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

[351]: See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1985, p. 9120 (special arrangements for the consideration of a bill); June 12, 1998, p. 8109 (arrangements for the joint address of the President of the Republic of South Africa to the House of Commons and Senate).
[352]: See, for example, Debates, November 8, 1990, p. 15336 (to revert to “Statements by Ministers”); February 11, 1999, p. 11788 (to revert to “Presenting Reports from Committees”).
[353]: During a labour dispute in 1966, for example, the House was recalled from an adjournment; with unanimous consent, back-to-work legislation was introduced without notice and proceeded with at second reading later in the sitting (Journals, August 29, 1966, pp. 785-9). See also Journals, December 7, 1998, pp. 1402, 1404-5, when unanimous consent was granted for the consideration at all stages of a Senate public bill.
[354]: See, for example, Debates, June 23, 1987, p. 7534-5; see also Speaker’s remarks in Debates, June 10, 1985, p. 5593.
[355]: See, for example, Debates, March 24, 1994, pp. 2771-3.
[356]: See, for example, Debates, June 8, 1987, pp. 6864-5.
[357]: See, for example, Debates, December 6, 1994, pp. 8726-7.
[358]: See, for example, Journals, April 2, 1998, p. 666.
[359]: See, for example, Debates, January 27, 1983, p. 22274; June 4, 1996, pp. 3427-8. See also Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[360]: Journals, May 17, 1991, pp. 44-5; May 23, 1991, p. 59. Unanimous consent was denied with respect to the reinstatement of five other bills from the previous session. These five other bills were subsequently reinstated by Order of the House following the adoption of a government motion (Journals, May 29, 1991, pp. 102-9).
[361]: Journals, May 17, 1991, pp. 42-3.
[362]: Standing Order 64.
[363]: Standing Order 56.1. This rule was introduced as part of a package of government-sponsored amendments to the Standing Orders, adopted in April 1991 following the use of closure (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2898-932). See also Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
[364]: See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1995, p. 1594 (motion adopted after unanimous consent withheld the previous day; see Debates, June 7, 1995, p. 13375); Journals, April 12, 1999, p. 1687 (motion adopted after unanimous consent withheld earlier in the sitting; see Debates, April 12, 1999, pp. 13552, 13573).
[365]: Standing Order 56.1(2).
[366]: Standing Order 56.1(3).
[367]: Standing Order 56.1(1)(b).
[368]: A lengthy point of order was made on the proposed rule change (Debates, March 26, 1991, pp. 19042-6). In his ruling, the Speaker pointed to the limited range of motions to which the rule could apply and indicated that there were in the Standing Orders similar procedures with respect to other types of motions. Given this and recognizing the House’s privilege to set its own binding rules of procedure, the Speaker declined to rule the proposed Standing Order out of order (Debates, April 9, 1991, pp. 19233-7).
[369]: Both instances concerned motions authorizing committees to travel. Objection was taken to “the use of this very draconian Standing Order in this rather casual way” as, it was argued, there would have been sufficient time to give notice of the motions in the usual way (Debates, December 12, 1991, pp. 6173-5).
[370]: See, for example, Journals, December 12, 1991, p. 935 (committee travel—two motions); March 16, 1995, p. 1226 (suspension of sitting for Royal Assent); March 23, 1995, p. 1265 (hours of sitting); December 1, 1997, pp. 290-1 (readings of a bill in one sitting; adjournment of sitting); February 9, 1998, p. 430 (debatable motion to adjourn the House); June 9, 1998, p. 954 (discharge an order of the House—deemed withdrawn); Debates, March 22, 1999, pp. 13231-2 (consideration of a bill—deemed withdrawn); Journals, April 12, 1999, p. 1687 (debate on an item of government business).
[371]: Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 204.
[372]: See, for example, Debates, April 24, 1985, p. 4067; October 28, 1986, p. 823; March 26, 1991, pp. 19044-5.
[373]: For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[374]: Standing Order 79(1).
[375]: See, for example, Journals, November 9, 1978, pp. 130-3; Debates, November 3, 1983, p. 28655.
[376]: See, for example, Debates, March 23, 1999, pp. 13367-9, when, after four attempts, unanimous consent was granted to allow, despite the rule, a questions and comments period following the speech of a Minister moving a government order. See also Speaker Fraser’s comments, Debates, October 30, 1991, pp. 4221-2.
[377]: Debates, June 11, 1985, p. 5650; December 11, 1997, p. 3071.
[378]: See Debates, November 17, 1975, p. 9101; December 19, 1990, p. 16952. On one occasion in 1966, it appeared that there was unanimous consent to introduce a bill without notice and to proceed to second reading later in the same sitting (Journals, August 29, 1966, pp. 786-7); Members later claimed that they were not heard and that there had been no unanimous consent to proceed to second reading of the bill; an agreement was reached after further discussion of the matter (see Debates, August 29, 1966, pp. 7766-70).
[379]: See, for example, Debates, March 15, 1996, p. 787. See also Debates, March 8, 1993, p. 16631, when the Chair indicated that dissent might be expressed in a non-verbal manner.
[380]: Debates, July 27, 1973, p. 6056; March 23, 1999, p. 13369.