an amendment, the Member is not entitled to any precedence in debate and must wait to be recognized on debate before moving the amendment (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 316).
[22]
In some cases, such as the Budget debate and the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Standing Orders set limits on the number of amendments and sub-amendments which can be moved. There are also special provisions so that motions to amend a bill at report stage may be grouped for purposes of debate. For further information on amendments in these circumstances, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”, Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process” and Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[23] 
See Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, December 5, 1995, p. 17197.
[24] 
“All motions should properly commence with the word ‘That’. In this way if a motion meets the approbation of the House, it may at once become the resolution, vote or order which it purports to be” (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 316). See also Debates, March 9, 1998, pp. 4566, 4571-2.
[25] 
See, for example, Debates, June 17, 1996, pp. 3944-5.
[26] 
See, for example, Debates, April 29, 1988, pp. 14985, 14988; March 26, 1992, pp. 8876-7.
[27] 
See, for example, Debates, May 6, 1966, p. 4795; December 17, 1987, pp. 11882-3.
[28] 
See, for example, Journals,February 13, 1913, p. 247; May 17, 1954, pp. 616-20; see also Speaker Lamoureux’s comments in Journals, March 6, 1973, pp. 165-7, in which the decision was to allow some degree of latitude for opposition motions on Supply days.
[29] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 301, 320. See also Journals, April 1, 1889, p. 214; Debates, February 23, 1905, col. 1632; Journals, November 21, 1966, pp. 999-1001, and the reference in this ruling to Journals, February 7, 1955, pp. 119-20.
[30] 
Expanded negative amendments strike out all the words after “That” in a motion in order to substitute a proposition with the opposite conclusion of the original motion (see, for example, Journals, June 6, 1923, pp. 437-8; October 16, 1970, p. 28; Debates, August 11, 1988, pp. 18192, 18212-3; October 29, 1991, pp. 4189, 4192).
[31] 
See, for example, Journals, April 29, 1970, p. 732.
[32] 
See, for example, Debates, November 3, 1989, p. 5541; May 26, 1993, p. 19858.
[33] 
See, for example,Journals, January 18, 1973, pp. 48-9; Debates, February 10, 1998, pp. 3650, 3653, 3656. The Speaker has ruled that where a sub-amendment is found to be in the nature of an amendment to the main motion, its sponsor must wait until the first amendment is negatived before reoffering the motion as another amendment (Journals, November 29, 1944, pp. 933-5).
[34] 
See, for example, Journals, March 8, 1937, p. 208; Debates, April 21, 1986, p. 12500; June 12, 1987, pp. 7060-2; January 16, 1991, pp. 17124-5; October 24, 1996, p. 5659.
[35] 
See, for example, Journals, March 14, 1947, p. 198.
[36] 
See Standing Order 61.
[37] 
See, for example, Journals, December 30, 1971, p. 1014; Debates, November 20, 1996, p. 6503.
[38] 
Standing Order 61(1). The wording of the previous question has not been altered since its introduction into the rules of the House in 1867. In the British House, the previous question is worded in the negative: “That this question be not now put”. If carried, the question under debate drops (but may be brought forward again another day) and the House proceeds to its next business; if negatived, the original question must be put immediately, without further debate. See May, 22nd ed., pp. 341-2.
[39] 
Journals, May 31, 1869, pp. 163-4; April 28, 1870, pp. 254-5; March 11, 1879, p. 77; March 12, 1886, p. 45.
[40] 
Journals, April 9, 1913, pp. 451-3.
[41] 
Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9.
[42] 
For a description of events in the House at the time, see Dawson, pp. 122-3.
[43] 
The previous question was moved in 1964 (see Journals, December 16, 1964, p. 1016) and then not until 1983 (see Journals, February 9, 1983, p. 5587).
[44]
In many of the post-1980 cases, the previous question was moved in respect to a government bill, often at second reading, seemingly for the purpose of curtailing the debate (see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”).
[45] 
Standing Order 61(1).
[46] 
Standing Order 61(2).
[47] 
Journals, February 16, 1926, pp. 98-9; July 5, 1943, pp. 583-4.
[48] 
Journals, May 9, 1928, pp. 371-2 (third reading of a private bill); February 9, 1983, p. 5587 (second reading of a private Member’s public bill); August 28, 1987, p. 1397 (Senate amendments to a government bill); November 26, 1998, p. 1316 (second reading of a government bill).
[49] 
Journals, December 17, 1964, p. 1016.
[50] 
Journals, March 4, 1907, pp. 229-30; April 6, 1959, p. 289.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page