House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

10. The Daily Program

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[251]: Standing Order 39(3)(a).
[252]: This procedure began on July 17, 1963 (see Debates, July 17, 1963, p. 2295). Prior to this, the procedure was very time-consuming: the Speaker went through the entire list of questions each Monday and Wednesday, with the Minister or Parliamentary Secretary interrupting on occasion to say “Answered” when they wished to table a reply (see Stewart, p. 65).
[253]: See, for example, Debates, June 16, 1992, pp. 12116-7; March 14, 1995, pp. 10430-1; February 2, 1998, pp. 3195-6; October 28, 1998, pp. 9522-3.
[254]: See, for example, Debates, May 15, 1989, p. 1694; May 14, 1990, pp. 11372-3; February 2, 1998, p. 3196; September 21, 1998, pp. 8174-7; April 30, 1999, p. 14549.
[255]: Standing Order 39(7). See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1994, p. 725; December 13, 1996, pp. 1018-9. See Journals, April 2, 1998, p. 664, for an example of a revised return being tabled.
[256]: See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1995, p. 10397; March 17, 1995, p. 10671.
[257]: Standing Order 42(1).
[258]: Standing Order 39(5)(b).
[259]: Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 536-7.
[260]: Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 888-9.
[261]: Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 949-50, 953; September 27, 1961, p. 957.
[262]: Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338-9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[263]: For examples of notices of motions (papers) placed on the Order of Precedence for Private Members’ Business, debated and adopted, see Journals, October 2, 1998, p. 1115; November 2, 1998, p. 1221. See also Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[264]: Prior to 1876, all motions for papers were Addresses to the Governor General (Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 245).
[265]: Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 249.
[266]: Journals, February 15, 1960, pp. 137-40, in particular p. 138.
[267]: Up until April 1964, when the rubric “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” was called, the Speaker would go through the list of motions seriatim. If a motion for papers was adopted, the government would then compile (“produce”) the information ordered for presentation on a later date in the House. (See Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 248-9). In 1964, a procedure committee proposed that “Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers” be called on Wednesday and be handled in a manner similar to that being practised with respect to written questions, namely by an announcement that certain ones be accepted, certain ones be accepted subject to qualifications, certain ones might be called and the rest be allowed to stand (Journals, April 15, 1964, pp. 213-4; April 20, 1964, pp. 223-6).
[268]: As with the tabling of documents and replies to questions on the Order Paper, today’s practice is usually for the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader to reply on behalf of the government.
[269]: Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, December 10, 1980, p. 5594; February 4, 1981, pp. 6888-9; June 15, 1983, p. 26414. On at least one occasion, a recorded division was requested after the government had agreed to produce a document (see Debates, December 14, 1994, p. 9072) while in another instance a revised return was tabled (Debates, October 28, 1981, p. 12281).
[270]: The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[271]: Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1981, p. 6888; February 2, 1983, p. 22431; February 18, 1998, p. 4078; February 25, 1998, p. 4409; April 22, 1998, p. 5964. The Minister’s reservation about producing certain documents because of their confidential nature becomes a matter of record (see Journals, February 27, 1961, pp. 295-7). In 1981, Speaker Sauvé ruled that the expression “confidential documents” had never been defined and that it would be improper for the Speaker to attempt to do so. She underlined that it is the government’s prerogative to decide which documents are of a confidential nature (Debates, June 18, 1981, p. 10738).
[272]: The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[273]: See, for example, Debates, December 17, 1980, p. 5854; March 18, 1981, pp. 8377-8.
[274]: Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1982, pp. 15107-8; July 14, 1982, p. 19331; February 4, 1998, p. 3328; December 2, 1998, p. 10793. See also ruling of Deputy Speaker Milliken, Debates, November 25, 1998, pp. 10436-7. The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[275]: See, for example, Debates, May 6, 1992, p. 10239.
[276]: Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, December 9, 1981, p. 13891; December 16, 1981, pp. 14129-30; February 24, 1982, p. 15350; March 31, 1982, pp. 16015-6; August 4, 1982, pp. 20020-1; December 1, 1982, p. 21175; May 30, 1984, pp. 4197-8; April 29, 1998, p. 6297; May 6, 1998, p. 6608; June 3, 1998, pp. 7537-8; November 25, 1998, pp. 10436-7. The procedure by which these motions are debated is examined in Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[277]: Standing Order 97(1). See, for example, Debates, March 31, 1982, p. 16015.
[278]: Standing Order 42(1). See, for example, Debates, March 25, 1998, p. 5341; June 10, 1998, p. 7936.
[279]: Journals, March 15, 1973, p. 187.
[280]: Debates, March 15, 1973, p. 2288. This document was referred to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and other Statutory Instruments on March 29, 1973 (Journals, p. 226). See also Debates, March 29, 1973, pp. 2745-50. In 1974, the President of the Privy Council tabled the guidelines again and they were subsequently referred to the same committee (Journals, December 19, 1974, pp. 229, 231). The Committee did not report back to the House on this matter on either occasion.
[281]: See, for example, ruling of Speaker Sauvé, Debates, November 16, 1982, pp. 20702-3.
[282]: See, for example, Debates, November 21, 1979, pp. 1557-8.
[283]: See, for example, Debates, July 15, 1982, pp. 19361-2.
[284]: Standing Order 49.
[285]: Standing Order 30(5) and (6). The time for Government Orders may be increased if a Member moves a motion, without notice, to continue or to extend a sitting beyond the fixed hour of daily adjournment in order to continue the consideration of a particular government order, and the motion is adopted (see Standing Order 26). In addition, as the House moves towards the summer adjournment, a Minister may propose a motion during Routine Proceedings to extend the hours of sitting of the House in the last 10 sitting days of June (see Standing Order 27). These longer hours are typically used for the consideration of government business. See Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House.”
[286]: See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[287]: Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338-9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[288]: See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 4, 1982, Issue No. 7, pp. 14-5, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and the motion adopted by the House on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[289]: See the First Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 15, 1983, Issue No. 2, pp. 3-4, presented December 15, 1983 (Journals, p. 47), and the motion adopted by the House on December 19, 1983 (Journals, pp. 55-6).
[290]: The amount of time available daily to the government for the consideration of its business has fluctuated over the years depending on the hours of sitting and adjournment of the House. For example, in 1990, 18 hours a week were set aside for Government Orders; this grew to 25 hours the following year. In 1994, time available for Government Orders was readjusted when the ordinary hour of daily adjournment was altered and the daily midday interruption for the lunch hour was removed.
[291]: See Stewart, pp. 71-2, for a history of the term “Orders of the Day”.
[292]: Standing Order 66. Prior to 1965, resumed debate on motions moved during Routine Proceedings took place under that rubric on the next sitting day. On several occasions, motions to concur in committee reports were debated at length over a number of days, thus preventing the House from considering any further items on the Order Paper. In 1965, the Standing Orders were amended in such a way that the government was obliged to call resumed debate on adjourned or interrupted motions as the first item under Government Orders on the next sitting day. This change prevented continued debate on a motion from keeping the House from considering other items of Routine Proceedings or from having a Question Period (Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 224, 226). Three years later, the House concurred in a report from a special committee which recommended that the government be permitted to call such business in the order it chooses without restriction (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571).
[293]: See Standing Order 41.
[294]: Standing Order 40(2). However, in order to be considered, any government business must meet the necessary notice requirement (Standing Order 54). This Standing Order was first included in the rules of the House in 1906 (Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7477-80; Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80).
[295]: In 1987, the Speaker cited this rule when the Opposition challenged the right of the government to call a bill for debate even though, as they claimed, its text was in imperfect form. Despite the charge, the Speaker agreed to allow debate without prejudice to any ruling that might be rendered because, as he stated, under the terms of the rule, the government was within its right to carry on with the debate. See Debates, January 23, 1987, pp. 2651-3. See also Debates, October 29, 1987, pp. 10508-9; May 25, 1988, pp. 15773-5; April 2, 1993, p. 18002; June 1, 1994, pp. 4709-10.
[296]: See “Weekly Business Statement” later in this chapter.
[297]: The hybrid nature of Supply motions, which are formulated by Members of the opposition yet considered under Government Orders, gave rise to one of the few instances in recent years where the Speaker invoked Standing Order 40(2) to resolve a dispute. On February 11, 1982, the Government House Leader announced that a Supply day set for the following day would be postponed by one week. When the opposition objected, the Speaker ruled that as Supply motions fall under Government Orders, they can be “called and considered in sequence as the government determines” (Debates, pp. 14896-9).
[298]: Standing Order 81(1).
[299]: Standing Order 81(2).
[300]: At the beginning of a session, Private Members’ Business does not take place until the establishment of an Order of Precedence (Standing Order 91).