Chapter 21Private 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.²⁰⁵ 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.²⁰⁶ 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.²⁰⁷

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.²⁰⁸ 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.²⁰⁹ 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.²¹⁰

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,²¹¹ 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.²¹²

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.²¹³ 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.²¹⁴ The motion is taken up after Private Members’ Hour on a day fixed by the Speaker.²¹⁵ The motion is deemed moved at the beginning of the debate and may be considered for not more than one hour.²¹⁶ 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 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.²¹⁷

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.²¹⁸ 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.²¹⁹

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.²²⁰ 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.²²¹ If the House agrees to grant the extension, then the committee has an extra 30 sitting days to complete its consideration of the bill.²²² 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. 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.²²³

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 to the House, the order for consideration of the report stage is placed at the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.²²⁴ Two Private Members’ Hours on separate sitting days are allotted for report stage and third reading consideration.²²⁵ 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.²²⁶ If there are motions in amendment at the report stage and debate on the motions concludes during the first hour, the question is put on all motions to dispose of the report stage. If the bill passes this stage, the House immediately proceeds to the consideration of the third reading stage.²²⁷ 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 hour of consideration, all questions necessary to dispose of the bill at the remaining stage or stages are put.²²⁸ The bill, if passed, is sent to the Senate for consideration.²²⁹

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.²³⁰ This non-debatable, non-amendable motion is deemed withdrawn if fewer than 20 Members rise to support it.²³¹ The motion may subsequently be proposed again during the time remaining, provided an intervening proceeding has occurred.²³²

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.²³³ 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.²³⁴ On Monday, the extension of up to five additional hours of debate begins at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.²³⁵

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.²³⁶ The Standing Orders do not specify any time limit for the consideration of a motion respecting Senate amendments. According to standard practice, the sponsor of the bill must provide notice of a motion respecting Senate amendments to the bill at least 24 hours before this order reaches the top of the order of precedence.²³⁷ This motion appears on the Notice Paper under the heading “Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills”.²³⁸ The motion may propose that the House concur in, further amend or reject the amendments made by the Senate. It may at the same time reject certain amendments made by the Senate and concur in or amend others.²³⁹

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.²⁴⁰ The sponsor of the bill may request the unanimous consent of the House to pass a motion in order to expedite the process,²⁴¹ without completing the debate stage.

If the House agrees to all of the Senate’s amendments, a message is sent to the other Chamber; the bill is ready to receive Royal Assent. If the House does not approve any of the Senate amendments or if it proposes to amend the wording of any of them, it informs the Senate, which must then consider the House’s proposals. Communication between the two Houses continues in this way until they ultimately agree on the text of the bill.

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.²⁴² 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 are first considered on Wednesdays following Routine Proceedings.²⁴³ The government may request that the notices be allowed to stand on the Order Paper.²⁴⁴ 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.²⁴⁵

Motions for papers may be debated for a total of two hours before the question is put.²⁴⁶ 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 the Minister has already spoken in debate.²⁴⁷ 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.²⁴⁸ If the motion carries, it becomes an order to the government to table the documents requested in the motion.²⁴⁹

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.²⁵⁰ 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.²⁵¹ 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.²⁵²

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-minute period, 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.²⁵³

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.²⁵⁴ Members speaking during Private Members’ Business require the unanimous consent of the House to share their time with another Member.²⁵⁵ With the exception of the sponsor’s opening speech, there is no questions and comments period after each speech.²⁵⁶

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.²⁵⁷ Of course, the Speaker must also decide if the amendment is procedurally acceptable before proposing it to the House.²⁵⁸ If the sponsor is not present, the Speaker may ask the mover of the amendment if the sponsor’s consent has been obtained.²⁵⁹ 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.²⁶⁰

205.: 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 is 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, and decided on at the end of the time provided for debate. See, for example, Journals, May 11, 1994, p. 453; June 1, 1994, p. 519; October 4, 1996, p. 716.
206.: Standing Order 96(2).
207.: See, for example, Journals, June 18, 1991, pp. 215–6; September 23, 1991, p. 379. The item is given a different number when placed on notice or reintroduced.
208.: 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”.
209.: Standing Order 90.
210.: For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
211.: 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, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (terminally ill persons), 3rd Sess, 34th Parl, 1991) 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). See also 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 that a motion moved by a private Member under Routine Proceedings to have the same bill reported back to the House within a specified time was in order (Debates, November 21, 1996, pp. 6519–20). In April 1997, and again in November 1998, the Standing Orders were amended to 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-304, An Act to ensure secure, adequate, accessible and affordable housing for Canadians, 3rd Sess, 40th Parl, 2011, which was reported with amendments by the Standing Committee on Human Resources, Skills and Social Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities on March 24, 2010 (Journals, p. 133), and recommitted to the Committee on November 24, 2010 (Journals, pp. 942–4) (with a reporting deadline of April 14, 2011). The Committee reported the bill again on March 21, 2011 (Journals, p. 1357), with an additional amendment. In practice, most bills are reported back to the House within the 60-sitting-day or 90-sitting-day deadline. In one case, in order to report the amendments it had made to a bill before the deadline was reached and the bill deemed reported without amendment, a committee 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, 2nd Sess, 39th Parl, 2008, was deemed read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development (Journals, pp. 2–3), with a reporting deadline 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 deadline 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.
212.: 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 consideration of Bill C-250, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (hate propaganda), 2nd Sess, 37th Parl, 2003, 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 deadline 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 a reporting deadline 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). See also Bill C-309, An Act establishing the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Region of Northern Ontario, 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009, read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on June 17, 2009 (Journals, pp. 655–6) (with a reporting deadline, after prorogation, of June 11, 2010). On June 2, 2010, the Committee presented a report in which it requested an extension of the study (Journals, p. 444). On June 9, 2010, the report was concurred in (Journals, pp. 495–6) (with a reporting deadline of November 1, 2010). On November 1, 2010, the bill was deemed to have been reported to the House (Order Paper and Notice Paper, November 2, 2010, pp. 41–2).
213.: Standing Order 97.1. See, for example, 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, 1st Sess, 38th Parl, 2004, presented to the House on November 21, 2005 (Journals, p. 1297); Seventeenth Report of the Standing Committee on Health concerning Bill C-420, An Act to amend the Food and Drugs Act, 1st Sess, 38th Parl, 2004, presented to the House on November 23, 2005 (Journals, p. 1313); 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), 1st Sess, 39th Parl, 2006, presented to the House on April 9, 2008 (Journals, p. 672); 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% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), 1st Sess, 39th Parl, 2006, presented to the House on May 7, 2008 (Journals, p. 784); Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights concerning Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), 1st Sess, 41st Parl, 2011, presented to the House on February 28, 2013 (Journals, p. 2806).
214.: Standing Order 97.1(2)(a) and (b). See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 8, 2008, p. III (notice of motion to concur in the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Finance (Bill C-305, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (exemption from taxation of 50% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), 1st Sess, 39th Parl, 2006) in the name of Rob Merrifield (Chair of the Committee)); March 1, 2013, p. III (notice of motion to concur in the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights (Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), 1st Sess, 41st Parl, 2011) in the name of Mike Wallace (Chair of the Committee)).
215.: Standing Order 97.1(2)(c). See, for example, Debates, May 30, 2008, pp. 6372–3; Order Paper and Notice Paper, June 2, 2008, p. 23; March 8, 2013, p. 25.
216.: 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; Journals, March 26, 2013, pp. 2929–30, Debates, pp. 15261–7.
217.: Standing Order 97.1(2)(f). See, for example, Bill C-273, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cyberbullying), 1st Sess, 41st Parl, 2011. On December 5, 2012, the House agreed to extend consideration of the Bill to March 20, 2013 (Journals, pp. 2543–5). On February 28, 2013, the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights presented its Nineteenth Report, recommending that the Bill not be proceeded with (Journals, p. 2806). On March 27, 2013, the House adopted the motion to concur in the report (Journals, pp. 2945–6). See also Bill C-310, An Act to Provide Certain Rights to Air Passengers, 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009. The Standing Committee on Transport, Infrastructure and Communities presented a report to the House recommending that the Bill not be further proceeded with (Journals, November 24, 2009, pp. 1073–4). The day on which the report would be considered had not yet been designated by the Speaker when the Second Session of the Fortieth Parliament was prorogued. At the beginning of the Third Session, the Bill was reinstated and referred to the Committee again for a period of 60 sitting days (Journals, March 3, 2010, p. 7). The Committee then presented another report recommending that the Bill not be further proceeded with (Journals, March 31, 2010, p. 166), which was finally concurred in by the House on May 5, 2010 (Journals, pp. 337–8).
218.: Standing Order 97.1(2)(d). See, for example, Debates, October 18, 2005, pp. 8713–4; September 22, 2010, p. 4273–4. 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% of United States social security payments to Canadian residents), 1st Sess, 39th Parl, 2006). 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, June 17, 2008, pp. 1006–7, Debates, pp. 7092–8).
219.: Standing Order 97.1(2)(e).
220.: Standing Order 97.1(3).
221.: Standing Order 97.1(3). See, for example, Journals, November 30, 2012, p. 2396, Debates, p. 12713. The House may agree by unanimous consent to concur in a committee report without holding a recorded division. See, for example, Journals, May 26, 2014, p. 1041; May 27, 2014, p. 1066.
222.: See, for example, the events surrounding the consideration by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights of Bill C-587, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (increasing parole ineligibility), 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2014. On September 24, 2014, the Bill was read a second time and referred to committee (with a reporting deadline of February 19, 2015) (Journals, pp. 1474–6). The Committee then presented a report requesting an extension of 30 days to complete consideration of the Bill (Journals, February 3, 2015, p. 2085). Pursuant to the Standing Orders, a recorded division was deemed demanded and deferred until Wednesday, February 4, 2015. On that day, the House concurred in the Committee’s report and granted the extension (Journals, pp. 2100–2).
223.: See, for example, Bill C-429, An Act to amend the Department of Public Works and Government Services Act (use of wood), 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009. It was read a second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates on April 21, 2010 (Journals, pp. 259–61). The Committee presented a report requesting an extension on October 25, 2010 (Journals, p. 801). The report was rejected by the House on October 27, 2010 (Journals, pp. 827–9). The 60-sitting-day limit expired on October 29, 2010, after which the Bill was deemed reported without amendment. It was reinstated in the order of precedence on November 1, 2010, for report stage (Order Paper and Notice Paper, p. 42).
224.: 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, 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).
225.: Standing Order 98(2).
226.: See, for example, Journals, April 4, 2014, p. 795. 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 at third reading. See, for example, Journals, March 4, 2011, pp. 1310–1; Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 10, 2011, p. 52.
227.: 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 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 23, 2007, p. 1067; February 28, 2007, pp. 1086–8; March 30, 2007, p. 1199. If the motion for concurrence is defeated, 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, 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, September 24, 2012, pp. 2057–8; October 5, 2012, pp. 2120–1; October 17, 2012, pp. 2153–60.
228.: In 2014, Brent Rathgeber (Edmonton—St. Albert) rose on a point of order just as the question was about to be put on his bill at report stage (Bill C-461, An Act to amend the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act (disclosure of information), 1st Sess, 41st Parl, 2013). He indicated that all the motions to amend at report stage had failed, even though he had presented the motions. In his opinion, the Bill, as amended at committee stage, bore no resemblance to the original proposal. Accordingly, he did not wish to move a motion to concur in the Bill at report stage. The Speaker therefore used his prerogative to make all arrangements necessary to ensure the orderly conduct of Private Members’ Business and discharged the order for concurrence at report stage. He also ruled that the Bill be dropped from the Order Paper (Journals, February 26, 2014, p. 591, Debates, p. 3259).
229.: On occasion, the House has given 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 has been called (see, for example, Debates, August 11, 1988, p. 18223) and when the order for the consideration of Senate amendments has been called (see, for example, Debates, September 14, 1987, pp. 8922–3).
230.: Standing Order 98(3). See, for example, Journals, December 1, 2010, p. 981.
231.: Standing Order 98(3)(a).
232.: Standing Order 98(3)(b).
233.: Standing Order 98(5).
234.: Standing Order 98(4)(a).
235.: Standing Order 98(3).
236.: 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, April 22, 1997, pp. 1512–3; April 25, 1997, pp. 1554–5 (died on the Order Paper at dissolution); Debates, November 5, 2003, p. 9196 (amendments concurred in by unanimous consent); March 26, 2004, pp. 1771–4 (amendments concurred in); May 9, 2008, pp. 5692–6 (amendments concurred in); Journals, June 18, 2008, p. 1019; Debates, June 19, 2008, p. 7178 (unanimous consent to concur in the amendments was not granted; the bill died on the Order Paper at dissolution).
237.: Standing Order 77(1).
238.: See, for example, Journals, April 16, 2008, pp. 717–8; Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 17, 2008, p. 46, April 18, 2008, p. XV.
239.: For further information, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
240.: See, for example, Journals, April 22, 1997, pp. 1512–3; April 25, 1997, pp. 1554–5.
241.: See, for example, Journals, November 5, 2003, p. 1237.
242.: For further information, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
243.: Standing Order 30(6).
244.: Standing Order 42(1).
245.: 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).
246.: Standing Order 97(2).
247.: See, for example, Debates, November 29, 2001, p. 7693; October 2, 2003, pp. 8137–9. Unanimous consent of the House is required to allow a Parliamentary Secretary to speak for a Minister at this moment. See, for example, Debates, November 8, 1979, p. 1112; April 1, 1982, pp. 16064–5.
248.: See, for example, Debates, November 29, 2001, p. 7693; October 2, 2003, pp. 8138–9.
249.: See, for example, Journals, December 4, 2001, pp. 913–4; February 21, 2002, p. 1057.
250.: Standing Order 95(1). See, for example, Debates, September 24, 2012, p. 10309.
251.: See, for example, the speeches, the questions and comments periods, and the right of reply at second and third reading for Bill C-591, An Act to amend the Canada Pension Plan and the Old Age Security Act (pension and benefits), 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2015 (Dave Van Kesteren (Chatham-Kent—Essex)) (Debates, June 9, 2014, pp. 6405–13; September 19, 2014, pp. 7609–14; November 27, 2014, pp. 9925–8).
252.: Standing Order 76.1(7).
253.: Standing Order 95(2). See, for example, 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. 3715–23; June 14, 2006, pp. 2391–3, 2398–9.
254.: 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.
255.: See, for example, Debates, 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)) obtained the consent of the House 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)) obtained consent of the House to share his 15-minute speaking time and the five-minute questions and comments period that followed). See also Debates, October 5, 2010, pp. 4798–9.
256.: 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.
257.: Standing Order 93(3). See, for example, Debates, January 31, 2013, pp. 13549–51; June 6, 2014, pp. 6397–9. 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 text of the motion was replaced with new text 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, no fewer than three amendments were suggested before the sponsor of the item agreed to the last one (Debates, April 1, 2014, pp. 4162–5). On another occasion, a Member withheld consent for an amendment because he wished to consider the amendment before giving his support. In the end, no amendment was presented during the course of the debate on the item (Debates, April 24, 2013, p. 15869). At other times, the sponsor has simply refused the amendment. See, for example, Debates, May 10, 2012, p. 7911).
258.: 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 sitting on September 29, 2005, 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 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 (Debates, pp. 8832–4, 8838).
259.: 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, for example, Debates, March 30, 2004, pp. 1896–7; June 1, 2005, p. 6516; September 29, 2005, p. 8246.
260.: Standing Order 95(3).

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca