House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 EditionMore information …

10. The Daily Program

Routine Proceedings are an essential part of the House business and if they are not protected the interests of the House and the public it serves are likely to suffer.

Speaker John A. Fraser
(Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5120)

W

hile Chapters 8 and 9 describe the parliamentary calendar and the hours of sitting of the House respectively, this chapter provides an outline of the recurring sequence of business for each sitting day, that is, the daily order of business, and gives details of the major categories of daily business.

The daily business of the House is taken up according to a predetermined sequence outlined in the rules of the House. [1]  In 1867, the program of the House varied according to the days of the week. [2]  Afterwards, almost every time major rule revisions took place, the order of business was affected. The majority of alterations came about as a result of the changing nature of the business coming before the House, the growing volume of government business to be transacted and changes to the hours of sitting.

All items of business that can be dealt with on a given day are listed on the daily Order Paper, the official agenda of the House. See Figure 10.1 which depicts the day by day order of business. The daily activities of the House are generally grouped into five categories:

  • Daily Proceedings;
  • Routine Proceedings;
  • Government Orders;
  • Private Members’ Business;
  • Adjournment Proceedings.
Figure 10.1 – Daily Order of Busines
Image showing, in a table, the weekly calendar of the House of Commons. The first and last columns list, by row, the times of day. The remaining columns in the middle correspond to the days of the week. In the body of the table, users can find the items of business dealt with on particular days at particular times.

The Daily Proceedings include three events in the daily schedule: Prayers (followed by the National Anthem on Wednesdays), Statements by Members and Oral Questions. The Daily Routine of Business, or Routine Proceedings as it is more commonly known, consists of separate categories of business usually referred to as rubrics and includes, among other items, tabling of documents, statements by Ministers and the introduction of bills sponsored by either the government or private Members. Government Orders include any item of business proposed by a Minister which the House has ordered for consideration. Each day one hour of House time is set aside for Private Members’ Business during which bills and motions sponsored by Members who are not Ministers are considered. The Adjournment Proceedings are the final category of business considered on a sitting day (Fridays excepted).

Daily Proceedings

Each of the three events in the Daily Proceedings — Prayers, Statements by Members and Oral Questions — is covered separately in the Standing Orders. (On Wednesday, the National Anthem is also included in the Daily Proceedings.)

Prayers

Prior to the doors of the Chamber being opened to the public at the beginning of each sitting of the House, the Speaker takes the Chair and proceeds to read the prayer, after it has been determined that a quorum of 20 Members including the Speaker is present, and before any business is considered. [3]  While the prayer is being read, the Speaker, the Members and the Table Officers all stand. When the prayer is finished, the House pauses for a moment of silence for private thought and reflection. At the end of the moment of silence, the Speaker orders the doors opened and the proceedings of the House then begin. At this point, television coverage of the proceedings commences and the public enters the galleries. [4] 

Although the practice of reading a prayer at the start of each sitting was not codified in the Standing Orders until 1927, [5]  it has been part of the daily proceedings of the House since 1877. At that time, the House charged a committee to consider the desirability of using a form of prayer in the Chamber. [6]  In its report, the committee recommended that the proceedings of the House should be opened each day with the reading of a prayer and included therein a suggested form of prayer. [7]  In a discussion that immediately followed the adoption of the committee report, it was determined that the prayer would be read prior to the doors of the House being opened, as was the practice of the Senate of Canada and the British House of Commons. [8] 

Much later, suggestions were made to rewrite or reword the prayer in a non-sectarian form and to have the prayer read by a chaplain instead of the Speaker. [9]  Recommendations have also been made to change the way the House takes up the prayer. Over the years, many Members have expressed the view that the public should be admitted before the prayer is read. [10]  In 1976, the House adopted a motion recommending that the Standing Orders be changed in order to allow the public to enter the galleries before the prayer is read. However, the motion was worded as a recommendation, not as an order, and provided no instruction for implementing the change. For that reason, the Speaker indicated that the practice of reciting the prayer prior to the admission of the public would continue until the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization considered the matter and reported to the House; however, no further action was taken on this matter. [11]  There have been, nonetheless, rare instances when the public has heard the prayer. [12] 

Until 1994, no major change to the form of the prayer [13] was made aside from references to royalty. [14]  At that time, the House adopted a report recommending a new form of prayer more reflective of the different religions embraced by Canadians. [15]  This prayer was read for the first time when the House met to open its proceedings on February 21, 1994: [16] 

Almighty God, we give thanks for the great blessings which have been bestowed on Canada and its citizens, including the gifts of freedom, opportunity and peace that we enjoy. We pray for our Sovereign, Queen Elizabeth, and the Governor General. Guide us in our deliberations as Members of Parliament, and strengthen us in our awareness of our duties and responsibilities as Members. Grant us wisdom, knowledge, and understanding to preserve the blessings of this country for the benefit of all and to make good laws and wise decisions. Amen.

The prayer is followed by a moment of silence for private reflection and meditation.

There has been no explicit pronouncement on when French and English are to be used in reading the prayer. When the reading of the prayer was first sanctioned in 1877, it was agreed that the prayer would be read in the language most familiar to the Speaker. [17]  It was only two years later that Speaker Blanchet, the Commons’ first bilingual Speaker, inaugurated the practice of reading the prayer in French and English on alternate days. [18]  From then until the 1970s, many Speakers, depending on their fluency in the two languages, followed this practice. Since then, some Speakers have alternated between the two languages, while others have used a bilingual version.

When the House convenes on the first day of a new Parliament or on any day when the House is to elect a Speaker, the prayer is not read until a Speaker has been elected. [19]  Indeed, at that time, the election of a Speaker must be the first order of business and has precedence over all other matters. [20]  Only after a Speaker has been elected is the House properly constituted to conduct its business. [21]  After the House reconvenes following the election of the Speaker, the prayer is read before the House proceeds to the Senate to inform the Governor General of its choice. [22] 

National Anthem

Although not provided for in the Standing Orders, it has become the practice for the House of Commons to sing the national anthem each Wednesday at the opening of the sitting. After the prayer has been read, but before the doors are opened to admit the public, the Speaker recognizes a Member to lead the House in singing the national anthem. [23] 

The practice of singing O Canada at the beginning of each Wednesday sitting began during the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97). Members had discussed the possibility of singing the national anthem in the House, and the matter was raised in the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In a report presented in the House on November 10, 1995, the Committee recommended that a Member lead the House in singing the national anthem at the beginning of each Wednesday sitting; later in the sitting, the House concurred in the Committee’s report. [24] 

Statements by Members

The second activity grouped under Daily Proceedings is “Statements by Members”. At 2:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and at 11:00 a.m. on Friday, the Speaker calls “Statements by Members”. [25]  Members who are not Ministers, when recognized by the Speaker, are permitted to address the House for up to one minute on virtually any matter of international, national, provincial or local concern. [26]  This one-minute time limit is rigorously enforced by the Speaker.

If “Statements by Members” begins promptly at 2:00 p.m. (11:00 a.m. on Friday), [27]  the entire 15 minutes provided for these proceedings is used; a minimum of 15 Members is typically recognized. If the start of these proceedings is delayed, the time is reduced accordingly and could even be eliminated entirely for that sitting. Question Period begins promptly at 2:15 p.m. (or 11:15 a.m. on Friday), regardless of whether or not a full 15 minutes was allotted to “Statements by Members”. If not enough Members rise to use all the time provided for, then the Speaker would proceed to call “Oral Questions”, although there is no record of this having occurred. [28] 

Historical Perspective

The procedures regarding “Statements by Members” came into force with the adoption of provisional rule changes in 1982. [29]  However, what is now used to give Members an opportunity to make statements on issues of current interest had its genesis in another rule, which existed for the first 60 years of Confederation, allowing Members to seek the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion without notice. [30]  In 1925, a special committee reported that “The unanimous consent of the House is usually granted with such readiness and so little opposition that in many cases motions are passed before the House has had time to understand them” and recommended that the rule be changed so that a satisfactory explanation could be given as to why notice should be waived. [31]  In 1927, the House finally agreed to the recommendation that the Standing Orders be amended so that unanimous consent could be sought only “in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover”. [32]  It was not until 1968 that this rule was invoked with any frequency when more and more Members began to rise daily under its provisions before Question Period, often in regard to cases where no “urgent and pressing necessity” appeared to exist.

This trend continued until 1975 when a further limitation was instituted whereby such motions could be moved only by Members not of the Ministry during a restricted time period before “Oral Questions” were called. [33]  Nonetheless, throughout the 1970s and early 1980s, it became a common, though misused and often time-consuming, feature of the proceedings of the House. [34]  In 1982, a special procedure committee concluded that “… the Standing Order is used for purposes for which it was never intended. It is also open to objection because the refusal of unanimous consent to waive notice can frequently be misunderstood as a declaration of opposition to a well-intentioned motion.” The committee’s recommendation to abolish this Standing Order was endorsed by the House, which also adopted the committee’s proposal to institute a new Standing Order that “would enable Members to make statements on current issues on a daily basis during the first 15 minutes of the sitting.” [35]  Originally Members were allowed to speak for not more than 90 seconds; this rule was amended in 1986 when the time for each Member’s statement was reduced to not more than one minute. [36] 

Guidelines

In presiding over the conduct of this daily activity, Speakers have been guided by a number of well-defined prohibitions. In 1983, when the procedure for “Statements by Members” was first put in place, Speaker Sauvé stated that [37] 

  • Members may speak on any matter of concern and not necessarily on urgent matters only;
  • Personal attacks are not permitted; [38] 
  • Congratulatory messages, recitations of poetry and frivolous matters are out of order.

These guidelines are still in place today, although Speakers tend to turn a blind eye to the latter restriction. [39] 

Since 1983, additional restrictions have been placed on these statements. The Speaker has cut off an individual statement and asked the Member to resume his or her seat when

  • offensive language has been used; [40] 
  • a Senator has been attacked; [41] 
  • the actions of the Senate have been criticized; [42] 
  • a ruling of a court has been denounced; [43]  and
  • the character of a judge has been attacked. [44] 

The Speaker has also cautioned Members not to use this period to make defamatory comments about non-Members, [45]  nor to use the verbatim remarks of a private citizen as a statement, [46]  nor to make statements of a commercial nature. [47] 

The opportunity to speak during “Statements by Members” is allocated to private Members of all parties. In according Members the opportunity to participate in this period, the Chair is guided by lists provided by the whips of the various parties and attempts to recognize those Members supporting the government and those Members in opposition on an equitable basis. [48]  While Ministers are not permitted to use this period to address the House, Parliamentary Secretaries may. [49]  Leaders of parties in opposition have availed themselves of this rule. [50]  Chair occupants other than the Speaker, in their capacity as Members, have also made statements. [51] 

Points of order arising from “Statements by Members” are normally dealt with after Question Period, [52]  although in some cases, unparliamentary language is dealt with immediately. [53] 

The Speaker retains discretion over the acceptability of each statement and has the authority to order a Member to resume his or her seat if improper use is being made of this Standing Order. [54]  As Speaker Parent noted, however, in a 1996 ruling, “the Chair is often caught between respect for freedom of speech and the rapid delivery of 60-second statements”. [55]  It is often difficult for the Chair to determine the direction a Member is going to take and thus the acceptability or otherwise of the remarks before the Member completes the statement.

Oral Questions

The third event under the Daily Proceedings is “Oral Questions”. Each sitting day, following “Statements by Members”, at no later than 2:15 p.m. (11:15 a.m. on Friday), Question Period begins. [56]  It lasts no longer than 45 minutes. At this time, Members may seek information from the Ministry by asking questions on matters falling within the jurisdiction of the federal government. Question Period is discussed extensively in Chapter 11, “Questions”.

Routine Proceedings

The daily routine of business, commonly referred to as “Routine Proceedings”, is a time in the daily schedule when business of a basic nature is considered, providing Members with an opportunity to bring a variety of matters to the attention of the House, generally without debate. The House proceeds to Routine Proceedings at the opening of the sitting on Tuesday and Thursday (immediately after the Speaker has read the prayer and ordered the doors opened), at 3:00 p.m. on Monday and Wednesday, and at 12:00 noon on Friday (immediately following Question Period). [57] 

This segment of the daily program consists of separate headings or rubrics called by the Speaker each day and considered in succession. These headings include:

  • Tabling of Documents;
  • Statements by Ministers;
  • Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations;
  • Presenting Reports from Committees;
  • Introduction of Government Bills;
  • Introduction of Private Members’ Bills;
  • First Reading of Senate Public Bills;
  • Motions;
  • Presenting Petitions;
  • Questions on the Order Paper.

After Routine Proceedings on Wednesday, “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” is considered immediately after “Questions on the Order Paper”. (For further details, see the relevant section later in this chapter.) Applications for emergency debates are also considered after Routine Proceedings, prior to the calling of Orders of the Day. (For further information, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.)

As the Speaker calls each rubric in Routine Proceedings, Members who wish to bring forward matters rise in their place and are recognized. Usually they will have previously indicated to the Chair or the Table their wish to raise an item. [58]  The amount of time required to complete Routine Proceedings varies from day to day depending on the number of items dealt with under each rubric.

All rubrics up to and including “Introduction of Government Bills” must be called each sitting day. Thus, at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesday and Thursday, “Statements by Members” interrupts Routine Proceedings if the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” has not yet been completed. The ordinary daily routine of business then continues at 3:00 p.m., immediately after Question Period, until all items under “Introduction of Government Bills” are completed, suspending as much of the hour set aside for Private Members’ Business as necessary. [59]  Obviously, this does not apply on Monday, Wednesday and Friday, since on those days “Statements by Members” and Question Period take place before Routine Proceedings. If the proceedings are not completed by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on any sitting day, the House continues to sit until such time as all rubrics under Routine Proceedings up to and including “Introduction of Government Bills” have been called and completed. The Speaker then adjourns the House until the next sitting day. [60]  However, on days when time remains for Routine Proceedings after “Introduction of Government Bills” is completed, Routine Proceedings could possibly continue until interrupted either by the normal adjournment of the sitting on Monday, [61]  by “Statements by Members” on Tuesday and Thursday, [62]  or by Private Members’ Business on Wednesday and Friday. [63] 

Historical Perspective

Since Confederation, the Standing Orders have provided for a daily routine of business. What has varied over time is its composition, its timing in the parliamentary day and the classes of items that could be dealt with under each rubric. For almost 40 years beginning in 1867, there were just four rubrics: “Presenting Petitions”, “Reading and Receiving Petitions”, “Presenting Reports by Standing and Select (later Special) Committees”, and “Motions”. [64]  In 1906, the rubric “Introduction of Bills” was added after “Motions” in the sequence (bills having previously been presented under “Motions”). [65]  A few years later, in 1910, another rubric styled “First Reading of Senate Bills” was added after “Introduction of Bills”, while at the same time the two rubrics dedicated to petitions were dropped. [66]  The order of rubrics under Routine Proceedings did not change again until 1955 when “Government Notices of Motions” was added. [67]  Twenty years later, in 1975, “Tabling of Documents” and “Statements by Ministers” were added to Routine Proceedings to reflect and codify long-standing practices which had previously been dealt with under the rubric “Motions”. [68]  In 1986, the rubric “Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations” was created and the item “Presenting Petitions” was reinstated. [69] 

In late 1986 and early 1987, the moving of motions “to proceed to Orders of the Day” [70]  and “to proceed to the next item of Routine Proceedings” [71]  during Routine Proceedings, combined with requests for recorded divisions on what would normally have been pro forma proceedings, [72] resulted not only in the House failing to reach Government Orders on occasion, but also prevented the government from introducing its legislation. [73] In the fall of 1986, a government bill to amend the Patent Act was placed on the Order Paper. The strong opposition to the bill led to the use of these motions during Routine Proceedings to delay introduction, first reading and second reading of the bill. [74]  After the bill was considered by a legislative committee and reported back to the House with amendments, [75]  the government gave notice of a time allocation motion respecting the report stage of the bill. [76]  The government intended to move the time allocation motion under the rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings; however, the use of procedural tactics prevented the House from reaching this rubric. [77]  On April 13, 1987, the government attempted to skip over certain rubrics under Routine Proceedings when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister moved that the House proceed from “Tabling of Documents” to “Motions” which, if carried, would have had the effect of superseding all intervening rubrics. The Speaker had ruled out of order a similar motion only a few months earlier. [78]  A point of order arose, a debate ensued and the Speaker reserved judgement. [79] 

In his ruling, [80]  Speaker Fraser expressed concern about the disruption which these procedural tactics had on Routine Proceedings and the inappropriate use of the rules of procedure as a substitute for debate: “It is a practice which can supersede the presentation of petitions, delay indefinitely the introductions of Bills — those of Private Members as well as those of the Government — and completely block debate on motions for concurrence in committee reports as well as on allocation of time motions.” [81]  Speaker Fraser stated that, in light of the various obstruction tactics which had been used by the opposition parties over the course of a few weeks in response to the controversial legislation and which had completely blocked debate on that and other government legislation, the interests of the House would be served best if the government were allowed to proceed, in this instance only, with its motion, which would supersede certain rubrics under Routine Proceedings. He cautioned, however, that the use of motions to supersede business during Routine Proceedings needed to be examined and “that no procedures should be sanctioned which would permit the House to be brought to a total standstill for an indefinite period.” [82]  He elaborated further that the decision was circumscribed by events for which the rules of procedure offered no solution and was not to be regarded as a precedent.

In June 1987, through amendments to the Standing Orders, the items under Routine Proceedings were reordered to their present form, the rubric “Introduction of Bills” was divided to create separate ones for the introduction of government bills and of private Members’ bills, and the procedure for the completion of “Introduction of Government Bills” was adopted. [83]  In addition, the rubric “Questions on the Order Paper” was inserted into the list of items, and “Government Notices of Motions” was dropped from Routine Proceedings.

Tabling of Documents

The first rubric called by the Speaker under Routine Proceedings is “Tabling of Documents”. This rubric was added to Routine Proceedings in 1975. [84]  Prior to that time, there was no set time for Ministers to table documents, although they would usually do so during Routine Proceedings under the rubric “Motions”. The 1975 rule changes codified the practice already being followed in the presentation of papers.

The presentation of reports and returns [85] is one method by which the House obtains information. For many years if a paper to be tabled was in answer to an Order or Address of the House or in pursuance of a statute requiring its production, a Minister had only to rise, usually during Routine Proceedings, and formally present the document to the House. A record of its presentation was then printed in the Journals. If the government wished to table a document that had not been ordered, it was necessary to adopt a motion in order to allow its presentation. [86]  In 1910, in response to the ever-increasing amount of House time taken to consider these motions, the House adopted a new rule in order to regulate their use. [87]  The rule allowed Ministers simply to seek leave of the House to table these documents, a request customarily granted. [88]  In 1968, the Standing Orders were amended to allow a Minister, or his or her Parliamentary Secretary, to table any report or paper so long as it dealt with a matter within the administrative competence of the government. [89]  Since 1982, the government has also been required to table a comprehensive response to a committee report if the committee so requests, [90]  and since 1986, to table responses to petitions referred to it [91]  as well as announcements of Order-in-Council nominations or appointments. [92] 

In addition to the administrative documents that may be tabled in the House by Ministers, certain returns, reports and other papers are required to be laid before the House each year or session by statute, by order of the House, or by Standing Order. [93]  A number of statutes set forth the specific circumstances for tabling; for example, some statutes require Ministers to table annual reports of the departments, agencies and commissions which fall under their administrative responsibilities. [94] 

A Minister or Parliamentary Secretary acting on behalf of the Minister may table documents in the House during Routine Proceedings when the rubric “Tabling of Documents” is called. [95]  This method of tabling is often referred to as “front door” tabling.

As an alternative, the Standing Orders provide that papers required by statute, by order of the House, or by Standing Order may be deposited by a Minister with the Clerk of the House. [96]  This is known as “back door” tabling. It is entirely at the discretion of the Minister involved as to which method to use for those documents that are required to be tabled; however, if a Minister wishes to table a document which is not required to be tabled, it can only be tabled in the House during Routine Proceedings. Each sitting day, an entry is recorded in the Journals of all papers presented in the House or deposited with the Clerk. [97] 

When a report, return or other paper is required to be laid before the House or an Order-in-Council appointment or nomination is tabled, it is automatically referred to an appropriate standing committee of the House by the Minister, usually according to its subject matter. [98]  The referrals are permanent so that committees are not required to examine the documents by a specific deadline. [99]

All documents tabled in the House by a Minister or, as the case may be, by a Parliamentary Secretary, whether during a sitting or deposited with the Clerk, are required to be presented in both official languages. [100]  Alternative versions (such as computer disks, audio cassettes, video cassettes or CD-ROMs, or documents in Braille or large print) have also been tabled along with the required document in both official languages. [101] 

Any document quoted by a Minister in debate, or in response to a question, must be tabled. [102]  This practice is examined in Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.

Tabling of Documents by Private Members

There has been a long-standing practice in the House that private Members may not table documents, official or otherwise, [103]  even with the unanimous consent of the House. [104]  Unlike Ministers who must table documents required by statute or in respect to their administrative responsibilities, [105]  the Standing Orders contain no provisions for private Members to table documents. Another reason against the tabling of documents by private Members relates to the availability of the document in both official languages as required by the rules. [106]  However, since the 1980s, Members have been allowed on occasion to table documents with the unanimous consent of the House; [107]  the documents have typically been tabled in only one language. [108]  Private Members have sometimes placed on the Table material for the information of Members, although this is not considered an official tabling. [109]  Tabling of documents by private Members is also examined in Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.

Tabling of Documents by the Speaker

The Speaker tables documents pertaining to the administrative or ceremonial functions of the office of the Speaker or to the procedural affairs of the House itself. [110]  As chairman of the Board of Internal Economy, the Speaker also tables:

  • Minutes of Proceedings of the Board of Internal Economy; [111] 
  • Annual reports on committee activities and expenditures; [112] 
  • The By-laws, and amendments thereto, of the Board of Internal Economy; [113] 
  • The annual Report on Plans and Priorities of the House of Commons Administration as approved by the Board of Internal Economy; [114] 
  • The annual Performance Report on the House of Commons Administration as approved by the Board of Internal Economy. [115] 

The Speaker also tables the annual report of the Parliamentary Librarian. [116] 

In addition, various statutes identify the Speaker as the individual through whom reports are to be laid before the House. [117]  In particular, statutory requirements exist whereby five designated officers of Parliament transmit their annual reports and any special investigative reports to the Speaker who then tables them in the House: the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Access to Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner. [118]  The Speaker also tables the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, [119]  and reports of the provincial and territorial electoral boundaries commissions in the decennial process to readjust constituency boundaries after the reports have been forwarded to him by the Chief Electoral Officer. [120] 

Tabling of Documents During Periods of Adjournment or Prorogation

Since 1994, the Standing Orders have contained provisions allowing Ministers during periods of adjournment to deposit once a month with the Clerk of the House, on the Wednesday following the 15th day of any month during the period of adjournment, any returns, reports or other papers required to be laid before the House pursuant to statute, Special Order, or Standing Order of the House, including responses to petitions and to committee reports. [121]  On the first sitting day following the adjournment, these documents are then entered in the Journals as having been deemed tabled on that Wednesday. [122]  However, even if a document is technically due during the adjournment period, a Minister still has the option of waiting until the first sitting day following the adjournment to table it in the House or deposit it with the Clerk. [123] 

As a general principle, a prorogation puts an end to all proceedings pending in Parliament. Sometimes, however, various papers and documents requested by the House (also referred to as returns) cannot be prepared for tabling in the same session in which they were requested. As these papers and documents are obtained either by a direct Order of the House or by an Address to the Governor General, the ordinary effect of a prorogation would be to force a renewal, in the next session, of these Orders and Addresses for which returns are not yet ready. However, pursuant to the Standing Orders of the House, they are considered to have been readopted at the start of the new session without a motion to that effect. [124]  The Speaker has ruled that outstanding responses to committee reports and to petitions are also given the status of returns ordered by the House and therefore would be tabled in the House in the new session. [125] 

Tabling of Documents After a Dissolution

After a dissolution, the Clerk of the House does not accept in advance for tabling in the next Parliament any returns, reports or other papers required to be tabled pursuant to an Act of Parliament or a resolution or Standing Order of the House. During the period when Parliament is dissolved, however, Ministers or government departments may authorize the release of any return, report or other paper required to be laid before the House. When the new Parliament opens, returns, reports and papers are tabled as required by Ministers on the opening day of Parliament. [126] 

Statements by Ministers

The second rubric under Routine Proceedings is “Statements by Ministers”. Under this rubric, Ministers make announcements or statements on government policy or matters of national interest. [127]  Following the ministerial statement, a spokesperson from each recognized party in opposition is permitted to respond. [128] 

Historical Perspective

This rubric is of recent origin, though the practice of receiving statements from Ministers has been well established for years. At Confederation, no provision existed in the written rules for the kind of ministerial statements that are now possible. Nonetheless, beginning in 1867, Ministers rose from time to time just before Orders of the Day to make presentations on matters of government policy or public interest. [129]  In addition, until at least 1915, Prime Ministers frequently made statements to explain changes in the membership of the Cabinet. [130]  Representatives of the opposition parties routinely responded to policy statements, while ministerial changes traditionally elicited comments from the Leader of the Opposition.

As the number of policy statements increased, House practice became more defined; by the early 1950s it had become customary to allow only party leaders to respond to the statements. By 1959, not only had the practice reverted from allowing responses only from party leaders to allowing responses from one speaker from each of the opposition parties, but statements took place under the rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings, instead of just before Orders of the Day. A further modification to the practice occurred that year when the Speaker advised the House that he considered unacceptable any opposition responses which “went beyond the length of the statement itself …”. [131] 

In 1964, a Standing Order was adopted both to formalize the tradition of making statements under “Motions” and to provide guidelines by which the procedure could be regulated. The new rule allowed for factual pronouncements of government policy which did not provoke debate. It also codified the existing practice of responses by opposition parties. [132]  This last aspect of the rule later provoked a discussion on the question of what constituted a party for the purposes of the Standing Order, with some Members citing the Senate and House of Commons Act (now known as the Parliament of Canada Act) which provided additional allowances to leaders of parties with more than 12 Members. In the end, the Speaker concluded that, until the House defined more precisely who could respond to a ministerial statement, the Chair would be guided by practice, which had long allowed each party, but not independent Members, an opportunity to comment on ministerial statements. [133] 

These guidelines remained in effect until 1975 when, on the recommendation of a procedure committee, the way in which ministerial statements were commented upon was modified to allow both comments by opposition representatives and questions by Members in general. At the same time, the Speaker was given full discretion in limiting the time taken up by such proceedings, which would now be conducted under a newly created item in Routine Proceedings called “Statements by Ministers”. [134]  In the beginning, the new procedure worked well, although before long it became lengthy and difficult to regulate — so much so that the making of policy statements and announcements in the House fell into disuse in order, it seems, to preserve valuable House time for other government business. [135]  Following the recommendations of two special committees examining procedural reforms in the early and mid-1980s, the House made several changes to the conduct of “Statements by Ministers”. Rules were introduced to encourage Ministers to make public through the House any announcements of government policy by eliminating the “mini-question period” that generally followed a statement, permitting only a comment by a representative of each opposition party. [136]  These changes were finally adopted on a provisional basis in June 1985 and in February 1986, and made permanent in June 1987. [137]  The new rules also adjusted the schedule of the sitting so as to preserve the amount of time reserved for Government Orders and Private Members’ Business, by extending the sitting if necessary beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment by the amount of time taken by the statement. [138] 

Guidelines

During “Statements by Ministers”, Ministers are expected to make brief and factual statements on government policy or announcements of national interest. [139]  Only Members speaking on behalf of parties recognized by the House are permitted to speak in response to a Minister’s statement. [140]  However, with the unanimous consent of the House, other Members have been allowed to respond. [141]  In responding to the statement, Members are not permitted to engage in debate or ask questions of the Minister. [142]  The length of each response may not exceed the length of the Minister’s statement; Members who exceed this length are interrupted by the Speaker. [143]  The rules provide no explicit limitation of time allotted to the Minister or the overall time to be taken for these proceedings, although the duration of the proceedings can be limited at the discretion of the Chair. [144] 

A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside of the House instead of making a statement in the House during Routine Proceedings has been raised as a question of privilege, but the Chair has consistently found there to be no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached. [145] 

It is customary that as a courtesy, a Minister advises opposition critics in advance of his or her intention to make a statement in the House. However, should no such warning be given, custom does not prohibit the Minister from making a statement. [146] 

The length of time taken up by a Minister’s statement and opposition replies is added to the time provided for government business on the day on which the statement is made. Accordingly, the hour for Private Members’ Business, where applicable, and the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, including the Adjournment Proceedings, may be delayed. [147] 

Presenting Reports from Inter-Parliamentary Delegations

“Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations” is the third rubric under Routine Proceedings. This rubric was created in 1986 following a recommendation of a special committee to provide a means by which inter-parliamentary delegations could report their work to the House. [148] 

Members frequently travel abroad or within Canada on officially recognized inter-parliamentary delegations as representatives of both the House and Parliament. An officially recognized inter-parliamentary delegation is a delegation, composed in whole or in part of Members of the House, which has either been appointed and funded by the Speaker or by a recognized parliamentary association to represent the House or that association at an official inter-parliamentary activity either in Canada or abroad.

A parliamentary association is an international association, whose Canadian component is composed of both Members and Senators, which provides a forum for the exchange of ideas and information and for the sharing of knowledge and experience through person-to-person contact. [149]  The main activities of these associations include exchanges, conferences and seminars on various subjects. The Canadian Parliament is a participant in 10 official parliamentary associations:

  • Canada-China Legislative Exchange;
  • Canada-France Inter-parliamentary Association;
  • Canada-Japan Inter-parliamentary Group;
  • Canada-United Kingdom Parliamentary Association;
  • Canada-United States Inter-parliamentary Group;
  • Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF);
  • Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association;
  • Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA);
  • Inter-parliamentary Union (IPU);
  • North Atlantic Assembly (Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association).

These associations choose delegates to participate in and host meetings, seminars and international conferences with counterpart countries. Each association, operating under established constitutions, elects a number of parliamentarians from its membership to form an Executive Committee. Staff support and funding are provided by the Senate and the House of Commons.

In addition to these parliamentary associations, the Canadian Parliament also participates in three formally recognized friendship groups, whose Canadian component is composed of both Members and Senators, established to increase mutual understanding between Canada and another country through bilateral exchanges. The three formally recognized friendship groups are:

  • Canada-Germany Friendship Group;
  • Canada-Israel Friendship Group;
  • Canada-Italy Friendship Group.

Friendship groups receive administrative assistance from the House and Senate but do not receive funds to cover meetings and travel expenses. Their sole source of revenue is membership fees they receive from individual parliamentarians.

Each inter-parliamentary delegation is required to present to the House a report on its activities on any trip taken in fulfillment of its duties, either in Canada or abroad, within 20 sitting days of its return. [150]  The report typically includes the names of the Members who participated on the delegation, the travel dates, and information on the delegation’s activities and on the cost of the trip. When “Presenting Reports from Inter-parliamentary Delegations” is called by the Speaker during Routine Proceedings, the head of the delegation, or a Member acting on his or her behalf, rises and presents the report. [151]  The Member may comment briefly on the content of the report at this time; no debate is permitted. [152]  The Speaker has also presented reports after official visits abroad by parliamentary delegations headed by a presiding officer. [153]  The report is recorded as a sessional paper and as such is open to public scrutiny. [154] No other action is taken.

Presenting Reports from Committees

Any information to be transmitted to the House from standing, special or legislative committees and standing or special joint committees of the House must be presented by way of a report. Committees submit reports on a variety of subjects, including:

  • bills;
  • Estimates;
  • subject matter inquiries;
  • matters concerning the mandate, management and operation of the departments assigned to them;
  • Order-in-Council appointments and nominations;
  • delegated legislation;
  • provisions in statutes requiring a review.

This is done under “Presenting Reports from Committees”, the fourth rubric under Routine Proceedings and one of the four original rubrics provided for in the rules of the House at the time of Confederation. When the Speaker calls this rubric, the committee chair, or in his or her absence a Member of the committee, once recognized by the Speaker, rises in his or her place to present the report and to provide “a succinct explanation of the subject matter of the report”. [155]  If the committee has adopted a motion to request a response from the government to its report, that request is communicated orally at the time. [156]  Provided that a report is tabled in printed format in both official languages, it may also be tabled in alternative forms of media, such as on computer disk, audio cassette, video cassette or CD-ROM, or in Braille or large print. [157]  All related Minutes of Proceedings of the committee are also tabled with the report.

While there is no provision in the rules for the tabling of minority reports, [158]  since April 1991 committees have been permitted to append supplementary or dissenting opinions or recommendations to their reports. [159]  Following the presentation of the report and any statement offered by the chair or presenting Member, a committee member representing the Official Opposition, speaking on behalf of those who support the opinions expressed in the appended material, may provide a brief explanation of these views. [160]  No other Member may comment on the report at this time. [161] 

A motion to concur in a committee report may be moved during Routine Proceedings under “Motions”, following the 48-hour written notice requirement. However, after presenting a report, usually on a non-controversial matter, a committee chair may advise that he or she intends to move concurrence in it later in the sitting, with the unanimous consent of the House. When “Motions” is called, the chair rises and seeks the unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence. If requested, a Table Officer will typically read the report aloud because printed copies of the report are not readily available to Members in the House. [162]  Concurrence is often granted without debate.

Further information on committee reports is found in Chapter 20, “Committees”.

Introduction of Government Bills

“Introduction of Government Bills” comes immediately after the presentation of committee reports. Prior to June 1987, all public bills sponsored either by the government or private Members were introduced under the rubric “Introduction of Bills”. As a result of amendments to the Standing Orders, the rubric was divided into “Introduction of Government Bills” and “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills”. [163] 

Legislation emanating from the Ministry is first presented for the consideration of the House during Routine Proceedings under this rubric. Following a minimum 48-hour notice period, [164]  any public bill sponsored by the government is placed on the Order Paper in chronological order. When “Introduction of Government Bills” is called by the Speaker, the Minister wishing to introduce a bill signals his or her desire to proceed with the bill (advance notice having been given to the Chair of the Minister’s desire to introduce a bill), thereupon the Speaker proposes the motion for leave to introduce the bill. The following formula is used: “(name of Minister), seconded by (name of Member), moves for leave to introduce a bill intitled: ‘An Act to …’.” [165]  A motion for leave to introduce a bill is deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put. [166]  After the motion has been agreed to, the Minister may give a succinct explanation of the bill. [167] 

Immediately after the motion for leave to introduce a bill is adopted, the Speaker proposes to the House that the bill be read a first time and be printed. [168]  This motion is also deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put. [169]  A Table Officer then rises and declares, “First reading of this bill/Première lecture de ce projet de loi”. [170]  The Speaker completes the process by routinely asking, “When shall the bill be read a second time?” and responds “At the next sitting of the House.” The House agrees to this without the adoption of a motion. [171]  The expression “next sitting of the House”, when used to state the time that a question is ordered to stand over, means the bill is placed on the Order Paper in its proper place for a second reading at a future sitting according to the precedence given to it by the Standing Orders, the government determining the order in which government legislation is called. No bill can be read a second time on the same day as introduction and first reading without a special order or the unanimous consent of the House. [172]  Following first reading, the bill is then placed on the Order Paper under “Orders of the Day” for a second reading at some future sitting of the House. The one exception to this rule is for the passage of appropriation bills at all stages on the last allotted day in a Supply period. [173] 

A government bill may only be introduced by a Minister. A government bill standing on the Order Paper in one Minister’s name may be moved on his or her behalf by another Minister since the bill is considered an initiative of the entire Cabinet. [174]  If the Minister does not wish to introduce the bill when the rubric is called, the bill remains on the Order Paper for introduction and first reading at a later date. Although the usual practice is for the government to have a Minister second a motion to introduce a government bill, it is not mandatory; [175]  another Member may be chosen as the seconder for a bill.

Introduction of Private Members’ Bills

Any public bill sponsored by a Member who is not a Minister may be introduced under this rubric. This rubric was created in June 1987 when “Introduction of Bills” was divided into “Introduction of Government Bills” and “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills”. [176]  The procedures here are exactly the same as for bills introduced by the government under the previous rubric: the notice period is the same; [177]  the Speaker reads the rubric “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills” from the Order Paper; a Member wishing to introduce a bill signals his or her desire to proceed at that point. If the Member is not in the House or is not ready to introduce the bill, the bill remains on the Order Paper. However, with the unanimous consent of the House, a Member other than the sponsor of the bill may move the introduction of the bill on behalf of the sponsor. [178]  After the Speaker identifies a seconder for the bill, the motion for leave to introduce is deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put. [179]  Where a Minister generally foregoes the opportunity of commenting briefly on a bill at this stage, a private Member will invariably do so. [180]  The Chair may interrupt the explanation if the Member is engaging in debate. [181] 

After the Member has commented briefly on the bill, the Speaker proposes to the House that the bill be read a first time and printed. This motion is also deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put. [182]  A Table Officer then rises and declares, “First reading of this bill/Première lecture de ce projet de loi”. The bill is then placed on the Order Paper under “Private Members’ Business” where it is set down for a second reading. [183]

First Reading of Senate Public Bills

Under Routine Proceedings, “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” comes after “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills” and before “Motions”. Prior to 1910, public bills emanating from the Senate were read a first time under the rubric “Motions”. The rubric “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” was created in April 1910 and immediately followed “Introduction of Bills”. [184] 

When a Senate public bill has been passed by the Senate, a message is sent so informing the House and requesting its concurrence in the measure. This message is received by the Clerk of the House, and the Speaker makes the announcement of its contents at the first convenient opportunity. [185]  The Speaker reads the message, stating, “I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that it has passed the following bill to which the concurrence of the House is desired: An Act to …”. There is no need for a motion for leave to introduce the bill since it is already available in printed form. The bill is then placed on the Order Paper under the heading “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” in Routine Proceedings[186] 

If the Member or Minister [187]  sponsoring the bill in the House of Commons signals his or her desire to proceed with the bill when the rubric “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” is called by the Chair during Routine Proceedings, the question,“That this bill be now read a first time”, is deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put. [188]  Since a Senate public bill is already printed when it is introduced in the House, there is no need to order that it be printed again. If the Member or Minister sponsoring the bill in the House is not present or is not ready to move first reading of the bill when the rubric is called, then the bill remains on the Order Paper for first reading at a later sitting. In the case of private Members’ bills, with the unanimous consent of the House, a Member other than the sponsor of the bill may move first reading of the bill on behalf of the sponsor; in the case of government bills, a bill standing in the name of one Minister may be moved on his or her behalf by another Minister. If no Member chooses to sponsor a bill emanating from the Senate, no further action is taken following the reading of the message from the Senate. The bill remains on the Order Paper under “First Reading of Senate Public Bills”.

After the motion for first reading is adopted, the Speaker routinely asks, “When shall the bill be read a second time? At the next sitting of the House?” The House agrees to this without a formal motion and the order for second reading is placed on the Order Paper under Government Orders if the bill is sponsored by a Minister, [189]  or under “Private Members’ Business” at the bottom of the list in the Order of Precedence if the bill is sponsored by a private Member. [190]

Motions

“Motions” was one of four rubrics provided for in Routine Proceedings at the time of Confederation. [191]  Over the years, various kinds of motions, once considered under this rubric, have been categorized and assigned their own place in the Daily Program, including private Members’ motions, motions to introduce bills, and motions to adjourn under Standing Order 52 (emergency debates). For example, until 1906, bills were introduced under this rubric. [192]  And it was only in 1964 that the House adopted a new Standing Order to provide a separate rubric for ministerial statements which had been taking place under “Motions”. [193]  In 1975, the items under Routine Proceedings were reordered so that “Government Notices of Motions” [194]  and “Motions” were the last two rubrics to be considered each day. By moving “Motions” to the bottom of the list, the House was no longer prevented from reaching other routine items because of lengthy debates. [195]  In 1987, the rubric “Government Notices of Motions” was dropped and the others were reordered to their present form. [196] 

Different categories of business have developed over the years in response to the need to adapt to the organization of House business. Some categories are now uniquely reserved for the government or the opposition, some are reserved for private Members, and still others are reserved for items which affect the transaction of routine business of the House. As a general rule, motions dealing with matters of substance or government policy are moved either by Ministers under Government Orders or private Members under Private Members’ Business. The kinds of motions permissible under “Motions” has been narrowed to consist primarily of motions for concurrence in committee reports and motions relating to the sittings and proceedings of the House. [197] 

The Chair has consistently ruled that any motion pertaining to the arrangement of the business of the House should be introduced by the Government House Leader [198]  and may be considered under “Motions” or under Government Orders, depending on where the Minister giving notice has decided to place it. [199]  The Chair has also ruled that while the rubric “Motions” “usually encompasses matters related to the management of the business of the House and its committees, it is not the exclusive purview of the government, despite the government’s unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House”. [200]  Accordingly, the Chair accepts certain motions put on notice by private Members for consideration under the rubric “Motions”, such as motions of instruction to committees and for concurrence in committee reports. [201]  When private Members give written notice of other substantive matters, these motions are placed under “Private Members’ Business” on the Order Paper[202] 

When the Speaker calls “Motions” during Routine Proceedings, any Member or Minister may rise and move a motion, if it has been placed on the Notice Paper 48 hours in advance. Otherwise, a Member or Minister must seek unanimous consent to move the motion. [203]  If a Member or a Minister who has given notice of a motion is not in the House or does not wish to move it, the matter will stand on the Order Paper until a subsequent sitting.

The motions which are considered under this rubric are often moved without notice by unanimous consent and adopted without debate. Examples of motions moved under this rubric include those to:

  • manage the proceedings and business of the House or its committees; [204] 
  • change the order of business of the House; [205] 
  • arrange the times or days of sitting of the House; [206] 
  • amend the Standing Orders; [207] 
  • suspend the Standing Orders; [208] 
  • discharge an Order of the House; [209] 
  • concur in a committee report; [210] 
  • authorize a committee to travel; [211] 
  • establish a special committee; [212] 
  • instruct a committee to do something; [213] 
  • alter the membership of a committee; [214] 
  • appoint officers of the House (such as the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Privacy Commissioner, the Chief Electoral Officer and the Information Commissioner); [215] 
  • extend messages to another country; [216]  and
  • censure Chair occupants. [217] 

Although motions of congratulations have been moved under this rubric, the Speaker has warned against this practice. [218] 

After a motion has been read to the House by the Chair, debate begins and amendments may be moved to it; the normal rules of debate apply. During debate, if a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day is moved and adopted, the motion being debated would be superseded and dropped from the Order Paper[219]  When debate on any motion considered during Routine Proceedings is adjourned [220]  or interrupted (either by the normal adjournment of the sitting on Mondays, for “Statements by Members” on Tuesdays and Thursdays, or for Private Members’ Business on Wednesdays and Fridays), [221]  the order for resumption of the debate is transferred to Government Orders. [222]  The motion will be considered again only under Government Orders in such sequence as the government determines. [223] 

Motions for Concurrence in Committee Reports

Motions that call for concurrence in committee reports are listed under “Motions” on the Order Paper after a 48-hour notice period. Any Member may give notice of a motion for concurrence in a committee report, and more than one Member may give notice of a motion to concur in the same committee report. [224]  Generally, the Chair of the committee will give notice of a motion to concur in a report of his or her committee and move the motion. However, as with any notice of motion not sponsored by a Minister, the Member who placed the notice on the Order Paper is the only one who may move the motion. In the absence of the sponsor, another Member may move the motion on the sponsor’s behalf only with the unanimous consent of the House. [225] 

As noted above, such a motion may be moved, without prior notice, with the unanimous consent of the House during the sitting in which the committee report is presented. [226]  Normally, the Member presenting the report states that he or she will seek the leave of the House to move concurrence in the report later that day when the rubric “Motions” is called; the report of the committee may be considered, with leave of the House, at that time. These reports often pertain to the powers, sittings or membership of a committee and are typically adopted without debate.

Routine Motions for Which Unanimous Consent Has Been Denied

A rule adopted in April 1991 allows the House to consider any routine motion for which written notice has not been provided and whose presentation requires, but has not been granted, unanimous consent. [227]  A routine motion is defined in the Standing Orders as one “which may be required for the observance of the proprieties of the House, the maintenance of its authority, the management of its business, the arrangement of its proceedings, the establishing of the powers of its committees, the correctness of its records or the fixing of its sitting days or the times of itsmeetings or adjournment”. [228]  When consent has previously been denied for the moving of such a motion, a Minister may rise under the rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings to request that the Speaker propose the question to the House. [229]  The Chair puts the question without debate or amendment. [230]  The Speaker then asks those opposed to the motion to rise in their places. If 25 Members or more rise to object, the motion is deemed withdrawn; [231]  otherwise, the motion is adopted. [232]  Since 1991, motions proposed pursuant to this Standing Order have fixed the hours of sitting of the House, dealt with the adjournment of the House and the management of its business, and authorized certain committees to travel.

Presenting Petitions

A Member wishing to present petitions in the House may do so in one of two ways: at any time during a sitting of the House, a Member may file a petition with the Clerk of the House who enters it into the Journals for that sitting day; [233]  or a Member may present the petition in the House during Routine Proceedings when “Presenting Petitions” is called by the Speaker. [234]  Before being presented, a petition must be examined and certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions. [235]  If the petition meets the requirements specified in the rules of the House, a Member, after being recognized by the Chair under this rubric during Routine Proceedings, presents the petition and gives a brief statement to inform the House of its content.

The period provided for the presentation of petitions is not to exceed 15 minutes. [236]  The Speaker recognizes a Member only once during “Presenting Petitions”; if a Member has more than one petition to present, he or she must present them all when given the floor. [237]  In his or her statement, the Member may summarize the prayer (or request) of the petition, state the parties from whom it comes and the number of signatures it contains. [238]  The Member may not make a speech or enter into debate on or in relation to the petition. [239]  The petition itself is not read. [240] 

Historical Perspective

For the first 40 years of Confederation, the only method available to Members for presenting a petition was for them to rise during Routine Proceedings under a rubric called “Presenting Petitions”. In 1910, substantial changes were made to the rules on petitions. The rubric “Presenting Petitions” was removed from Routine Proceedings and Members wishing to present petitions from their places did so before “Introduction of Bills”. A second procedure, copied from Great Britain, was also adopted to allow Members merely to file their petitions with the Clerk of the House during the hours of sitting. [241]  The rules respecting the presentation of petitions remained intact until 1986 when the rubric “Presenting Petitions” was restored to Routine Proceedings. [242]  However, on occasion, the presentation of petitions took up long periods of House time, thus preventing the House from reaching other business. [243]  This led, in part, to changes in 1987 to the order of the rubrics under Routine Proceedings; “Presenting Petitions” is now the second to last rubric considered. [244]  In 1991, the period for presenting petitions was restricted to 15 minutes to prevent Members from using petitions as a means to delay the House from proceeding to other routine business and the Orders of the Day. [245] 

A number of conditions, conventions and practices apply to the certification and presentation of petitions. These matters as well as the history of presenting petitions in the House are examined in detail in Chapter 22, “Public Petitions”.

Questions on the Order Paper

This is the last rubric considered during the daily routine of business. The rules of the House have always provided a mechanism for responses to written questions. [246] However, between 1867 and 1975, the rubric “Questions on the Order Paper” was not necessarily considered on each sitting day for two reasons. At one time, the rubric had precedence over the Orders of the Day only on certain days of the week and, on the other days, the House typically never reached the rubric. At other times, the rules provided for the rubric to be called only on certain days of the week, such as Mondays and Wednesdays. After 1975, a rule change ensured that the House would reach this rubric daily; indeed, it was the first item of business every day following the daily routine of business and before the Orders of the Day were called. [247]  In June 1987, as a result of amendments to the Standing Orders, the rubric “Questions on the Order Paper” was added to the list of items considered during Routine Proceedings. [248] 

Members may place on notice no more than four questions “relating to public affairs” at any one time to a Minister. [249]  A Member may ask the government to respond to a specific question within 45 calendar days by so indicating when filing the question; [250]  a Member may also ask that an oral answer be provided by attaching an asterisk to no more than three questions. [251]  After the notice requirement has been fulfilled, the question appears on the Order Paper.

When “Questions on the Order Paper” is called during Routine Proceedings, a Minister, or more usually the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader, rises in his or her place to announce which questions the government intends to answer on that particular day. The government may answer written questions in one of two ways. First, the Parliamentary Secretary may simply indicate to the House the number of the question being answered, [252]  and the text of the answer appears in the Debates of that day as if the Minister to whom the question was directed had actually stood in the House and given a full reply. [253]  If an oral reply has been requested, the Parliamentary Secretary may give the answer orally, or may seek the consent of the House to deem the question answered without actually reading aloud the text of the answer; the answer will be printed in the Debates[254]  The second method is that the government may request the House to transform a certain question into an “order for return”; that is, the House orders the government to table a document which will serve as a response to the question. This is normally done when the reply is too lengthy to be easily printed in the Debates. If there is agreement from the House to proceed in this way, the tabled response is filed with the Clerk as a sessional paper, open to public scrutiny; the text of the response does not appear in the Debates[255]  If there is no agreement, the government would proceed to read the answer in the case of a starred question; in the case of a request for tabling, the government may choose not to proceed with the question on that day [256]  or have the Minister table the answer under “Tabling of Documents”.

After the designated Parliamentary Secretary or Minister has enumerated the questions which are to be answered on a given day, he or she will then ask the House to stand the remaining unanswered questions. This permits the questions to retain their position on theOrder Paper; otherwise the unanswered questions would be struck from the Order Paper[257] 

It is at this time that Members raise any concerns they have about their questions, typically seeking information about the status of the reply. If a Member has requested that a question be answered within 45 days and it remains unanswered after that time, he or she may rise during “Questions on the Order Paper” and give notice of his or her intention to transfer the question and raise the matter during the Adjournment Proceedings of the House. [258]  The question is then removed from the Order Paper.

Procedures regarding written questions and responses to them are examined in greater detail in Chapter 11, “Questions”.

Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers

The rubric “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” is called only on Wednesday. It is considered as the final item of Routine Proceedings following the rubric “Questions on the Order Paper”. Ministers are required by statute to table various documents relating to their departmental responsibilities (see section in this chapter on “Tabling of Documents”). On occasion, however, a Member may want to see papers that are not required by law to be tabled. In such instances, the Member may place on theNotice Paper notice of a special type of motion requesting that the government compile or produce certain papers or documents and table them in the House. After the 48-hour notice requirement, such notices of motions are transferred to the Order Paper under the rubric “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers”.

Historical Perspective

In the early years of Confederation, motions for papers were treated in the same way as other private Members’ motions. They were called only on private Members’ days and had priority only according to the date on which they were put on the Order Paper. Because the House rarely considered these motions, a custom developed whereby motions for papers were called by consent and passed in a block.

In 1910, a new procedure for obtaining papers was introduced. [259]  A mechanism was created to allow any Member to move a motion for the production of papers without debate. This was done under “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers”, which had precedence over the existing rubric “Notices of Motion”. Notices of motions for the production of papers were disposed of at once when called. If a Member or Minister wished to have a debate on a motion, it would be transferred for debate under “Notices of Motions”.

In 1955, an amendment to the Standing Orders listed “Notices of Motions for the Productions of Papers” as a rubric formally on the daily agenda of business. It also guaranteed that motions for papers would be reached on days designated as Private Members’ Days. [260] 

Provisional changes to the Standing Orders in 1961, [261]  which were made permanent in 1962, [262]  provided that “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” would be called only on Wednesday at the conclusion of Routine Proceedings. These changes also provided that notices of motions for the production of papers transferred for debate would be listed under a new specific category called “Notices of Motions (Papers)” under Private Members’ Business. This procedure is still being used today, although Members have seldom chosen to place notices of motions (papers) on the Order of Precedence for Private Members&sdquo; Business following the draw. [263] 

Manner in Which Notices Are Called

Notices of motions for the production of papers resemble written questions in that they are requests for information from the government. All such motions are worded in the form of either an Order of the House (“That an Order of the House do issue …”) or an Address to the Crown (“That a humble Address be presented to his/her Excellency praying that he/she will cause to be laid before the House of Commons …”). Thus, a motion, if adopted, becomes either an Order that the government table (“produce”) certain documents in the House or an Address to the Governor General requesting that certain papers be sent to the House. An Order of the House is used for papers concerning matters directly related to federal departments. Addresses are formal messages to the Crown through which the House requests the production of documents in the Crown’s possession, such as correspondence between the federal and other governments, Orders in Council, and papers concerning the administration of justice, the judicial conduct of judges and the exercise of the prerogatives of the Crown. [264]  Motions for papers should be carefully prepared and state clearly and definitely the exact information required. [265]  The Speaker is responsible for ensuring that the motion before the House is in proper form; that is, that it is the appropriate motion to do what is sought to be done. [266] 

When this rubric is called by the Speaker on Wednesday, one of several outcomes may take place for each of the notices of motions called: [267] 

  1. Motion acceptable to government
    A Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary (usually the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader) [268] rises and states that the notice of motion is acceptable to the government. The Speaker then asks the House if it wishes to have the motion deemed adopted. If the House agrees, the motion is carried without debate or amendment. This becomes an order for the government to produce the document (a “return”) either immediately or at a later date. [269]  If the House does not agree, the motion must either be transferred for debate, [270] or be put immediately to the House without debate or amendment.
  2. Motion acceptable to government with reservations
    A Minister or Parliamentary Secretary rises and states that a notice of motion is acceptable to the government subject to certain reservations (e.g., confidentiality). The Speaker then asks the House if it wishes to have the motion deemed adopted. If the House agrees, the motion is carried without debate or amendment. This becomes an order for the government to produce either immediately or at a later date only those papers or documents not subject to the reservation. [271]  If the House does not agree, the motion must either be transferred for debate, [272] or be put immediately to the House without debate or amendment.
  3. Motion not acceptable to government; Member is asked to withdraw the notice
    A Minister or Parliamentary Secretary rises and states that a notice of motion is not acceptable to the government and asks that the Member withdraw the notice. If the Member agrees, the motion is withdrawn. [273]  Otherwise, either the Member sponsoring the item or a Minister may then ask that the motion be transferred for debate. [274]  There have been numerous occasions when the sponsor has not been present in the House, but a request was made anyway to have a notice of motion withdrawn. Logically though, a request to withdraw should be made only when the sponsor is present. In the absence of the sponsor, an alternative way of proceeding would be for a Minister, once a notice of motion is called, to immediately request that it be transferred for debate. When a request to transfer is made, the motion is transferred, without debate or amendment, to a heading on the Order Paper under Private Members’ Business entitled“Notices of Motions (Papers)” on the list of items outside the Order of Precedence. It may be subject to debate at a subsequent time if it is selected by the Member following the draw for the Order of Precedence. If no request is made that the motion once called be transferred for debate, the motion must be put immediately to the House without debate or amendment. [275] 
  4. Member asks that notice be called
    A Member rises and requests the Speaker to call his or her notice of motion. The Member or a Minister may request that it be transferred for debate under Private Members’ Business. [276]  The motion is then transferred, without debate or amendment, to a heading on the Order Paper under Private Members’ Business entitled “Notices of Motions (Papers)” on the list of items outside the Order of Precedence. It may be subject to debate at a subsequent time if it is selected by the Member following the draw for the Order of Precedence. If neither the Member nor the Minister requests that it be transferred for debate, the motion must be put immediately to the House without debate or amendment. If the motion is adopted, it becomes an Order of the House that the document be produced either immediately or at a later date. [277] 
  5. Notices allowed to stand
    A Minister or Parliamentary Secretary rises and asks that all notices of motions be allowed to stand and retain their place on the Order Paper[278]  If some notices have been dealt with, the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary asks that the remaining notices be allowed to stand.

Responses to Orders for the Production of Papers

In 1973, the government tabled in the House of Commons its views on the general principles governing “Notices of Motions for Production of Papers”. [279]  Although not formally approved by the House, these principles have been followed since then: [280] 

General Principle
To enable Members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible consistent with effective administration, the protection of the security of the state, rights to privacy and other such matters, government papers, documents and consultant reports should be produced on Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers unless falling within the categories outlined below, in which case an exemption is to be claimed from production

Exemptions
The following criteria are to be applied in determining if government papers or documents should be exempt from production:

  1. Legal opinion or advice provided for the use of the government;
  2. Papers, the release of which would be detrimental to the security of the State;
  3. Papers dealing with international relations, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of Canada’s foreign relations (the release of papers received from other countries to be subject to the consent of the originating country);
  4. Papers, the release of which might be detrimental to the future conduct of federal-provincial relations or the relations of provinces interse (the release of papers received from provinces to be subject to the consent of the originating province);
  5. Papers containing information, the release of which could allow or result in direct personal financial gain or loss by a person or a group of persons;
  6. Papers reflecting on the personal competence or character of an individual;
  7. Papers of a voluminous character or which would require an inordinate cost or length of time to prepare;
  8. Papers relating to the business of the Senate;
  9. Papers, the release of which would be personally embarrassing to Her Majesty or the Royal Family or official representatives of Her Majesty;
  10. Papers relating to negotiations leading up to a contract until the contract has been executed or the negotiations have been concluded;
  11. Papers that are excluded from disclosure by statute;
  12. Cabinet documents and those documents which include a Privy Council confidence;
  13. Any proceedings before a court of justice or a judicial inquiry of any sort;
  14. Papers that are private or confidential and not of a public or official character;
  15. Internal departmental memoranda;
  16. Papers requested, submitted or received in confidence by the government from sources outside the government.

Ministers’ Correspondence
Ministers’ correspondence of a personal nature, or dealing with constituency or general political matters, should not be identified with government papers and therefore should not be subject to production in the House.

Consultant Studies
In the case of consultant studies, the following guidelines are to be applied:

  1. Consultant studies, the nature of which is identifiable and comparable to work that would be done within the Public Service, should be treated as such (the reports and also the terms of reference) when consideration is being given to their release.
  2. Consultant studies, the nature of which is identifiable and comparable to the kind of investigation of public policy for which the alternative would be a Royal Commission, should be treated as such, and both the terms of reference for such studies and the resulting reports should be produced.
  3. Prior to engaging the services of a consultant, Ministers are to decide in which category the study belongs and in case of doubts are to seek the advice of their colleagues.
  4. Regardless of the decision as to which category (1. or 2. above) the consultant report will belong, the terms of reference and the contract for the consultant study are to ensure that the resulting report comprises two or more volumes, one of which is to be the recommendations while the other volume(s) is(are) to be the facts and the analysis of the study. The purpose of this separation is to facilitate the release of the factual and analytical portions (providing that the material is not covered by the exemptions listed above) enabling the recommendations (which, in the case of studies under category 1., would be exempt from production) to be separated for consideration by Ministers.

Despite these principles enunciated by the government, it is not the role of the Chair to decide which documents must be tabled or if all documents have been tabled. If a Member is not satisfied with the response, the Member may pursue the matter by means of another motion. [281] 

While there is no time limit on Orders to produce papers, if the House has adopted an Order for the production of a document, the Order should be complied with within a reasonable time. [282]  However, the Speaker has no power to determine when documents should be tabled. [283]  A prorogation does not nullify an Order for the production of papers. [284] 

Government Orders

Each sitting day, a substantial portion of the House’s time is devoted to the consideration of Government Orders. It includes any item of business proposed by a Minister for consideration on a certain day.

The rules provide that Government Orders are considered on Monday from 12:00 noon to 2:00 p.m., recommencing following Routine Proceedings until 6:30 p.m. On Tuesday and Thursday, after Routine Proceedings at 10:00 a.m., the House considers Government Orders until 2:00 p.m. and then again following Question Period from 3:00 p.m. to 5:30 p.m., at which time the House considers Private Members’ Business. On Wednesday, after Routine Proceedings and “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers”, Government Orders are taken up until 5:30 p.m. when Private Members’ Business begins. On Friday, Government Orders are considered from 10:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m., at which time the House proceeds to Statements by Members. After Routine Proceedings, the House resumes consideration of Government Orders until 1:30 p.m., when Private Members’ Business begins. [285]  See Figure 10.1 which outlines the daily order of business.

Historical Perspective

Historically, there have been many changes to the rules of the House in order to increase the time available to the government and to reduce the proportion of House time devoted to private bills or to matters brought forward by private Members. In 1867, private bills were debated on Monday and for one hour each Wednesday ad Friday evening, while notices of motions and public bills were considered on Wednesday and Thursday. Only Tuesday and Friday were reserved for government business. [286] 

From 1867 to 1962, the Standing Orders gave precedence to Private Members’ Business on particular days each week. However, successive governments found such a distribution inadequate for the conduct of their own legislative programs and regularly gave precedence to their own business via special or sessional orders. In 1962, the House amended its Standing Orders so that government business could be considered each sitting day; only a select number of hours per week were allocated to Private Members’ Business. [287]  This schedule remained more or less intact until 1982 when the House set aside Wednesday for Private Members’ Business. [288]  In 1983, the House reverted to the practice of considering Government Orders each day. [289]  Today, 23.5 hours a week are set aside for the consideration of government business under normal hours of sitting. [290] 

Orders of the Day

When the Speaker calls “Orders of the Day”, a Table Officer rises and reads out the motion that the House is to consider at that time. [291]  The Orders of the Day are listed in the Order Paper.

The sequence of Government Orders as listed on the Order Paper does not reflect precedence: it is an administrative breakdown showing the different categories of government business or projected government business in chronological sequence. Items eligible for consideration under Government Orders include all the orders made by the House at previous sittings relating to the items of government business then before the House (including, for example, bills introduced and ordered for a second reading, motions which have fulfilled their notice requirements, and any order for resuming debate on an item). These items are listed on the Order Paper under the following headings: Supply Proceedings; Ways and Means Proceedings; Government Bills (Commons); Government Bills (Senate); and Government Business. Full descriptions of these items (Government Business excepted) can be found in Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.

Any item of business proposed by a Minister outside of proceedings on Supply, Ways and Means, and bills is listed under the heading “Government Business”. They typically include, for example, motions to establish special committees, to refer business to committees, to propose a resolution declaratory of some opinion, or to make arrangements for the conduct of the business of the House. In addition to these items, when debate on motions which have been moved under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings is interrupted or adjourned, the motions are transferred to “Government Business”. [292]  They typically include motions for concurrence in committee reports.

When Government Orders is called, any item listed may be brought before the House for consideration. Any item that has been called, and on which debate has begun, must be dealt with until adjourned, interrupted or disposed of. If adjourned or interrupted, the item remains on the Order Paper[293]  If the item is disposed of, by either an affirmative or negative decision of the House, it is removed from the Order Paper.

The business that the House is to consider during Government Orders is determined solely by the government. [294]  On occasions when the Opposition has protested a change in the projected order of business for a specific sitting day, the Chair has reminded Members of the government’s prerogative. [295] 

Information concerning the government’s intention to proceed to a specific Order of the Day is conveyed to the Table through the office of the Government House Leader which provides a projected order of business or agenda of orders (bills and motions) the House is to consider that day. The Government House Leader consults regularly and confidentially with the House Leaders of the other recognized parties in the House about the order of business for each day of the week. A weekly statement concerning the projected order of business is traditionally made on Thursday after Question Period. [296] Any last minute changes or additions to the government’s agenda are relayed directly to the Table by the Government House Leader or his or her Parliamentary Secretary.

Although the government does not select the subject matter to be debated when the House considers a motion moved on an allotted day pursuant to the Business of Supply, it designates which day the item is to be taken up. [297]  The item is considered under Government Orders given that, in moving the motion, a Member of the opposition does so pursuant to the continuing order for Supply moved by the government at the beginning of each session. This order allows the Business of Supply to remain on the agenda for every sitting day of the session thereafter. [298]  On an allotted day, the government cannot put aside the Business of Supply and take up other items of Government Orders until all Supply items listed on that day’s Order Paper have been dealt with. [299] 

Private Members’ Business

Bills and motions sponsored by private Members are taken up individually by the House after several unique requirements are met. (These procedures are discussed in greater detail in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.) The House typically devotes one hour of its time each sitting day to the consideration of Private Members’ Business. [300]  This hour commences at 11:00 a.m. on Monday, 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and 1:30 p.m. on Friday. [301] 

Historical Perspective

From 1867 to 1906, Private Members’ Business had precedence over government business on particular days of the week. [302]  However, by means of special or sessional orders, the House regularly gave precedence to government business. In 1906, the weekly order of business was officially amended so that Thursday ceased to be a private Members’ day four weeks after the start of a session, precedence being given to government business. [303] 

Until 1955, there were few changes to the daily order of business, and the use of special and sessional orders continued to appropriate much of the time set aside for private Members. In 1955, amendments to the Standing Orders formalized the practice of giving precedence to government business and guaranteed private Members six Mondays and two Thursdays per session to conduct their business. [304]  In 1962, the House abandoned the allocation of a certain number of days each session for Private Members’ Business, setting aside instead one hour per day for that purpose. [305]  After the hour for Private Members’ Business was used 40 times per session on Monday, Tuesday, and Wednesday, it would lapse on those days, only taking place thereafter on Thursday and Friday. In 1968, Private Members’ Business was removed from the order of business on Wednesday; the maximum 40 considerations per session for Private Members’ Business was retained for Monday and Tuesday only; thereafter, Private Members’ Business was held only on Thursday and Friday. [306]  This schedule of business remained intact until 1982 when the practice of considering Private Members’ Business one hour each day except Wednesday was replaced by a single Private Members’ Day, on Wednesday. [307]  This meant a reduction of one hour in debating time per week, from four hours to three. In late 1983, the House reverted to the consideration of Private Members’ Business for one hour per day on Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and Friday, without the previous provision for a maximum number of times for consideration on Monday and Tuesday; [308]  this meant that the amount of time provided for private Members actually increased. There were no changes to this arrangement until 1991 when amendments to the Standing Orders added an extra hour to the sitting on Wednesday in order to provide another hour of Private Members’ Business, thus increasing from four to five the number each week. [309] 

Suspension of Private Members’ Hour

Consideration of Private Members’ Business may be suspended on certain occasions, namely:

  • on any day designated for resuming debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne; [310] 
  • on any day designated for the presentation of the Budget Speech if it is scheduled to take place before Private Members’ Hour; [311] 
  • on any day designated for resuming debate on the Budget; [312] 
  • on any day when an emergency debate takes place before Private Members’ Hour; [313] 
  • when a Minister moves a motion on a matter the government considers to be of an urgent nature, and that debate takes place in the time normally provided for Private Members’ Business; [314]  and
  • on the last allotted day of the Supply period ending June 23, except for Monday when Private Members’ Business takes place at the beginning of the sitting. [315] 

Because Members must be aware of when particular items are expected to be called for consideration, the Standing Orders require the Speaker to ensure that Members are given at least 24 hours’ notice of which item is to be considered during Private Members’ Hour on the next sitting day. [316]  This notification must be published in the Notice Paper.

A Member whose motion or bill is scheduled for consideration during Private Members’ Hour and who is unable to be present that day to move the motion may notify the Speaker in writing 48 hours in advance. The Speaker has the authority to arrange an exchange with another item on the Order of Precedence with the permission of the Members involved and Private Members’ Hour proceeds as usual. [317]  Should such an exchange be impossible, Private Members’ Business is suspended for the day, and the House continues with the business previously before it. [318]  Should this occur on Monday, the House would then begin consideration of Government Orders at 11:00 a.m. instead of at 12:00 noon. [319] 

The Standing Orders also provide that if the Speaker were unable to notify the House at least 24 hours in advance of the item to be considered, then Private Members’ Business would be suspended and the House would continue with the business before it. [320]  Should this occur on Monday, the sitting would then commence at 11:00 a.m. with Government Orders.

When Private Members’ Hour is reached, should a Member be unable to move his or her scheduled item when called, then Private Members’ Business is suspended for that day. On Monday, the sitting is suspended until 12:00 noon, at which time the House commences with Government Orders. [321]  On Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the sitting is suspended until the Adjournment Proceedings. When this occurs on Friday, the Speaker adjourns the House. [322] 

Finally, as much of Private Members’ Hour is suspended as necessary on Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday and Friday to allow the House to continue Routine Proceedings until the completion of ’Introduction of Government Bills’. [323] 

Private Members’ Business may be delayed or interrupted for a number of reasons. Should this occur, the debate on the item of business is then extended or rescheduled to another time. [324]  For example, if consideration of Private Members’ Business is delayed because of a recorded division, [325]  or a ministerial statement, [326]  or Royal Assent, or due to an emergency alarm, then Private Members’ Hour is extended by a corresponding amount of time. [327]  If the delay or interruption extends 30 minutes or more beyond the ordinary ending of Private Members’ Hour, the Speaker will add the remaining time or the entire hour to another sitting. [328]  The rescheduled debate takes place within 10 sitting days, usually after the ordinary hour of daily adjournment; 24 hours’ notice is given. [329] 

Adjournment Proceedings

The final category of business conducted on a sitting day is the Adjournment Proceedings. A 30-minute period is set aside for Members to seek further information from the government on questions raised. (For further details, see Chapter 11, “Questions”.)

In a review of the Standing Orders in 1964, the House adopted a procedure committee proposal for the first-ever Standing Order to regulate Question Period. At the same time, the House agreed to the committee’s suggestion that a rule on the Adjournment Proceedings be adopted to complement the Question Period Standing Order. The committee proposed a procedure whereby any Member who felt dissatisfied with an answer given by the government to his or her question during Question Period could give notice that he or she wished to speak further on the subject matter of the question during the Adjournment Proceedings. [330]  In addition, since 1991, any Member concerned that a written question he or she submitted for the Order Paper has remained unanswered after 45 calendar days may give notice of his or her intention to transfer the question to the Adjournment Proceedings. [331]  The question is then removed from the Order Paper and the Member’s name is placed on a list along with the names of other Members who have given notice of their intention to proceed in the Adjournment Proceedings.

At the conclusion of the sitting, from 6:30 to 7:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved and seconded, and a debate ensues for a maximum of 30 minutes. [332]  During this period, up to five topics may be debated. The Speaker must have indicated to the House, at no later than 5:00 p.m., which matter or matters are to be raised. [333]  Debate on any one item can last no more than six minutes. [334]  Within this six-minute time frame, the Member raising the matter may speak no longer than four minutes with the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary speaking in response thereto for no longer than two minutes. [335]  Points of order and questions of privilege may not be raised during this period. After 30 minutes or upon completion of debate, whichever comes first, the motion to adjourn is deemed to have been adopted, and the House is ad-journed to the next sitting day. [336]  (On Friday and on days where there are no questions scheduled for debate during the Adjournment Proceedings, the Speaker adjourns the House at the conclusion of the sitting.)

Suspension or Delay of the Proceedings

The Adjournment Proceedings may be suspended on certain occasions, namely when the sitting has been extended for an emergency debate, [337]  on the day designated for the Budget presentation, [338]  or on any day when the House continues to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the election of a Speaker. [339]  The Adjournment Proceedings may be delayed when a sitting is extended due to a ministerial statement [340]  or when Private Members’ Business has been extended on the second sitting day set aside for the consideration of the report and third reading stages of a bill. [341]  The Adjournment Proceedings may also be delayed on the last allotted day in the Supply periods ending December 10, March 26 and June 23. [342]  If a motion has been adopted to extend the hours of sitting during the last 10 sitting days in June, the Adjournment Proceedings are delayed until the agreed upon hour of adjournment. [343]  If a motion has been adopted to continue a sitting pursuant to Standing Order 26, the Adjournment Proceedings take place at the conclusion of the sitting. [344]  On other occasions, when the sitting of the House has been extended for the consideration of legislation or for a special debate, the House has opted to preserve the adjournment debate at its normal time; after the adjournment debate has concluded, instead of being automatically adopted, the motion to adjourn the House has been deemed withdrawn. [345]  The Adjournment Proceedings have been interrupted by Royal Assent and resumed upon the return of the House from the Senate following the ceremony. [346] 

Weekly Business Statement

Each Thursday, after Question Period, the Speaker recognizes the House Leader of the Official Opposition, or his or her representative, to ask the Government House Leader, or his or her representative, about the government business to be considered by the House in the succeeding days or week. The Government House Leader then proceeds to outline for the House what business the government intends to bring forward. [347]  This practice is commonly known as the “Business Statement” or the “Thursday Statement”. The weekly business statement is not referred to in the Standing Orders but is permitted subject to the discretion of the Chair, the government being under no procedural obligation to announce to the House in advance which items of business it intends to call or when. [348]  Furthermore, the government is not bound by anything said in the weekly business statement. [349] 

The weekly business statement was inaugurated on September 23, 1968, when the then President of the Privy Council, in announcing the business the government intended to call the following day, stated that a new practice would begin whereby on every Thursday the government would outline its intentions for the forthcoming week and then respond to questions. [350]  Prior to this, it had been the custom of the Government House Leader to announce, at the close of each sitting day, the business to be considered the next day. [351] 

The Chair has stressed on many occasions that the time provided for this statement should not be used by Members as an opportunity to engage in negotiations or debate. [352]  The Chair has also not been inclined to consider the question of House business at any time other than on a Thursday during a week of regularly scheduled sittings. [353]  On occasion, the Government House Leader has used this period to request the unanimous consent of the House to propose, without notice, motions related to the business of the House. [354] 

[1] 
Standing Order 30(6).
[2] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[3] 
Standing Order 30(1). The reading of the prayer is considered the first stage of the proceedings of the House (Debates, February 19, 1877, p. 94). Objection has been raised in the House that the practice of reciting prayers is in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response, the Speaker noted that it was not for the Chair to rule on the constitutionality of this practice or make any decision concerning the laws of the nation. The Speaker further stated that the jurisdiction of the Chair extended only to decisions concerning the procedural rules, and if any changes were contemplated regarding the practice of prayers, it was a matter for the House and not the Chair to decide (Debates, June 19, 1990, pp. 12927-9).
[4] 
Standing Order 30(2) states: “Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House shall commence.” This excludes any private business that may have to be conducted in camera before the doors are opened to the public. This Standing Order came into force in 1975 and has not been amended since (see Item No. 9 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399)). Although not recently, there have been occasions, following prayers but before the public was allowed into the galleries, when the House has met in camera to discuss internal matters or matters of privilege (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 219). See also Debates, February 19, 1877, p. 94. References to in camera discussions can be found in Debates, December 6, 1867, p. 199; December 19, 1867, p. 317; and Journals, April 16, 1929, p. 245. See a related discussion in Debates, April 12, 1929, pp. 1508-11.
[5] 
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 330, 333.
[6] 
Journals, February 13, 1877, p. 26. See also Debates, February 12, 1877, pp. 26-8.
[7] 
Journals, February 19, 1877, p. 42.
[8] 
Debates, February 19, 1877, p. 94. Although not specified in the report, when two sittings occur on the same day, the prayer must be read at the opening of each (see Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 216).
[9] 
See Debates, November 12, 1957, p. 991; April 21, 1978, p. 4734; Item Nos. 16 and 17 of the Tenth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on September 30, 1983 (Journals, p. 6250); Item No. 7.12 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[10] 
See Debates, February 1, 1944, p. 65; Item No. 15 of the Tenth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on September 30, 1983 (Journals, p. 6250); Item No. 7.12 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[11] 
Debates, November 9, 1976, p. 881; November 10, 1976, pp. 939-40.
[12] 
On March 19, 1984, for example, the sitting was suspended and resumed the following day. That sitting ended at 11:30 a.m. on March 20 and was immediately followed by the opening of the next sitting. The public was in the galleries when the prayer was read since the galleries had remained opened (see Debates, March 19, 1984, pp. 2219-21; March 20, 1984, p. 2223). See also Debates, February 21, 1994, p. 1581, when the Speaker requested the “agreement” of the House to read the prayer in public.
[13]
The text of the prayer was as follows:
O Lord our heavenly Father, high and mighty, King of kings, Lord of lords, the only Ruler of princes, who dost from thy throne behold all the dwellers upon earth: Most heartily we beseech thee with thy favour to behold our most gracious Sovereign Lady, Queen Elizabeth; and so replenish her with the grace of thy Holy Spirit that she may always incline to thy will and walk in thy way; Endue her plenteously with heavenly gifts: grant her in health and wealth long to live; strengthen her that she may vanquish and overcome all her enemies; and finally, after this life, she may attain everlasting joy and felicity; through Jesus Christ our Lord — Amen.
Almighty God, the fountain of all goodness, we humbly beseech thee to bless Elizabeth the Queen Mother, the Prince Philip, Duke of Edinburgh, Charles, Prince of Wales, and all the Royal Family: Endue them with thy Holy Spirit; enrich them with thy Heavenly Grace; prosper them with all happiness; and bring them to thine everlasting kingdom; through Jesus Christ our Lord — Amen.
Most gracious God, we humbly beseech thee, as for the United Kingdom, Canada and Her Majesty’s other Realms and Territories, so especially for Canada, and herein more particularly for the Governor General, the Senate, and the House of Commons, in their legislative capacity at this time assembled; that thou wouldst be pleased to direct and prosper all their consultations, to the advancement of thy glory, the safety, honour, and welfare of our Sovereign and Her Realms and Territories, that all things may be so ordered and settled by their endeavours, upon the best and surest foundations, that peace and happiness, truth and justice, religion and piety, may be established among us for all generations. These, and all other necessaries for them, and us, we humbly beg in the name, and through the mediation of Jesus Christ, our most blessed Lord and Saviour — Amen. Our Father who art in heaven, Hallowed by thy Name. Thy Kingdom come. Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven. Give us this day our daily bread; And forgive us our trespasses, as we forgive those who trespass against us. And lead us not into temptation. But deliver us from evil — Amen.
A shorter version of the prayer was initiated by Speaker Sauvé in the early 1980s; there is no record of the change in the Journals or the Debates, nor is there any indication that objections were raised.
[14] 
For examples of the House being informed of changes in reference to royalty, see Journals, March 22, 1957, p. 303; July 28, 1958, p. 311.
[15] 
On February 18, 1994, the House concurred in the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, which contained the text of the new prayer. See Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 15, 1994, Issue No. 3, pp. 5, 12; Debates, February 18, 1994, pp. 1559-60, 1563-5.
[16] 
Debates, February 21, 1994, p. 1581.
[17] 
Debates, February 19, 1877, pp. 94-6.
[18] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 215-6.
[19] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 216.
[20] 
Standing Order 2.
[21] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 88-9.
[22] 
See, for example, Journals, October 9, 1979, p. 11; April 14, 1980, p. 11; November 5, 1984, p. 10. Neither the Journals nor the Debates makes reference to the prayer before the House proceeded to the Senate for the opening of Parliament on December 12, 1988. In 1994 and 1997, the Speaker was elected the day prior to the opening of Parliament; the prayer was read on the day Parliament opened (Journals, January 18, 1994, p. 14; September 23, 1997, p. 11).
[23] 
Members wishing to lead the House in the singing of the anthem advise the Speaker through their whip of their interest and the Speaker recognizes one of them (see Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Evidence, November 9, 1995, Issue No. 95, p. 2). On December 4, 1996, a visiting choir led the House in the singing of the anthem. After the reading of the prayer, the Sergeant-at-Arms was ordered to admit the choir into the gallery facing the Speaker before the doors were opened to the public (Debates, December 4, 1996, p. 7077). Again, on December 10, 1997, and on December 9, 1998, a school choir participated in the singing of the national anthem (Debates, December 10, 1997, p. 3021; December 9, 1998, p. 11107). On April 23, 1997, the Speaker invited the pages to lead the House in the singing of the anthem (Debates, April 23, 1997, p. 10111).
[24] 
See Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, November 10, 1995, Issue No. 53, p. 10; Journals, November 10, 1995, pp. 2124-5. The singing of the national anthem is televised. There was consensus among the members of the Committee that the television coverage would begin immediately after the prayers had been read. See Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Evidence, November 9, 1995, pp. 1-6. Deborah Grey (Beaver River) led the House in singing the national anthem for the first time on November 22, 1995. See Debates, November 22, 1995, p. 16659. See also Debates, October 30, 1995, pp. 15975-6.
[25] 
Standing Order 30(5).
[26] 
When “Statements by Members” was first established in 1983, Speaker Sauvé stated that this period was intended to provide Members with an opportunity “to voice serious issues of international, national or local concern” (Debates, January 17, 1983, p. 21873). During this period, Members have, on occasion, given part or all of their statement to the House in a language other than English or French (for example, Inuktitut, Cree, Slavey, Italian, Hebrew, Creole, Croatian and Armenian). See, for example, Debates, October 2, 1991, p. 3134; March 26, 1992, p. 8856; April 10, 1992, p. 9644; February 8, 1993, p. 15550; March 31, 1993, pp. 17837, 17840; March 10, 1994, p. 2120; May 27, 1998, p. 7269. A Member has also used sign language to make a statement (Debates, May 13, 1998, pp. 6918-9). When using another language, Members usually provide the interpreters with a copy of the text in English or French. See also Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[27] 
For the convenience of the House, the Speaker has occasionally proceeded to “Statements by Members” before 2:00 p.m. (or 11:00 a.m. on Friday) (see, for example, Debates, November 28, 1997, p. 2432; June 9, 1998, p. 7803). The House has also unanimously agreed to proceed to “Statements by Members” before the appointed time (see, for example, Debates, November 30, 1990, p. 16031; March 27, 1992, p. 8923).
[28] 
Occasionally, when proceedings have been delayed, the time allotted for “Statements by Members” and Question Period has been extended accordingly so that Members have the full amount of time allotted (see Debates, September 18, 1991, p. 2300; June 16, 1995, p. 14011; November 1, 1995, p. 16063; November 29, 1996, p. 6903). Once before a Christmas adjournment, the Speaker allowed “Statements by Members” to exceed the time limit by five minutes (Debates, December 19, 1990, p. 16939). Question Period was also extended accordingly. More recently, the House unanimously agreed to dispose of this proceeding and proceed directly to Question Period after Members paid tribute for more than 30 minutes to the Rt. Hon. Brian Mulroney (see Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16379-83).
[29] 
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[30] 
The Standing Order read: “A motion may be moved by unanimous consent of the House without previous notice”. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 301-2.
[31] 
Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 356.
[32] 
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 334-5.
[33] 
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399.
[34] 
See Jerome, pp. 104-6. See also Speaker’s ruling, Debates, February 13, 1979, pp. 3164-6.
[35] 
Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 4, 1982, Issue No. 7, p. 19, presented in the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and agreed to on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[36] 
Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1648; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10.
[37] 
Debates, January 17, 1983, pp. 21873-4.
[38] 
In a 1990 ruling, Speaker Fraser clarified that a statement about another Member’s political position would be acceptable, but a personal attack against a Member would not be allowed (Debates, November 26, 1990, p. 15717). Speaker Parent further cautioned in a 1996 decision that “once they [the words] have been uttered, it is very difficult to retract them and the impression they leave is not always easily erased” (Debates, November 29, 1996, p. 6899). See also Debates, September 22, 1994, pp. 6032-3; December 3, 1997, p. 2646.
[39] 
See, for example, Debates, November 26, 1990, p. 15705; March 8, 1994, p. 1992; September 29, 1997, p. 204; December 11, 1997, pp. 3107-8.
[40] 
See, for example, Debates, October 20, 1986, p. 510; March 25, 1987, p. 4541; October 29, 1997, p. 1278. Speaker Fraser ruled that it is inappropriate for a Member to use this proceeding to attack another Member for offensive language when that Member has already been admonished by the Chair (Debates, October 29, 1986, p. 864).
[41] 
See, for example, Debates, October 1, 1990, pp. 13607, 13621-2; October 3, 1997, pp. 456-7. See also Debates, February 13, 1998, p. 3853; February 19, 1998, p. 4156.
[42] 
See, for example, Debates, December 20, 1989, pp. 7247-8; June 8, 1990, p. 12522; September 22, 1994, pp. 6031-2, 6040.
[43] 
See, for example, Debates, November 19, 1986, p. 1315; December 1, 1986, pp. 1636, 1651-2. In the latter ruling, Speaker Fraser noted that “it is often the obligation of Members of Parliament to criticize a law. However… it is not their place to castigate a court or judge or the decisions rendered under a law…” (p. 1636).
[44] 
See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1996, pp. 6853-4.
[45] 
See, for example, Debates, December 3, 1991, pp. 5679-82. See also Debates, November 28, 1991, pp. 5509-10.
[46] 
See, for example, Debates, April 27, 1995, p. 11878.
[47] 
See, for example, Debates, September 16, 1996, pp. 4221-2; September 17, 1996, pp. 4309-10.
[48] 
At the start of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), the Speaker informed the House that, after consultation, the party whips had agreed on a format regarding party representation and the number of Members to be recognized to offer statements during this period: nine interventions by government Members, three by the Official Opposition (Bloc Québécois), three by the Reform Party; the independent Members would be recognized on an ad hoc basis (Debates, January 19, 1994, p. 17). Five months later, Speaker Parent observed that Members not belonging to a recognized party had participated almost daily during “Statements by Members” (Debates, June 16, 1994, p. 5439). At the beginning of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament in 1997, the breakdown was established as follows: eight interventions by government Members, three by the Official Opposition (Reform Party), two by the Bloc Québécois, one each by the NDP and the Progressive Conservative party.
[49] 
See, for example, Debates, March 9, 1994, pp. 2036-7.
[50] 
See, for example, Debates, November 27, 1997, p. 2379; February 26, 1998, p. 4495; June 9, 1998, p. 7807.
[51] 
See, for example, Debates, February 27, 1985, p. 2542; February 25, 1993, p. 16461.
[52] 
Standing Order 47. See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1991, pp. 5509-10; February 25, 1998, pp. 4406-7.
[53] 
See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1992, pp. 12437, 12448; March 19, 1998, p. 5126.
[54] 
Standing Order 31. On at least one occasion, the Speaker has allowed a Member who was initially asked to resume his seat to revise his statement and present an acceptable version at the conclusion of the period for “Statements by Members” (Debates, December 8, 1992, pp. 14849-51).
[55] 
Debates, November 29, 1996, p. 6899.
[56] 
Standing Order 30(5). On occasion, if “Statements by Members” has been delayed or extended, or if the Speaker has delivered a ruling that could impact on Question Period, the start of Question Period has been delayed. Under these circumstances, the Speaker has typically extended the time allotted for “Oral Questions”. See, for example, Debates, May 2, 1994, pp. 3762-3; September 19, 1994, p. 5811.
[57] 
Standing Order 30(3). Routine Proceedings may be delayed if the Speaker delivers a ruling or is asked to consider a question of privilege or point of order.
[58] 
On occasion, a Minister or Member is not present during Routine Proceedings to participate under a specific rubric, or a document is not available for presentation at the time. Later in the sitting, the Minister or Member may seek unanimous consent to revert to a specific rubric under Routine Proceedings to table a document or present a committee report, make a statement, present a petition or move a motion. See, for example, Debates, February 9, 1995, p. 9390; September 19, 1995, pp. 14622-3.
[59] 
Standing Order 30(4)(a). On September 25, 1989, a question of privilege was raised at the commencement of the sitting. The House was unable to proceed to Routine Proceedings until after Question Period later that afternoon. The House completed Routine Proceedings up to and including “Introduction of Government Bills” before proceeding to Government Orders. See Debates, September 25, 1989, p. 3842; Journals, pp. 492-505.
[60] 
Standing Order 30(4)(b).
[61] 
Standing Order 24(2).
[62] 
Standing Order 30(5).
[63] 
Standing Order 30(6). See, for example, Journals, April 23, 1997, p. 1519.
[64] 
Rules, Orders and Forms of Procedure of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[65] 
Rules, Orders and Forms of Procedure of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 25.
[66] 
Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, Rule No. 25. Although the rubric for presenting petitions was removed, any Member wishing to present a petition in the House (as opposed to filing it with the Clerk) could do so anytime during Routine Proceedings before the introduction of bills (Rule No. 75). See also Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8365-7.
[67] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 886-7. “Government Notices of Motions” had previously been an item set down in the order of business to be called after the daily routine of business.
[68] 
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399. The headings under Routine Proceedings were reordered as follows: “Presenting Reports from Standing or Special Committees”, “Tabling of Documents”, “Statements by Ministers”, “Introduction of Bills”, “First Reading of Senate Public Bills”, “Government Notices of Motions” and “Motions”.
[69] 
Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1663, 1665; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[70] 
Standing Order 59 states that such a motion has preference over any other motion before the House. For examples of this motion being moved under different rubrics, see Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1437 (moved under “Presenting Petitions”); March 20, 1997, pp. 9241-2 (moved under “Tabling of Documents”); March 19, 1997, pp. 9230-1; April 1, 1998, pp. 5649-50; June 2, 1998, pp. 7452-6 (moved during debate on a motion to concur in a committee report under “Motions”). On January 30, 1990, a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was moved under “Tabling of Documents”. A question of privilege was raised concerning the use of this motion to prevent Members from presenting petitions; the Chair ruled that this was not a matter of privilege (Debates, pp. 7588-9).
[71] 
See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1986, pp. 1192-3; November 25, 1986, pp. 1485-8; April 8, 1987, p. 4983; April 9, 1987, pp. 4996-7. In all four examples, the motion was moved under “Presenting Petitions”, which at that time preceded “Introduction of Bills”.
[72]
For example, at that time motions for introduction and first reading of a public bill, even though not debatable, were votable, and recorded divisions were frequently demanded.
[73]
The moving of such motions during Routine Proceedings is a procedural tactic used by both the government and the opposition parties either to delay the progress of an item of business (for example, the introduction of bills, or the concurrence in a committee report) or to accelerate consideration of some matter by abruptly ending Routine Proceedings so that the House can proceed immediately to Orders of the Day. Indeed, the government often uses such motions to proceed as quickly as possible to Government Orders while the opposition employs them to delay the introduction of certain government bills, or the moving of government motions under the rubric “Motions”, or even to prevent altogether the calling of “Orders of the Day”.
[74] 
On November 6, 1986, at the conclusion of “Presenting Petitions”, an Opposition Member moved that the House proceed to Orders of the Day. After the motion was negatived on a recorded division, a Minister moved the introduction of the bill; the motion was adopted on a recorded division. The following day, during “Presenting Petitions”, an Opposition Member again moved the motion that the House proceed to the Orders of the Day, and the motion was again negatived on a recorded division. An Opposition Member then moved the motion “That a Member be now heard”, which was agreed to without a recorded vote. The government subsequently moved that “The House do now proceed to the next item of Routine Proceedings” (“Introduction of Bills”); the motion was adopted on a recorded division. After motions for the introduction of two private Members’ bills were negatived on recorded divisions, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act, was finally read a first time and printed following a recorded division. See Journals, November 6, 1986, pp. 180-2; November 7, 1986, pp. 188-91. Also see Debates, November 7, 1986, pp. 1187-1202. Eight more recorded divisions, the majority of them resulting from the moving of these two motions, took place during Routine Proceedings before the bill was read a second time on December 8, 1987. See Journals, November 21, 1986, p. 224; November 24, 1986, pp. 229-30; November 25, 1986, pp. 234-5; December 3, 1986, p. 269-70; December 5, 1986, p. 280; December 8, 1986, pp. 286-8.
[75] 
Journals, March 16, 1987, pp. 586-91.
[76] 
Journals, April 7, 1987, p. 719.
[77] 
See Debates, April 8, 1987, pp. 4983-8; April 9, 1987, pp. 4990-7.
[78] 
Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1435. The Speaker ruled that it is not in order to propose a motion that would exclude certain rubrics from consideration on a given sitting day (for example, to go from “Tabling of Documents” to “Motions”).
[79] 
Debates, April 13, 1987, pp. 5071-82.
[80] 
See Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5119-22.
[81] 
Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5120.
[82] 
Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5121.
[83] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8.
[84] 
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399.
[85]
Documents for which an order or address of the House for tabling has been made, or which are required by statute to be tabled.
[86] 
See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1892, col. 2268; Journals, June 5, 1899, pp. 227-8.
[87] 
Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 536-7.
[88] 
See, for example, Debates, March 2, 1920, pp. 85-7; December 4, 1968, p. 3472.
[89] 
Standing Order 32(2). See also Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 569-70.
[90] 
Standing Order 109. See Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[91] 
Standing Order 36(8). See Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1665; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10.
[92] 
Standing Order 110. See Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1664; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10.
[93] 
In April 1993, the Speaker ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege occurred when the government failed to table a document required by statute in a timely manner. The matter was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on House Management. See Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16393-4; March 29, 1993, p. 17722; April 19, 1993, pp. 18104-6. In its report to the House, the Committee stated its belief that “… the statutory and procedural time limits must be complied with. If a document cannot be tabled within the prescribed time, the responsible Minister should advise the House accordingly before the deadline; it is not acceptable that the deadline is ignored.” See Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 15, 1993, Issue No. 56, pp. 13-5 (One Hundred and First Report), presented on September 8, 1993 (Journals, p. 3338). The Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-93) was dissolved before the report could be considered by the House. See also Debates, February 3, 1992, pp. 6289-93; February 5, 1992, pp. 6425-8, when a related question of privilege was raised and ruled on.
[94] 
Standing Order 153. At the beginning of each session of Parliament, the Clerk of the House has a list printed and delivered to all Members of all the reports and periodical documents which certain public officers, government departments and private corporations must have tabled in the House.
[95] 
A Minister will often table a document under this rubric and then proceed to speak on its subject matter under the next rubric, “Statements by Ministers” (see, for example, Journals, May 25, 1994, pp. 472-3).
[96] 
Standing Order 32(1). This Standing Order was implemented in 1955 as a time-saving procedure (see Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 916-7).
[97] 
Standing Order 32(3).
[98] 
Standing Order 32(5) and (6). There have been instances when motions have been adopted, notwithstanding any order or practice of the House, to refer a report to more than one committee (see, for example, Debates, June 27, 1990, pp. 13172-3; February 27, 1991, p. 17715).
[99]
For further details, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[100] 
Standing Order 32(4). In 1988, a private Member’s motion moved by Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa–Vanier), calling on the House to require that official documents tabled or distributed in the House be in both French and English, was adopted, thus leading to the addition of this Standing Order to the rules of the House (Journals, September 16, 1988, p. 3556). See also Debates, June 8, 1989, pp. 2812-3; December 17, 1990, p. 16824.
[101] 
See, for example, Journals, November 8, 1990, p. 2244 (audio cassette); May 12, 1992, p. 1445 (Braille summary and audio cassette); December 11, 1996, p. 991 (CD-ROM). See also Debates, November 8, 1990, pp. 15289-90; November 19, 1992, pp. 13604-5 (computer disk).
[102] 
See, for example, Debates, October 17, 1995, p. 15488; October 2, 1997, p. 415; October 29, 1997, p. 1287; April 29, 1998, p. 6293. See also Debates, February 19, 1998, p. 4125, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader sought unanimous consent to table a newspaper article which was quoted by a Minister and which was available in English only. Consent was given.
[103] 
Journals, April 6, 1971, pp. 475-6. Speaker Lamoureux submitted that while Ministers must table official documents cited in debate in support of an argument, this rule has never been interpreted to apply to a document, official or otherwise, referred to by private Members. In 1974, when a Member attempted to seek unanimous consent to table a document, Speaker Lamoureux stated that there was “no provision in the rules for a private Member to table or file documents in any way.” The Speaker concluded by suggesting that Members “could presumably make them public in a number of other ways” (Debates, December 3, 1974, p. 1882). See also Debates, February 1, 1985, p. 1914; May 14, 1985, p. 4744; January 28, 1987, p. 2821.
[104] 
Speakers have occasionally refused to put to the House a request by a private Member for unanimous consent to table a document. See, for example, Debates, March 25, 1985, pp. 3326-7; June 27, 1986, p. 15006.
[105] 
Standing Order 32(1) and (2).
[106] 
Standing Order 32(4).
[107] 
See, for example, Debates, June 8, 1989, pp. 2812-3; December 5, 1990, p. 16330; November 30, 1992, p. 14276; February 1, 1994, p. 690; March 16, 1994, p. 2369; October 2, 1997, p. 415; February 13, 1998, p. 3866. By special order of the House, private Members tabled documents during debate on the reform of the Constitution in 1992 (Journals, February 5, 1992, p. 975; Debates, pp. 6429-30). The first time a private Member was allowed to seek unanimous consent to table a document occurred on November 15, 1978, although it appears that there may have been consultation or agreement with the government to do so (Debates, pp. 1160-1). Speaker Sauvé tried twice to discourage Members from tabling material by unanimous consent, but allowed the request to be made (Debates, January 18, 1983, pp. 21954-5; May 6, 1983, p. 25229). Speaker Francis allowed unanimous consent to be sought on two separate occasions (Debates, February 14, 1984, pp. 1362-3; April 18, 1984, p. 3185). Speaker Bosley regularly refused such requests (see, for example, Debates, February 13, 1985, p. 2313; September 23, 1985, p. 6864). In 1986, in allowing a Member to table a document by unanimous consent, Speaker Fraser advised the House that while he would abide by its wishes, “the House has quite clearly decided to move outside the usual practice” (Debates, October 24, 1986, pp. 709-10).
[108] 
See, for example, Journals, December 5, 1990, p. 2379; November 30, 1992, p. 2254; February 1, 1994, p. 88; March 16, 1994, p. 260; October 2, 1997, p. 70.
[109] 
See, for example, Debates, June 13, 1991, p. 1646. See also Speaker’s comments, Debates, February 24, 1992, p. 7531.
[110] 
See, for example, Journals, April 5, 1989, p. 26 (Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons); February 4, 1992, p. 970 (report of an official visit); September 8, 1992, p. 1924 (documentation concerning a recall of the House); June 1, 1993, p. 3091 (report concerning initiatives undertaken by the House to serve Canadians with disabilities); September 23, 1997, pp. 11-2 (letter from government concerning notice of two government motions for a Special Order Paper; copy of the Speech from the Throne); September 24, 1997, p. 19 (Standing Orders of the House of Commons); October 1, 1997, p. 56 (Estimates of the House of Commons); October 23, 1997, p. 139 (Report of the Administration of the House for the Thirty-Fifth Parliament).
[111] 
Standing Order 148(1) requires the Speaker to table, within 10 calendar days after the opening of each session, a report containing the minutes of the Board’s meetings for the previous session (see, for example, Journals, May 16, 1991, p. 36; January 27, 1994, p. 71). Since June 1994, the minutes have been tabled as soon as they are approved by the Board (see Debates, June 8, 1994, p. 5030). They are typically deposited with the Clerk of the House and recorded in the Journals (see, for example, Journals, October 10, 1997, p. 109; February 13, 1998, p. 464).
[112] 
Standing Order 121(4). See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1994, p. 758; September 18, 1995, p. 1908; October 10, 1997, p. 109; October 9, 1998, p. 1145. Standing Order 148(2) also requires the Speaker to table any Board of Internal Economy decision concerning committee budgets. See, for example, Journals, January 15, 1991, pp. 2560-1; June 10, 1993, p. 3197. Since the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), these decisions are part of the Board minutes which are now laid upon the Table as soon as they are approved.
[113] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (sbs. 52.5(2)). Any by-laws made by the Board are to be tabled within 30 calendar days of their making. They are typically deposited with the Clerk of the House and recorded in the Journals (see, for example, Journals, December 2, 1996, p. 950; October 10, 1997, p. 109; February 13, 1998, p. 464).
[114] 
See, for example, Journals, March 25, 1998, p. 620; March 5, 1999, p. 1561.
[115] 
See, for example, Journals, November 18, 1998, p. 1271.
[116] 
See, for example, Journals, February 2, 1999, p. 1455.
[117] 
See, for example, Journals, September 24, 1997, p. 20 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada for 1995); May 26, 1998, p. 891 (Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House for the year 1998).
[118] 
Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 195(3); Auditor General Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-17, ss. 7(3), 8(2), 19(2) as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 32; Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, 4th Supp., c. 31, ss. 65(3), 66, 67(1), 69(1); Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, ss. 38, 39(1), 40; Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, ss. 38, 39(1), 40(1). See, for example, Journals, November 26, 1996, p. 918; April 8, 1997, p. 1351; September 24, 1997, pp. 19-20; September 29, 1997, p. 40.
[119] 
The Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 32. See, for example, Journals, March 23, 1999, p. 1649.
[120] 
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, s. 21(1) as amended by c. 6 (2nd Supp.), s. 5. See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1995, p. 1867. If Parliament is not sitting, the reports are tabled on any of the first five sitting days when the House returns. See Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”, for additional information.
[121] 
Standing Order 32(1). See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545), and concurred in on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563). See also Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, pp. 3-4.
[122] 
See, for example, Journals, September 18, 1995, pp. 1894, 1904; February 3, 1997, p. 1034; February 2, 1998, p. 404; September 21, 1998, pp. 1040, 1053.
[123] 
See, for example, Journals, September 18, 1995, p. 1908 (deposited with Clerk on first sitting day).
[124] 
Standing Order 49.
[125] 
Debates, June 27, 1986, p. 14969.
[126] 
See, for example, Journals, January 18, 1994, pp. 19-26; September 23, 1997, pp. 15-7.
[127] 
Frequently, a Minister will first table a document under the rubric “Tabling of Documents”. The subsequent statement will expand on the context of the tabled document (see, for example, Journals, May 25, 1994, pp. 472-3; Debates, pp. 4395-400). Prime Ministers have also used this proceeding to make announcements in the House (see, for example, Debates, November 27, 1989, pp. 6229, 6234-39 (visit to U.S.S.R); June 11, 1990, pp. 12590, 12604-10 (Meech Lake Accord); September 24, 1991, pp. 2585-91 (proposals to renew Canadian federation); February 8, 1994, pp. 1029-32 (tobacco smuggling); June 16, 1994, pp. 5395-7 (integrity in government); November 22, 1994, p. 8097 (appointment of new Governor General); June 10, 1999, pp. 16195-6 (Kosovo)). The Leaders of the recognized parties in opposition customarily respond to the Prime Minister’s statement.
[128] 
Standing Order 33(1).
[129] 
See, for example, Debates, December 12, 1867, pp. 257-63; September 12, 1919, pp. 242-58; April 19, 1932, pp. 2150-4; June 4, 1940, pp. 482-5.
[130] 
See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1877, pp. 32-3; February 16, 1915, pp. 207-8.
[131] 
Debates, March 24, 1959, pp. 2177-8.
[132] 
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, concurred in on May 7, 1964 (Journals, p. 297); see also Debates, May 7, 1964, pp. 3007-10, in particular the comments of Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
[133] 
See Journals, February 18, 1966, pp. 158-60. See also Debates, February 15, 1966, pp. 1224-7; Senate and House of Commons Act, S.C. 1963, c. 14, s. 3.
[134] 
See the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). See also Journals, April 18, 1975, pp. 459-60, for a statement by the Speaker on the operation of this new rule.
[135] 
See Debates, February 10, 1983, pp. 22716-7.
[136] 
See Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 29, 1983, Issue No. 24, pp. 3-5, and Journals, September 30, 1983, p. 6250; Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 19, 1984, Issue No. 2, pp. 18-9, and Journals, December 20, 1984, p. 211.
[137] 
Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 912-3, 919; February 6, 1986, p. 1647; February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987, pp. 1018-9.
[138] 
Prior to 1994, the extension of the sitting could take place during the lunch hour (see, for example, Debates, February 27, 1992, p. 7682; May 14, 1992, p. 10695). If necessary, any additional time was added to the end of the day (see, for example, Debates, March 12, 1987, pp. 4085, 4098; September 24, 1991, pp. 2605-6).
[139] 
Standing Order 33(1). On one occasion, two Ministers made a joint statement (see Debates, March 24, 1999, pp. 13442-4).
[140] 
See, for example, Debates, October 25, 1990, pp. 14665-9. See also Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2084; June 1, 1992, p. 11166; June 3, 1992, pp. 11306-7.
[141] 
See, for example, Debates, March 10, 1992, pp. 7883-4; November 24, 1992, pp. 13905-6; February 8, 1994, p. 1034; April 27, 1995, p. 11843; March 8, 1996, p. 489. On one occasion, the chairman of a standing committee received unanimous consent to respond to a ministerial statement (Debates, March 16, 1994, p. 2364). Government backbenchers have also been granted unanimous consent to respond to ministerial statements (Debates, February 8, 1994, p. 1035; March 12, 1997, p. 8955).
[142] 
See, for example, Debates, April 11, 1994, p. 2867.
[143] 
Standing Order 33(1). See, for example, Debates, May 25, 1994, p. 4400; June 9, 1994, p. 5059.
[144] 
Standing Order 33(1).
[145] 
See, for example, Debates, November 1, 1974, p. 957; March 2, 1977, pp. 3578-9; February 17, 1978, p. 2972; February 8, 1982, p. 14755; December 2, 1985, p. 9027; October 4, 1989, p. 4309; February 18, 1998, p. 4073; December 3, 1998, pp. 10826-31.
[146] 
See, for example, Debates, March 18, 1987, p. 4305; April 2, 1987, p. 4810; April 8, 1987, p. 4982; April 12, 1988, pp. 14357-62; April 11, 1994, p. 2867; October 27, 1994, pp. 7273-4.
[147] 
Standing Order 33(2). There have been occasions when the consideration of Government Orders has been extended by more than 60 minutes: Debates, March 12, 1987, pp. 4085, 4098 (71 minutes); September 24, 1991, pp. 2605-6 (107 minutes); October 29, 1991, p. 4141 (67 minutes); February 7, 1995, p. 9253 (80 minutes).
[148] 
See page 47 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839). The proposed amendments to the Standing Orders were tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1663), and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). Similar concerns had been expressed as early as 1973, when a Member proposed a motion aimed at “bringing to the attention of the House of Commons… some of the deliberations that are held at the various meetings of the ipu” (Debates, March 1, 1973, pp. 1803-9). This idea was also mentioned in 1977 (Debates, December 20, 1977, p. 2054).
[149] 
On one occasion, a question of privilege was raised in regard to the announcement by a Minister of the creation of a new parliamentary association. The Member who raised the matter argued that the creation of inter-parliamentary groups is not an executive matter to be decided by Cabinet. In his ruling, Speaker Parent agreed that the Minister overreached his authority. He stressed that the creation of parliamentary associations is governed by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and the Senate. See Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5910-4; April 23, 1998, pp. 6035-7.
[150] 
Standing Order 34(1). The Standing Order was amended in 1987 to increase from 10 to 20 the number of sitting days within which delegations must present a report (Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1026).
[151] 
On occasion, Members have been granted unanimous consent to present a report from an unofficial delegation (see, for example, Debates, February 25, 1998, p. 4407; March 5, 1999, p. 12504; April 21, 1999, p. 14162).
[152] 
Standing Order 34(2).
[153] 
See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1992, p. 6376; May 16, 1996, p. 2851; March 10, 1997, p. 8842.
[154]
Any document tabled in the House or filed with the Clerk during a session of Parliament is given a sessional paper number. All documents tabled or filed are open to public scrutiny.
[155] 
Standing Order 35(1). In 1985, a special committee recommended that Members presenting reports to the House be allowed to give a brief explanation thereof in order to bring the reports to the attention of the House (see page 22 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839)). The present Standing Order was adopted on February 13, 1986 (see Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1663; February 13, 1986, p. 1710). If a chair’s remarks go beyond the scope of the report, the Speaker may interrupt the Member (see, for example, Debates, December 4, 1992, pp. 14654-5). On occasion, an opposition Member has received unanimous consent to comment on a report (Debates, October 18, 1994, p. 6816; October 31, 1994, p. 7430). Until 1955, each report presented in the House was read in its entirety by a Table Officer, and the text was also included in the Journals for that day. If the report was lengthy, its reading was often dispensed with. After 1955, this practice was abandoned and the only reports read were those for which the Member presenting had stated his or her intention to move concurrence later the same day (Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 944). Still the texts of all reports, both read and not read, were included in the Journals. This arrangement remained in effect until 1981 when it was decided to include only the texts of reports on bills and Estimates in the Journals (see Debates, December 11, 1981, pp. 13973-4). Reports for which the Member presenting stated an intention of moving concurrence later the same day continued to be read by a Table Officer during the 1980s. The practice now is to have such reports read by a Table Officer only when so requested by the Speaker before the House is asked for unanimous consent to proceed immediately with the concurrence motion. See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848.
[156] 
Standing Order 109. The government is obliged to table the response within 150 calendar days of the tabling of the report. The Speaker has ruled that a committee may request a response to only part of its report, but the whole of the report nonetheless remains open to comment by the government (Debates, May 13, 1986, p. 13232).
[157] 
See, for example, Journals, June 14, 1993, p. 3204; June 16, 1993, p. 3318; September 8, 1993, pp. 3338-9.
[158] 
See Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1397-9; March 16, 1972, pp. 194-5; Debates, November 24, 1994, pp. 8252-3.
[159] 
Standing Order 108(1)(a). Standing committees are permitted to “… report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the chairman, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members…” Such material is only appended following the adoption of a motion to do so by the committee prior to the presentation of the report to the House. In 1994, a point of order was raised in the House regarding the printing of dissenting opinions in a report by the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canada’s Foreign Policy. The dissenting opinions were printed in a second volume instead of being appended after the signature of the chair. Although the Speaker ruled that the report as presented would be accepted by the House, he stated that the dissenting opinions should have been printed after the signature of the chair pursuant to the wording of the Standing Order. In addition, Speaker Parent cautioned committees to observe carefully the terms of Standing Order 108(1)(a) in the future (see Debates, November 24, 1994, pp. 8252-3). While this Standing Order refers only to standing committees, it has become the practice of the House to also apply the Standing Order to special committees (see Debates, November 24, 1994, p. 8252). See also Chapter 20, “Committees”, for additional information on the format of committee reports.
[160] 
Standing Order 35(2). A committee member from the Official Opposition has an equal amount of time as that of the presenter of the committee report (Debates, October 18, 1994, p. 6816; November 7, 1997, pp. 1715-6). Since the introduction of this rule in April 1991 (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2908), some inconsistency has surrounded its implementation. Members often refer to “dissenting opinions” as minority reports and, at times, Members have sought and have been permitted to “table minority reports” following the presentation of the main committee report (see, for example, Debates, December 12, 1991, pp. 6171-2; June 16, 1993, p. 20921). However, as Speaker Parent noted in a 1994 ruling: “Regardless of how the media or members themselves may label such dissent, the House has never recognized or permitted the tabling of minority reports. Speaker Lamoureux twice condemned the idea of minority reports, explaining to the House that what is presented to the House from a committee is a report from the committee, not a report from the majority” (see Debates, November 24, 1994, p. 8252).
[161] 
On occasion, however, Members not belonging to the Official Opposition have sought and received unanimous consent to speak (see, for example, Debates, April 13, 1994, p. 2980; November 7, 1997, p. 1716; December 1, 1997, p. 2503). When two dissenting opinions are appended to a report, a Member from a party other than the Official Opposition may only comment on the appended material with the consent of the House (see Debates, May 14, 1992, p. 10692). If the Official Opposition does not append a dissenting opinion, but a third party does, a Member from the third party may only give an explanation of these views with the unanimous consent of the House (see Debates, June 18, 1992, p. 12322; June 21, 1995, p. 14322).
[162] 
See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848.
[163] 
See Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1018.
[164] 
Standing Order 54(1). On occasion, the 48-hour notice requirement for the introduction of a government bill has been waived with the unanimous consent of the House (see, for example, Debates, December 19, 1990, p. 16951; October 10, 1991, pp. 3557, 3559; February 14, 1992, p. 7056; May 5, 1992, pp. 10145-6; February 8, 1994, p. 1035). The notice requirement has also been waived pursuant to Standing Order 53 (Journals, March 15, 1995, p. 1219). See Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, for additional information on notice requirements.
[165] 
Standing Order 68(1). This Standing Order has remained unchanged since its adoption in 1867. See Rule No. 39 in Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, for additional information on the introduction and first reading of government bills.
[166] 
Standing Order 68(2). From 1867 to 1913, the motion for leave to introduce a bill was debatable and amendable. In April 1913, in an attempt to define and lessen the number of motions considered debatable, the Standing Orders were amended. Among those motions no longer held to be debatable was the motion for leave to introduce a bill (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9). However, Members could still negative the motion for leave to introduce, although this usually happened only in regard to private Members’ bills (see, for example, Debates, February 22, 1932, pp. 380-4; August 3, 1964, p. 6285; November 13, 1967, pp. 4165-6; December 5, 1967, pp. 5035-6; November 7, 1986, p. 1193). In April 1991, the Standing Order was amended to provide that the motion for leave would automatically be deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2913).
[167] 
Standing Order 68(2). Ministers rarely take this opportunity to explain the purpose of the bill, preferring to wait until the bill is called for second reading. There have been occasions, however, when a Minister has given a brief explanation of a bill (see Debates, December 1, 1987, pp. 11343-4; September 27, 1990, pp. 13481-2; February 27, 1992, p. 7681; April 10, 1992, p. 9655; June 18, 1992, p. 12323; February 5, 1998, pp. 3402-3).
[168] 
Standing Order 69(1). The original version of this Standing Order, adopted in December 1867, provided only for the first reading of bills. In 1968, a special procedure committee recommended that the first reading motion be amended to read “That this bill be read a first time and printed”. The committee felt that adoption of this motion would imply that the House had agreed to the introduction of the bill without any commitment beyond the fact that it should be made generally available for the information of Parliament and the public (see Item Nos. 10 and 11 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, presented on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 432-3)).
[169] 
The wording of the original Standing Order prohibited debate on or amendments to the main motion, although the motion could be voted on. Speakers were strict in enforcing the rule and in asserting that no discussion could take place at first reading except by unanimous consent, and that the House had the option only of accepting or rejecting the bill’s first reading (see, for example, remarks by the Speaker in Debates, February 27, 1912, col. 3902; February 13, 1933, pp. 2016-7; February 26, 1934, p. 927; April 2, 1962, p. 2383; April 6, 1982, p. 16202). During the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament (April 1989 -May 1991), the opposition parties frequently forced recorded divisions on the introduction and first reading motions for both government and private Members’ bills as a means of delaying the proceedings. As voting procedures could take up to 45 minutes per recorded vote, the time available for Government Orders was reduced. In April 1991, the Standing Orders were amended to provide for these motions being deemed carried without question put (see Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2913-4).
[170] 
The ancient practice of the British Parliament to read bills at length was obsolete by the time of Confederation. Since the earliest Canadian Parliament, it was considered sufficient at first reading merely to read the title of the bill in English and French (Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 518). In April 1878, at the request of a Member, a bill was read in its entirety at the first reading stage by the Assistant Clerk. In his remarks concerning this proceeding, the Speaker emphasized that, although there was no rule against it, the practice of reading the text of bills had entirely disappeared (Debates, April 2, 1878, pp. 1582-4).
[171] 
On one occasion, a Member argued that this question was a votable motion which could be put to the House. The Speaker ruled, however, that the practice had fallen into disuse and that without clear directions from the House to the contrary, it would not be appropriate to apply to current practices what may well have been an appropriate ruling over 100 years ago (Debates, May 24, 1988, pp. 15706, 15719-23).
[172] 
See, for example, Journals, February 8, 1994, pp. 130-2; October 29, 1997, p. 166. Note also that Standing Order 71 provides for the reading of a bill at two or more stages on one sitting day, on urgent or extraordinary occasions; this would be accomplished by unanimous consent or special order. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[173] 
Standing Order 81(17), (18)(c). See, for example, Journals, December 8, 1994, pp. 1008-9.
[174] 
In respect to points of order raised about a Minister introducing legislation in relation to another Minister’s administrative responsibilities, Speaker Jerome ruled that there was no prohibition against the practice (Debates, July 20, 1977, pp. 7836-7).
[175] 
See, for example, Debates, January 31, 1985, p. 1845; October 28, 1991, pp. 4070-2, 4076.
[176] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1018.
[177] 
They are listed in chronological order on the Order Paper after 48 hours’ written notice. The 48-hour notice period can be waived with the unanimous consent of the House (see, for example, Debates, April 22, 1993, pp. 18278-9).
[178] 
See, for example, Debates, January 27, 1981, p. 6616; June 15, 1993, p. 20795.
[179] 
Standing Order 68(2).
[180] 
Standing Order 68(2). On April 22, 1997, a Member introduced and commented on 29 bills (see Journals, April 22, 1997, pp. 1502-6). The same Member introduced 38 bills on February 13, 1998 (Journals, pp. 458-63).
[181] 
See, for example, Debates, March 28, 1996, p. 1329; October 22, 1997, p. 974; November 7, 1997, p. 1717.
[182] 
Standing Order 69(1).
[183]
See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”, for detailed information on the consideration and passage of a private Member’s bill.
[184] 
Journals, April 29, 1910, p. 537.
[185] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 272.
[186] 
See, for example, Order Paper, June 10, 1998, p. 10; June 11, 1998, p. 11. On one occasion, the notice of first reading of a Senate public bill was struck from the Order Paper because the bill was found to infringe upon the royal prerogative in financial matters (Journals, November 12, 1969, pp. 79-80). In 1998, in response to a point of order raised concerning the procedural acceptability of a Senate public bill which had been read a first time, the Speaker ruled that the bill imposed a tax and therefore should have originated in the House of Commons and been preceded by the adoption of a Ways and Means motion. The first reading proceedings on the bill were declared null and void, and the bill was withdrawn from the Order Paper. See Debates, December 2, 1998, pp. 10788-91. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[187] 
There have been a number of Senate bills sponsored by the Ministry. See, for example, Journals, June 18, 1992, p. 1793; November 19, 1992, p. 2079; March 10, 1993, p. 2611; March 23, 1994, p. 296; June 14, 1995, p. 1723: November 26, 1997, p. 270; February 2, 1998, p. 403; February 11, 1998, p. 444; March 25, 1998, p. 622; May 28, 1998, p. 901; June 3, 1998, p. 929.
[188] 
Standing Order 69(2). Prior to September 1994, the question was put on the motion for first reading of a Senate public bill, and on occasion Senate bills were defeated on recorded division at this stage (see, for example, Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1059-60; June 18, 1990, pp. 1920-1). The Standing Order was amended in June 1994 when the House concurred in a committee report recommending a number of changes to the rules of the House (see Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 5).
Between 1968 and 1998, there were three occasions when a private Member commented on a Senate public bill at the first reading stage (see Debates, September 21, 1971, p. 8029; June 29, 1987, p. 7715; November 18, 1998, p. 10145).
[189] 
A Senate public bill sponsored by a Minister has been read a first time and subsequently considered at all stages on the same sitting day (see Journals, June 18, 1992, pp. 1793, 1803).
[190]
See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[191] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[192] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 25.
[193] 
Journals, May 7, 1964, p. 297.
[194] 
Until 1955, government notices of motions had been considered and debated outside of Routine Proceedings as a separate item of business, when and if that category were reached. In 1955, the Standing Orders were amended to allow any government notice of motion to be transferred to Government Orders automatically when called from the Chair during Routine Proceedings. By being included as a routine proceeding, government notices of motions could be called daily by the Speaker and, as the rule made clear, were no longer subject to debate because they were immediately transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders for consideration in due course (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 886-7, 900).
[195] 
Item No. 9 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373), and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). Until 1965, if debate under “Motions” did not conclude at one sitting, it was resumed at the next sitting (and possibly subsequent sittings) when the rubric “Motions” was reached. This meant that the House would not be able to consider any routine proceeding following “Motions” nor Orders of the Day nor Question Period. For example, the House debated the motion for concurrence in the report of the Special Committee on a Canadian Flag for two weeks before a decision was taken (only after closure was used). For 11 days, the House did not consider any rubric following “Motions” and there was no Question Period (see Stewart, pp. 63-4). The Standing Orders were amended so that the order for resuming debate begun under “Motions” was concluded the next day under Government Orders as the first item of business (Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 224, 226). In 1968, the rules were again amended to permit the government to call such business in the order it chose without restriction (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571).
[196] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8. Debatable government notices of motions are now placed on the Order Paper under Government Orders after the normal 48 hours’ notice (Standing Order 56(1)). It becomes an order of the day, similar to any other government business ordered for consideration by the House.
[197] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 219; Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 79. See also Journals, May 2, 1961, p. 494; Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506; June 18, 1996, pp. 3981-2.
[198] 
See, for example, various Speakers’ rulings, Journals, May 30, 1928, p. 476; May 11, 1944, p. 365; May 2, 1961, pp. 493-5; and the Speaker’s comments in Debates, April 28, 1982, p. 16701.
[199] 
See Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821-2, where Speaker Bosley was called upon to rule on whether a time allocation motion had to be moved under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings, or whether it could be placed under “Government Notices of Motions” and then transferred to Government Orders. The Speaker ruled that the government has the right to proceed in the manner it chooses. Speaker Fraser explained in 1988: “The question then becomes, what is the distinction between a Government Notice of Motion and a motion? I would suggest a Government Notice of Motion is any motion that the Government gives notice of. In other words, a Government Notice of Motion is not based on the content of the motion, but rather upon the mover. In many cases, therefore, a notice of motion could go under more than one heading and it is up to the Minister giving notice to decide which heading should be chosen. Clearly a Government Notice of Motion can only be moved by the Government, but the Government can choose to place it either under Motions or Government Notices of Motions” (Debates, June 13, 1988, pp. 16376-9, and in particular p. 16377).
[200] 
Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.
[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, 4th 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).
[251] 
Standing Order 39(3)(a).
[252] 
This procedure began on July 17, 1963 (see Debates, July 17, 1963, p. 2295). Prior to this, the procedure was very time-consuming: the Speaker went through the entire list of questions each Monday and Wednesday, with the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary interrupting on occasion to say “Answered” when they wished to table a reply (see Stewart, p. 65).
[253] 
See, for example, Debates, June 16, 1992, pp. 12116-7; March 14, 1995, pp. 10430-1; February 2, 1998, pp. 3195-6; October 28, 1998, pp. 9522-3.
[254] 
See, for example, Debates, May 15, 1989, p. 1694; May 14, 1990, pp. 11372-3; February 2, 1998, p. 3196; September 21, 1998, pp. 8174-7; April 30, 1999, p. 14549.
[255] 
Standing Order 39(7). See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1994, p. 725; December 13, 1996, pp. 1018-9. See Journals, April 2, 1998, p. 664, for an example of a revised return being tabled.
[256] 
See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1995, p. 10397; March 17, 1995, p. 10671.
[257] 
Standing Order 42(1).
[258] 
Standing Order 39(5)(b).
[259] 
Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 536-7.
[260] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 888-9.
[261] 
Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 949-50, 953; September 27, 1961, p. 957.
[262] 
Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338-9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[263] 
For examples of notices of motions (papers) placed on the Order of Precedence for Private Members’ Business, debated and adopted, see Journals, October 2, 1998, p. 1115; November 2, 1998, p. 1221. See also Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[264] 
Prior to 1876, all motions for papers were Addresses to the Governor General (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 245).
[265] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 249.
[266] 
Journals, February 15, 1960, pp. 137-40, in particular p. 138.
[267] 
Up until April 1964, when the rubric “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” was called, the Speaker would go through the list of motions seriatim. If a motion for papers was adopted, the government would then compile (“produce”) the information ordered for presentation on a later date in the House. (See Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 248-9). In 1964, a procedure committee proposed that “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” be called on Wednesday and be handled in a manner similar to that being practised with respect to written questions, namely by an announcement that certain ones be accepted, certain ones be accepted subject to qualifications, certain ones might be called and the rest be allowed to stand (Journals, April 15, 1964, pp. 213-4; April 20, 1964, pp. 223-6).
[268]
As with the tabling of documents and replies to questions on the Order Paper, today’s practice is usually for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader to reply on behalf of the government.
[269] 
Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, December 10, 1980, p. 5594; February 4, 1981, pp. 6888-9; June 15, 1983, p. 26414. On at least one occasion, a recorded division was requested after the government had agreed to produce a document (see Debates, December 14, 1994, p. 9072) while in another instance a revised return was tabled (Debates, October 28, 1981, p. 12281).
[270]
The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[271] 
Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1981, p. 6888; February 2, 1983, p. 22431; February 18, 1998, p. 4078; February 25, 1998, p. 4409; April 22, 1998, p. 5964. The Minister’s reservation about producing certain documents because of their confidential nature becomes a matter of record (see Journals, February 27, 1961, pp. 295-7). In 1981, Speaker Sauvé ruled that the expression “confidential documents” had never been defined and that it would be improper for the Speaker to attempt to do so. She underlined that it is the government’s prerogative to decide which documents are of a confidential nature (Debates, June 18, 1981, p. 10738).
[272]
The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[273] 
See, for example, Debates, December 17, 1980, p. 5854; March 18, 1981, pp. 8377-8.
[274] 
Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1982, pp. 15107-8; July 14, 1982, p. 19331; February 4, 1998, p. 3328; December 2, 1998, p. 10793. See also ruling of Deputy Speaker Milliken, Debates, November 25, 1998, pp. 10436-7. The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[275] 
See, for example, Debates, May 6, 1992, p. 10239.
[276] 
Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, December 9, 1981, p. 13891; December 16, 1981, pp. 14129-30; February 24, 1982, p. 15350; March 31, 1982, pp. 16015-6; August 4, 1982, pp. 20020-1; December 1, 1982, p. 21175; May 30, 1984, pp. 4197-8; April 29, 1998, p. 6297; May 6, 1998, p. 6608; June 3, 1998, pp. 7537-8; November 25, 1998, pp. 10436-7. The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[277] 
Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, March 31, 1982, p. 16015.
[278] 
Standing Order 42(1). See, for example, Debates, March 25, 1998, p. 5341; June 10, 1998, p. 7936.
[279] 
Journals, March 15, 1973, p. 187.
[280] 
Debates, March 15, 1973, p. 2288. This document was referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments on March 29, 1973 (Journals, p. 226). See also Debates, March 29, 1973, pp. 2745-50. In 1974, the President of the Privy Council tabled the guidelines again and they were subsequently referred to the same committee (Journals, December 19, 1974, pp. 229, 231). The Committee did not report back to the House on this matter on either occasion.
[281] 
See, for example, ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, November 16, 1982, pp. 20702-3.
[282] 
See, for example, Debates, November 21, 1979, pp. 1557-8.
[283] 
See, for example, Debates, July 15, 1982, pp. 19361-2.
[284] 
Standing Order 49.
[285] 
Standing Order 30(5) and (6). The time for Government Orders may be increased if a Member moves a motion, without notice, to continue or to extend a sitting beyond the fixed hour of daily adjournment in order to continue the consideration of a particular government order, and the motion is adopted (see Standing Order 26). In addition, as the House moves towards the summer adjournment, a Minister may propose a motion during Routine Proceedings to extend the hours of sitting of the House in the last 10 sitting days of June (see Standing Order 27). These longer hours are typically used for the consideration of government business. See Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House.”
[286] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[287] 
Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338-9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[288] 
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 4, 1982, Issue No. 7, pp. 14-5, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and the motion adopted by the House on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[289] 
See the First Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 15, 1983, Issue No. 2, pp. 3-4, presented December 15, 1983 (Journals, p. 47), and the motion adopted by the House on December 19, 1983 (Journals, pp. 55-6).
[290] 
The amount of time available daily to the government for the consideration of its business has fluctuated over the years depending on the hours of sitting and adjournment of the House. For example, in 1990, 18 hours a week were set aside for Government Orders; this grew to 25 hours the following year. In 1994, time available for Government Orders was readjusted when the ordinary hour of daily adjournment was altered and the daily midday interruption for the lunch hour was removed.
[291] 
See Stewart, pp. 71-2, for a history of the term “Orders of the Day”.
[292] 
Standing Order 66. Prior to 1965, resumed debate on motions moved during Routine Proceedings took place under that rubric on the next sitting day. On several occasions, motions to concur in committee reports were debated at length over a number of days, thus preventing the House from considering any further items on the Order Paper. In 1965, the Standing Orders were amended in such a way that the government was obliged to call resumed debate on adjourned or interrupted motions as the first item under Government Orders on the next sitting day. This change prevented continued debate on a motion from keeping the House from considering other items of Routine Proceedings or from having a Question Period (Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 224, 226). Three years later, the House concurred in a report from a special committee which recommended that the government be permitted to call such business in the order it chooses without restriction (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571).
[293] 
See Standing Order 41.
[294] 
Standing Order 40(2). However, in order to be considered, any government business must meet the necessary notice requirement (Standing Order 54). This Standing Order was first included in the rules of the House in 1906 (Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7477-80; Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80).
[295] 
In 1987, the Speaker cited this rule when the Opposition challenged the right of the government to call a bill for debate even though, as they claimed, its text was in imperfect form. Despite the charge, the Speaker agreed to allow debate without prejudice to any ruling that might be rendered because, as he stated, under the terms of the rule, the government was within its right to carry on with the debate. See Debates, January 23, 1987, pp. 2651-3. See also Debates, October 29, 1987, pp. 10508-9; May 25, 1988, pp. 15773-5; April 2, 1993, p. 18002; June 1, 1994, pp. 4709-10.
[296]
See “Weekly Business Statement” later in this chapter.
[297] 
The hybrid nature of Supply motions, which are formulated by Members of the opposition yet considered under Government Orders, gave rise to one of the few instances in recent years where the Speaker invoked Standing Order 40(2) to resolve a dispute. On February 11, 1982, the Government House Leader announced that a Supply day set for the following day would be postponed by one week. When the opposition objected, the Speaker ruled that as Supply motions fall under Government Orders, they can be “called and considered in sequence as the government determines” (Debates, pp. 14896-9).
[298] 
Standing Order 81(1).
[299] 
Standing Order 81(2).
[300] 
At the beginning of a session, Private Members’ Business does not take place until the establishment of an Order of Precedence (Standing Order 91).
[301] 
Standing Order 30(6).
[302] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, 1873, 1876, 1880, 1884, 1890, 1893, 1896, 1901, 1904 and 1905, Rule No. 19.
[303] 
See Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7475-7.
[304] 
See Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 889-93.
[305] 
Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338-9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[306] 
See Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 436-7; December 20, 1968, pp. 563-5.
[307] 
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 4, 1982, Issue No. 7, pp. 14-5, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and the motion adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[308] 
See the First Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 15, 1983, Issue No. 2, pp. 3-4, presented on December 15, 1983 (Journals, p. 47), and the motion adopted by the House on December 19, 1983 (Journals, pp. 55-6). In its Tenth Report, presented in the House on September 30, 1983 (Journals, p. 6250), the Committee noted that some Members had concerns about one full day being set aside for Private Members’ Business because it disrupted the flow of business in the House. The Committee recommended that a more in-depth study be done to determine what day or days should be set aside for Private Members’ Business in order to accommodate the largest possible number of Members and to encourage participation. See Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence,September 29, 1983, Issue No. 24, p. 7.
[309] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905-6, 2908.
[310] 
Standing Order 50(4).
[311] 
Standing Order 83(2).
[312] 
Standing Order 99(1).
[313] 
Standing Order 52(14). See Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[314] 
Standing Order 99(1). See Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[315] 
Standing Order 99(1).
[316] 
Standing Order 94(1)(a).
[317] 
Standing Order 94(2)(a).
[318] 
Standing Order 94(2)(b). Since the coming into force of this Standing Order, the Chair has instructed, on such occasions, that the item be dropped to the bottom of the Order of Precedence (see, for example, Debates, March 23, 1994, p. 2694; April 27, 1995, p. 11911; May 9, 1996, p. 2580; February 4, 1997, p. 7680; March 26, 1998, p. 5442). This practice has been followed since 1986 when the Speaker was asked to clarify the Standing Orders with respect to the disposition of an item of Private Members’ Business in the event a Member was unable to move the motion on the designated day. See Debates, April 24, 1986, pp. 12624-6; April 25, 1986, pp. 12671-3; May 9, 1986, pp. 13146-7; May 28, 1986, p. 13727; November 17, 1986, pp. 1215-6.
[319] 
Standing Order 99(2). See, for example, Debates, November 18, 1994, p. 8004; November 25, 1994, p. 8303; March 10, 1997, p. 8805; May 8, 1998, p. 6736.
[320] 
Standing Order 94(1)(b). This provision has been included in the Standing Orders for unforeseen and unexpected circumstances. In practice, this provision is unlikely to be invoked since the Speaker is provided with a mechanism to give notice when an exchange is not possible (Standing Order 94(2)), and since a mechanism is in place to establish the Order of Precedence at the beginning of a session (Standing Order 87(1)) and to maintain it during the session (Standing Order 87(2)).
[321] 
See, for example, Debates, February 22, 1993, p. 16247; March 17, 1997, p. 9060; Notice Paper, March 17, 1997, p. III.
[322] 
See, for example, Debates, April 12, 1991, pp. 19464-5, 19477; March 13, 1992, p. 8236; April 23, 1993, p. 18413.
[323] 
Standing Order 30(4)(a).
[324] 
Standing Order 30(7).
[325] 
See Journals, May 9, 1996, p. 346.
[326] 
See, for example, Debates, September 24, 1991, p. 2657; November 1, 1991, p. 4412; April 18, 1994, p. 3131; May 17, 1996, pp. 2953, 2963; November 6, 1997, pp. 1666, 1684.
[327] 
Prior to February 1994, when Standing Order 30(7) was amended to provide for delays or interruptions in Private Members’ Hour for any reason, Private Members’ Business could be extended only with the unanimous consent of the House (see, for example, Debates, October 2, 1991, p. 3190; June 4, 1992, p. 11438).
[328] 
Standing Order 30(7).
[329] 
As an example, on Tuesday, April 23, 1996, Private Members’ Business was scheduled to take place from 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. Because of a ministerial statement, the time for Government Orders was extended by 72 minutes. In addition, at the conclusion of Government Orders, there was a recorded division. Consequently, it was 7:15 p.m., 45 minutes past the time Private Members’ Business would normally have ended, when the House was ready to proceed to Private Members’ Business. Pursuant to the Standing Order, the Speaker was required to reschedule the debate until another sitting. See Journals, April 23, 1996, pp. 244-51; Debates, p. 1880. See also Debates, June 14, 1995, p. 13853; June 19, 1995, p. 14104; June 20, 1995, p. 14297; May 2, 1996, p. 2283; December 1, 1998, p. 10773; December 7, 1998, p. 10945.
[330] 
Standing Order 37(3). See also Journals, April 20, 1964, pp. 224-5; Debates, p. 2342.
[331] 
Standing Order 39(5)(b). See Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2909-10. For an example of a Member requesting that his written question be transferred to the Adjournment Proceedings, see Debates, November 20, 1992, pp. 13720-1; September 25, 1995, p. 14819.
[332] 
Standing Order 38(1). Because the Adjournment Proceedings are customarily held at the conclusion of the sitting day, this segment of the day is informally known as the “late show”.
[333] 
Standing Order 38(4).
[334] 
Standing Order 38(2).
[335] 
Standing Order 38(5).
[336] 
Standing Order 38(5).
[337] 
Standing Order 52(12).
[338] 
Standing Order 83(2).
[339] 
Standing Order 2(3).
[340] 
Standing Order 33(2).
[341] 
Standing Order 98(3) and (5).
[342] 
Standing Order 81(17) and (18)(b).
[343] 
Standing Order 27(1). See, for example, Journals, June 5, 1996, p. 490; June 12, 1996, p. 546.
[344] 
See, for example, Journals, May 11, 1998, pp. 772-4. However, whenever a sitting is extended pursuant to Standing Order 26, it is not always possible for those Members scheduled in the Adjournment Proceedings to be available since the beginning of that debate is unknown. See transcript of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, May 3, 1994, p. 12:18. An announcement by the Speaker may be made, but the Adjournment Proceedings will lapse if Members do not proceed with their questions (see Debates, March 13, 1997, p. 9036; Journals, pp. 1277-8, 1281).
[345] 
See, for example, Journals, November 26, 1992, p. 2242; March 18, 1996, pp. 104, 111.
[346] 
See, for example, Debates, November 6, 1990, p. 15236.
[347] 
Occasionally, following the comments of the Government House Leader, other Members (customarily, but not exclusively, the House Leaders representing parties in opposition) may be recognized to pose brief questions on specific items of business or to clarify information (see Debates, November 9, 1995, p. 16443). Although all Members are permitted to participate in posing questions to the Government House Leader, the Speaker has suggested that Members of the opposition should make their representations known to the House through their respective House Leaders (Debates, February 14, 1985, p. 2359). See also Debates, June 3, 1999, pp. 15814-5.
[348] 
Standing Order 40(2).
[349] 
See Debates, June 1, 1994, pp. 4709-10.
[350] 
Debates, September 23, 1968, p. 383.
[351] 
The wording of Standing Order 38(6) still refers to the old practice of providing, at the end of a sitting, information about the future business of the House.
[352] 
See, for example, Debates, October 11, 1990, p. 14048; November 8, 1991, p. 4838; April 2, 1992, pp. 9262-4; May 7, 1992, pp. 10328-9.
[353] 
Debates, April 17, 1984, p. 3144. In ruling out of order a Member attempting to inquire into the business of the House on a day other than Thursday, the Speaker stated: “There is a traditional way of dealing with House business. There are the usual channels by which information is transferred and discussions take place relating to House business.” See also Debates, May 23, 1984, pp. 3962-3.
[354] 
See, for example, Debates, April 21, 1994, pp. 3335-6; March 30, 1995, pp. 11300-1.

Please note —

As the rules and practices of the House of Commons are subject to change, users should remember that this edition of Procedure and Practice was published in January 2000. Standing Order changes adopted since then, as well as other changes in practice, are not reflected in the text. The Appendices to the book, however, have been updated and now include information up to the end of the 38th Parliament in November 2005.

To confirm current rules and practice, please consult the latest version of the Standing Orders on the Parliament of Canada Web site.

For further information about the procedures of the House of Commons, please contact the Table Research Branch at (613) 996-3611 or by e-mail at trbdrb@parl.gc.ca.