House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page
[151] 
On occasion, Members have been granted unanimous consent to present a report from an unofficial delegation (see, for example, Debates, February 25, 1998, p. 4407; March 5, 1999, p. 12504; April 21, 1999, p. 14162).
[152] 
Standing Order 34(2).
[153] 
See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1992, p. 6376; May 16, 1996, p. 2851; March 10, 1997, p. 8842.
[154]
Any document tabled in the House or filed with the Clerk during a session of Parliament is given a sessional paper number. All documents tabled or filed are open to public scrutiny.
[155] 
Standing Order 35(1). In 1985, a special committee recommended that Members presenting reports to the House be allowed to give a brief explanation thereof in order to bring the reports to the attention of the House (see page 22 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839)). The present Standing Order was adopted on February 13, 1986 (see Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1663; February 13, 1986, p. 1710). If a chair’s remarks go beyond the scope of the report, the Speaker may interrupt the Member (see, for example, Debates, December 4, 1992, pp. 14654-5). On occasion, an opposition Member has received unanimous consent to comment on a report (Debates, October 18, 1994, p. 6816; October 31, 1994, p. 7430). Until 1955, each report presented in the House was read in its entirety by a Table Officer, and the text was also included in the Journals for that day. If the report was lengthy, its reading was often dispensed with. After 1955, this practice was abandoned and the only reports read were those for which the Member presenting had stated his or her intention to move concurrence later the same day (Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 944). Still the texts of all reports, both read and not read, were included in the Journals. This arrangement remained in effect until 1981 when it was decided to include only the texts of reports on bills and Estimates in the Journals (see Debates, December 11, 1981, pp. 13973-4). Reports for which the Member presenting stated an intention of moving concurrence later the same day continued to be read by a Table Officer during the 1980s. The practice now is to have such reports read by a Table Officer only when so requested by the Speaker before the House is asked for unanimous consent to proceed immediately with the concurrence motion. See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848.
[156] 
Standing Order 109. The government is obliged to table the response within 150 calendar days of the tabling of the report. The Speaker has ruled that a committee may request a response to only part of its report, but the whole of the report nonetheless remains open to comment by the government (Debates, May 13, 1986, p. 13232).
[157] 
See, for example, Journals, June 14, 1993, p. 3204; June 16, 1993, p. 3318; September 8, 1993, pp. 3338-9.
[158] 
See Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1397-9; March 16, 1972, pp. 194-5; Debates, November 24, 1994, pp. 8252-3.
[159] 
Standing Order 108(1)(a). Standing committees are permitted to “… report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the chairman, containing such opinions or recommendations, dissenting from the report or supplementary to it, as may be proposed by committee members…” Such material is only appended following the adoption of a motion to do so by the committee prior to the presentation of the report to the House. In 1994, a point of order was raised in the House regarding the printing of dissenting opinions in a report by the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canada’s Foreign Policy. The dissenting opinions were printed in a second volume instead of being appended after the signature of the chair. Although the Speaker ruled that the report as presented would be accepted by the House, he stated that the dissenting opinions should have been printed after the signature of the chair pursuant to the wording of the Standing Order. In addition, Speaker Parent cautioned committees to observe carefully the terms of Standing Order 108(1)(a) in the future (see Debates, November 24, 1994, pp. 8252-3). While this Standing Order refers only to standing committees, it has become the practice of the House to also apply the Standing Order to special committees (see Debates, November 24, 1994, p. 8252). See also Chapter 20, “Committees”, for additional information on the format of committee reports.
[160] 
Standing Order 35(2). A committee member from the Official Opposition has an equal amount of time as that of the presenter of the committee report (Debates, October 18, 1994, p. 6816; November 7, 1997, pp. 1715-6). Since the introduction of this rule in April 1991 (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2908), some inconsistency has surrounded its implementation. Members often refer to “dissenting opinions” as minority reports and, at times, Members have sought and have been permitted to “table minority reports” following the presentation of the main committee report (see, for example, Debates, December 12, 1991, pp. 6171-2; June 16, 1993, p. 20921). However, as Speaker Parent noted in a 1994 ruling: “Regardless of how the media or members themselves may label such dissent, the House has never recognized or permitted the tabling of minority reports. Speaker Lamoureux twice condemned the idea of minority reports, explaining to the House that what is presented to the House from a committee is a report from the committee, not a report from the majority” (see Debates, November 24, 1994, p. 8252).
[161] 
On occasion, however, Members not belonging to the Official Opposition have sought and received unanimous consent to speak (see, for example, Debates, April 13, 1994, p. 2980; November 7, 1997, p. 1716; December 1, 1997, p. 2503). When two dissenting opinions are appended to a report, a Member from a party other than the Official Opposition may only comment on the appended material with the consent of the House (see Debates, May 14, 1992, p. 10692). If the Official Opposition does not append a dissenting opinion, but a third party does, a Member from the third party may only give an explanation of these views with the unanimous consent of the House (see Debates, June 18, 1992, p. 12322; June 21, 1995, p. 14322).
[162] 
See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848.
[163] 
See Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1018.
[164] 
Standing Order 54(1). On occasion, the 48-hour notice requirement for the introduction of a government bill has been waived with the unanimous consent of the House (see, for example, Debates, December 19, 1990, p. 16951; October 10, 1991, pp. 3557, 3559; February 14, 1992, p. 7056; May 5, 1992, pp. 10145-6; February 8, 1994, p. 1035). The notice requirement has also been waived pursuant to Standing Order 53 (Journals, March 15, 1995, p. 1219). See Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, for additional information on notice requirements.
[165] 
Standing Order 68(1). This Standing Order has remained unchanged since its adoption in 1867. See Rule No. 39 in Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, for additional information on the introduction and first reading of government bills.
[166] 
Standing Order 68(2). From 1867 to 1913, the motion for leave to introduce a bill was debatable and amendable. In April 1913, in an attempt to define and lessen the number of motions considered debatable, the Standing Orders were amended. Among those motions no longer held to be debatable was the motion for leave to introduce a bill (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9). However, Members could still negative the motion for leave to introduce, although this usually happened only in regard to private Members’ bills (see, for example, Debates, February 22, 1932, pp. 380-4; August 3, 1964, p. 6285; November 13, 1967, pp. 4165-6; December 5, 1967, pp. 5035-6; November 7, 1986, p. 1193). In April 1991, the Standing Order was amended to provide that the motion for leave would automatically be deemed carried, without debate, amendment or question put (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2913).
[167] 
Standing Order 68(2). Ministers rarely take this opportunity to explain the purpose of the bill, preferring to wait until the bill is called for second reading. There have been occasions, however, when a Minister has given a brief explanation of a bill (see Debates, December 1, 1987, pp. 11343-4; September 27, 1990, pp. 13481-2; February 27, 1992, p. 7681; April 10, 1992, p. 9655; June 18, 1992, p. 12323; February 5, 1998, pp. 3402-3).
[168] 
Standing Order 69(1). The original version of this Standing Order, adopted in December 1867, provided only for the first reading of bills. In 1968, a special procedure committee recommended that the first reading motion be amended to read “That this bill be read a first time and printed”. The committee felt that adoption of this motion would imply that the House had agreed to the introduction of the bill without any commitment beyond the fact that it should be made generally available for the information of Parliament and the public (see Item Nos. 10 and 11 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, presented on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 432-3)).
[169] 
The wording of the original Standing Order prohibited debate on or amendments to the main motion, although the motion could be voted on. Speakers were strict in enforcing the rule and in asserting that no discussion could take place at first reading except by unanimous consent, and that the House had the option only of accepting or rejecting the bill’s first reading (see, for example, remarks by the Speaker in Debates, February 27, 1912, col. 3902; February 13, 1933, pp. 2016-7; February 26, 1934, p. 927; April 2, 1962, p. 2383; April 6, 1982, p. 16202). During the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament (April 1989 -May 1991), the opposition parties frequently forced recorded divisions on the introduction and first reading motions for both government and private Members’ bills as a means of delaying the proceedings. As voting procedures could take up to 45 minutes per recorded vote, the time available for Government Orders was reduced. In April 1991, the Standing Orders were amended to provide for these motions being deemed carried without question put (see Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2913-4).
[170] 
The ancient practice of the British Parliament to read bills at length was obsolete by the time of Confederation. Since the earliest Canadian Parliament, it was considered sufficient at first reading merely to read the title of the bill in English and French (Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 518). In April 1878, at the request of a Member, a bill was read in its entirety at the first reading stage by the Assistant Clerk. In his remarks concerning this proceeding, the Speaker emphasized that, although there was no rule against it, the practice of reading the text of bills had entirely disappeared (Debates, April 2, 1878, pp. 1582-4).
[171] 
On one occasion, a Member argued that this question was a votable motion which could be put to the House. The Speaker ruled, however, that the practice had fallen into disuse and that without clear directions from the House to the contrary, it would not be appropriate to apply to current practices what may well have been an appropriate ruling over 100 years ago (Debates, May 24, 1988, pp. 15706, 15719-23).
[172] 
See, for example, Journals, February 8, 1994, pp. 130-2; October 29, 1997, p. 166. Note also that Standing Order 71 provides for the reading of a bill at two or more stages on one sitting day, on urgent or extraordinary occasions; this would be accomplished by unanimous consent or special order. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[173] 
Standing Order 81(17), (18)(c). See, for example, Journals, December 8, 1994, pp. 1008-9.
[174] 
In respect to points of order raised about a Minister introducing legislation in relation to another Minister’s administrative responsibilities, Speaker Jerome ruled that there was no prohibition against the practice (Debates, July 20, 1977, pp. 7836-7).
[175] 
See, for example, Debates, January 31, 1985, p. 1845; October 28, 1991, pp. 4070-2, 4076.
[176] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1018.
[177] 
They are listed in chronological order on the Order Paper after 48 hours’ written notice. The 48-hour notice period can be waived with the unanimous consent of the House (see, for example, Debates, April 22, 1993, pp. 18278-9).
[178] 
See, for example, Debates, January 27, 1981, p. 6616; June 15, 1993, p. 20795.
[179] 
Standing Order 68(2).
[180] 
Standing Order 68(2). On April 22, 1997, a Member introduced and commented on 29 bills (see Journals, April 22, 1997, pp. 1502-6). The same Member introduced 38 bills on February 13, 1998 (Journals, pp. 458-63).
[181] 
See, for example, Debates, March 28, 1996, p. 1329; October 22, 1997, p. 974; November 7, 1997, p. 1717.
[182] 
Standing Order 69(1).
[183]
See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”, for detailed information on the consideration and passage of a private Member’s bill.
[184] 
Journals, April 29, 1910, p. 537.
[185] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 272.
[186] 
See, for example, Order Paper, June 10, 1998, p. 10; June 11, 1998, p. 11. On one occasion, the notice of first reading of a Senate public bill was struck from the Order Paper because the bill was found to infringe upon the royal prerogative in financial matters (Journals, November 12, 1969, pp. 79-80). In 1998, in response to a point of order raised concerning the procedural acceptability of a Senate public bill which had been read a first time, the Speaker ruled that the bill imposed a tax and therefore should have originated in the House of Commons and been preceded by the adoption of a Ways and Means motion. The first reading proceedings on the bill were declared null and void, and the bill was withdrawn from the Order Paper. See Debates, December 2, 1998, pp. 10788-91. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[187] 
There have been a number of Senate bills sponsored by the Ministry. See, for example, Journals, June 18, 1992, p. 1793; November 19, 1992, p. 2079; March 10, 1993, p. 2611; March 23, 1994, p. 296; June 14, 1995, p. 1723: November 26, 1997, p. 270; February 2, 1998, p. 403; February 11, 1998, p. 444; March 25, 1998, p. 622; May 28, 1998, p. 901; June 3, 1998, p. 929.
[188] 
Standing Order 69(2). Prior to September 1994, the question was put on the motion for first reading of a Senate public bill, and on occasion Senate bills were defeated on recorded division at this stage (see, for example, Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1059-60; June 18, 1990, pp. 1920-1). The Standing Order was amended in June 1994 when the House concurred in a committee report recommending a number of changes to the rules of the House (see Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 5).
Between 1968 and 1998, there were three occasions when a private Member commented on a Senate public bill at the first reading stage (see Debates, September 21, 1971, p. 8029; June 29, 1987, p. 7715; November 18, 1998, p. 10145).
[189] 
A Senate public bill sponsored by a Minister has been read a first time and subsequently considered at all stages on the same sitting day (see Journals, June 18, 1992, pp. 1793, 1803).
[190]
See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[191] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[192] 
See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 25.
[193] 
Journals, May 7, 1964, p. 297.
[194] 
Until 1955, government notices of motions had been considered and debated outside of Routine Proceedings as a separate item of business, when and if that category were reached. In 1955, the Standing Orders were amended to allow any government notice of motion to be transferred to Government Orders automatically when called from the Chair during Routine Proceedings. By being included as a routine proceeding, government notices of motions could be called daily by the Speaker and, as the rule made clear, were no longer subject to debate because they were immediately transferred to the Order Paper under Government Orders for consideration in due course (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 886-7, 900).
[195] 
Item No. 9 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373), and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). Until 1965, if debate under “Motions” did not conclude at one sitting, it was resumed at the next sitting (and possibly subsequent sittings) when the rubric “Motions” was reached. This meant that the House would not be able to consider any routine proceeding following “Motions” nor Orders of the Day nor Question Period. For example, the House debated the motion for concurrence in the report of the Special Committee on a Canadian Flag for two weeks before a decision was taken (only after closure was used). For 11 days, the House did not consider any rubric following “Motions” and there was no Question Period (see Stewart, pp. 63-4). The Standing Orders were amended so that the order for resuming debate begun under “Motions” was concluded the next day under Government Orders as the first item of business (Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 224, 226). In 1968, the rules were again amended to permit the government to call such business in the order it chose without restriction (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571).
[196] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8. Debatable government notices of motions are now placed on the Order Paper under Government Orders after the normal 48 hours’ notice (Standing Order 56(1)). It becomes an order of the day, similar to any other government business ordered for consideration by the House.
[197] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 219; Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 79. See also Journals, May 2, 1961, p. 494; Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506; June 18, 1996, pp. 3981-2.
[198] 
See, for example, various Speakers’ rulings, Journals, May 30, 1928, p. 476; May 11, 1944, p. 365; May 2, 1961, pp. 493-5; and the Speaker’s comments in Debates, April 28, 1982, p. 16701.
[199] 
See Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821-2, where Speaker Bosley was called upon to rule on whether a time allocation motion had to be moved under “Motions” during Routine Proceedings, or whether it could be placed under “Government Notices of Motions” and then transferred to Government Orders. The Speaker ruled that the government has the right to proceed in the manner it chooses. Speaker Fraser explained in 1988: “The question then becomes, what is the distinction between a Government Notice of Motion and a motion? I would suggest a Government Notice of Motion is any motion that the Government gives notice of. In other words, a Government Notice of Motion is not based on the content of the motion, but rather upon the mover. In many cases, therefore, a notice of motion could go under more than one heading and it is up to the Minister giving notice to decide which heading should be chosen. Clearly a Government Notice of Motion can only be moved by the Government, but the Government can choose to place it either under Motions or Government Notices of Motions” (Debates, June 13, 1988, pp. 16376-9, and in particular p. 16377).
[200] 
Debates, July 13, 1988, p. 17506.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page