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

2000 Edition — More information …

12. The Process of Debate

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[51]: Journals, April 9, 1913, pp. 451-3; March 27, 1990, p. 1420; January 16, 1991, p. 2571; December 11, 1992, p. 2394.
[52]: Standing Order 67(1)(c).
[53]: Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 327. See also Debates, November 21, 1986, pp. 1413, 1415. For example, the previous question was moved after a six-month hoist amendment had been moved and disposed of (Journals, November 16, 1998, p. 1260; November 26, 1998, p. 1316).
[54]: Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 326.
[55]: See, for example, Journals, May 4, 1948, p. 536; December 17, 1964, p. 1016; February 9, 1983, p. 5587; May 10, 1990, p. 1685.
[56]: Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 328. See Debates, December 11, 1979, p. 2246, when a Member attempted to move the previous question in a Committee of the Whole and was ruled out of order by the Chair.
[57]: See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1959, p. 2286.
[58]: Standing Order 44(2).
[59]: See Speaker Lemieux’s comments in Debates, May 26, 1928, pp. 3419-20; on this occasion, the previous question was moved and a subsequent motion to adjourn the debate was defeated. In 1995, after the previous question was moved, a motion to adjourn the debate was moved and negatived (Journals, May 9, 1995, p. 1449; May 10, 1995, pp.1459-60).
[60]: Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 327-8.
[61]: Standing Order 41. In 1980, for example, debate on the previous question was interrupted when the time provided for Private Member’s Business expired (Journals, May 13, 1980, p. 163) and subsequently both motions were carried on the Order Paper (Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 20, 1980, p. 58). In 1998, debate on the previous question was interrupted when the time provided for Government Orders expired; likewise, both motions were entered on the next day’s Order Paper (Journals, October 2, 1998, p. 1115; Order Paper and Notice Paper, October 5, 1998, p. 16). If a recorded division is demanded on the motion for the previous question, and the House decides to defer the vote, both motions are carried on the Order Paper (see, for example, Journals, October 29, 1998, p. 1214; Order Paper and Notice Paper, October 30, 1998, p. 15).
[62]: This happened in 1928 (third reading of a private bill — Journals, May 26, 1928, pp. 461-2); in 1949 (second reading of a private bill — Journals, December 2, 1949, pp. 319-20); in 1959 (private Member’s motion— Journals, April 6, 1959, p. 289); in 1963 (second reading of a private Member’s public bill — Journals, November 1, 1963, p. 516); and in 1980 (second reading of a private Member’s public bill — Journals, May 13, 1980, p. 163).
[63]: On three occasions, motions for closure were applied to curtail debate on the previous question (Journals, March 2, 1926, p. 123; March 29, 1932, p. 177; October 26, 1989, pp. 754-5). In each case, the closure motion was adopted.
[64]: Bourinot states that Members “proposing and seconding the previous question generally vote in its favour, but there is no rule to prevent them from voting against their own motion” if their intention is to supersede the question (4th ed., p. 327, which refers to the Speaker’s remarks in Debates, March 13, 1879, pp. 407-9). See, for example, Journals, May 31, 1869, pp. 163-4 (mover voted nay); March 10, 1950, p. 96; April 17, 1950, pp. 236-7 (mover and seconder not recorded as voting); December 1, 1998, p. 1342 (mover and seconder voted yea).
[65]: Standing Order 61(2). See also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 327-8, and Debates, November 26, 1998, p. 10472.
[66]: The previous question was negatived on four occasions (Journals, May 31, 1869, pp. 163-4; April 28, 1870, pp. 254-5; June 1, 1928, p. 489; April 15, 1929, p. 242).
[67]: See, for example, Journals, May 26, 1988, pp. 2730, 2732.
[68]: Standing Order 45(5)(d). An exception occurred on March 27, 1991, when a vote on the main motion was deferred to later in the sitting by unanimous consent (Journals, p. 2839).
[69]: See, for example, Debates, October 25, 1989, p. 5097; June 21, 1994, p. 5698.
[70]: Standing Order 58.
[71]: Adjournment motions are referred to as dilatory motions only when they are used to stop a debate and supersede the original question before the House (Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 173). See section below, “Motion to Adjourn the House”.
[72]: Standing Order 58.
[73]: See Standing Order 30(3) for the list of items under Routine Proceedings, and Chapter 10, “The Daily Program” for further information on Routine Proceedings. There are many examples of motions moved during Routine Proceedings (see events during Routine Proceedings on November 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25, 1986, as well as in April 1987, when the House was debating a contentious bill amending the Drug Patent Act (Bill C-22)). On April 13, 1987, the government attempted to move a motion to supersede certain items under Routine Proceedings (Debates, pp. 5071-82). The next day, Speaker Fraser ruled to allow the motion, in this instance only, emphasizing that the decision was not to be viewed as a precedent. The Speaker agreed that, on the basis of his ruling of November 24, 1986 (Debates, p. 1435), the superseding of items under Routine Proceedings was not in order. Nonetheless, he felt that the interests of the House would be best served if (given the various tactics of obstruction used over a period of weeks, which had blocked debate on the bill) the government were allowed to proceed with its motion (Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5119-24).
[74]: See, for example, Debates, November 25, 1986, pp. 1485-8.
[75]: See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1986, pp. 1435-7; January 30, 1990, pp. 7588-9.
[76]: See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1435.
[77]: See, for example, Journals, March 9, 1998, p. 540.
[78]: See, for example,Debates, June 21, 1994, p. 5698.
[79]: See, for example, Journals, April 9, 1913, pp. 451-3; April 23, 1913, pp. 507-09.
[80]: Standing Order 59. See, for example, Journals, December 13, 1988, pp. 14-5; December 15, 1988, pp. 33-4; December 20, 1988, pp. 60-1; December 21, 1988, pp. 66-7. The same motion was used by the government in the Pipeline debate of 1956, when debate on a motion to concur in a committee report was superseded so that the government’s pipeline bill could move forward (Journals, June 5, 1956, pp. 696-9).
[81]: See, for example, Journals, June 29, 1971, p. 759.
[82]: See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1437; January 30, 1990, pp. 7587-9.
[83]: A motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day has been moved during Routine Proceedings under “Presenting Petitions” (Journals, November 6, 1986, pp. 180-1); under “Tabling of Documents” (Journals, January 30, 1990, pp. 1132-3); under “Presenting Reports from Committees” (Journals, February 5, 1993, pp. 2461-2); under “Motions” (during debate on a motion to concur in a committee report, Journals, June 22, 1994, p. 655; and when no question was before the House, Journals, March 20, 1997, pp. 1321-2). On February 9, 1987, a motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day was moved at the beginning of the sitting (Journals, p. 464).
[84]: See, for example, Debates, December 13, 1988, p. 23; March 6, 1990, pp. 8844-6.
[85]: There have been many such occasions. See, for example, Journals, November 24, 1986, pp. 229-30; April 9, 1987, p. 730; June 2, 1998, pp. 920-1.
[86]: Standing Order 40(2). See also rulings by Speakers, Journals, May 14, 1956, p. 543; April 18, 1967, pp. 1733-4; October 23, 1968, pp. 156-7.
[87]: See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 29, 1966, pp. 363-4.
[88]: See, for example, Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1435; November 25, 1986, p. 1488.
[89]: See, for example, Journals, April 29, 1874, p. 133; April 3, 1875, p. 350; April 28 and 29, 1930, pp. 240, 246.
[90]: Standing Order 24(2).
[91]: Standing Order 41(2). Prior to April 1991, a dilatory motion to adjourn the House, if agreed to, superseded the motion under debate, which was dropped from the Order Paper (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 323).
[92]: May, 22nd ed., pp. 318-9.
[93]: See, for example, Journals, October 30, 1995, p. 2063.
[94]: For example, it is usual for a motion to adjourn the House to be moved and adopted when news of the death of a sitting Member reaches the House during a sitting (Debates, November 17, 1970, p. 1228; see, for example, Journals, December 16, 1976, p. 251). In 1998, a Member was stricken in the Chamber and the House adjourned by unanimous consent; the next day, the House met for Routine Proceedings, after which an adjournment motion was moved and adopted “out of respect for the memory” of the deceased Member (Journals, December 9, 1998, p. 1430; December 10, 1998, p. 1438). Motions to adjourn the House were also adopted, in 1896, after several Ministers resigned (Debates, January 7 to 15, 1896, cols. 5-71); in 1926, when Prime Minister Mackenzie King tendered his resignation as Prime Minister (Journals, June 28, 1926, p. 483); and in 1968, following the defeat of a tax bill at third reading (Journals, February 20, 1968, p. 705; February 21, 1968, p. 707).
[95]: In 1954, for example, the House agreed that a motion to adjourn would be the basis of a general debate on foreign policy (Debates, January 28, 1954, p. 1580; January 29, 1954, pp. 1584-1622). In 1971, another such debate took place by special order of the House and was conducted similarly to an emergency debate (Journals, October 14, 1971, pp. 870-1; Debates, October 14, 1971, pp. 8659-60, 8688-734).
[96]: Standing Order 52. For further information on emergency debates, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[97]: Standing Order 38. For further information on the adjournment proceedings, see Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[98]: Standing Order 60.
[99]: See, for example, Journals, February 19, 1998, p. 506, when the motion to adjourn the House was moved during debate at second reading of a government bill.
[100]: See, for example, Journals, November 19, 1986, pp. 212-3, and January 22, 1988, pp. 2051-2, when the motion was moved under the rubric “Presentation of Petitions” during Routine Proceedings.