Start of content

House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 21. Private Members' Business - Time Limits on Debate

*   Non-votable Items

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]

*   Votable Items

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]

*   Committee Stage of Private Members’ Bills

Requirement to Report

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]

Recommendation Not to Proceed Further

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]

Extension of Consideration

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.

*   Report Stage and Third Reading

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]

*   Senate Amendments to a Private Member’s Bill

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]

*   Notices of Motions (Papers)

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]

*   Debate on Items of Private Members’ Business

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]

Top of Page



[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.

[191] Standing Order 96(2).

[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”.

[194] Standing Order 90.

[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 the Food 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).

[204] Standing Order 97.1(2)(e).

[205] Standing Order 97.1(3).

[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).

[210] Standing Order 98(2).

[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).

[214] Standing Order 98(3).

[215] Standing Order 98(3)(a).

[216] Standing Order 98(3)(b).

[217] Standing Order 98(5).

[218] Standing Order 98(4)(a).

[219] Standing Order 98(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”.

[223] Standing Order 30(6).

[224] Standing Order 42(1).

[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).

[226] Standing Order 97(2).

[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).

[232] Standing Order 76.1(7).

[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.

[240] Standing Order 95(3).

Top of Page