A non-votable item of Private Members’
Business is debated for up to one hour and, once the debate has concluded or
the time for debate has expired, the item is removed from the Order Paper.[190]
Debate does not last the full hour allotted for Private Members’ Business if no
other Member rises to speak on the item or if a quorum is lost.
The House cannot be placed in a position of
having to decide a question twice in the same session. However, the Standing
Orders reinforce the fact that dropping a non-votable item of Private Members’
Business from the Order Paper does not constitute a decision since a
question is not put to the House.[191]
Thus, a Member whose non‑votable item has been removed, or any other
Member, may resubmit it by giving notice of the item in the usual manner. It
remains on the Order Paper on the list of “Private Members’
Business―Items Outside the Order of Precedence” until it is chosen again
for inclusion in the Order of Precedence.[192]
A votable item of Private Members’ Business
(a motion or a bill at second reading) is eligible for up to two hours of
consideration before the question is put to dispose of it.[193] If debate has not
concluded at the end of Private Members’ Hour on the day the item is first
debated, it is placed at the bottom of the Order of Precedence.[194] When the item reaches
the top of the Order of Precedence again, it may be debated for a further hour.
Unless the item has been disposed of earlier, the Speaker interrupts the
proceedings at the end of the hour and puts every question necessary to dispose
of the item.
If the votable item is a motion framed as a
resolution, the House makes a decision either for or against that item of
business and, accordingly, it is disposed of. No further action is required
since it is solely an expression of opinion or a declaration of purpose. If the
votable item is a motion framed as an order to the House itself, its
committees, its Members or officers, again the House makes a decision either
for or against and, if agreed to, further action will be required to execute
the order.
If the votable item is a bill and second
reading is agreed to by the House, the bill is then referred to a committee for
study.[195]
The committee is obliged, within 60 sitting
days from the date of reference, to report back a private Member’s public bill
with or without amendment,[196]
to present a report recommending that the bill not be proceeded with further,
or to request a one‑time extension of 30 sitting days to consider the
bill. In the last two cases, reasons must be given. Should a committee fail to
report back to the House as required, the bill is automatically deemed reported
without amendment.[197]
After considering a private Member’s public
bill, a committee may report to the House that it does not believe the bill
should proceed any further.[198] Once the report is presented, a notice of motion to concur in the
report is automatically placed on the Notice Paper. The motion stands in
the name of the Member who presented the report, usually the Chair of the
committee. No other notice of motion for concurrence in the report can be
placed on the Notice Paper.[199]The motion is taken up after Private
Members’ Hour on a day fixed by the Speaker.[200]
The motion is deemed moved at the beginning of the debate and may be considered
for not more than one hour.[201] Each speech is limited to 10 minutes and there is no questions
and comments period. At the end of the hour, or earlier if no other Members
rise to speak, the Speaker puts the question on the motion. If requested, a
recorded division on the motion is automatically deferred until the next
Wednesday sitting.
It may happen that the committee presents
its report prior to the expiry of the 60 sitting day limit, but that the House
does not make a final decision on the committee’s recommendation until after
this deadline has passed. This could also be the case when a 30 sitting day
extension has been granted. Since the committee has met the requirements of the
Standing Order by presenting a report, the bill is not deemed reported back to
the House. Instead, the bill remains with the committee until the House comes
to a final decision on the committee’s recommendation that the bill not proceed
further.[202]
When the House concurs in the committee’s
report, it expresses its agreement that the bill should not proceed further.
Therefore, all work on the bill ceases for the remainder of that session.[203] When the House rejects the committee’s report, it is expressing its
will that the bill should proceed further. The bill is then deemed reported
back to the House without amendment and is set down for consideration at report
stage.[204]
If a committee feels it will not be able to
complete its consideration of a private Member’s public bill referred to it
within 60 sitting days, it may request an extension of 30 further sitting
days.[205] Only one extension may be sought. As soon as a committee report
requesting an extension is presented, a motion to concur in the report is
deemed to have been moved and seconded. No debate takes place, as the motion is
deemed put to a vote right away and the vote is deferred until the next
Wednesday sitting.[206] If the House agrees to grant the extension, then the committee has
an extra 30 sitting days to complete its consideration of the bill.[207]When an extension is granted, it begins
immediately after the expiry of the original 60 sitting day limit, rather than
on the day the extension is granted. This means that the new deadline for
reporting is 90 sitting days following the original referral of the bill to
committee.[208] If the House refuses to grant the extension, but the original 60
sitting day deadline has yet to pass, the committee may continue to consider
the bill until the 60th sitting day. If the extension is refused and the 60th
sitting day has already passed, the bill is deemed reported without amendment
and an order for its consideration at report stage is set down on the Order
Paper.
When a committee reports a private Member’s
bill back to the House or is deemed to have reported a bill back, the order for
consideration of the report stage is placed at the bottom of the Order of
Precedence.[209]
Two Private Members’ Hours on separate sitting days are allotted for report
stage and third reading consideration.[210]
On the first day, if there are no motions in amendment at the report stage on
the Notice Paper, the question on the motion for concurrence at the
report stage is put immediately and, if adopted, the motion for third reading
is moved and debate commences at third reading.[211] If there are
motions in amendment at the report stage and debate on these motions concludes
during the first hour, the question is put on all motions to dispose of the
report stage and, if the bill is concurred in at report stage, the House
immediately proceeds to the consideration of the third reading stage.[212]
At the end of the first Private Members’ Hour, unless the bill has been otherwise
disposed of, it drops to the bottom of the Order of Precedence and works its
way up to the top for one more consideration by the House during the second
Private Members’ Hour. At the end of the time provided for this second
consideration, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill at the remaining
stage or stages are put and the bill, if passed, is sent to the Senate for
consideration.[213]
The time provided for the consideration of
a private Member’s bill at report stage and third reading may be extended by up
to five hours on the second day of debate. If a bill is not disposed of within
the first 30 minutes of debate on the first day of consideration, during any
time then remaining on that day, any Member may propose a motion to extend the
debate on the second day for a period not to exceed five consecutive hours.[214]
This non‑debatable, non‑amendable motion is deemed withdrawn if
fewer than 20 Members rise to support it.[215]
The motion may subsequently be proposed again during the time remaining provided
an intervening proceeding has occurred.[216]
If the motion is adopted and the time for consideration is extended on the
second day, the Standing Orders relating to the normal hour of adjournment are
suspended.[217]
At the end of the time provided on the second day, the Speaker puts every
question necessary to dispose of any remaining stages of the bill.[218]
On Monday, the extension of up to five additional hours of debate begins at the
ordinary hour of daily adjournment.[219]
The order for the consideration of Senate
amendments to a private Member’s bill is placed at the bottom of the Order of
Precedence when the message is received from the Senate.[220] The Standing
Orders do not specify any time limit for the consideration of a motion
respecting Senate amendments. When the item reaches the top of the Order of
Precedence, it is considered during Private Members’ Hour and, if not disposed
of at the end of the hour, it is placed again at the bottom of the Order of
Precedence. This process is repeated until the debate ends and the question can
be put on the motion.[221]
Members may give notice of an intention to
move a motion that certain papers or documents be compiled or produced and
tabled in the House.[222]
If the House agrees to the motion, the House thereby orders their production
and subsequently a return is made pursuant to that Order. The Standing Order
stipulates that such notices of motions shall be listed on the Order Paper
under the heading “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers”. All such
motions are worded in the form of either an Order of the House or an Address to
the Crown.
The notices can be called only on
Wednesdays during Routine Proceedings.[223]
The government may request that the notices be allowed to stand on the Order
Paper.[224]
If called, however, they are to be disposed of forthwith without debate or
amendment. If the Member proposing the motion or any Minister of the Crown
desires to have a debate on the motion, they may request, without debate, that
it be transferred to a heading on the Order Paper under Private Members’
Business entitled “Notices of Motions (Papers)”. The motions will be subject to
debate only if selected by the sponsoring Member for inclusion in the Order of
Precedence.[225]
Motions for papers may be debated for a
total of two hours before the question is put.[226]
Unless otherwise disposed of, the item is placed at the bottom of the Order of
Precedence after the first hour of debate. After the item has worked its way up
the Order of Precedence, it is debated for a further 50 minutes. At that time,
the Speaker interrupts the proceedings and allows a Minister to speak for a
maximum of five minutes even if he or she has already spoken in debate.[227]
The mover of the motion is then permitted to speak for an additional five
minutes to close the debate before the Speaker puts the question to the House.[228]
If the motion carries, it becomes an order to the government to table the
documents requested in the motion.[229]
During debate on a votable item of Private
Members’ Business (a motion or a bill at second or third reading), the sponsor
may speak for 15 minutes, followed by a five minute questions and comments
period, while other Members may speak for 10 minutes each.[230] The Member moving
the item may speak again for not more than five minutes at the conclusion of
the second hour of debate or earlier, if no other Member rises to speak.[231]
If there are motions in amendment at the report stage, then during debate on
these motions no Member, including the sponsor of the bill and the mover of a
motion in amendment, may speak for more than 10 minutes. There is no
questions and comments period.[232]
Debate on a non-votable item begins with
the mover of the item speaking for up to 15 minutes, without a questions and
comments period. For the next 40 minutes, other Members may speak for up
to 10 minutes each. After this 40 minutes, or sooner if no other
Member rises to speak, the Member moving the motion has the right of reply to
conclude the debate by speaking again for a maximum of five minutes.[233]
Although there is no practice of a fixed
pattern for the recognition of Members wishing to speak during Private Members’
Business, the Chair seeks to ensure that there is a smooth flow of debate,
providing opportunities for all points of view to be expressed.[234] Members speaking
during Private Members’ Business require the unanimous consent of the House to
share their time with another Member.[235]
There is no questions and comments period after each speech.[236]
Amendments to private Members’ motions or
to the motion for the second reading of a private Member’s bill may be made
only with the consent of the sponsor. Once an amendment is moved, the Speaker
will normally ask the sponsor of the item if he or she agrees to allow the
amendment before proposing it to the House[237]
(of course, the Speaker must also decide if the amendment is procedurally
acceptable before proposing it to the House[238]).
If the sponsor is not present, the Speaker may ask the mover of the amendment
if the sponsor’s consent has been obtained.[239]
The consent of the sponsor is not required for motions in amendment to bills at
report stage or for amendments to the motion for third reading of a private
Member’s bill.
The Standing Orders provide that no
dilatory motions (motions aimed at disposing of or delaying the motion or the
bill under debate) are allowed during Private Members’ Business.[240]
[190] Standing Order 96(1). See, for example, Debates,
October 29, 2003, pp. 8920‑8; April 29, 2004,
pp. 2609‑14; February 18, 2005, pp. 3715‑23;
June 14, 2006, pp. 2391-9; April 1, 2008, pp. 4344‑51.
On occasion, with the unanimous consent of the House, the order for second
reading of a non‑votable public bill was discharged and its subject
matter referred to a committee for consideration. See, for example, Journals,
June 7, 1994, pp. 541‑2; June 17, 1994,
pp. 611‑2; November 30, 1999, p. 255. A non‑votable item of Private Members’ Business has also been designated votable with the
unanimous consent of the House. See, for example, Journals,
May 11, 1994, p. 453; June 1, 1994, p. 519;
October 4, 1996, p. 716, and a decision taken at the end of the
time provided for debate.
[192] See, for example, Journals, June 18, 1991,
pp. 215‑6; September 23, 1991, p. 379. The item will
be given a different number when placed on notice or reintroduced.
[193] Standing Order 93. For further information, see “Report Stage and
Third Reading”, “Senate Amendments to a Private Member’s Bill” and “Notices of
Motions (Papers)” under the section in this chapter entitled “Time Limits on
Debate”.
[195] For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative
Process”.
[196] Standing Order 97.1. Until 1997, there was no time limit on
committee consideration of a private Member’s bill. For example, in 1992, a private Member’s bill (Bill C‑203) was allowed to die on the Order Paper when
the legislative committee to which it was referred adopted a motion to adjourn sine
die its consideration of the bill (Legislative Committee H on Bill C‑203,
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 18, 1992, Issue
No. 10, p. 3; Debates, February 26, 1992,
pp. 7620‑4). On another occasion, Speaker Parent ruled that the
decision of a committee not to report a bill back to the House did not
constitute a matter of privilege (Debates, September 23, 1996,
pp. 4560‑2) and later ruled in order a motion moved by a private
Member under Routine Proceedings to have the same bill reported back to the
House within a specified time (Debates, November 21, 1996,
pp. 6519‑20). In April 1997, and again in November 1998,
the Standing Orders were amended to specifically require committees considering
a private Member’s public bill to report back to the House within a time limit
(Journals, April 9, 1997, pp. 1366‑8;
November 30, 1998, pp. 1327‑9). The 60‑sitting day
limit also applies when a private Member’s public bill is recommitted to
committee following the adoption of an amendment to that effect during debate
on the motion for third reading and passage of a bill. See, for example, Bill C‑423,
An Act to amend the Youth Criminal Justice Act (treatment of substance
abuse), deemed reported by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human
Rights on May 12, 2008 (Order Paper and Notice Paper,
May 13, 2008, p. 47) and recommitted to the Committee on
May 16, 2008 (Journals, p. 834, Debates,
pp. 5987‑8) (with a reporting date of November 21, 2008).
In practice, most bills are reported back to
the House within the 60 or 90 sitting day deadline. In one case, a committee,
in order to report the amendments it had made to a bill before the deadline was
reached and the bill deemed reported without amendment, reported the bill and
also presented a report pursuant to Standing Order 108(1) giving reasons why
the committee had not completed clause‑by‑clause consideration of
the bill. On October 16, 2007, Bill C‑377, An Act to ensure Canada assumes its responsibilities in preventing dangerous climate change, was deemed
read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and
Sustainable Development (Journals, pp. 2‑3), with a reporting
date of March 5, 2008. On March 5, 2008, the Committee
presented its Second Report requesting an extension of consideration (Journals,
p. 513) which was concurred in on March 12, 2008 (Journals,
p. 586) (thus extending the reporting date to May 7, 2008). On
April 29, 2008, the Committee presented its Fifth Report, reporting
Bill C‑377 with amendments, and its Sixth Report, providing reasons for
not having completed the study of the Bill (Journals, p. 740). In
the Sixth Report, the Committee noted that it had adopted certain clauses, but
had reached an impasse during consideration of clause 10. The Committee
had adopted a motion which deemed the remaining clauses adopted, the Bill as
amended adopted, ordered the Chair to report the bill, and ordered the
presentation of the Sixth Report describing the circumstances relating to the
clause‑by‑clause consideration of the Bill.
[197] In a few cases, the deadline has been reached and bills have been
deemed reported back to the House without amendment pursuant to Standing
Order 97.1. See, for example, the events
surrounding Bill C-297, An Act to amend the Young Offenders Act (Journals,
November 2, 1999, p. 156; Order Paper and Notice Paper,
March 28, 2000, p. 40); Bill C‑426, An Act to amend the Canada
Evidence Act (protection of journalistic sources and search warrants) (Journals,
November 28, 2007, pp. 225‑6; Order
Paper and Notice Paper, May 1, 2008, p. 46). In addition, see the events surrounding Bill S-7, An Act to
amend the Broadcasting Act, read a second time and referred to the Standing
Committee on Canadian Heritage on February 5, 2002 (Journals,
pp. 1010-1) (with the reporting date of June 4, 2002). On
June 3, 2002, the Committee presented its Fourth Report requesting an
extension of time to consider the Bill (Journals, p. 1459). On
June 6, 2002, the motion to concur in the Report was negatived and
the Bill was deemed reported back to the House (Journals, p. 1482; Order
Paper and Notice Paper, June 7, 2002, p. 43). See also the events
surrounding consideration of Bill C‑250, An Act to amend the Criminal
Code (hate propaganda), deemed read a second time and referred to the
Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights on October 24, 2002 (Journals,
pp. 107‑8) (with a reporting date of March 20, 2003). On
February 26, 2003, the Committee presented its First Report,
requesting an extension of time to consider the Bill (Journals,
p. 476). On March 24, 2003, the Report was concurred in (Journals,
p. 542) (with the reporting date of May 27, 2003). On
May 27, 2003, the Bill was deemed reported back to the House (Order
Paper and Notice Paper, May 29, 2003, p. 34).
Some bills have been reported back with the
title and clauses deleted. See the Sixteenth Report of the Standing Committee
on Industry concerning Bill C‑235, An Act to amend the Competition Act
(protection of those who purchase products from vertically integrated suppliers
who compete with them at retail), presented to the House on
April 16, 1999 (Journals, p. 1728, Debates,
p. 13965); the Eighteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and
Human Rights concerning Bill C‑251, An Act to amend the Criminal Code
and the Corrections and Conditional Release Act (cumulative sentences),
presented to the House on April 19, 1999 (Journals, p. 1733,
Debates, p. 14026); the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on
Public Safety and National Security concerning Bill C‑279, An Act to
amend the DNA Identification Act (establishment of indexes) (also the Ninth
Report of the Committee concerning the subject matter of the Bill presented the
same day), presented to the House on April 30, 2007 (Journals,
pp. 1293‑4, Debates, p. 8861); the Eighteenth Report of
the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Social Development and Status of
Persons with Disabilities concerning Bill C‑284, An Act to amend the
Canada Student Financial Assistance Act (Canada access grants), presented
to the House on June 13, 2007 (Journals, p. 1519).
[198]Standing Order 97.1. See, for example, the
Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance concerning Bill C‑209,
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (Public Transportation Costs), presented
to the House on March 11, 2002 (Journals, p. 1155); the
Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning Bill C‑206, An
Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act (warning labels regarding the consumption
of alcohol), presented to the House on April 11, 2005 (Journals,
p. 601); the Twentieth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts
concerning Bill C‑277, An Act to amend the Auditor General Act (audit
of accounts), presented to the House on October 5, 2005 (Journals,
pp. 1105‑6); the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on
Finance concerning Bill C‑273, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act
(deduction for volunteer emergency service),presented to the House
on November 21, 2005 (Journals, p. 1297); the Fourteenth
Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration concerning Bill
C‑283, An Act to amend the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and
the Immigration and Refugee Protection Regulations,presented to the
House on November 21, 2005 (Journals, p. 1297); the
Seventeenth Report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning Bill C‑420,
An Act to amend theFood and Drugs Act,presented to the
House on November 23, 2005 (Journals, p. 1313); the
Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage concerning Bill C‑327,
An Act to amend the Broadcasting Act (reduction of violence in television
broadcasts), presented to the House on April 9, 2008 (Journals,
p. 672); the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Finance
concerning Bill C‑305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption
from taxation of 50 percent of United States social security payments to
Canadian residents), presented to the House on May 7, 2008 (Journals,
p. 784).
[199]Standing Order 97.1(2)(a) and (b).
See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper,
October 6, 2005, p. iii (notice of motion to concur in the
Twentieth Report of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts (Bill C‑277)
in the name of John Williams, Chair of the Committee);
November 22, 2005, p. iii (notices of motion to concur in the
Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (Bill C‑273) in
the name of Massimo Pacetti, Chair of the Committee, and in the Fourteenth
Report of the Standing Committee on Citizenship and Immigration (Bill C‑283)
in the name of Andrew Telegdi, Chair of the Committee);
November 24, 2005, p. iii (notice of motion to concur in the
Seventeenth Report of the Standing Committee on Health (Bill C‑420) in
the name of Bonnie Brown, Chair of the Committee);
April 10, 2008, p. iii (notice of motion to concur in the
Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage (Bill C‑327),
in the name of Gary Schellenberger, Chair of the Committee);
May 8, 2008, p. iii (notice of motion to concur in the Seventh
Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (Bill C‑305), in the name of
Rob Merrifield, Chair of the Committee).
[200]Standing Order 97.1(2)(c). See, for
example, Debates, October 7, 2005, p. 8562; Order Paper and Notice Paper, October 18, 2005, p. 21; Debates,
April 14, 2008, p. 4898; Order Paper and Notice Paper,
April 15, 2008, p. 23; Debates, May 30, 2008,
pp. 6372‑3; Order Paper and Notice Paper,
June 2, 2008, p. 23.
[201]Standing Order 97.1(2)(c). See, for
example, Journals, October 18, 2005, pp. 1169‑70, Debates,
pp. 8713‑4; Journals, May 13, 2008, p. 815, Debates,
pp. 5832‑8.
[202]Standing Order 97.1(2)(f). See, for
example, Bill C‑305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption
from taxation of 50 percent of United States social security payments to
Canadian residents). On March 5, 2008, the House agreed to extend
consideration of the Bill to May 7, 2008 (Journals,
pp. 520-1). On May 7, 2008, the Standing Committee on Finance
presented its Seventh Report recommending that the Bill not be proceeded with (Journals,
p. 784). On June 17, 2008, the House adopted the motion to concur in
the Report (Journals, pp. 1006-7).
[203]Standing Order 97.1(2)(d). See, for
example, Debates, October 18, 2005, pp. 8713‑4;
May 13, 2008, pp. 5832‑8. On June 17, 2008, the House
took up consideration of the motion to concur in the Seventh Report of the
Standing Committee on Finance (recommendation not to proceed with Bill C‑305,
An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50 percent
of United States social security payments to Canadian residents)). During
debate, an amendment was moved that the report “be not now concurred in but
that it be recommitted to the Standing Committee on Finance”. After debate, the
amendment was adopted, as was the main motion as amended (Journals,
pp. 1006-7, Debates, pp. 7092-8).
[206]Standing Order 97.1(3). See, for example, Journals,
June 13, 2007, pp. 1526‑7; March 5, 2008, pp.
518-21; April 16, 2008, pp. 713‑5;
June 12, 2008, pp. 976‑7. In all other cases in the Thirty‑Eighth
and Thirty‑Ninth Parliaments, the House agreed by unanimous consent to
concur in the reports of committees to extend consideration of bills and no
recorded divisions were held.
[207]See, for example, the events surrounding
the consideration by the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs of Bill C‑287,
An Act respecting a National Peacekeepers’ Day. On
November 23, 2006, the Bill was read a second time and referred to
committee (with a reporting date of April 30, 2007) (Journals,
p. 801). On April 24, 2007, the Committee agreed to report to
the House requesting an extension of 30 days to complete consideration of
the Bill (Minutes of Proceedings, Meeting No. 36). On
April 25, 2007, the Fourth Report of the Committee was presented to
the House and, pursuant to the Standing Order, a recorded division was deemed
demanded and deferred until Wednesday, May 2, 2007 (Journals,
p. 1260). On May 1, 2007, the Committee took up consideration of
the Bill and agreed to report it to the House (Minutes of Proceedings,
Meeting No. 38). On May 2, 2007, the House, by unanimous
consent, concurred in the Fourth Report of the Committee granting the extension
(Journals, p. 1324). On May 3, 2007, the Committee
reported the Bill to the House as its Fifth Report (Journals,
p. 1331).
[208]See, for example, the events surrounding
consideration of Bill C‑250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate
propaganda), read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on
Justice and Human Rights on October 24, 2002 (Journals,
pp. 107‑8) (with a reporting date of March 20, 2003). On
February 26, 2003, the Committee presented its First Report,
requesting an extension of time to consider the Bill (Journals,
p. 476). On March 24, 2003, the Report was concurred in (Journals,
p. 542) (with the reporting date of May 27, 2003). On
May 27, 2003, the Bill was deemed reported back to the House without
amendment (Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 29, 2003,
p. 34).
[209] Standing Order 98(1). The bill is set down on the Order Paper
for consideration at report stage even if the committee reports back the bill
with the title and clauses deleted (Debates, April 16, 1999,
p. 13965; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 19, 1999,
p. 34; Debates, April 19, 1999, p. 14026; Order
Paper and Notice Paper, April 20, 1999, p. 32; Journals,
April 30, 2007, pp. 1293‑4, Debates, p. 8861;
Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 1, 2007, p. 39; Journals,
June 13, 2007, p. 1519; Order Paper and Notice Paper,
June 14, 2007, p. 45; Journals,
February 28, 2008, p. 484; Order Paper and Notice Paper,
February 29, 2008, p. 44).
[211] See, for example, Journals, March 1, 2007,
p. 1093; March 28, 2007, pp. 1180‑1;
February 12, 2008, p. 427. If, however, a recorded division is
demanded on the motion for concurrence, then Private Members’ Hour is concluded
for that day and, pursuant to Standing Order 98(4)(b), the division
is deferred until the next Wednesday sitting immediately before the time
provided for Private Members’ Business. If the motion for concurrence is then
adopted, the bill will be placed at the bottom of the Order of Precedence with
one hour remaining for debate on the bill at third reading. See, for example, Journals,
February 15, 2007, p. 1018; February 21, 2007,
pp. 1053‑4; March 20, 2007, p. 1119.
[212] See, for example, Journals, June 19, 2007,
pp. 1563‑4. If, however, debate on any motions in amendment is
concluded and a recorded division is demanded prior to the end of the hour,
then Private Members’ Hour is concluded and, pursuant to Standing Order 98(4)(b),
any such division is deferred until the next Wednesday sitting immediately
before the time provided for Private Members’ Business. If the motions in
amendment and the motion for concurrence are adopted, then the bill will be
placed at the bottom of the Order of Precedence with one hour remaining for
debate on the bill at third reading. See, for example, Journals,
February 23, 2007, p. 1067; February 28, 2007,
pp. 1086‑8; March 30, 2007, p. 1199. If the motion
for concurrence is defeated then the bill is lost and there are no further
proceedings on it. See, for example, Journals, March 21, 2007,
pp. 1131‑6. Should debate on any motions in amendment to the bill
continue for the full hour, debate is adjourned, the bill is placed at the
bottom of the Order of Precedence and when next taken up, the House resumes
debate on the report stage motions. If debate on the report stage motions
continues again for the full hour, then at the end of the time provided for
Private Members’ Business the Speaker will interrupt the proceedings and put
every question to dispose of the bill at the report and third reading stages.
Any recorded division demanded will be deferred until the next Wednesday
sitting immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business.
See, for example, Journals, February 2, 2007, pp. 955‑6;
February 9, 2007, p. 989; February 14, 2007,
pp. 1007‑11.
[213] On occasion, the House gave unanimous consent, during consideration
of a private Member’s bill at report stage, to refer the bill back to a
committee for further consideration. See, for example, Journals,
March 11, 1993, p. 2623; Debates,
March 8, 1999, p. 12523. Bills have also been withdrawn, by
unanimous consent, when the order for consideration at report stage was called
(see, for example, Debates, August 11, 1988, p. 18223)
and when the order for the consideration of Senate amendments was called (see,
for example, Debates, September 14, 1987, pp. 8922‑3).
[220] Standing Order 89. For examples of Senate amendments to private
Members’ bills considered by the House, see Debates,
September 14, 1987, pp. 8922‑3 (bill withdrawn); Journals,
March 26, 1991, pp. 2827‑8 (amendments concurred in); Debates,
May 27, 1996, p. 2973 (amendments concurred in); Debates,
December 12, 1996, pp. 7481, 7495 (amendments concurred in); Journals,
April 22, 1997, pp. 1512‑3 and April 25, 1997,
pp. 1554‑5 (died on the Order Paper at dissolution); Debates,
June 11, 1998, pp. 8077‑8 (amendments concurred in); Debates,
November 5, 2003, p. 9196 (amendments concurred in by unanimous
consent); Debates, March 26, 2004, pp. 1771‑4
(amendments concurred in); Debates, May 9, 2008, pp. 5692-6
(amendments concurred in).
[221] See, for example, Journals, April 22, 1997,
pp. 1512‑3; April 25, 1997, pp. 1554‑5.
[222]For further information, see Chapter 10,
“The Daily Program”.
[225]Standing Order 97(1). Since the current
procedures were adopted in 1986, debate has rarely been held on an item of this
nature. In 1986, two motions for the production of papers were debated and
concurred in (Journals, June 6, 1986, p. 2281;
June 16, 1986, p. 2326, Debates, pp. 14479‑80).
In 1998, two motions for the production of papers were debated and concurred in
(Journals, October 2, 1998, p. 1115;
November 2, 1998, p. 1221). In 1999, one motion was debated and
negatived (Journals, April 20, 1999, p. 1739). Since the
beginning of the Thirty‑Seventh Parliament, only two motions have been
taken up for debate. On February 28, 2001, Notice of Motion for the
Production of Papers P‑3 (Leon Benoit (Lakeland)) was called
and transferred for debate (Journals, p. 148, Debates,
p. 1331). On September 24, 2001, the motion was placed in the
Order of Precedence (Order Paper and Notice Paper,
September 25, 2001, p. 28). The motion was debated on
October 22, 2001 (Journals, p. 735, Debates,
pp. 6391‑8) and November 29, 2001 (Journals,
pp. 884, 886, Debates, pp. 7689‑93). A recorded division
on the motion was deferred until December 4, 2001, when the motion
was adopted (Journals, pp. 913‑4). On
February 21, 2002, the documents requested were tabled by the
government (Journals, p. 1057). On January 29, 2003,
Notice of Motion for the Production of Papers P‑15 (Joe Clark
(Calgary Centre)) was called and transferred for debate (Journals,
p. 338, Debates, p. 2854). On March 25, 2003, the
motion was placed in the Order of Precedence (Order Paper and Notice Paper,
March 26, 2003, p. 34). The motion was debated on
May 16, 2003 (Journals, p. 794, Debates,
pp. 6395‑403) and October 2, 2003 (Journals,
p. 1085, Debates, pp. 8133‑9). A recorded division on
the motion was deferred until October 8, 2003, when the motion was
negatived (Journals, pp. 1115‑6).
[227] See, for example, Debates, November 29, 2001,
p. 7693; October 2, 2003, pp. 8137‑9. Only by
unanimous consent may a Parliamentary Secretary speak for a Minister in the
closing segment. See, for example, Debates, November 8, 1979,
p. 1112; April 1, 1982, pp. 16064‑5.
[228]Debates,
November 29, 2001, p. 7693; October 2, 2003,
pp. 8138‑9.
[229]Journals,
December 4, 2001, pp. 913‑4; February 21, 2002,
p. 1057.
[230] Standing Order 95(1). See also Debates,
March 31, 2003, p. 4885.
[231]See, for example, the speeches, the
questions and comments periods and the right of reply at second and third
reading for Bill C‑277, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (luring a
child) (Ed Fast (Abbotsford)) (Debates, May 31, 2006,
pp. 1794‑7; September 29, 2006, pp. 3458‑9;
March 28, 2007, pp. 8068‑71); and for Bill C‑292, An
Act to implement the Kelowna Accord (Paul Martin (LaSalle–Émard)) (Debates,
June 2, 2006, pp. 1914‑6; October 16, 2006,
p. 3784; March 20, 2007, pp. 7693‑5, 7698‑9);
the speech, the questions and comments period and the right of reply for Motion
M‑172 concerning Autism Spectrum Disorder (Andy Scott (Fredericton))
(Debates, October 27, 2006, pp. 4370‑2;
November 27, 2006, pp. 5344‑5); and for Motion M‑153
concerning the trafficking of women and children (Joy Smith (Kildonan–St.
Paul)) (Debates, December 8, 2006, pp. 5870‑2;
February 22, 2007, pp. 7238‑9).
[233] Standing Order 95(2). See Debates,
October 23, 1997, p. 1071; November 26, 1997,
p. 2276; February 13, 1998, p. 3887;
March 11, 1998, p. 4737; June 2, 1998, p. 7516;
February 28, 2002, p. 9396; October 29, 2003, pp. 8920‑2,
8927‑8; April 29, 2004, pp. 2609‑10, 2614;
February 18, 2005, pp. 3715‑7, 3722‑3;
June 14, 2006, pp. 2391‑3, 2398‑9.
[234] See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1992,
p. 8243; March 18, 1992, p. 8466; November 30, 1992,
pp. 14236, 14238; October 18, 1995, p. 15552;
October 2, 2001, p. 5895; February 25, 2004,
p. 1072.
[235] See Debates, September 19, 1996, p. 4480;
March 25, 1998, p. 5356; February 25, 2004,
p. 1069; March 10, 2005, p. 4299; June 1, 2005,
p. 6514; November 14, 2007, p. 885. See also Debates,
November 21, 2007, p. 1187 (where the sponsor of the item under
debate (Serge Ménard (Marc‑Aurèle‑Fortin)) sought and received
consent to split the time he had available for his five-minute right of reply);
February 5, 2008, pp. 2634‑7 (where the sponsor of the
item under debate (Ken Dryden (York Centre)) sought and received consent
to split the time he had available for his 15-minute speaking time and the
five-minute questions and comments period following).
[236] See, for example, Debates, September 28, 1994,
p. 6289; October 29, 2003, p. 8922;
February 4, 2004, p. 131; May 14, 2004, p. 3212;
February 3, 2005, p. 3076; April 6, 2005,
p. 4774; September 26, 2005, p. 7983.
[237]Standing Order 93(3). See, for example, Debates, May 1, 2003,
p. 5739; October 3, 2003, p. 8174;
March 10, 2005, p. 4299; April 15, 2005, p. 5175;
November 27, 2006, p. 5338; February 21, 2007,
p. 7165; May 10, 2007, pp. 9355‑6; March 4,
2008, p. 3647; May 6, 2008, p. 5531. In one case, an
amendment (in effect a completely new motion) was proposed to Motion M-398 by
Gurmant Singh Grewal (Surrey Central) and refused by the sponsor,
Peter Adams (Peterborough). Later in Private Members’ Hour, by unanimous
consent, the new text was substituted and Mr. Grewal was substituted for
Mr. Adams as the sponsor. After further debate, the motion was adopted (Journals,
February 17, 2004, pp. 92-3, Debates, pp. 712-6). In
another instance, the sponsor refused to allow an amendment (Debates, April 20, 2004,
p. 2171).
[238]See, for example, the point of order raised
on September 29, 2005 (Debates, pp. 8229‑31) concerning an
amendment proposed by Pierre Paquette (Joliette) to Motion M‑164 during
debate on June 1, 2005 (Journals, p. 822, Debates,
p. 6516) which Speaker Milliken ruled out of order (Journals,
p. 1064). Later in the September 29, 2005 sitting, during debate on
the motion, another amendment was moved and found procedurally in order (Debates,
p. 8246). See also the point of order raised on October 20, 2005
(Debates, pp. 8832‑4, 8838) concerning an amendment proposed
by Ed Broadbent (Ottawa Centre) to Motion M‑153, and Acting Speaker
Marcel Proulx’s ruling that the amendment was in order.
[239]See, for example, Debates, March 31, 2003, pp. 4889‑90.
In other cases, the mover of the amendment may indicate that they have the
support of the sponsor before moving the amendment. See
Debates, March 30, 2004,
pp. 1896‑7; June 1, 2005,
p. 6516; September 29, 2005, p. 8246.
