House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 10. The Daily Program - 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 Tuesdays and Thursdays (immediately after the Speaker has read the prayer and ordered the doors opened), at 3:00 p.m. on Mondays and Wednesdays, and at noon on Fridays (immediately following Question Period).[61]

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

*       “Tabling of Documents”;

*       “Introduction of Government Bills”;

*       “Statements by Ministers”;

*       “Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations”;

*       “Presenting Reports from Committees”;

*       “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills”;

*       “First Reading of Senate Public Bills”;

*       “Motions”;

*       “Presenting Petitions”; and

*       “Questions on the Order Paper”.

After Routine Proceedings on Wednesdays, “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” is considered immediately after “Questions on the Order Paper” (for further information, see the section in this chapter entitled “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers”). Applications for emergency debates are also considered after Routine Proceedings, prior to the calling of Orders of the Day.[62]

As the Speaker calls each item 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.[63] 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.

The Standing Orders prescribe that the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” must be called and completed each sitting day.[64] In concrete terms, this means that the first two rubrics (“Tabling of Documents” and “Introduction of Government Bills”) must be considered each sitting day. Thus, at 2:00 p.m. on Tuesdays and Thursdays, Statements by Members interrupts Routine Proceedings if the heading “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.[65] Obviously, this does not apply on Mondays, Wednesdays and Fridays, since on those days Statements by Members and Question Period take place before Routine Proceedings. If the proceedings under “Introduction of Government Bills” are not completed by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House continues to sit and carries on with Routine Proceedings until the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” has been completed. The Speaker then adjourns the House until the next sitting day.[66] 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 Mondays,[67] by Statements by Members on Tuesdays and Thursdays,[68] or by Private Members’ Business on Wednesdays and Fridays.[69]

*   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 sitting 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”.[70] In 1906, the rubric “Introduction of Bills” was added after “Motions” in the sequence (bills having previously been presented under “Motions”).[71] A few years later, in 1910, another item styled “First Reading of Senate Bills” was added after “Introduction of Bills,” while at the same time the two items dedicated to petitions were dropped.[72] The order of rubrics under Routine Proceedings did not change again until 1955 when “Government Notices of Motions” was added.[73] Twenty years later, in 1975, “Tabling of Documents” and “Statements by Ministers” were added to Routine Proceedings to reflect and codify long‑standing practices that had previously been dealt with under the rubric “Motions”.[74] In 1986, the rubric “Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations” was created and “Presenting Petitions” was reinstated.[75]

In late 1986 and early 1987, the moving of motions “to proceed to Orders of the Day”[76] and “to proceed to the next item of Routine Proceedings”[77] during Routine Proceedings, combined with requests for recorded divisions on what would normally have been pro forma proceedings,[78] resulted not only in the House failing to reach Government Orders on occasion, but also prevented the government from introducing its legislation.[79] 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.[80] After the bill was considered by a legislative committee and reported back to the House with amendments,[81] the government gave notice of a time allocation motion respecting the report stage of the bill.[82] The government intended to move the time allocation motion under the heading “Motions” during Routine Proceedings; however, the use of procedural tactics prevented the House from reaching this rubric.[83] On April 13, 1987, the government attempted to skip over certain items 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 headings. The Speaker had ruled out of order a similar motion only a few months earlier.[84] A point of order was raised, a debate ensued and the Speaker reserved judgment.[85]

In his ruling,[86] 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”.[87] Speaker Fraser stated that, in light of the various obstruction tactics which had been used by the opposition parties 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”.[88] 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, the “Introduction of Bills” rubric was divided to create two 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.[89] 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.[90]

In 2001, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons considered concerns expressed by many Members that government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, were increasingly being made outside the House of Commons. To remedy the situation, the Committee recommended, first, that the government make greater use of “Statements by Ministers” in the Chamber, an item already provided in the Standing Orders. The Committee also suggested reordering the Routine Proceedings rubrics to call for the “Introduction of Government Bills” prior to “Statements by Ministers”. The Committee was of the view that this change “would encourage Ministers to give brief explanations of their legislation in the House, following introduction”.[91] The concurrence in the Special Committee’s report led to the rearrangement of the Routine Proceedings rubrics to their present order.[92]

*   Tabling of Documents

Many statutes and several Standing Orders require that certain returns, reports and other papers must be laid before the House each year or session by a representative of the government or by the Speaker of the House of Commons. As well, resolutions or orders are occasionally made that require that particular documents be tabled. Whatever the case may be, Ministers or their Parliamentary Secretaries may either present such papers from their place in the House, or deposit the document to the Clerk of the House on any sitting day.

Historical Perspective

The first item called by the Speaker under Routine Proceedings is “Tabling of Documents”. This item was added to Routine Proceedings in 1975.[93] 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 (documents for which an order or address of the House for tabling has been made, or which are required by statute to be tabled) 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 pursuant to 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.[94] 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.[95] The rule allowed Ministers simply to seek leave of the House to table these documents, a request customarily granted.[96]

In 1955, the Standing Orders were amended to allow returns, reports and other papers required by statute or pursuant to an Order to be deposited with the Clerk on any sitting day.[97] In 1968, the Standing Orders were amended to allow Ministers, or their Parliamentary Secretaries, to table any report or paper so long as it dealt with a matter within the administrative competence of the government.[98] Since 1982, the government has also been required to table a comprehensive response to a committee report if the committee so requests,[99] and since 1986, to table responses to petitions referred to it[100] as well as announcements of Order-in-Council nominations or appointments.[101]

Tabling of Documents by a Minister

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.[102] 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 that fall under their administrative responsibilities.[103]

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.[104] 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.[105] 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, normally during Routine Proceedings. Each sitting day, an entry is recorded in the Journals of all papers presented to the House or deposited with the Clerk.[106]

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,[107] it is automatically referred to an appropriate standing committee of the House by the Minister, usually according to its subject matter.[108] Since the referrals are permanent, committees are not required to examine the documents by a specific deadline,[109] except for Order‑in‑Council appointments and nominations, which must be examined by the designated standing committee within a period not exceeding 30 sitting days from the date of tabling.[110]

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.[111] Alternative versions (such as floppy 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.[112]

Any document quoted by a Minister in debate, or in response to a question during Question Period, must be tabled. Indeed, a Minister is not at liberty to read or quote from a despatch (an official written message on government affairs) or other state paper without being prepared to table it if it can be done without injury to the public interest.[113] Practices for tabling documents allow a Minister to table a document at any time in a sitting, without the unanimous consent of the House. Although administrative documents or documents required to be tabled by statute are normally tabled during Routine Proceedings, immediately following Question Period if cited in a response, or immediately if cited in debate, a Minister may table any document at any time, even during Question Period.[114]

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.[115] While Ministers must table documents required by statute or in respect to their administrative responsibilities,[116] the Standing Orders contain no provisions for private Members to table documents. However, since the mid-1980s, Members have on occasion been allowed to table documents or documentation which they cited in their speech or during Question Period, with the unanimous consent of the House;[117] the documents have typically been tabled in only one language.[118] Sometimes private Members have placed on the Table material for the information of Members, although this was not considered an official tabling.[119]

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.[120] These functions include the yearly tabling of a calendar for the following year setting out the sitting and non-sitting weeks between the last Monday in January and the Monday following Easter Monday, after consultation with the House Leaders.[121] As Chair of the Board of Internal Economy, the Speaker also tables:

*       minutes of proceedings of the Board of Internal Economy;[122]

*       annual reports on committee activities and expenditures;[123]

*       the by‑laws, and amendments thereto, of the Board of Internal Economy;[124]

*       the Strategic Outlook: report published at the beginning of each Parliament of the House of Commons Administration as approved by the Board of Internal Economy;[125]

*       the Report to Canadians: the annual report of the House of Commons Administration as approved by the Board of Internal Economy;[126]

*       reports of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons;[127] and

*       reports on sponsored travel by Members of the House of Commons, pursuant to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons.[128]

The Speaker also presents Library of Parliament reports.[129]

In addition, various statutes identify the Speaker as the individual through whom reports are to be laid before the House.[130] In particular, statutory requirements exist whereby certain 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 Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner and the Commissioner of Lobbying.[131] The Speaker also tables the annual report of the Canadian Human Rights Commission,[132] 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.[133]

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.[134] On the first sitting day following the adjournment, these documents are then entered in the Journals as having been deemed tabled on that Wednesday.[135] 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.[136]

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.[137] 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.[138]

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. The government must wait until the new Parliament is in session before tabling any document that is required.

*   Introduction of Government Bills

“Introduction of Government Bills” comes immediately after “Tabling of Documents”.[139] Prior to June 1987, all public bills sponsored either by the government or by 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”.[140]

Legislation emanating from the government is first presented for the consideration of the House during Routine Proceedings under this rubric. Following a minimum 48-hour notice period,[141] 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 entitled: ‘An Act to …’”.[142] A motion for leave to introduce a bill is deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put.[143] After the motion has been agreed to, the Minister may give a succinct explanation of the bill.[144]

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.[145] This motion is also deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put.[146] A Table Officer then rises and declares, “First reading of this bill/Première lecture de ce projet de loi”.[147] 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.[148] 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.[149] 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.[150]

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.[151] 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;[152] another Member may be chosen as the seconder for a bill.

*   Statements by Ministers

The third item under Routine Proceedings is “Statements by Ministers”. Under this rubric, Ministers make announcements or statements on government policy or matters of national interest.[153] Following the ministerial statement, a spokesperson from each recognized party in opposition is permitted to respond.[154]

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.[155] In addition, until at least 1915, Prime Ministers frequently made statements to explain changes in the membership of the Cabinet.[156] 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 also 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 that “went beyond the length of the statement itself”.[157]

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.[158] 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.[159]

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”.[160] 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.[161]

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 proposed 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, and permitting only a comment by a representative of each opposition party.[162] These changes were finally adopted on a provisional basis in June 1985 and in February 1986, and made permanent in June 1987.[163] 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.[164]

In 2001, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons looked into concerns expressed by many Members that government announcements, regarding legislation or policies, were increasingly being made outside the House of Commons. To remedy the situation, the Committee recommended that Ministers and their departments make greater use of the forum provided by the House of Commons and that more statements and announcements be made by Ministers in the House, during “Statements by Ministers”. The Committee also suggested reordering the Routine Proceedings items to call for the “Introduction of Government Bills” prior to “Statements by Ministers”. The Committee was of the view that this change “would encourage Ministers to give brief explanations of their legislation in the House, following introduction”.[165] The concurrence in the Special Committee’s report led to the rearrangement of the Routine Proceedings rubrics to their present order.

Guidelines

During “Statements by Ministers”, Ministers are expected to make brief and factual statements on government policy or announcements of national interest.[166] Members speaking on behalf of parties recognized by the House are normally the ones who speak in response to a Minister’s statement.[167] However, with the unanimous consent of the House, independent Members have been allowed to respond.[168] In responding to the statement, Members are not permitted to engage in debate or ask questions of the Minister.[169] 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.[170] 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.[171]

A Minister is under no obligation to make a statement in the House. The decision of a Minister to make an announcement outside 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 no grounds to support a claim that any privilege has been breached.[172]

It is customary as a courtesy for Ministers to advise opposition critics in advance of their intention to make a statement in the House. However, should no such warning be given, custom does not prohibit a Minister from making a statement.[173]

The length of time taken up by a Minister’s statement and opposition replies is added to the time provided for Government Orders 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.[174]

*   Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations

“Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations” is the fourth rubric under Routine Proceedings. This item was created in 1986 following a recommendation of a special committee to provide a means by which interparliamentary delegations could report their work to the House.[175]

Members frequently travel abroad or within Canada on officially recognized interparliamentary delegations as representatives of both the House and Parliament. An officially recognized interparliamentary delegation is a delegation, composed in whole or in part of Members of the House of Commons, 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 interparliamentary 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.[176] The main activities of these associations include exchanges, conferences and seminars on various subjects. The Canadian Parliament is a participant in 12 official parliamentary associations:

*       Canada-Africa Parliamentary Association;

*       Canada‑Europe Parliamentary Association;

*       Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association;

*       Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA);

*       Inter-Parliamentary Union (IPU);

*       Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie (APF);

*       Inter-Parliamentary Forum of the Americas (FIPA);

*       Canada‑France Interparliamentary Association;

*       Canada-United Kingdom Inter-Parliamentary Association;

*       Canada‑China Legislative Association;

*       Canada-United States Inter-Parliamentary Group; and

*       Canada‑Japan Inter‑parliamentary Group.

These associations choose delegates to participate in and host meetings, seminars and international conferences with counterpart countries. Each association, operating under an established constitution, elects a number of parliamentarians from its membership to form an Executive Committee. Membership fees for international associations and the operating expenses for each parliamentary association are split between the Senate (30 percent) and the House of Commons (70 percent). Administrative support for parliamentary associations is provided through the International and Interparliamentary Affairs Directorate.

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

*       Canada-Germany Interparliamentary Group;

*       Canada-Ireland Interparliamentary Group;

*       Canada-Israel Interparliamentary Group; and

*       Canada-Italy Interparliamentary Group.

Interparliamentary groups receive administrative support from the Senate and the House of Commons, 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 interparliamentary delegation is required to present to the House a report on its activities on any trip taken in fulfillment of its duties abroad, within 20 sitting days of its return.[177] 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 travels expenses. When “Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary 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.[178] The Member may comment briefly on the content of the report at this time; no debate is permitted.[179] The report is recorded as a sessional paper and as such is open to public review.[180] No other action is taken.

The Speaker has also presented reports after official visits abroad by parliamentary delegations headed by a Presiding Officer.[181] These reports are normally presented at the beginning of Routine Proceedings.

*   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; and

*       provisions in statutes requiring a review.

The fifth item under Routine Proceedings is “Presenting Reports from Committees”, one of the 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,[182] 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”.[183] If the committee has adopted a motion to request a response from the government to its report, that request is communicated orally at that time.[184] Provided that a hard copy of the report is presented in both official languages, it may also be presented in alternative forms of media, such as on floppy disk, audio cassette, video cassette or CD‑ROM, or in Braille or large print.[185]

While there is no provision in the rules for the tabling of minority reports,[186] since April 1991 committees have been permitted to append supplementary or dissenting opinions or recommendations to their reports.[187] 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.[188] No other Member may comment on the report at this time.[189]

A motion to concur in a committee report may be moved during Routine Proceedings under “Motions”, following the 48‑hour written notice requirement.[190] After presenting a report, 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. Unanimous consent for committee reports is usually granted on non‑controversial matters.[191] When the rubric “Motions” is called, the committee Chair rises and seeks the unanimous consent of the House to move concurrence. A Table Officer has, upon request, read the report aloud.[192]

*   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”.[193] The notice period is exactly the same as the notice required for bills introduced by the government.[194] When the Speaker calls “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills”, Members wishing to introduce a bill signal their 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.[195] After the Speaker identifies a seconder for the bill, the motion for leave to introduce is deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put.[196] Where a Minister generally foregoes the opportunity of commenting briefly on a bill at this stage, a private Member will invariably do so.[197] The Chair may interrupt the explanation if the Member is engaging in debate.[198]

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.[199] 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.[200]

*   First Reading of Senate Public Bills

Under Routine Proceedings, “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” is called between “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills” and “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 Bills” was created in April 1910 and immediately followed “Introduction of Bills”.[201]

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.[202] 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. Bill …”. There is no need for a motion for leave to introduce the bill since the House of Commons receives the bill along with the message from the Senate and is therefore already in possession of it. The bill is then placed on the Order Paper under “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” in Routine Proceedings.[203]

If the Member or Minister[204] sponsoring the bill in the House of Commons signals his or her desire to proceed with the bill when “First Reading of Senate Public Bills” is called by the Speaker during Routine Proceedings, the question, “That this bill be now read a first time”, is deemed carried without debate, amendment or question put.[205] 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. A Member sponsoring a Senate public bill may comment on it briefly at first reading.[206] 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 heading 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,[207] or under “Private Members’ Business” at the bottom of the Order of Precedence if the bill is sponsored by a private Member.[208]

*   Motions

Historical Perspective

“Motions” was one of four items provided for in Routine Proceedings at the time of Confederation.[209] 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 heading.[210] It was not until 1964 that the House adopted a new Standing Order to provide a separate rubric for ministerial statements which had been taking place under “Motions”.[211] In 1975, the items under Routine Proceedings were reordered so that “Government Notices of Motions”[212] and “Motions” were the last two items 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.[213] In 1987, the item “Government Notices of Motions” was dropped.[214]

Before the Standing Orders were changed in 2005,[215] there was no distinction between motions for concurrence in a committee report and other routine motions. In fact, the provisions transferring the debate on any motion that has been adjourned or interrupted to Government Orders were applied almost exclusively to concurrence motions.[216] As if to confirm the fears expressed in 1965 when the transfer of the provisions came into effect, the government rarely resumed debate on a motion first proposed by a private Member during Routine Proceedings.[217] In order to resolve the situation, the House adopted an amendment to its Standing Orders, making it mandatory that debate resume in relatively short order, but set a three-hour limit on the length of the debate and restricted the number of concurrence motions that could be moved in one sitting. In addition, debate on motions that has been adjourned or interrupted was to be resumed at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment (the sitting day having been designated by the government), rather than taking time away from Government Orders.[218]

Guidelines

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” have been narrowed to consist primarily of motions for concurrence in committee reports and motions relating to the sittings and proceedings of the House.[219]

The Chair has consistently ruled that the Government House Leader should be the one to introduce any motion pertaining to the arrangement of House business,[220] and that the motion may be considered under “Motions” or under Government Orders, depending on where the Minister giving notice has decided to place it.[221] 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”.[222] Accordingly, the Speaker accepts certain motions put on notice by private Members for consideration under the heading “Motions”, such as motions of instruction to committees and for concurrence in committee reports.[223] When private Members give written notice of other substantive matters, these motions are placed under Private Members’ Business on the Order Paper.[224]

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. 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 considered under this heading may be moved without notice by unanimous consent and adopted without debate.[225]

Examples of motions moved under this heading include those to:

*       manage the proceedings and business of the House or its committees;[226]

*       change the order of business of the House;[227]

*       arrange the times or days of sitting of the House;[228]

*       amend the Standing Orders;[229]

*       suspend the Standing Orders;[230]

*       discharge an Order of the House;[231]

*       concur in a committee report or a report by the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner;[232]

*       authorize a committee to travel;[233]

*       establish a special committee;[234]

*       instruct a committee to do something;[235]

*       alter the membership of a committee;[236]

*       appoint Officers of the House or Parliament (such as the Chief Electoral Officer, the Auditor General, the Commissioner of Lobbying, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy Commissioner and the Public Sector Integrity Commissioner), as well as the Clerk of the House of Commons and the Parliamentary Librarian;[237]

*       extend messages to another country;[238] and

*       censure Chair Occupants.[239]

Although motions of congratulations have been moved under this rubric, the Speaker has warned against this practice.[240]

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.[241] When debate on any motion considered during Routine Proceedings is adjourned[242] 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),[243] the order for resumption of the debate is transferred to Government Orders, with the exception of debate on a concurrence motion.[244] The motion will be considered again only under Government Orders in such sequence as the government determines.[245]

Motions for the Proposed Appointment of an Officer of Parliament

When the government informs the House, by tabling a certificate of nomination for appointment, that it intends to appoint an Officer of Parliament, the Clerk of the House, the Parliamentary Librarian or the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner, the name of the proposed appointee is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee.[246] The committee has the option of considering the appointment.[247] If it chooses to do so, the Standing Orders authorize the committee to consider the appointment for a period of not more than 30 days following the tabling of a document in the House concerning the proposed appointment. The committee is not obliged to report to the House on the appointment, even if it has been examined.

Not later than the expiry of the 30-day period provided, a notice of motion to ratify the appointment is placed on the Notice Paper under “Notices of Motions”, whether the committee has reported to the House or not. The motion is transferred to the Order Paper 48 hours after being put on notice. The government is not required to move the motion at the first opportunity where the rubric “Motions” under Routine Proceedings is called. It may move the motion under this rubric on any sitting day it sees fit. The motion, when moved, is to be decided without debate or amendment.

The notice of motion to ratify the appointment may be given at any time during this 30‑day period, whether the committee has reported to the House or not, and the motion may be adopted before the end of this period.[248]

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.[249] 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.[250] 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.[251]

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.[252] 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.[253]

A motion for concurrence in a committee report is debatable. No amendment may be presented to the text of the report, but a motion may be presented to recommit the report to the committee.[254] If debate is interrupted or adjourned, the motion is not transferred to Government Orders, unlike other motions presented during Routine Proceedings. Instead, it is transferred to the section “Concurrence in Committee Reports” under “Orders of the Day” and debate resumes at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on a day designated by the government, after consultations with the other parties. The day designated for the resumption of debate may not be more than 10 sitting days after debate was interrupted or adjourned.[255] A Minister usually rises in the House to announce the designation.[256] If no day has been designated, debate is automatically scheduled for the 10th sitting day.[257]

After a total of three hours of debate[258] (which includes both the initial debate and the resumed debate), or when no Member rises to speak, whichever comes first, the Speaker puts the question on the motion. In cases where there is no interruption or adjournment, a recorded division may be held immediately or deferred.[259] If a recorded division is requested on a day of resumed debate, it is automatically deferred to the following Wednesday on which the House sits, to a time not later than the end of Government Orders. Dilatory motions may be proposed when a motion for concurrence in a committee report is under debate.[260]

Only one motion for concurrence in a committee report may be moved on any sitting day. When two or more Members rise to move a concurrence motion on the same day, the Speaker proposes the motion that was submitted on notice first.[261]

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.[262] 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 its meeting or adjournment”.[263] When consent has previously been denied for the moving of such a motion, a Minister may rise under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings to request that the Speaker propose the question to the House.[264] The Speaker puts the question without debate or amendment.[265] 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;[266] otherwise, the motion is adopted.[267] 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.

Since the adoption of the Standing Order, however, Members have objected in a number of instances that the rule was being used for purposes never intended, and differed on the critical issue of what constituted a “routine” motion. In response to numerous points of order,[268] Speaker Milliken ruled that this provision was never intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages and it was never envisaged that this Standing Order would be used as a substitute for decisions which the House ought itself to make on substantive matters.[269] He also suggested that this rule was meant to be used not to reach into the conduct of standing committee affairs to direct them, but rather in a routine manner, to provide them with powers they do not already possess, such as the power to travel.[270]

Though Speakers Parent and Milliken both urged the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to examine the appropriate use of this Standing Order,[271] the Committee has never examined the matter. The Chair has frequently indicated that, having received no clarification, it must rule certain of these motions admissible, despite reservations.[272]

Motions Concerning Committee Travel

In conducting its business, a committee may decide to meet outside the precincts of Parliament. A committee may travel, however, only if it has first been authorized to do so by the House and, in the case of standing committees, if funds for the travel have been approved by the Liaison Committee.[273] In the vast majority of cases, authorization to travel is granted by unanimous consent, although it may also be permitted by means of a committee report or a routine motion for which unanimous consent has been denied.[274]

In 2001, the House adopted a rule providing for a distinct process with respect to the power of a committee to adjourn from place to place.[275] A Minister may now give 48‑hours notice of a routine motion for a committee to travel to assist with its studies. After the notice period has expired, the question on the motion is put forthwith, without debate or amendment, during Routine Proceedings.[276]

When putting the question, the Speaker will ask those who object to rise in their places. If 10 or more Members then rise, the motion shall be deemed withdrawn. Otherwise, the motion is deemed adopted.[277] Since coming into effect in 2001, this Standing Order has never been invoked.[278]

*   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;[279] or a Member may present the petition in the House during Routine Proceedings when “Presenting Petitions” is called by the Speaker.[280] Regardless of the method used, the Member must sign the back of the petition.[281] Before being presented, a petition must be examined and certified correct as to form and content by the Clerk of Petitions.[282] If the petition meets the requirements specified in the rules of the House, a Member, after being recognized by the Speaker 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.[283] The Speaker recognizes a Member only once during “Presenting Petitions”; if a Member has more than one petition to present, they must all be presented when the Member is given the floor.[284] 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.[285] The Member may not make a speech or enter into debate on or in relation to the petition.[286] The petition itself is not read.[287] It has long been deemed irregular for the Speaker to present a petition; an obliging colleague does it instead.[288]

The petitions are referred to the government, to the Government House Leader, in fact, by the Clerk of the House. The Standing Order does not specify the form of the response. Written responses are tabled during Routine Proceedings under the rubric “Tabling of Documents”, or they may be filed with the Clerk of the House during a sitting.

If a response from the government has not been received within 45 calendar days, the matter of the failure to respond is referred to the appropriate standing committee.[289] The Chair of that committee must then convene a meeting to consider the failure of the government to respond.[290]

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”, briefly state the purpose of the petition,[291] and then send it to the Table via a Page. No debate was allowed.

In 1910, substantial changes were made to the rules on petitions. The item “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.[292] The rules respecting the presentation of petitions remained intact until 1986 when the rubric “Presenting Petitions” was restored to Routine Proceedings.[293] However, on occasion, the presentation of petitions took up long periods of House time and prevented the House from reaching the Orders of the Day.[294] This led, in part, to changes in 1987 to the order of the items called under Routine Proceedings; “Presenting Petitions” is now the second to last item considered.[295] 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.[296] In September 2003, the House adopted simplified requirements for petitions, particularly the prayer for relief.[297]

Most importantly, the Standing Orders would be amended, for a one-year trial period, to provide that if a petition remained without a government response at the expiration of the 45-day period specified in the Standing Orders, the matter of the government’s failure to respond would be deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee for consideration.[298] The House believed that this provisional amendment should remain in effect as the 38th federal election approached, before making it permanent on October 29, 2004.[299]

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 greater detail in Chapter 22, “Public Petitions”.

*   Questions on the Order Paper

A Member wishing to submit a written question must give 48-hours notice before it is placed on the Order Paper.[300] Any Member may have a maximum of four questions to a Minister on the Order Paper at any one time in order to elicit information “relating to public affairs” for which the Minister’s department is responsible.[301] A Member may ask the government to respond to a specific question within 45 calendar days by so indicating when filing the question;[302] a Member may also ask that an oral answer be provided by attaching an asterisk to no more than three questions.[303] All questions are assigned a number when they are submitted. A question is transferred to the Order Paper the day after it appears in the Notice Paper.

Historical Perspective

This is the last item considered during the daily routine of business.[304] The rules of the House have always provided a mechanism for responses to written questions.[305] 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 item 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.[306] In June 1987, as a result of amendments to the Standing Orders, the item “Questions on the Order Paper” was added to the list of items considered during Routine Proceedings.[307]

In 1991, a new Standing Order was adopted to address the issue of unanswered questions on the Order Paper.[308] If a question for which a response within 45 calendar days had been sought was not answered within the specified time period, the Member could ask that the subject matter of the question be transferred to the Adjournment Proceedings. This provision has been applied only twice since it was implemented.[309] Even if this rule provided Members with another opportunity to have their questions answered, there was still considerable frustration on the part of Members because many questions were not answered. Since the Standing Orders permitted a Member to have a maximum of four questions on the Order Paper at one time, the Member was prevented from submitting other questions, despite the expiry of the 45 calendar day period. This resulted in a further amendment to this rule in 2001.[310] This change to the Standing Order provided for the automatic referral of the failure of a Ministry to respond to the written question to a standing committee for study.[311]

In addition, in April 2005, the House introduced a system to allow Members to submit their written questions electronically via a secure Web site.[312]

Guidelines

When the Speaker calls “Questions on the Order Paper” 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,[313] 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.[314] 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 published in the Debates.[315] 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 review; the text of the response does not appear in the Debates.[316] 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 to not proceed with the question on that day[317] or have the Minister table the answer under “Tabling of Documents”.

After the designated Parliamentary Secretary or Minister has enumerated the questions that are to be answered on a given day, he or she will then ask the House to stand the remaining unanswered questions. This allows the questions to retain their position on the Order Paper; otherwise, the unanswered questions would be struck from the Order Paper.[318] It is at this time that Members raise any concerns they have about their questions and request information about the status of the reply.

If the government fails to answer an Order Paper question for which a Member had requested an answer within the 45-day period, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond is deemed referred to the appropriate standing committee.[319] Although the question remains on the Order Paper, it is designated as referred to committee. The Chair of the committee is required to convene a meeting of the committee within five sitting days of the referral to investigate the failure of the government to respond to the written question. The Member may then submit another question, but is still restricted to a maximum of four “non-designated” questions at any one time. Finally, if he or she does not wish to have the question transferred to committee, the Member may rise under “Questions on the Order Paper” and give notice of his or her intention to have the subject matter of the question transferred to the Adjournment Proceedings and raised at that particular point in the daily program.[320] 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 Wednesdays. It is the final item of Routine Proceedings following “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 the Notice 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 heading “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.[321] 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 item “Notices of Motions”. 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 an item formally on the daily agenda of business. It also guaranteed that motions for papers would be reached on days designated as Private Members’ Days.[322]

Provisional changes to the Standing Orders in 1961,[323] which were made permanent in 1962,[324] provided that “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” would be called only on Wednesdays 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’ Business.[325]

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.[326] Motions for papers should be prepared carefully and state clearly and definitely the exact information required.[327] 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.[328]

When this rubric is called by the Speaker on Wednesdays, one of several outcomes may take place for each of the notices of motions called:[329]

1.       Motion acceptable to government

A Minister or a Parliamentary Secretary, usually the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader,[330] 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.[331] If the House does not agree, the motion must either be transferred for debate,[332] 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 (confidentiality, for instance). 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.[333] If the House does not agree, the motion must either be transferred for debate,[334] 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, 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.[335] Otherwise, either the Member sponsoring the item or a Minister may then ask that the motion be transferred for debate.[336] 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.[337] In the absence of the sponsor, an alternative way of proceeding would be for a Minister, once a notice of motion is called, to request immediately that it be transferred for debate. When a request to transfer is made, the motion is transferred, without debate or amendment, to a section 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 its sponsor chooses to place it on 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.[338]

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.[339] The motion is then transferred, without debate or amendment, to a section 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 its sponsor places it on 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.[340]

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.[341] 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”.[342] Although not formally approved by the House, these principles have been followed since then:[343]

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 inter se (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 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 Speaker 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.[344]

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.[345] However, the Speaker has no power to determine when documents should be tabled.[346] A prorogation does not nullify an Order for the production of papers.[347]

Top of Page



[61] 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 a point of order.

[62] For further information, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.

[63] On occasion, a Minister or a 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 the 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, September 19, 1995, pp. 14622‑3; June 16, 2005, p. 7254; April 27, 2006, p. 624; September 21, 2006, p. 3057; November 8, 2006, pp. 4908‑9.

[64] Standing Order 30(4).

[65] 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 call 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 (Journals, September 25, 1989, pp. 492‑505, Debates, p. 3842).

[66] Standing Order 30(4)(b).

[67] Standing Order 24(2).

[68] Standing Order 30(5).

[69] Standing Order 30(6). See, for example, Journals, April 23, 1997, p. 1519.

[70] Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.

[71] Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 25.

[72] 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.

[73] 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.

[74] Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399. The rubrics 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”.

[75] Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1663, 1665; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.

[76] 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; October 27, 2003, p. 8780 (moved under “Tabling of Documents”); June 2, 1998, pp. 7452‑6; October 7, 2003, pp. 8244, 8248-9; October 22, 2003, pp. 8604, 8607-8 (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).

[77] 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”.

[78] 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.

[79] 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 heading “Motions”, or even to prevent altogether the calling of Orders of the Day.

[80] On November 6, 1986, at the conclusion of “Presenting Petitions”, an opposition Member moved that the House proceed to Orders of 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 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 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 (Journals, November 6, 1986, pp. 180‑2; November 7, 1986, pp. 188‑91, Debates, pp. 1187‑202). 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 (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).

[81] Journals, March 16, 1987, pp. 586‑91.

[82] Journals, April 7, 1987, p. 719.

[83] Debates, April 8, 1987, pp. 4983‑8; April 9, 1987, pp. 4990‑7.

[84] Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1435. The Speaker ruled that it is not in order to propose a motion to exclude certain items from consideration on a given sitting day (for example, to go from “Tabling of Documents” to “Motions”).

[85] Debates, April 13, 1987, pp. 5071‑82.

[86] Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5119‑22.

[87] Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5120.

[88] Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5121.

[89] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017‑8.

[90] The rubrics under Routine Proceedings were reordered as follows: “Tabling of Documents”, “Statements by Ministers”, “Presenting Reports from Interparliamentary Delegations”, “Presenting Reports from Committees”, “Introduction of Government Bills”, “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills”, “First Reading of Senate Public Bills”, “Motions”, “Presenting Petitions” and “Questions on the Order Paper”.

[91] The Special Committee suggested that the rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” should be moved from fifth to second place in the list of items to be called during Routine Proceedings. See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 14 and 15, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), pursuant to an Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685).

[92] The rubric “Introduction of Government Bills” was called under this new provision for the first time on October 15, 2001 (Debates, p. 6047).

[93] Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399.

[94] See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1892, col. 2268; Journals, June 5, 1899, pp. 227‑8.

[95] Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 536‑7.

[96] See, for example, Debates, March 2, 1920, pp. 85‑7; December 4, 1968, p. 3472.

[97] Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 916-7. The returns and reports deposited privately with the Clerk would, like those formally presented, be recorded in the Votes and Proceedings.

[98] Standing Order 32(2). See also Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 569‑70.

[99] Standing Order 109. See also Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.

[100] Standing Order 36(8). See also Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1665; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709‑10.

[101] Standing Order 110. See also Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1664; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709‑10.

[102] In April 1993, the Speaker ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege had 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 (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” (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 to the House 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, October 17, 2001, pp. 6265-6; October 30, 2001, pp. 6735-7; November 21, 2001, pp. 7380‑1 (the document in question had been tabled in the days following the statements regarding the matter of privilege, but before the Speaker’s ruling had been delivered (Journals, November 5, 2001, p. 795)); Debates, March 1, 2002, p. 9419; March 11, 2002, pp. 9469‑71; April 10, 2002, pp. 10242‑3; December 9, 2002, pp. 2411-2; December 12, 2002, pp. 2600‑1, when related questions of privilege were raised and ruled on.

[103] Standing Order 153. Until 2001, at the beginning of each session of Parliament, the Clerk of the House had a list printed and delivered to all Members of all the reports and periodical documents that certain public officers, government departments and private corporations had to table or have tabled in the House. Since March 2001, the List of Reports and Returns is no longer printed and delivered but is published on the Parliament of Canada Web site.

[104] A Minister tabling a document under this heading may then proceed to speak on its subject matter under the next heading, “Statements by Ministers”. See, for example, Journals, May 25, 1994, pp. 472‑3. On occasion, two Ministers have tabled a document jointly (Journals, June 11, 2003, p. 902).

[105] Standing Order 32(1). This Standing Order was implemented in 1955 as a time‑saving procedure (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 916‑7).

[106] Standing Order 32(3).

[107] Standing Orders 110 and 111.

[108] 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.

[109] For further information, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.

[110] Standing Order 110. A question of privilege was raised on March 8, 2004 (Debates, pp. 1216‑8) when a number of Order-in-Council appointments published in the Canada Gazette had not been tabled in the House within the prescribed timeframe. The government acknowledged its error and the Order-in-Council appointments were tabled in the House the next day. The Speaker ordered that the 30 sitting days for the consideration of appointments by committees would begin on the date of their tabling, not on the date on which they should have been tabled (Debates, March 9, 2004, pp. 1259-60).

[111] Standing Order 32(4). See, for example, Journals, December 12, 2006, p. 897; February 2, 2007, p. 954. Occasionally, a document has been tabled in only one language, by unanimous consent. See, for example, Journals, March 17, 1998, p. 574; March 16, 1999, p. 1618.

[112] See, for example, Journals, May 12, 1992, p. 1445 (Braille summary and audio cassette); December 11, 1996, p. 991 (CD‑ROM); October 5, 2006, p. 509 (MP3). In the latter case, an English-only audio recording was tabled by unanimous consent, even though no corresponding paper version was tabled. See also Debates, November 8, 1990, pp. 15289‑90; November 19, 1992, pp. 13604‑5 (computer disk); May 9, 2005, p. 718 (CD-ROM).

[113] Beauchesne, A., Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 4th ed., Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1958, p. 137. 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.

[114] See Speaker Milliken’s ruling on this issue (Debates, May 4, 2005, pp. 5657-8). See also Debates, March 26, 2001, p. 2226; June 11, 2002, p. 12535; February 23, 2005, p. 3873. For further information on the practice, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.

[115] 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.

[116] Standing Order 32(1) and (2).

[117] See, for example, Debates, June 8, 1989, pp. 2812‑3; February 13, 1998, p. 3866; October 28, 2003, p. 8835; May 10, 2005, pp. 5884-5; June 1, 2006, p. 1871. 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 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). During the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament, Members who objected to Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, used the dilatory tactic of asking, on a regular if not daily basis, for unanimous consent for all of the Members of their caucus to table documents. The Speaker ruled that one submission per day per Member was enough (Debates, December 13, 1999, pp. 2760‑5; December 14, 1999, pp. 2922-3). For further information on the tabling of documents by private Members, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.

[118] See, for example, Journals, November 1, 2005, p. 1238; June 8, 2006, p. 251; October 27, 2006, p. 589.

[119] See, for example, Debates, June 13, 1991, p. 1646. See also Speaker’s comments, Debates, February 24, 1992, p. 7531.

[120] See, for example, Journals, February 9, 2000, p. 859 (House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000 Edition); March 17, 2003, p. 495 (Standing Orders of the House of Commons); October 5, 2005, p. 1105 (Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons, Second Edition); April 4, 2006, p. 11 (letter from the Government House Leader, dated March 30, 2006, concerning notice of two government motions to be placed on the Special Order Paper and Notice Paper); May 2, 2007, p. 1307 (report of a parliamentary delegation that travelled to the Hellenic Republic, the United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Norway).

[121] Standing Order 28(2)(b). See, for example, Journals, September 28, 2006, p. 469. As the Second Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament began on October 16, 2007, the calendar could not be tabled by the Speaker before the deadline. By unanimous consent, the House of Commons calendar for 2008 was tabled by a Minister of the Crown the following week and, by unanimous consent, the proposed calendar was concurred in by the House. See Journals, October 24, 2007, p. 57. In a similar situation, early in the First Session of the 38th Parliament, the Speaker simply tabled the House of Commons calendar for 2005. See Journals, October 13, 2004, p. 85.

[122] 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 are tabled as soon as they are approved by the Board (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, February 13, 1998, p. 464; November 10, 2006, p. 702; June 13, 2007, p. 1530.

[123] Standing Order 121(4). See, for example, Journals, June 16, 2005, p. 919; May 5, 2006, pp. 135-6; June 13, 2007, p. 1530. 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.

[124] Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, s. 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, February 13, 1998, p. 464; June 21, 2006, p. 341; October 27, 2006, p. 592; June 13, 2007, p. 1530.

[125] See, for example, Journals, March 5, 1999, p. 1561; December 14, 2004, p. 349; June 12, 2006, p. 262. The Strategic Outlook replaces the former Report on Plans and Priorities.

[126] See, for example, Journals, November 18, 1998, p. 1271; June 17, 2005, p. 923; June 12, 2006, p. 262; June 13, 2007, p. 1518; June 13, 2008, p. 986. The Report to Canadians replaces the former Performance Report.

[127] See, for example, Journals, June 22, 2005, p. 957 (Report of the Ethics Commissioner on an inquiry in relation to the Honourable Member for Newton—North Delta, pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix to the Standing Orders); September 18, 2006, p. 370 (Report of the Ethics Commissioner entitled “The Vellacott Inquiry”, dated June 2006, pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix to the Standing Orders); March 30, 2007, p. 1195 (Report of the Ethics Commissioner entitled “The Obhrai Inquiry”, dated March 2007, pursuant to section 28 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix to the Standing Orders).

[128] See, for example, Journals, January 31, 2005, p. 360; April 4, 2006, p. 15; January 31, 2007, p. 945.

[129] See, for example, Journals, February 7, 2000, p. 839; February 18, 2002, p. 1030; January 27, 2003, p. 314.

[130] See, for example, Journals, September 24, 1997, p. 20 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada for 1995); October 30, 2007, p. 112 (2007 Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House of Commons).

[131] Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 536; Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17, ss. 7(3), 8(2) and 19(2); Official Languages Act, R.S. 1985, c. 31, 4th Supp., ss. 65(3), 66, 67(1) and 69(1); Access to Information Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑1, ss. 38, 39(1) and 40; Privacy Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑21, ss. 38, 39(1) and 40(1); Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P-1, s. 72.13(1); Public Servants Disclosure Protection Act, S.C. 2005, c. 46, s. 38(3.3); Lobbyists Registration Act, R.S. 1985, c. 44, 4th Supp., s. 11. See, for example, Journals, June 6, 2005, p. 834; October 6, 2005, p. 1119; April 28, 2006, p. 103; May 12, 2006, p. 169; May 15, 2007, p. 1401; June 20, 2007, p. 1565; October 30, 2007, p. 112; May 28, 2008, p. 857.

[132] Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 32. See, for example, Journals, May 3, 2006, p. 121; March 28, 2007, p. 1170. The Speaker also tables special reports by the Canadian Human Rights Commission. See, for example, Journals, February 15, 2001, p. 99; February 3, 2004, p. 7.

[133] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 21(1). See, for example, Journals, December 10, 2002, p. 287; September 15, 2003, pp. 950, 959. If the House is not sitting, the reports are tabled on any of the first five sitting days when the House returns. For further information, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.

[134] Standing Order 32(1). See the Twenty‑Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House 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.

[135] See, for example, Journals, September 21, 1998, pp. 1040, 1053; September 26, 2005, pp. 1024, 1032, 1039; September 18, 2006, pp. 369, 378; January 29, 2007, pp. 933‑4.

[136] See, for example, Journals, September 26, 2005, p. 1044 (document deposited with Clerk on first sitting day).

[137] Standing Order 49.

[138] Debates, June 27, 1986, p. 14969.

[139] First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 14 and 15, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), pursuant to an Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685). Previously, “Introduction of Government Bills” was the fifth rubric under Routine Proceedings, right after “Presenting Reports from Committees”.

[140] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1018.

[141] 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). For further information on notice requirements, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[142] 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. For further information on the introduction and first reading of government bills, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[143] 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).

[144] 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, for example, Debates, June 18, 1992, p. 12323; February 5, 1998, pp. 3402-3.

[145] 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 Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, par. 10 and 11, presented to the House on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 432-3).

[146] 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 (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2913‑4).

[147] 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, J.G., South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1884), 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).

[148] On one occasion, a Member argued that this question was a votable motion that 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).

[149] See, for example, Journals, October 29, 1997, p. 166; February 23, 2004, pp. 111‑2; March 11, 2004, pp. 168-9; March 12, 2004, pp. 176-8. 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. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[150] Standing Order 81(17) and (18)(c). See, for example, Journals, June 14, 2005, pp. 889‑90; November 28, 2006, p. 826.

[151] With 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).

[152] See, for example, Debates, January 31, 1985, p. 1845; October 28, 1991, pp. 4070‑2, 4076.

[153] 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. On one occasion, the Prime Minister asked to table a document at the end of his statement (Debates, May 1, 2006, pp. 707-8). Prime Ministers have used this proceeding to make announcements in the House. See, for example, Debates, June 11, 1990, pp. 12590, 12604‑10 (Meech Lake Accord); September 24, 1991, pp. 2585‑91 (proposals to renew Canadian federation); June 10, 1999, pp. 16195‑6 (Kosovo); May 1, 2006, pp. 707-8 (Air India); June 22, 2006, pp. 2859-62 (apology to Chinese Canadians).

[154] Standing Order 33(1). The Leaders of the recognized parties in opposition customarily respond to the Prime Minister’s statement. See, for example, Debates, November 22, 2006, pp. 5197‑200; June 11, 2008, pp. 6849‑54.

[155] 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.

[156] See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1877, pp. 32‑3; February 16, 1915, pp. 207‑8.

[157] Debates, March 24, 1959, pp. 2177‑8.

[158] 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).

[159] 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.

[160] Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented to the House 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.

[161] Debates, February 10, 1983, pp. 22716‑7.

[162] 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.

[163] Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 912‑3, 919; February 6, 1986, p. 1647; February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987, pp. 1018‑9.

[164] 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.

[165] First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 14 and 15, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), pursuant to an Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685).

[166] Standing Order 31(1). On one occasion, two Ministers made a joint statement (Debates, March 24, 1999, pp. 13442‑4).

[167] See, for example, Debates, October 25, 1990, pp. 14665‑9; April 14, 2005, pp. 5068‑70; May 31, 2006, pp. 1773-5; November 2, 2006, pp. 4654-7. On occasion, a Member of a recognized party has spoken in reply to a ministerial statement on behalf of the spokesperson without any need for unanimous consent. See, for example, Debates, May 10, 2006, pp. 1190‑1.

[168] 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, March 12, 1997, p. 8955; April 1, 2003, pp. 4951-2).

[169] See, for example, Debates, April 11, 1994, p. 2867.

[170] Standing Order 33(1). See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1994, p. 5059; November 27, 2002, pp. 1953-4.

[171] Standing Order 33(1). On one occasion, a ministerial statement lasted almost 45 minutes (Debates, June 18, 1987, pp. 7360-5). In another case, a ministerial statement of more than 30 minutes was followed by responses from the two opposition spokespersons of approximately 30 minutes each (Debates, March 12, 1987, pp. 4075-84).

[172] See, for example, Debates, November 1, 1974, p. 957; October 4, 1989, p. 4309; February 18, 1998, p. 4073; December 3, 1998, pp. 10826‑31. The October 2001 concurrence in the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, which described Members’ concerns regarding this issue, did not result in any changes to the Standing Orders. Over the year, the Chair reiterated that the government was not required to make a statement in the House (Debates, October 29, 2001, pp. 6669-71).

[173] 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.

[174] Standing Order 33(2). See, for example, Debates, May 10, 2006, p. 1194; November 2, 2006, p. 4657; November 22, 2006, p. 5203. 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).

[175] Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, recommendation 7.13, presented to the House 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 and of the Senate 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).

[176] 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 interparliamentary 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 (Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5910‑4; April 23, 1998, pp. 6035‑7).

[177] 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). There is no sanction in the Standing Orders in the case where a report is not presented within the prescribed timeframe.

[178] 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; November 13, 2007, p. 777. On one occasion, however, a Member was denied an opportunity to present a report from an unofficial delegation (Debates, November 4, 2005, p. 9532).

[179] Standing Order 34(2).

[180] 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 review.

[181] See, for example, Debates, November 1, 2006, p. 4540; March 27, 2007, p. 7937; May 3, 2007, p. 1331.

[182] Standing Order 35(1). A report to the House from a committee may be made by any Member, as long as that Member is standing in his or her place. On one occasion, a Member who was only an associate member of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade presented a report from the committee, as the Chief Whip of his party had previously forwarded the substitution, duly signed, to the Table (Debates, June 17, 2005, p. 7379).

[183] 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 (Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, recommendation 4.13, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839)). The present Standing Order was adopted on February 13, 1986 (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 to the House was read in its entirety by a Table Officer, and the text was 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 from Members who had stated their 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 (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, but this has only happened twice since then (Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848; March 12, 1996, pp. 567-8). The practice was to have such reports read by a Table Officer only when so requested by the Speaker before the House was asked for unanimous consent to proceed immediately with the concurrence motion.

[184] Standing Order 109. The government is obliged to table the response within 120 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). On one occasion, a standing committee has withdrawn its request for a comprehensive response to the committee report (Journals, June 22, 2006, pp. 345-6).

[185] See, for example, Journals, June 16, 1993, p. 3318; September 8, 1993, pp. 3338‑9; Debates, June 10, 1999, p. 16150.

[186] Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1397‑9; March 16, 1972, pp. 194‑5; Debates, November 24, 1994, pp. 8252‑3.

[187] 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 Chair, 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 (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 apply the Standing Order also to special committees (Debates, November 24, 1994, p. 8252). For further information on the format of committee reports, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.

[188] 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. See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1997, pp. 1715‑6; February 22, 2000, pp. 3829-30. 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” (Debates, November 24, 1994, p. 8252).

[189] On occasion, 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, for example, 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, for example, Debates, June 18, 1992, p. 12322; June 21, 1995, p. 14322.

[190] On February 18, 2005 (Journals, pp. 451-5), Standing Order 109 was amended to provide that, if the committee has requested a response by the government to its report, no motion for concurrence in that report can be proposed until either the response has been tabled or the period of 120 days has expired. See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, June 2, 2006, pp. 12‑3; February 20, 2007, p. 19.

[191] The reports of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs regarding committee membership are regularly concurred in by unanimous consent. See, for example, Journals, October 18, 2006, pp. 538-9; November 6, 2006, p. 639; February 16, 2007, p. 1020.

[192] See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848; March 12, 1996, pp. 567‑8. For further information on concurrence in committee reports, see the section in this chapter entitled “Motions”, as well as Chapter 20, “Committees”.

[193] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1018.

[194] 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, May 17, 1995, p. 12726.

[195] See, for example, Debates, February 22, 1995, p. 9954; February 8, 2001, pp. 382‑3.

[196] Standing Order 68(2).

[197] Standing Order 68(2). On April 22, 1997, a Member introduced and commented on 29 bills (Journals, April 22, 1997, pp. 1502‑6). The same Member introduced 38 bills on February 13, 1998 (Journals, pp. 458‑63), and 32 bills on February 13, 2003 (Journals, pp. 411‑6).

[198] See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1997, p. 1717; May 12, 2005, p. 5950; October 7, 2005, p. 8563.

[199] Standing Order 69(1).

[200] For further information on the consideration and passage of a private Member’s bill, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[201] Journals, April 29, 1910, p. 537.

[202] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 272.

[203] See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, November 24, 2006, 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. For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[204] There have been a number of Senate bills sponsored by a Minister of the Crown. See, for example, Journals, 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; December 9, 2004, pp. 323-4; June 22, 2005, p. 959; May 31, 2006, p. 217; November 24, 2006, p. 805.

[205] 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 Standing Orders of the House (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).

[206] See, for example, Debates, September 21, 1971, p. 8029; June 29, 1987, p. 7715; November 18, 1998, p. 10145; November 20, 2001, p. 7301; November 28, 2005, p. 10215; October 31, 2006, p. 4447.

[207] 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 (Journals, June 18, 1992, pp. 1793, 1803; December 7, 1998, pp. 1402, 1404-5; June 12, 2002, pp. 1572-4).

[208] See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[209] Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.

[210] Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 25.

[211] Journals, May 7, 1964, p. 297.

[212] 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 by the Speaker 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).

[213] Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, par. 9, presented to the House 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 heading “Motions” was reached. This meant that the House would not be able to consider any routine proceeding following “Motions”. 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 below “Motions” and there was no Question Period. See Stewart, J.B., The Canadian House of Commons: Procedure and Reform, Montreal and London: McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1977, 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 Standing Orders were again amended to permit the government to call such business in the order it chose without restriction (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571).

[214] 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)). Such notices become an order of the day, similar to any other government business item ordered for consideration by the House.

[215] These new provisions were adopted temporarily by the House on February 18, 2005 (Journals, pp. 451-5, in particular p. 452), and permanently on October 25, 2006 (Journals, pp. 577-9).

[216] For an example of another type of motion being transferred to Government Orders, see Journals, February 21, 2001, pp. 121-2; Order Paper and Notice Paper, February 22, 2001, p. 12.

[217] For an example of debate being resumed under Government Orders, see Debates, July 6, 1969, p. 11028. In this case, the concurrence motion had been moved by a government backbencher.

[218] Standing Order 66(2) and (3).

[219] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 219; Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 79. See also Journals, May 2, 1961, p. 494; Debates, June 18, 1996, pp. 3981‑2. When a Member wished to move a motion regarding the Senate’s progress on a private Member’s public bill, the Speaker stated that, in a bicameral parliament, each House is the master of its own proceedings. Because the House of Commons cannot compel the Senate to conduct its work in a specific manner, the Speaker ruled that the Member’s motion properly appeared under Private Members’ Business rather than under “Motions (Routine Proceedings)” (Debates, June 14, 2000, pp. 8024‑6; October 5, 2000, p. 8975; October 16, 2000, pp. 9043-4).

[220] See, for example, various Speakers’ rulings: Journals, May 30, 1928, p. 476; May 11, 1944, p. 365; May 2, 1961, pp. 493‑5; Debates, April 28, 1982, p. 16701; March 29, 2007, pp. 8136‑8, in particular p. 8137.

[221] Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821‑2. 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, in particular p. 16377).

[222] Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.

[223] 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 heading to deal with the decision of a committee not to report back on a private Member’s bill. See Speaker Parent’s rulings, Debates, September 23, 1996, pp. 4560‑2; November 21, 1996, pp. 6519‑20. The Chair also allowed a Member to place a motion giving a committee the power to divide a government bill under this heading (Debates, February 21, 2001, p. 1011; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 14, 2008, p. 24).

[224] See Speaker Parent’s ruling that motions for a free conference with the Senate may not be moved during Routine Proceedings (Debates, June 18, 1996, pp. 3981‑2).

[225] 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). See, for example, Debates, May 11, 2006, pp. 1222, 1280.

[226] See, for example, Journals, November 24, 1994, pp. 927‑8; March 22, 2005, p. 532; April 20, 2005, p. 657; May 11, 2006, p. 164.

[227] See, for example, Journals, November 4, 1987, p. 1831; June 2, 1988, pp. 2778‑9; May 6, 1994, p. 435; May 16, 2006, pp. 177-8; May 17, 2006, pp. 189-91; November 7, 2006, p. 644.

[228] See, for example, Journals, May 5, 2006, pp. 134‑5; November 1, 2006, p. 609.

[229] See, for example, Journals, April 5, 1989, pp. 40‑2; March 23, 1990, p. 1397; January 25, 1994, pp. 58‑61; October 5, 2004, pp. 12‑3.

[230] See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; October 5, 2004, p. 13.

[231] See, for example, Journals, April 5, 1995, p. 1334; May 17, 2005, p. 762; February 23, 2007, p. 1066.

[232] See, for example, Journals, April 13, 1994, p. 339; May 11, 2006, p. 164; February 16, 2007, p. 1020. See also section 28(10) of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix to the Standing Orders.

[233] See, for example, Journals, September 27, 1995, p. 1959; October 27, 2006, pp. 590‑1; February 12, 2007, p. 992; February 22, 2007, pp. 1060‑1.

[234] See, for example, Journals, September 18, 1991, p. 363; October 30, 1991, p. 568; February 14, 1992, p. 1026. Note that all the motions cited as examples were adopted by unanimous consent.

[235] See, for example, Journals, October 16, 1985, p. 1107; July 13, 1988, pp. 3174‑5; June 22, 1994, p. 655. A subcommittee has been given the power to report directly to the House, a legislative committee has been permitted to travel and a special joint committee was empowered to extend the date of presenting its final report. However, a Member has not been empowered to place on notice under “Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings)” a motion that would broaden the terms of reference referred to a committee by the House (by means of the Standing Orders). For further information, see the Speaker’s ruling of June 18, 1996 (Debates, pp. 3981‑2).

[236] See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1996, p. 666; February 7, 2007, pp. 978‑80; February 16, 2007, p. 1020.

[237] See, for example, Journals, April 22, 1998, pp. 692‑3; October 7, 2005, p. 1152; November 23, 2005, pp. 1314-6; September 29, 2006, p. 476; December 13, 2006, p. 911; February 21, 2007, p. 1043. 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 heading “Motions” or under the heading “Government Motions”. In 1998, the appointment of the Information Commissioner was debated under Government Orders (Journals, June 10, 1998, pp. 999‑1000). See also Standing Order 111.1 relating to the procedure for appointing Officers of Parliament. See, for example, Journals, October 7, 2005, p. 1152 (appointment of Audrey Elizabeth O’Brien as Clerk of the House of Commons); November 23, 2005, pp. 1314‑5 (appointment of William Robert Young as Parliamentary Librarian).

[238] See, for example, Journals, November 28, 1990, p. 2311; October 30, 1991, p. 568; December 10, 1991, p. 908.

[239] 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.

[240] 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).

[241] See, for example, Journals, June 2, 1998, pp. 920‑1; February 26, 2002, pp. 1101‑2. Concurrence motions superseded by motions to adjourn the House have, however, remained on the Order Paper. See for example, Journals, May 11, 2005, pp. 739-42; May 12, 2005, pp. 745‑6; Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 13, 2005, p. 28.

[242] See, for example, Journals, December 13, 1994, pp. 1026‑7; June 20, 1996, pp. 592‑3; March 26, 1998, pp. 633‑4. Prior to February 2005, motions for concurrence in committee reports were subject to this rule.

[243] See, for example, Journals, April 23, 1997, pp. 1518‑9; April 26, 1999, pp. 1766‑7. Prior to February 2005, motions for concurrence in committee reports were subject to this rule.

[244] Standing Order 66(1). Since February 2005, the resumed debate on motions for concurrence in committee reports has been governed by Standing Order 66(2). For further information on the disposal of such motions and other routine motions, see “Historical Perspective” under the section in this chapter entitled “Motions”, as well as the section entitled “Motions for Concurrence in Committee Reports”.

[245] Standing Order 40(2). The government rarely resumes debate during Government Orders on a motion first proposed by a private Member during Routine Proceedings.

[246] Standing Order 111.1.

[247] For example, the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates did not actually meet with the appointee to the position of President of the Public Service Commission, referred to them pursuant to Standing Order 111.1, before recommending that her appointment be confirmed. See Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates, Minutes of Proceedings, April 1, 2004, Meeting No. 7.

[248] In the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, the name of the candidate for the position of Commissioner of Official Languages (Graham Fraser) was referred to the Standing Committee on Official Languages on September 18, 2006. The notice of motion to ratify the appointment was given on September 27, 2006, and the motion was concurred in on September 29, 2006 (Journals, September 18, 2006, p. 356; September 29, 2006, p. 476; Order Paper and Notice Paper, September 28, 2006, p. III).

[249] If a committee has asked the government to table a comprehensive response to its report, Standing Order 109 states that no motion for the concurrence in the report may be proposed until the comprehensive response has been tabled or the expiration of the period of 120 days. See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, June 2, 2006, pp. 12-3; February 20, 2007, p. 21.

[250] Journals, January 20, 1970, pp. 327‑9, in particular p. 328.

[251] 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.

[252] See, for example, Journals, February 6, 1995, pp. 1080‑1; Debates, February 7, 2007, pp. 6519-20. 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 out of order. The House gave its consent and the motion was adopted (Debates, pp. 2604‑5).

[253] The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs uses this approach regularly to move concurrence in its reports, primarily when the reports deal with changes in the membership of committees. See, for example, Journals, February 7, 2007, pp. 978‑80; February 16, 2007, p. 1020.

[254] See, for example, Journals, April 22, 2005, p. 673. Speaker Milliken had been called on to rule on the admissibility of an amendment to a committee report recommitting the report to the committee, with instruction that it amend the report so as to “recommend that the government resign” (Debates, May 2, 2005, pp. 5512-7; May 5, 2005, pp. 5725-7). The Chair ruled that it could find no procedural grounds on which the amendment could be found defective. See also Debates, May 9, 2005, pp. 5817-8, 5821.

[255] Standing Order 66(2).

[256] See, for example, Debates, April 7, 2005, p. 4818. On some occasions, the designation has been announced by the Chief Government Whip (Debates, May 10, 2005, p. 5897; May 16, 2005, p. 6016).

[257] See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 19, 2005, p. 27; May 20, 2005, p. 27; September 20, 2006, p. 20; September 21, 2006, p. 20.

[258] Though Standing Order 66(2) provides that the motion should be considered for three hours, time taken for voting on dilatory motions has been counted in the three hours of debate. See, for example, Debates, May 3, 2005, pp. 5549-67, in particular pp. 5549, 5561‑2, 5567; May 4, 2005, pp. 5661-6.

[259] Standing Order 45.

[260] See, for example, Journals, May 3, 2005, pp. 685-7, in particular p. 686; May 11, 2005, pp. 739-42.

[261] See, for example, Debates, May 2, 2005, p. 5517; May 3, 2005, p. 5549; May 4, 2005, p. 5661.

[262] 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”.

[263] Standing Order 56.1(1)(b).

[264] Standing Order 56.1(1)(a).

[265] Standing Order 56.1(2).

[266] See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1999, p. 1640; March 22, 1999, p. 1645; October 22, 2002, p. 91; May 13, 2005, pp. 749‑50.

[267] Standing Order 56.1(3). See, for example, Journals, April 24, 1997, pp. 1524‑5; December 1, 1997, pp. 290‑1; February 9, 1998, p. 430; April 12, 1999, p. 1687; June 12, 2001, pp. 535‑6; June 13, 2003, p. 935; October 3, 2006, pp. 487-8; May 31, 2007, p. 9958; December 12, 2007, pp. 2095‑6.

[268] Points of order were raised on June 12, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5027‑31), October 22, 2002 (Debates, pp. 757‑9), May 13, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5972-3), October 3, 2006 (Debates, p. 3536) and May 31, 2007 (Debates, pp. 9962‑4). The Chair ruled on these points of order on September 18, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5256‑8), October 24, 2002 (Debates, pp. 828‑9), May 13, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5973‑4), October 3, 2006 (Debates, p. 3571), and June 5, 2007 (Debates, p. 10124).

[269] In June 2001, the government used this rule to dispose of almost all the motions to concur in the main estimates. The Chair ruled that this application of the Standing Order went far beyond the original intent underlying its adoption. While allowing the decision made in June 2001 to stand, the Speaker stated that it would not be considered a precedent (Journals, June 12, 2001, pp. 535‑6, Debates, pp. 5027-31; September 18, 2001, pp. 5256-8).

[270] The government used this rule to dispose of a motion to apply closure to the debate at committee stage of Bill C‑44, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act. In response to a point of order, the Speaker ruled that using this rule to direct the business of a committee was a new development in the House and one he found out of order (Debates, May 31, 2007, pp. 9958, 9962‑4; June 5, 2007, p. 10124).

[271] Debates, September 18, 2001, p. 5258; October 3, 2006, p. 3571.

[272] See, for example, Debates, May 13, 2005, pp. 5973-4. For further information on routine motions moved by a Minister, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.

[273] For further information on the Liaison Committee’s terms of reference, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.

[274] See, for example, Journals, February 8, 2005, pp. 399-401 (requests for unanimous consent); December 15, 1999, p. 818; February 8, 2000, p. 853 (presentation and concurrence in a committee report); December 12, 1991, p. 935; December 10, 1992, pp. 2387‑8 (motions adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3)).

[275] First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 31 and 32, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), pursuant to an Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685). The Special Committee found it unacceptable that the procedural motions authorizing committee travel (which were usually sought by unanimous consent) could be derailed by one Member.

[276] Standing Order 56.2(1). The motion must be moved at the first opportunity following the expiry of the notice period.

[277] Standing Order 56.2(2).

[278] This does not mean that House of Commons committees have not been allowed to travel since 2001. The House has concurred unanimously in numerous motions authorizing committees to travel outside the precincts of Parliament. See, for example, Journals, February 8, 2005, pp. 399‑401; October 27, 2006, pp. 590-1; February 22, 2007, p. 1060.

[279] Standing Order 36(5).

[280] Standing Order 36(6).

[281] Standing Order 36(4).

[282] Standing Order 36(1).

[283] Standing Order 36(6).

[284] See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, October 28, 1983, pp. 28457‑8. See also Debates, February 9, 1990, p. 8134; November 7, 1990, pp. 15258‑9.

[285] See, for example, Debates, December 12, 2006, p. 5972; December 13, 2006, p. 6036; March 30, 2007, p. 8190.

[286] Standing Order 36(7). Any comment on the merits of a petition—even a Member’s personal agreement or disagreement with the petitioners—has been deemed to constitute a form of debate and is therefore out of order. See Deputy Speaker Kilgour’s ruling, Debates, April 27, 1994, p. 3576. See also Debates, March 22, 2000, p. 5008; February 4, 2004, p. 113; June 16, 2006, p. 2503.

[287] See, for example, Debates, September 17, 2003, p. 7462; May 18, 2005, p. 6130; May 8, 2006, p. 1065.

[288] See Debates, April 23, 1879, pp. 1453‑4; March 23, 1987, pp. 4433-4. Other Chair Occupants have presented petitions. See, for example, Journals, October 26, 1994, p. 829; June 19, 1995, p. 1784; February 9, 2005, p. 408.

[289] Standing Order 36(8)(a) and (b). On one occasion, the House ordered, by unanimous consent, that the order of reference related to the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond to six petitions be discharged, as the government had tabled responses to the petitions in the meantime (Journals, April 16, 2007, p. 1214; April 18, 2007, pp. 1225, 1227).

[290] For examples of referrals to committees, see Journals, April 23, 2004, pp. 304‑5; April 26, 2004, p. 312; April 4, 2005, pp. 573-4.

[291] The rule allowed Members to make “a statement … from whom [the petition] comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it contains”. See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 62.

[292] Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535‑6.

[293] Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1646, 1665; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.

[294] 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.

[295] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017‑8.

[296] Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905‑6, 2908‑9.

[297] See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 16, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), pursuant to an Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685). See also the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 37 to 39, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995). The Committee was reconstituted early in the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament (Journals, November 28, 2002, p. 236).

[298] Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 40, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995). A petition meeting the requirements for certification is returned to the Member along with a form, to be signed by the Member, on which the Member must indicate the committee to which the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond to the petition within the prescribed timeframe will be referred, where applicable.

[299] The Twenty-Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on April 26, 2004 (Journals, pp. 311-2), recommended that Standing Order 36(8)(b) remain in effect for the duration of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament and for the first 60 sitting days of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament. In the Thirty-Eighth Parliament, the Eleventh Report of the Committee, presented to the House and concurred in on October 29, 2004 (Journals, pp. 170-1), recommended that Standing Order 36(8)(b) be made permanent.

[300] The requirement to give 48-hours’ notice is the same for a motion, a bill or a written question. For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[301] Standing Order 39(1) and (4). Questions may also be addressed to private Members concerning any bill, motion or other public matter connected with the business of the House with which such Members may be concerned. The Standing Order is silent on how answers to questions addressed to private Members are to be provided. Indeed, there are no known precedents of questions on the Order Paper being addressed to private Members.

[302] Standing Order 39(5)(a).

[303] Standing Order 39(3)(a).

[304] However, on Wednesdays, the Speaker calls “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” immediately following “Questions on the Order Paper”.

[305] Indeed, from 1867 until 1964 when certain procedures for Oral Questions were codified, the rules of the House only provided for written questions.

[306] Journals, March 14, 1975, pp. 372‑6, in particular pp. 373‑4; March 24, 1975, p. 399.

[307] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017‑8.

[308] Standing Order 39(5)(b). See also Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2909-10.

[309] Debates, November 20, 1992, pp. 13720-1; November 24, 1992, pp. 13987‑8; September 25, 1995, pp. 14819, 14847‑8.

[310] First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 17 and 18, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), pursuant to an Order made on October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685).

[311] This procedure was first invoked in the House on January 28, 2002 (Debates, pp. 8335-6). See also Debates, January 27, 2003, p. 2734; March 29, 2004, p. 1810; January 31, 2005, p. 2868.

[312] See the Twenty-Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on February 9, 2005 (Journals, pp. 407‑8), as well as the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 32, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).

[313] This procedure began on July 17, 1963 (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 (Stewart, p. 65).

[314] See, for example, Debates, October 28, 1998, pp. 9522‑3; November 20, 2006, pp. 5078‑80; December 11, 2006, pp. 5931-2; March 19, 2007, pp. 7613-5.

[315] See, for example, Debates, April 30, 1999, p. 14549; April 29, 2004, pp. 2565‑6; May 12, 2004, p. 3084; March 10, 2005, pp. 4236-7; June 22, 2006, p. 2825.

[316] Standing Order 39(7). See, for example, Journals, December 13, 1996, pp. 1018‑9; November 15, 2004, p. 214; November 29, 2006, p. 833; December 13, 2006, p. 913; March 26, 2007, p. 1157. See Journals, April 2, 1998, p. 664; March 19, 2007, pp. 1101‑4 for examples of a revised return being tabled.

[317] See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1995, p. 10397; March 17, 1995, p. 10671.

[318] Standing Order 42(1).

[319] Standing Order 39(5)(b). See, for example, Debates, September 15, 2003, p. 7353; March 22, 2004, p. 1525; January 31, 2005, p. 2868.

[320] Standing Order 39(5)(b).

[321] Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 536‑7.

[322] Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 888‑9.

[323] Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 949‑50, 953; September 27, 1961, p. 957.

[324] Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338‑9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.

[325] For examples of notices of motions (papers) that were 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; December 4, 2001, pp. 913-4. See also Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[326] Prior to 1876, all motions for papers were Addresses to the Governor General (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 245).

[327] Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 249.

[328] Journals, February 15, 1960, pp. 137‑40, in particular p. 138.

[329] Up until April 1964, when the item “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 (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).

[330] 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.

[331] Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, June 15, 1983, p. 26414; September 17, 2003, pp. 7463-4; May 18, 2005, p. 6132. 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). In two other cases, by the time of dissolution, the documents had still not been produced—seven months after the motions for the production of papers had been carried (Journals, March 1, 2000, p. 1053; Status of House Business at Dissolution, October 22, 2000, pp. 63‑4).

[332] The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[333] Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, February 2, 1983, p. 22431; April 22, 1998, p. 5964; May 18, 2005, p. 6132; October 19, 2005, p. 8730; September 20, 2006, p. 3027; November 22, 2006, p. 5203. The Minister’s reservations about producing certain documents because of their confidential nature becomes a matter of record (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).

[334] The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[335] See, for example, Debates, December 17, 1980, p. 5854; March 18, 1981, pp. 8377‑8; May 17, 2000, p. 6968; March 13, 2002, p. 9595.

[336] Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1982, pp. 15107‑8; December 2, 1998, p. 10793; October 19, 2005, p. 8730. See also Deputy Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, November 25, 1998, pp. 10436‑7. The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[337] On one occasion, the Chair proposed withholding the request to withdraw a motion until the mover was present (Debates, May 26, 1999, pp. 15319-20).

[338] See, for example, Debates, May 6, 1992, p. 10239.

[339] Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, December 9, 1981, p. 13891; December 16, 1981, pp. 14129‑30; May 6, 1998, p. 6608; June 3, 1998, pp. 7537‑8; November 25, 1998, pp. 10436‑7; April 12, 2000, pp. 6028-9. For further information on the procedure by which these motions are debated, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[340] Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, March 31, 1982, p. 16015.

[341] Standing Order 42(1). See, for example, Debates, March 25, 1998, p. 5341; December 6, 2006, p. 5701; March 27, 2007, p. 7939.

[342] Journals, March 15, 1973, p. 187.

[343] 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.

[344] See Speaker Sauvé’s ruling, Debates, November 16, 1982, pp. 20702‑3.

[345] Debates, November 21, 1979, pp. 1557‑8.

[346] Debates, July 15, 1982, pp. 19361‑2.

[347] Standing Order 49.

Top of Page