House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

21. Private Members’ Business

[1] 
For information on the Ministry, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”. On October 23, 1996, after Don Boudria (Glengarry–Prescott–Russell) was appointed to the Ministry, Speaker Parent directed the Clerk to remove from the Order Paper a motion standing in Mr. Boudria’s name on the order of precedence for Private Members’ Business (Debates, p. 5630).
[2] 
Upon being appointed as a Parliamentary Secretary, Members have withdrawn or requested a change in the sponsorship of an item of Private Members’ Business brought before the House prior to their appointment (see, for example, Debates, April 19, 1988, p. 14634; September 19, 1988, p. 19402; Journals, October 28, 1998, p. 1205).
[3] 
For examples of private Members’ bills sponsored by Presiding Officers, see Journals, October 29, 1970, p. 65 (Gérald Laniel was Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole); October 31, 1977, pp. 52-3 (Charles Turner was Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole); October 24, 1979, pp. 109, 111, 119 (William C. Scott was Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole); November 28, 1996, p. 935 (Peter Milliken was Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole). The sponsorship of another bill standing in the name of Mr. Milliken was transferred to another Member (Debates, February 19, 1997, p. 8318).
[4] 
Some important issues first raised by private Members have later reappeared in government legislation. See, for example, Bill C-279, An Act to amend the Official Languages Act (tabling of documents) introduced by Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa–Vanier), Debates, June 6, 1988, pp. 16179-81.
[5]
With the exception of bills dealing with changes to the names of electoral districts, relatively few private Members’ bills receive Royal Assent. Between 1945 and 1993, 127 private Members’ public bills received Royal Assent; only 31 of those bills did not deal with changes to the names of constituencies.
[6]
Public bills sponsored by Members and introduced first in the House of Commons are numbered consecutively from C-201 to C-1000 in the order of introduction, whereas bills originating in the Senate are numbered from S-1, there being no distinction made as to whether it is a government or private Member’s bill.
[7]
For more information, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[8] 
Only Tuesday and Friday were reserved for government business. See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[9] 
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7475-7.
[10] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 889, 893, 945.
[11] 
Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 338-9; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[12] 
Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 429, 436-7; December 20, 1968, pp. 554, 563-5.
[13] 
The Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which recommended these changes, was presented to the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and the motion putting into effect the changes was adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[14] 
The First Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders, which recommended these changes, was presented to the House on December 15, 1983 (Journals, p. 47), and the motion putting into effect the changes was adopted on December 19, 1983 (Journals, pp. 55-6).
[15] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905-6, 2908.
[16] 
Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535-7.
[17] 
Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 950, 953; September 27, 1961, p. 957.
[18] 
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 340-1.
[19] 
See, for example, Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1927, Standing Order 27.
[20] 
See, for example, the day-by-day order of business for 1955 and 1962.
[21] 
Such a procedure was initially proposed in 1925 (Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 359).
[22] 
Debates, November 28, 1979, p. 1794.
[23] 
The Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which recommended these changes, was presented to the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and the motion putting into effect the changes was adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[24] 
See the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, Third Report, p. 40. The Report was presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[25] 
Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1648-52; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[26] 
Journals, December 18, 1986, p. 351.
[27] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1020-2.
[28] 
Journals, October 26, 1989, p. 752.
[29] 
Journals, pp. 927-34.
[30] 
Journals, pp. 1685-7.
[31] 
Journals, December 6, 1990, pp. 2385-8.
[32] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2919-22.
[33] 
Journals, April 29, 1992, pp. 1337-8.
[34] 
Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 11 and 13, 1992, Issue No. 24, p. 17.
[35] 
Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, March 12, 1992, Issue No. 26, p. 3.
[36] 
Journals, November 30, 1998, pp. 1327-9.
[37] 
Standing Order 68(4)(b). Prior to this Standing Order being adopted on February 7, 1994 (Journals, pp. 112-20), and coming into effect on February 14, 1994, the idea of private Members proposing motions to have a committee prepare a bill did exist (see Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Debates, November 10, 1969, pp. 665-6). For examples of private Members’ motions for a committee to bring in a bill, see Notice Paper, September 24, 1997, p. XI (M-15); September 29, 1997, p. IV (M-168); November 5, 1997, p. III (M-260). A few of these motions have been placed on the order of precedence (Order Paper, October 2, 1997, p. 19 (M-24); May 1, 1998, p. 21 (M-251)). Some of these motions have also been selected as votable (Order Paper, October 23, 1997, p. 16 (M-123); May 3, 1999, p. 30 (M-265)). No committee has ever prepared a bill pursuant to a private Member’s motion adopted under the terms of Standing Order 68(4)(b). However, the adoption of a private Member’s motion (penalties for impaired driving) during Private Members’ Business (Journals, February 7, 1997, pp. 1092-3) eventually led to the adoption of a motion moved by a Minister instructing a committee to prepare a bill in accordance with Standing Order 68(4)(a) (Journals, October 30, 1997, p. 175). When the committee finally presented its report to the House, a draft bill was included (Journals, May 25, 1999, p. 1905).
[38] 
Standing Order 68(4)(a).
[39] 
Standing Order 68(6) and 68(7)(b).
[40] 
Standing Order 79(2). See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concurred in by the House on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563). For an example of a private Member’s bill to which a royal recommendation was attached prior to third reading, see Journals, December 6, 1994, p. 997. Bill C-216, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act (jury service), had been reported back to the House from committee on June 16, 1994, and debate at the third reading stage began on December 6, 1994. The bill was given Royal Assent on March 26, 1995. There have been numerous Speakers’ rulings regarding bills and their potential need for an accompanying royal recommendation if the bill involved a charge on the public treasury (see, for example, Journals, November 9, 1978, pp. 130-3; February 20, 1979, pp. 393-5; June 6, 1980, pp. 244-5). See also Debates, November 1, 1991, pp. 4410-4, where the Chair heard arguments regarding the procedural acceptability of a private Member’s bill requiring the expenditure of public funds. One Member argued that on the basis of a ruling made in 1912 (Journals, January 16, 1912, pp. 118-9),clauses can be inserted into bills that will prevent funds from being expended unless Parliament appropriates money for the purpose set out in the bill. Because the bill had not been selected to come to a vote, proceedings on the bill expired at the end of Private Members’ Hour, and the Speaker never returned to the House with a definitive ruling.
[41]
For additional information on the royal recommendation, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”, and Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[42] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 265. See also Speaker Parent’s ruling, Debates, December 2, 1998, pp. 10788-91.
[43] 
May, 21st ed., p. 716; Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 267.
[44]
For information on notices, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[45] 
Standing Order 86(5).
[46] 
Debates, November 2, 1989, pp. 5474-5.
[47] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 547-8. See also Speaker Michener’s rulings, Journals, October 29, 1957, p. 64; March 13, 1959, p. 238.
[48] 
For example, Bill C-321, which was identical to Bill C-274, was introduced on June 20, 1996, after Bill C-274 was debated at second reading and dropped from the Order Paper on June 4, 1996 (Journals, June 4, 1996, pp. 486-7; June 20, 1996, p. 592).
[49] 
The list of 20 seconders should not be confused with the 100 signatures of Members who support an item in order that it be placed on the order of precedence (Standing Order 87(6)).
[50] 
Standing Order 86(4).

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page