15. Special Debates

Traditionally at the beginning of a session, when the House returns from the Senate after the Speech from the Throne, a day is designated for the consideration of that Speech. The Prime Minister moves a motion to consider the Throne Speech either later that day or at the next sitting of the House. ^[1]  This motion does not require notice and, though generally moved and adopted without debate, is debatable and amendable. ^[2] 

On the day specified in the motion for the consideration of the Speech from the Throne, a government backbencher moves that an Address be presented to the Governor General (or, depending on who delivered the speech, to the Sovereign or to the Administrator of the Government of Canada) “to offer our humble thanks… for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed…”. This allows for wide-ranging debate on the government policies announced in the Throne Speech, thus providing a rare opportunity for Members to address topics of their choice.

From 1867 to 1893, the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne typically consisted of several paragraphs, each of which received separate consideration. The paragraphs collectively formed a resolution which was adopted and referred to a select committee. The committee would then report the Address in Reply to the House where it would be agreed to, engrossed (that is, transcribed upon parchment) and presented to the Governor General. This cumbersome procedure was changed in 1893, when a new practice was adopted whereby the House itself considered the Address in the form of a presentation to the Governor General. ^[3]  It was not until 1903 that the motion for an Address in Reply became one brief paragraph of thanks for the Speech from the Throne. ^[4] 

Following the mover’s speech, a second government backbencher (traditionally one who speaks the official language that is not that of the mover) is recognized to speak to and second the motion. Both the mover and seconder are typically chosen from the ranks of those Members most recently elected. ^[5]  Their speeches have not been followed by the usual 10-minute period for questions and comments and, at the conclusion of the seconder’s speech, the debate is normally adjourned by the Leader of the Opposition. ^[6]  The usual practice is for the Prime Minister or a Minister, often the Government House Leader or President of the Privy Council, to subsequently move the adjournment of the House. ^[7] 

The Standing Orders provide for six additional days of debate on the motion and on any amendments proposed thereto. ^[8]  These days are designated by a Minister, usually the Government House Leader, and are not necessarily consecutive. Since 1955, the Standing Orders have provided that when the Order of the Day is called to resume debate on the motion for an Address in Reply, the Order takes precedence over all other business of the House, with the exception of the daily routine of business — that is, Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members and Oral Questions. ^[9]  Private Members’ Business is also suspended on these days. ^[10] 

Leaders’ Day

The first day of resumed debate is known as “Leaders’ Day”. It is traditional for the Leader of the Opposition to speak first and to move an amendment to the main motion. Normally, the Prime Minister speaks next and that speech is followed by that of the leader of the second largest party in opposition, who may propose an amendment to the amendment. Then other leaders of parties which have official status in the House are recognized in turn. ^[11]  Leaders of parties holding fewer than 12 seats are not automatically recognized for debate on Leaders’ Day. ^[12] 

While this has been the customary speaking order, there is no specific rule stating the order in which party leaders are recognized during the debate on the Address in Reply. During the Address in Reply proceedings in 1989, the leader of the second largest party in opposition spoke after the Leader of the Opposition; the Prime Minister delivered his speech the following day. ^[13]  In 1991, when again the Prime Minister did not rise to speak after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, a complaint was lodged with the Chair by the Opposition House Leader. The Speaker ruled that in the absence of any Standing Order to this effect, Members were not bound to any particular speaking order. ^[14]  The Prime Minister subsequently addressed the House the next day, and the leader of the second largest party in opposition delivered her speech immediately thereafter.

Duration of Debate on the Address

Until 1955, there was no prescribed limit on the length of the debate on the Address in Reply, and debates lasted anywhere from one to a record length of 28 days. ^[15]  In 1955, further to the recommendations of a special committee on procedure, the House first instituted a limit on the length of debate on the Address in Reply when it agreed to a maximum of 10 days of debate and to morning sittings (not then a feature of the regular sitting day) for the duration of the debate. ^[16]  This was further reduced to eight days in 1960, ^[17]  and in 1991 the Standing Orders were again amended to provide for a maximum of six days of debate. ^[18] 

There have been, however, a number of instances where the debate lasted for less than the maximum number of days provided for in the Standing Orders and the House voted on the motion. ^[19] There have also been instances where the debate was not completed because of either a prorogation or dissolution: in 1988, only the mover and seconder of the motion spoke, no further debate occurred on the Address in Reply and the session was ended by prorogation after only 11 sittings; in 1997, the session ended when Parliament was dissolved for a general election after 164 sittings and only five of the six days provided for the Address debate having been completed. ^[20]

As indicated in the Standing Orders, any unused days may be added, if the House so agrees, to the number of allotted days for the Supply period in which they occur, although this rule has never been applied since coming into effect in 1968. ^[21] 

Length of Speeches on the Address Debate

Members may speak for a maximum of 20 minutes, followed by a 10-minute period for questions and comments with the exception of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition (who have unlimited time for debate with no period for questions and comments). ^[22]  The House has sometimes extended to othe party leaders the opportunity to speak longer than 20 minutes with no period for questions and comments following their speeches. ^[23]  Any Member may be recognized to speak in this debate, though the speaking order follows the general rotation reflecting party standings in the House. There has also been a tendency to either reduce the length of speeches, including the period for questions and comments, or to discontinue the questions and comments period altogether, at times during the debate in order to allow as many Members as possible to speak to the motion. ^[24] 

In the early years of Confederation, one view held that attempts to amend the Address in Reply motion ought not to be made. ^[25]  In 1873, the first amendments were moved to the Address in Reply motion when a motion of censure was made against the government for its conduct in the “Pacific Scandal”. Although a sub-amendment subsequently proposed an expression of confidence in the government, ^[26]  Parliament was prorogued following a change in government before the amendments were put to a vote. Amendments were moved again in 1893 and 1899. ^[27]  Over the course of the next 40 years, amendments were commonly moved, although not systematically. It was not until World War II that the practice of moving amendments to the Address in Reply motion became more entrenched.

Until 1955, there were no provisions in the Standing Orders dealing with the moving of amendments or when to put the question thereon. As with an amendment to any motion, the question was put when no Member rose to speak to it. In 1955, a new Standing Order was adopted which established a framework for deciding amendments. ^[28] 

While there are no rules governing when amendments are to be moved or if they have to be moved at all, the Standing Orders do set out provisions for the disposal of all amendments proposed before the main motion is put to the House: on the second day of the resumed debate, any sub-amendment before the House is disposed of and on the fourth day of debate any amendment and sub-amendment are disposed of. Amendments are prohibited on the last two days of the debate.

Recent practice has been that the Leader of the Opposition moves an amendment on the first day of resumed debate. A sub-amendment is then normally proposed by the leader of the second largest opposition party. It is not unusual, however, for another Member from that party to do so. ^[29] 

The first sub-amendment must be disposed of on the second appointed day when the Speaker interrupts the debate 15 minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to put the question. ^[30]  Sub-amendments may again be proposed on the third or fourth day. On the fourth day, the Speaker interrupts the debate 30 minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to dispose of any amendment or sub-amendment before the House. ^[31]  No further amendments are permitted to the main motion on the fifth and sixth days. ^[32]  Finally on the sixth day, unless the debate has previously concluded, the Speaker interrupts the debate 15 minutes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to put all the questions necessary to dispose of the main motion. ^[33]  Since the Standing Orders were amended in 1991 to limit the Throne Speech Debate to six days, there have been three instances of a sub-amendment being disposed of on the second day and a sub-amendment and an amendment being disposed of on the fourth day. ^[34] 

Given the general nature of the motion, the rule of relevance is not strictly applied to the proposed amendment (as opposed to the sub-amendments). However, precedents indicate that an amendment should add some distinct element of its own, whereas a sub-amendment must be relevant to the amendment and cannot raise a new issue. ^[35]  A sub-amendment adding words with the effect of making the amendment a motion of non-confidence in the official opposition has been ruled inadmissible since “votes of want of confidence are only directed against the Government of the day”. ^[36]  The Speaker has ruled out of order amendments which were not deemed to challenge directly the government’s policies ^[37]  or which sought to increase expenditures, a motion which requires a Royal Recommendation. ^[38]  An amendment similar to one on which the House had already expressed a judgement earlier in the debate has also been disallowed. ^[39] 

On only two occasions has the Address in Reply been adopted with an amendment. In each instance an amendment moved by a Member of the Opposition had itself been amended by a sub-amendment moved by a Member of the government party. ^[40] 

Immediately after the adoption of the motion for the Address in Reply, the House adopts a motion without debate or amendment that the Address be engrossed, that is, transcribed upon parchment, and presented to the Governor General in person by the Speakers of the House of Commons and the Senate. ^[41]  It is customary for the Speakers to be accompanied by a few invited Members (including the mover and seconder of the Address, as well as the House Leaders and the party Whips) and the Clerks of both Houses.

The Standing Orders provide for a one-day special debate on the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees early in each Parliament. ^[42]  This provision was adopted by the House in 1982 on the recommendation of a special committee on procedure which believed an opportunity should be provided for Members to express their views on this matter. ^[43] 

The Standing Order in question provides for an automatic debate on the motion “That this House takes note of the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees” on a day designated by a Minister between the sixtieth and ninetieth sitting day of the first session of a Parliament. If no day is designated, the debate is held on the ninetieth sitting day. ^[44] 

This Standing Order was adopted in 1982. Such a debate on the rules and procedures of the House could have first occurred in 1984; however, well before the sixtieth day, the House unanimously agreed to suspend the Standing Order. ^[45]  The next opportunity for the House to hold the debate came in 1988, but the First Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament ended after only 11 sitting days, thereby pre-empting the operation of the Standing Order. In 1994, during the First Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament, the House agreed to suspend this Standing Order at the same time as it adopted several amendments to the Standing Orders and referred a number of procedural matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. ^[46]  In 1998, during the First Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament, a debate was held pursuant to this Standing Order for the first time. ^[47] 

Debate on the motion takes precedence over all other business and lasts a maximum of one sitting day; the proceedings on the motion expire when the debate has concluded or at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, whichever comes first. ^[48]  The motion is deemed to have been proposed ^[49]  and, to encourage participation, no Member may speak more than once or longer than 10 minutes. ^[50] 

The Standing Orders provide Members with an opportunity to give their immediate attention to a pressing matter by moving a debatable adjournment motion. A Member may request leave from the Speaker “to make a motion for the adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration”. ^[51]  Furthermore, the matter “must relate to a genuine emergency” ^[52]  and, if the request is granted by the Speaker, the House is permitted to debate the topic at an early opportunity, forgoing the usual 48 hours’ notice period.

Until the turn of the century, any Member, at virtually any time in the proceedings, could introduce a new matter for discussion by moving the adjournment of the House. Since the adjournment motion could be moved at any time and was always subject to debate, the result would be an interruption of the business then before the House, often leading to the disruption of the entire day’s program. In 1906, the government of the day decided to remedy this situation and implemented a new rule, the ancestor to the present Standing Order, whereby debate would be permitted only on adjournment motions which dealt with definite matters of urgent public importance. ^[53] 

From 1906 to 1968, motions under the emergency debate rule were considered immediately after they had been accepted for debate. This meant that other business was put aside. In December 1968, the House amended the rule to have the debate begin at 8:00 p.m., except on Fridays when it would begin at 3:00 p.m., if proceeded with the same day. ^[54]  This still resulted in a conflict and a displacement of the regular business of the House. When the regular evening sittings of the House were abolished in 1982, ^[55]  the conflict between emergency debates and the regular business of the House was eliminated except for Fridays.

As one Speaker noted, an emergency debate should be on a topic “that is immediately relevant and of attention and concern throughout the nation”. ^[56]  Thus, matters of chronic or continuing concern, such as economic conditions, unemployment rates and constitutional matters, have tended to be set aside whereas topics deemed to require urgent consideration have included work stoppages and strikes, natural disasters, and international crises and events. At various times other topics such as fisheries, forestry, agriculture and the fur trade industry have been judged acceptable; for example, there have been several emergency debates on grain-related topics since 1968, and since 1984 four emergency debates have been held in regard to the fishing industry in Canada. Topics considered highly partisan in nature are not as readily approved. ^[57]

Any Member, be it a private Member or a Minister, ^[58]  who wishes to move the adjournment of the House to discuss a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration must give the Speaker written notice of the matter he or she wishes to propose for discussion at least one hour prior to rising in the House to make the formal request. ^[59]  At the conclusion of the ordinary daily routine of business, ^[60]  any Member who has filed an application with the Speaker rises to ask the Speaker for leave to move the adjournment of the House to debate the issue outlined in the application. ^[61]  The Member then makes a brief statement, normally by simply reading the text of the application filed with the Speaker. ^[62]  No discussion or argument is allowed in the presentation ^[63]  because, as one Speaker stressed, a lengthy statement may provoke debate. ^[64]  However, occasionally a Member will be permitted to expand on the application if the Chair indicates that the additional information could be of assistance in reaching a decision. ^[65] 

If more than one notice has been forwarded to the Speaker, Members will be recognized in the order applications were received. ^[66]  If the time set aside in the day’s order of business for hearing the application is not reached, or if the House decides to proceed to other business, for example, by adopting a motion to move to the Orders of the Day during Routine Proceedings, then the Chair cannot hear applications for emergency debates. These applications must be refiled at the next sitting of the House unless unanimous consent is granted for the Speaker to hear them at some other time during the sitting. ^[67] 

The timeliness of an application is very important. On one occasion, the Speaker advised a Member who had risen to present his application which had been filed on a previous day to refile it. ^[68]  Although the House may grant a Member unanimous consent to present an application which had not been filed that day, ^[69]  the Chair has expressed reservations about holding over applications. One Speaker stated that a matter which requires urgent action one day may not necessarily demand the same attention the next day, or conversely may be even more critical, a determination that should be left to the discretion of the Member who filed the application. ^[70]  On one occasion, applications were filed during a lengthy recess of the House and were heard at the conclusion of the ordinary routine of business the first day the House resumed sitting. ^[71] 

Having heard an application for an emergency debate, the Speaker decides without debate whether or not the matter is specific and important enough to warrant urgent consideration by the House. ^[72]  In deciding whether or not to approve a request for an emergency debate, the Chair is guided by the Standing Orders, the authorities and practice.

The Speaker is not required to give reasons when granting or refusing a request for an emergency debate. ^[73]  Nonetheless, from time to time reasons are offered, although Chair occupants have tried to refrain from this practice in order to prevent the build-up of jurisprudence which could itself become a subject of a debate in the Chamber. ^[74] 

Criteria for Decision

Although the Standing Orders give considerable discretion to the Speaker in deciding if a matter should be brought before the House for urgent consideration, certain criteria must be weighed. The Speaker determines whether a matter is related to a genuine emergency which could not be brought before the House within a reasonable time by other means, such as during a Supply day. ^[75]  To do this, consideration is given to the importance and specificity of the issue ^[76]  and the degree to which the matter falls within the administrative responsibilities of the government or could come within the scope of ministerial action. ^[77] 

The Speaker then considers whether the request meets certain other criteria. The matter being raised for discussion must contain only one issue. ^[78]  The motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate cannot revive discussion on a matter previously debated in this way during the session ^[79]  nor may it raise a question of privilege. ^[80]  In addition, the motion cannot deal with a matter normally debatable only by means of a substantive motion for which notice has been given and which calls for a decision of the House. ^[81] 

Other conditions which have evolved from decisions of previous Speakers are also considered. Chair occupants have established that the subject matter proposed should not normally be of an exclusively local or regional interest nor be related to only one specific group or industry, ^[82]  and should not involve the administration of a government department. ^[83]  Applications to debate ongoing matters have been rejected ^[84]  as have applications to debate matters arising out of the business of the same session, ^[85]  Senate proceedings, ^[86]  matters before the courts or other administrative bodies ^[87]  and non-confidence or censure motions. ^[88]  Furthermore, the Chair has ruled that an emergency debate cannot be held to debate the interpretation of a Standing Order ^[89]  nor may it be “used as a vehicle for the purpose of airing statements made outside the House by organizations or people who are not answerable or responsible to this chamber.” ^[90]  In addition, one Speaker ruled that the emergency debate provisions cannot be used to debate “items which, in a regular legislative program of the House of Commons and regular legislative consideration, can come before the House by way of amendments to existing statutes, or in any case will come before it in other ways.” ^[91] 

However, in one exceptional circumstance, an application was approved for an emergency debate on “the sudden and unexpected revelation of events which [had] taken place in the past, in that they might precipitate a course of conduct which, if allowed to continue unchecked, would certainly classify itself as an emergency and a matter of urgent consideration.” ^[92] 

Finally, the Speaker may take into account the general wish of the House to have an emergency debate and grant a request for an emergency debate. ^[93]  Similarly, the Chair has periodically allowed an emergency debate on an issue which was not necessarily urgent within the meaning conferred by the rule, but was one on which the parliamentary timetable prevented any discussion in a timely manner. ^[94] 

The responsibility of deciding whether or not an issue is an acceptable topic for an emergency debate is occasionally taken out of the hands of the Chair. There have been instances when the House itself has unanimously decided to hold an emergency debate, sometimes by means of a special order. ^[95]  On one noteworthy occasion, the Speaker was not required to render a decision on a number of similar applications because later in the sitting unanimous consent was granted for the introduction of a bill on the same topic, and the House decided to proceed immediately to debate on the motion for the second reading of the bill. ^[96] 

Frequently, the Speaker defers the decision on an application for an emergency debate until later in the day when the proceedings are interrupted for the purpose of announcing the decision. ^[97]  In one exceptional case, the Speaker did not return to the House with a decision until the following day. ^[98] 

The Standing Orders specify that not more than one motion to adjourn the House for an emergency debate may be moved in any sitting; ^[99]  however, more than one application may be made and when this occurs, the Speaker chooses which one, if any, is acceptable. If more than one request for an emergency debate on the same topic is made in the same sitting and found acceptable, the Speaker grants leave to move the adjournment of the House to the Member who first submitted an acceptable application. ^[100] 

The Standing Orders provide that an emergency debate must occur between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 12:00 midnight on the day a request for one is granted, unless the Speaker directs that the motion be considered the next sitting day at an hour to be specified later. ^[101]  The House has also periodically adopted special orders setting a time for an emergency debate. ^[102]  In one case, an application for an emergency debate was granted at a time when the House had extended its sitting hours in June. ^[103] 

When an emergency debate is scheduled to be held at 8:00 p.m., the sitting is suspended at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment; the House meets again at 8:00 p.m. when the Member who was granted leave moves the motion, “That this House do now adjourn.” ^[104]  Practice has been that when an emergency debate is scheduled for 8:00 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, the normal Adjournment Proceedings do not take place, given that the motion before the House is the same. However, such proceedings have been held by unanimous consent; in these cases, following debate on the Adjournment Proceedings, the motion to adjourn has been deemed withdrawn and the sitting suspended until 8:00 p.m. ^[105]  On occasion, unanimous consent has also been granted for the suspension of the sitting prior to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment in order to give Members an opportunity to prepare for an emergency debate. ^[106] 

Except on Friday, emergency debates usually take place outside the normal sitting hours. However, on Friday or if the Speaker sets down a time at the next sitting that is within the normal sitting hours, the Standing Orders provide that emergency debates take precedence. The Speaker would then determine when any other business that has been superseded by an emergency debate should be considered or disposed of. ^[107] 

Emergency debates on Friday begin as soon as the Speaker finds the application acceptable. ^[108]  If the application is made and granted immediately following the conclusion of Routine Proceedings, debate commences at approximately 12:15 p.m. and continues until 4:00 p.m., at which time the motion “That this House do now adjourn” is deemed adopted. Approximately two to two-and-a-half hours of House business are displaced by an emergency debate held on this day because the ordinary hour of adjournment on Friday is 2:30 p.m. Since this Standing Order came into effect in 1987, ^[109]  no emergency debates have been held on Friday, although on two occasions the Speaker has deferred such a debate until the following Monday at 8:00 p.m. ^[110] 

During an emergency debate, no Member may speak for more than 20 minutes ^[111]  and there is no questions and comments period. ^[112]  However, frequently by unanimous consent the length of speeches has been reduced to 10 or 15 minutes to allow as many Members as possible to speak. ^[113]  The etablished rules of debate apply to these emergency debates. ^[114] As such, as with all other motions to adjourn, the motion to adjourn the House to discuss an important and urgent matter is not amendable. ^[115] 

As noted above, once underway, an emergency debate takes precedence over all other business. From Monday to Thursday, no conflict should arise if the debate takes place after the normal adjournment hour. In the case of a debate taking place on a Friday, in addition to approximately 90 minutes scheduled for Government Business, the debate also displaces one hour of Private Members’ Business. This, however, is dealt with in the Standing Orders which specifically prohibit an interruption for Private Members’ Business. ^[116] 

Since the wording of the motion for an emergency debate is simply, “That this House do now adjourn”, at the conclusion of the debate, the House is not required to render a decision on the matter under discussion. ^[117]  At 12:00 midnight (4:00 p.m. on Friday) or when no Member rises to speak, the motion is declared carried by the Speaker and the House adjourns until the next sitting day. ^[118]  If the debate is held during the regular sitting hours of the House and concludes prior to the ordinary hour of adjournment, the motion is deemed withdrawn and the House continues with other business. ^[119] 

The Standing Orders allow a Member to propose a motion to continue the debate beyond 12:00 midnight (4:00 p.m. on Friday) if the motion is moved in the hour preceding the time the debate would normally adjourn, that is, between 11:00 p.m. and midnight (between 3:00 and 4:00 p.m. on Friday). ^[120]  If fewer than 15 Members rise to object to this motion, the motion is deemed adopted. A handful of debates have been extended past midnight pursuant to the Standing Orders, ^[121]  while several have been prolonged by unanimous consent. ^[122] 

There have been occasions when the House has wanted to express itself on the topic of an emergency debate by adopting a motion or resolution. In 1970, the House held an emergency debate on the Nigerian-Biafran conflict; pursuant to a special order made earlier in the sitting, the debate was interrupted at 10:30 p.m., the House adopted a motion on the same subject and then adjourned without question put. ^[123]  In 1983, following an emergency debate regarding the shooting down of a South Korean civilian aircraft by the Soviet Union, the motion to adjourn the House was deemed withdrawn, the House adopted a resolution denouncing the actions of the Soviet government, and then adjourned until the next sitting day by unanimous consent. ^[124]  In 1989, an emergency debate on the Tiananmen Square massacre in Beijing, China, was temporarily interrupted to allow the House to adopt a resolution condemning the massacre. ^[125] 

In relation to any business that the government considers to be urgent, the House may suspend certain Standing Orders in connection with that business, but only under well-defined conditions. ^[126]  Specifically, a motion may be moved by a Minister, at any time when the Speaker is in the Chair, to suspend the Standing Orders respecting notice requirements and the times of sitting. In moving the motion, the Minister gives reasons for the urgency of the situation. After the motion is seconded, the Speaker immediately proposes the question. In doing so, the Speaker may allow up to one hour of uninterrupted debate, in which case the business then before the House is put aside temporarily and a “special” debate on the motion takes place. If no Member rises, the Speaker will put the question immediately. ^[127] 

In moving the motion to suspend the Standing Orders, the Minister must inform the House of the reasons for the urgency of such a motion. ^[128]  Once the motion is duly moved and seconded, the Speaker proposes the motion to the House. ^[129] 

Such motions have seldom been proposed. In 1991, a motion was proposed to suspend the Standing Orders related to the hours of sitting of the House in order for the House to sit three evenings until 10:00 p.m. to complete all stages of an item of back-to-work legislation. After debate, the motion was withdrawn when more than 10 Members rose to object. ^[130]  In 1992, a motion to waive the 48 hours’ notice requirement for the report stage of a bill to provide for referendums on the Constitution was adopted. ^[131]  In March 1995, a motion requesting a waiver of the 48 hours’ notice requirement for introduction of a bill to end a work stoppage and setting the hours of sitting to debate the bill was put to the House and adopted without debate. ^[132]  Later that same month, a similar motion was debated and deemed withdrawn when more than 10 Members rose to object. ^[133]  In June 1999, a motion proposing that the House continue sitting to consider a bill and to suspend the notice requirements of a closure motion was debated and deemed withdrawn when more than 10 Members rose to object. ^[134] 

Debate on such motions lasts not more than one hour and may not be interrupted or adjourned by any other proceeding or Order of the House. ^[135]  Members may speak only once and for no longer than 10 minutes. ^[136]  Amendments are not permitted unless proposed by a Minister other than the mover. ^[137] 

When the debate is completed or after one hour, as the case may be, the Speaker puts the question on the motion and, in doing so, must ask those Members opposed to the motion to rise. ^[138]  If 10 or more Members rise to object, the motion is deemed withdrawn; ^[139]  otherwise, the motion is adopted ^[140]  and becomes an Order of the House governing only the proceedings specified in the motion. ^[141] 

Over the past several years, a number of “take note” motions have been debated in the House. A Minister moves a motion, which includes the words “that the House ‘take note’ of”, to solicit the views of Members on some aspect of government policy. As the Prime Minister noted in the House on January 25, 1994, “take note” debates allow Members to participate in the development of government policy, making their views known before the government makes a decision. ^[142]  A “take note” motion will not usually come to a vote.

Since the beginning of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament in 1994, there have been numerous “take note” debates, the majority of them dealing with Canada’s peacekeeping commitments in various trouble spots around the world ^[143]  and the government’s budgetary policy. ^[144]  The topics of other “take note” debates have included cruise missile testing, NORAD, violence against women, the reform of Canada’s social security programs, and the war in Kosovo. ^[145] 

A “take note” debate is initiated by a Minister giving the usual 48 hours’ notice required before a substantive motion may be moved in the House. After the motion has been transferred to the Order Paper under Government Business, it is taken up for debate at a time of the government’s choosing during Government Orders. On several occasions, however, the 48 hours’ notice requirement was by-passed when the House unanimously adopted a special order which included the wording of a “take note” motion and the rules governing the debate. ^[146]  In many cases, the sitting was extended so that the debate could be held after the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. ^[147] 

Unless otherwise specified in a special order, ^[148]  the normal rules of debate pertaining to length of speeches, duration of the debate, and amendments ^[149]  apply. On several occasions, however, the House unanimously agreed to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to continue the debate. ^[150]  In all of these cases, the special orders stipulated that dilatory motions and quorum calls were not allowed.

It has been the practice that debate on a “take note” motion lasts one sitting day, either during regular sitting hours or during extended hours. There have been occasions when a “take note” debate resumed on a following sitting day. ^[151] With one exception, no decision has been taken on a “take note” motion. ^[152]  The motion remains on the Order Paper under Government Business. ^[153] 

Parliament has seen fit to include in several statutes, provisions governing special “statutory” debates. These special debates are a form of parliamentary supervision and review of specific statutory provisions. In some cases, the statutory provision is designed to be permissive; in others, it is mandatory. ^[154] 

Statutory debates can be grouped into two broad categories, although the procedures pertaining to the debates are similar. The first category provides for a general review of an Act or a particular aspect of it. The second and most common category provides for a debate to confirm, revoke or amend an order, regulation, declaration, proclamation, guideline or other instrument of delegated legislation issued pursuant to the statute in question. Some of these statutes make regulations subject to affirmative resolution of Parliament. This obliges both Houses to adopt the regulations, ostensibly by holding a debate on them, before they can come into effect. ^[155]  Conversely, regulations subject to negative resolution of Parliament are in effect until revoked by resolution of both Houses, again presumably after a debate. ^[156] 

Since the 1960s, several statutory debates have taken place. In 1971, for example, pursuant to the Government Organization Act, 1970, the House considered and adopted a motion to establish a Ministry of State for Science and Technology. ^[157]  In 1974, the House debated a motion requesting the Minister of Veterans Affairs to continue provisions of the Veterans’ Land Act scheduled to expire on March 31, 1975. ^[158]  One was held in 1977 in an attempt to advance the expiration date of the Anti-Inflation Act. ^[159]  Two occurred consecutively in late 1980 when Members sought to revoke two proclamations tabled by the government in relation to the Petroleum Administration Act: one proclamation concerned regulations prescribing maximum prices for various qualities and kinds of crude oil, the other proclamation involved regulations prescribing prices for natural gas. ^[160]  Another took place in 1985 when Members invoked a provision in the Western Grain Transportation Act to move a motion to use a parliamentary day to examine a progress report on the Act and any outstanding issues of interest to western farmers. ^[161]  One statutory debate took place in September 1992 when, pursuant to the Referendum Act, the House adopted a motion approving the text of a referendum question. ^[162]  The most recent debate occurred in December 1992 when Members sought to amend the Special Economic Measures (Haiti) Ships Regulations in accordance with provisions set down in the Special Economic Measures Act for amending or revoking orders and regulations regarding economic sanctions programs. ^[163] 

Until 1986, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contained provisions which allowed Members to discuss their objections to a report of an Electoral Boundaries Commission on the floor of the House. Four debates — in 1966, 1973, 1976 and 1983 — were held under the Act’s provisions. ^[164]  In 1986, the Act was amended so that these reports are now tabled in the House and automatically referred to a parliamentary committee established for the purpose of dealing with electoral matters. ^[165]  Objections are filed with and considered by this committee.

The manner in which statutory debates are triggered depends upon the provisions contained in each statute. For statutes which allow a debate to be held, such a debate may be initiated by a Minister who, within a specified time, files a notice of motion with the Speaker for the confirmation of an order, regulation, declaration, proclamation, guideline or other instrument of delegated legislation issued in accordance with the law. ^[166] 

The initiation of a debate to revoke such instruments typically requires that a notice of motion signed by a minimum number of Members or Senators, as the case may be, be filed with the Speaker. ^[167]  Where statutes require that a debate take place on the use of an instrument of delegated legislation, the relevant provisions typically specify that a confirmation motion signed by a Minister must be laid before Parliament within a specified time. ^[168] 

After notice has been filed in accordance with House rules and transferred to the Order Paper under the rubric “Statutory Order”, ^[169]  debate must take place within a set number of days as prescribed in the given statute. For example, in 1974, debate pursuant to the Veterans’ Land Act had to take place within 15 days, and the House adopted a motion fixing the dates for the debate. ^[170]  In 1977, debate pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act was required to take place within 15 days of the notice being filed ^[171]  and, in 1980, pursuant to the Petroleum Administration Act, within four sitting days. ^[172]  It appears that in both cases the dates for the debate were fixed through all-party consultation. In 1985, pursuant to subsection 62(6) of the Western Grain Transportation Act, which stipulated that debate had to take place within 60 days of the notice being filed, the Speaker assigned the day for the debate. ^[173]  In September 1992, pursuant to the Referendum Act, the debate on the text of the referendum question took place 24 hours after the notice was given. ^[174]  In December 1992, after a motion for a debate pursuant to the Special Economic Measures Act had been placed on the Order Paper, the Chair was asked to rule on its procedural acceptability. The Speaker ruled that the motion was acceptable and that pursuant to the Act, the House had to consider the motion within six sitting days. ^[175]  The House agreed to hold the debate later that day. ^[176] 

Duration of Debate

The duration of a statutory debate is usually prescribed in the legislation, be it one or more sitting days or only a few hours. On occasion, the House has also adopted motions setting out additional guidelines. ^[177] For example, pursuant to subsection 1(3) of the Veterans’ Land Act, the debate was to take place over two days, without interruption, in accordance with the rules of the House; the House subsequently adopted a motion establishing the days of the debate and suspending Private Members’ Business on the first day of debate. ^[178]  The debates held pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act and the Petroleum Administration Act lasted four and three days respectively, in accordance with the statutes. ^[179]  Subsection 62(6) of the Western Grain Transportation Act stipulated that the progress report was to be debated without interruption for “a period not exceeding the duration of the normal business hours of the House on that day”. A motion to this effect was adopted by the House. ^[180]  The motion also indicated that the order was to be the first item of business. The debate held in September 1992 pursuant to the Referendum Act lasted two sitting days. The Act stipulates that a decision must be taken on the motion by the end of the third sitting day of the debate. ^[181]  The House passed a motion, by unanimous consent, to dispose of the motion after two days of debate. ^[182]  The length of the December 1992 statutory debate was set by subsection 7(4) of the Special Economic Measures Act which limits debate to not more than three hours, unless the House fixes a longer period by unanimous consent. In this instance, the House adopted a special order which had the effect of terminating debate after only two hours. ^[183] 

A notable exception to the duration of the debate being prescribed in the legislation is found in the Emergencies Act. This statute imposes no time limit on debate on a motion for confirmation of a declaration, or continuation of a declaration, of an emergency or for debate on a motion to revoke or amend a regulation or order. The legislation provides that debate continues uninterrupted until such time as the House is ready for the question. ^[184] 

Length of Speeches

Unless otherwise specified in the statute, the length of speeches during a statutory debate is determined by the rules of the House. ^[185]  There have been two exceptions: in 1977 and 1985, the House adopted motions restricting the length of speeches. ^[186] 

Most statutes which prescribe provisions for statutory debates also stipulate that the debate may not be interrupted. With the exception of the Petroleum Administration Act, ^[187] the acts pursuant to which statutory debates have been held in the House contained these “no interruption” provisions. However, in 1977, debate on the motion pursuant to the Anti-Inflation Act, which took place over four days, was interrupted on three occasions for the Adjournment Proceedings, after which the motion to adjourn was deemed withdrawn and debate continued, due to an Order of the House adopted on May 30, 1977. ^[188]  In 1985, the debate held pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act was interrupted for a ministerial statement by the Minister of Finance pursuant to an Order made by the House. ^[189] 

A statutory debate concludes in accordance with provisions outlined in the legislation. Typically, if debate has not concluded earlier, the Speaker is required to interrupt the proceedings at the expiration of a given sitting day or hour of debate and put the question on the motion. ^[190]  If a confirmation motion is adopted by the House of Parliament in which it was introduced, the statute will normally prescribe that a message be sent to the other House requesting its concurrence. If the motion is subsequently adopted by the other House, the regulation or Order in Council is thereby confirmed, amended or revoked. ^[191]  If a revocation motion is not adopted by the House in which it originated or by the House where it was sent for concurrence, the regulation or Order in Council comes into force or remains unaffected as the case may be. ^[192] 

Normally, motions moved and debated in accordance with a statutory provision are voted on at the conclusion of debate. ^[193]  In 1985, the proceedings held pursuant to the Western Grain Transportation Act expired at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment: no question was put on the motion nor the amendment thereto. ^[194]