Parliament of Canada
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter VI — Process of Debate

Notes on Standing Order 40:

[1]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 256.
[2]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 253.
[3]
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7477-80; Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80.
[4]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 896-7; 1955 Standing Orders 18 and 56(2).
[5]
Journals, May 12, 1965, p. 101; Debates, June 11, 1965, pp. 2274-5.
[6]
Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 438; December 20, 1968, pp. 554, 556-9, 565.
[7]
Debates, February 11, 1982, pp. 14896-9.
[8]
Debates, January 23, 1987, pp. 2651-3.
[9]
Debates, November 26, 2001, pp. 7474-8.
[10]
See for example, Debates, October 29, 1987, pp. 10508-9; May 25, 1988, pp. 15773-5; June 1, 1994, pp. 4709-10.
[11]
Debates, September 28, 2000, pp. 8766, 8775. When debate on a Government Order is interrupted, for Statements by Members and Question Period for example, the government may call a different item following the interruption (Debates, April 2, 1993, p. 18002).

Notes on Standing Order 41:

[1]
See for example, Journals, June 12, 1986, p. 2309. Debate on a bill was interrupted by the need to proceed to Statements by Members and Question Period, after which debate on a different bill was resumed (Debates, June 12, 1986, pp. 14304-6).
[2]
One of countless examples can be found in Journals, April 12, 1888, p. 181.
[3]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 214.
[4]
See 1867 Rule 27. See also Bourinot, 2nd ed., pp. 310-1.
[5]
Debates, July 10, 1906, cols. 7611-6.
[6]
Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8372-4. Mr. Borden’s comments in col. 8374 make it clear that the rule change took place in 1906.
[7]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 318-9.
[8]
Journals, March 22, 1927, p. 318.
[9]
See 1927 Rule 27.
[10]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 884-5, 902-3.
[11]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. The initial proposal was contained on page 14 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[12]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1017. Because of the new hours of sittings on Fridays, special provision had to be made in the text of the Standing Order for standing over the business interrupted at mid-morning by Members’ Statements and Question Period.
[13]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910.
[14]
Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 118.
[15]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910.
[16]
See for example, Journals, March 23, 1979, p. 588. In this case a private Member’s motion was superseded by a count-out.
[17]
See Journals, June 29, 1917, p. 402; July 3, 1917, p. 403 concerning Bill No. 75.
[18]
Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477. A point of order was raised at the next sitting (Debates, April 2, 1990, pp. 10076-89) and was ruled on by the Speaker on the following day. The Order for Supply was re-designated by way of a motion immediately following the Speaker’s ruling (Debates, April 3, 1990, pp. 10119-22).
[19]
Journals, October 19, 1995, p. 2032. The item was dropped to the bottom of the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper (see Order Paper, October 20, 1995, pp. 22-3).
[20]
Journals, March 29, 2001, pp. 263-4; May 13, 2005, pp. 751-2.

Notes on Standing Order 42:

[1]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 18. 1867 Rule 25 reads: “Items not taken up when called shall be dropped. Dropped Orders shall be set down, in the Order Book, after the Orders of the Day for the next day on which the House shall sit.” 1867 Rule 26 reads: “All Orders undisposed of at the adjournment of the House shall be postponed until the next Sitting Day, without a motion to that effect.”
[2]
The editorial change made in 1912 restored a word found in the draft version of the 1906 rule which had been inadvertently dropped. Another stylistic change had been made in 1904 when the original “undisposed” was replaced by “not disposed”.
[3]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 221. On one occasion in 1868, all notices of motions were allowed to stand because of the “thinness” of the House (Debates, March 12, 1868, p. 341).
[4]
Debates, April 6, 1875, p. 1088.
[5]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1876, p. 20.
[6]
Debates, April 3, 1878, p. 1638. This interpretation did not keep the Speaker from upholding the letter of the rule. Some weeks before, he refused a Member’s request to stand his motion (Debates, February 20, 1878, p. 393).
[7]
Debates, August 21, 1896, col. 9.
[8]
Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1909, pp. 17-8.
[9]
Debates, January 10, 1912, col. 1015.
[10]
Journals, March 13, 1959, p. 239.
[11]
Journals, March 13, 1961, p. 351; Debates, March 13, 1961, pp. 2909-10.
[12]
Debates, October 24, 1983, p. 28263; November 14, 1983, p. 28837; November 17, 1983, pp. 28947-8; November 18, 1983, p. 28984; November 22, 1983, pp. 29081-2; November 24, 1983, p. 29175; November 29, 1983, p. 29307.
[13]
Debates, December 13, 1983, p. 142; December 15, 1983, p. 225; December 16, 1983, p. 264; December 19, 1983, pp. 321-2.

Notes on Standing Order 43:

[1]
Debates, January 28, 1986, pp. 10246-7.
[2]
For example, speeches are limited to ten minutes during consideration of a motion instructing a committee to bring in a bill (Standing Order 68(4)), a motion to refer a bill to committee before second reading (Standing Order 73(1)(c)), most motions in amendment at report stage (Standing Order 76(7) and 76.1(7)), a motion to suspend the Standing Orders to consider an urgent matter (Standing Order 53(3)(c)), and a motion to take note of the Standing Orders and procedure (Standing Order 51(3)). In addition, after the five hours of debate that follow the opening round, speeches on the second or third reading of a government bill are limited to 10 minutes (Standing Order 74(1)(c)).
[3]
See remarks from the Chair in Debates, January 17, 1983, p. 21873; November 27, 1984, p. 652.
[4]
See Debates, November 29, 1984, p. 711; February 6, 1985, p. 2072.
[5]
See Debates, March 15, 1985, p. 3062; May 14, 1985, p. 4750; June 13, 1985, p. 5750; October 1, 1991, p. 3014.
[6]
See Debates, October 24, 1985, p. 7976; May 27, 1986, p. 13656.
[7]
Debates, March 14, 1985, p. 3029.
[8]
Debates, June 25, 1985, p. 6165; October 7, 1986, p. 177; September 17, 1992, p. 13307; June 7, 1994, p. 4930.
[9]
Debates, October 28, 1985, p. 8075; February 11, 1986, p. 10688; March 3, 1986, p. 11126; June 1, 1992, p. 11132.
[10]
Debates, May 28, 1986, p. 13746; October 7, 1986, p. 140; November 26, 1999, p. 1825.
[11]
Debates, June 9, 1986, p. 14128.
[12]
Debates, February 17, 1987, p. 3541; March 26, 1991, pp. 19010-1.
[13]
Debates, October 29, 1999, pp. 893-4.
[14]
The most notable exception is found in the closure rule of 1913, which provided that following adoption of the closure motion, each speaker was limited to 20 minutes.
[15]
Journals, April 19, 1886, pp. 167-8.
[16]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9. The rule became number 37 in the 1927 version of the Standing Orders.
[17]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 906-7.
[18]
Journals, April 10, 1962, pp. 337-43; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[19]
See the text of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled in the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). These proposals were adopted by the House on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[20]
See Item No. 41 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211).
[21]
Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 913.
[22]
Debates, June 7, 1985, p. 5551; April 9, 1986, p. 12053; June 22, 1987, p. 7478; September 25, 1990, p. 13322.
[23]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910.
[24]
See for example, Debates, November 29, 1995, p. 16982; February 3, 2004, pp. 35, 37.
[25]
Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451-5. The provisions relating to questions and comments were deleted from Standing Orders 50(2), 81(22) and 84(7) since Standing Order 43 applied to all 20-minute speeches. The provisions relating to questions and comments were also removed from Standing Order 74(1) under the Clerk’s power to make editorial and consequential changes.
[26]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910.
[27]
See for example, Debates, October 17, 1989, pp. 4733-4; May 24, 1990, pp. 11766-7. For an example of consent being refused, see Debates, October 4, 1990, pp. 13820-1.
[28]
See for example, Debates, September 20, 1991, p. 2475; October 6, 1997, p. 556; February 17, 2004, p. 694. For occasions where the Whips have indicated that Members of their party will be splitting their time, see for example Debates, October 6, 1994, p. 6645; March 17, 1998, p. 4942; September 17, 2001, p. 5147.
[29]
Debates, October 29, 1999, pp. 882-3.
[30]
Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451-2.

Notes on Standing Order 44(1):

[1]
Hatsell, Volume II, p. 105.
[2]
Such explanations may be made part-way through another Member’s speech, provided that Member gives his or her consent; otherwise, the explanation is put off until the end of the speech (see Historical Summary). See for example, Debates, May 15, 1984, pp. 3722-3.
[3]
See for example, Debates, May 18, 1983, p. 25550. As well, in late 1983, the party leaders each spoke twice during debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (see Debates Index for 1983-84, pp. 227-8).
[4]
A main motion and any superseding motions dependent thereon, such as an amendment or the previous question, are deemed to be separate questions and thus most Members have the right to speak to each one. However, it has also been recognized that a proposed amendment or other subsidiary motion is not a separate question until the Speaker presents it to the House. This means that the Member who proposes or speaks to second an amendment is deemed to have spoken to the main motion and may not speak to it again. In the same way, the Member who proposes or speaks to second a subamendment is deemed to have spoken to the amendment and cannot do so again, although this does not affect the Member’s right to speak to the main motion (see for example, Journals, March 14, 1928, pp. 154-5; February 10, 1953, p. 232; May 30, 1960, pp. 514-5).
[5]
See 1867 Rule 15.
[6]
Debates, April 14, 1877, pp. 1492-3.
[7]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 354.
[8]
Journals, March 14, 1928, pp. 154-5; Debates, March 14, 1928, pp. 1328-30.
[9]
See Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 350-1 for an enumeration of the many types of violations of the Standing Order.
[10]
Debates, March 23, 1875, pp. 863-4.
[11]
See 1906 Rule 21(a).
[12]
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7467-70. See also Debates, February 28, 1884, p. 561, for an example of past practice.
[13]
See Standing Order 16(2) and the Historical Summary to Standing Order 43.
[14]
See the Historical Summary to Standing Order 43.
[15]
Debates, December 5, 1991, p. 5892.
[16]
Debates, May 12, 1995, pp. 12525-7.

Notes on Standing Order 44(2) and (3):

[1]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 173; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 450.
[2]
See the Historical Summary.
[3]
Debates, February 11, 1985, pp. 2219-20.
[4]
Journals, February 7, 1961, p. 226.
[5]
See 1867 Rule 15.
[6]
Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7468.
[7]
See 1906 Rule 21(d).
[8]
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7467-70.
[9]
See for example, Debates, April 10, 1922, p. 835.
[10]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9.
[11]
Journals, March 3, 1944, pp. 150-1; Debates, March 7, 1944, pp. 1248-9; Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948, p. 239.
[12]
See for example, Debates, April 18, 1955, p. 2911; February 7, 1961, pp. 1814-5; March 26, 1962, p. 2168; January 25, 1971, p. 2726.
[13]
See for example, Journals, May 21, 1951, p. 400; Debates, April 18, 1955, pp. 2916-8. See also Debates, November 7, 1957, pp. 877-8; February 11, 1985, pp. 2219-20.
[14]
See for example, Debates, May 11, 1920, p. 2251; May 12, 1960, p. 3849; February 10, 1969, pp. 5326-7; February 17, 1969, p. 5617; May 4, 1990, p. 11034.
[15]
See 1867 Rule 15; 1906 Rule 21; 1927 Rule 43.

Notes on Standing Order 44.1:

[1]
The Register of Paired Members used in 2005 in the Thirty-Eighth Parliament is the same as that used since the Standing Order was first adopted in 1991. The Register includes a section for the date of the sitting, a column for the signature of the Government Whip, a column for the name of the Government Member being paired, a column for the name of the opposition Member or independent Member being paired, a column for the signature of the Whip of an opposition party or an independent Member, and a column for the date and time of the signature. Any alterations are also initialed by the Whip or independent Member, and the time noted by a Table Officer.
[2]
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 493.
[3]
Pairing was acknowledged in the First Session of the First Parliament (Debates, May 4, 1868, p. 618). For other examples and discussion on pairing in the early years of Confederation, see Debates, March 15, 1876, pp. 684-5; May 12, 1879, pp. 1978-9; May 9, 1887, pp. 358-9; May 10, 1887, p. 360; February 10, 1890, cols. 398-9; June 1, 1891, cols. 671-2; June 5, 1891, cols. 854-60; July 18, 1894, cols. 6353-5; September 8, 1896, pp. 851-3.
[4]
See for example, references in Debates, July 1, 1926, pp. 5310-2; March 8, 1935, pp. 1541-2; May 22, 1946, pp. 1773-4; May 23, 1946, pp. 1793-4; May 24, 1946, pp. 1873-5; June 1, 1954, p. 5348. The 1926 case is particularly interesting since a “paired” Member had inadvertently voted (for the “yeas”). The vote count, which was on a privilege motion critical of the government, was “yeas”: 96, “nays”: 95 (Journals, July 1, 1926, pp. 508-9). The Fifteenth Parliament was dissolved the following day, July 2, 1926.
[5]
See for example, remarks by David Dingwall, Debates, April 8, 1991, p. 19149, during debate on the motion to concur in the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. No other direct reference can be found.
[6]
The motion was adopted on April 11, 1991, to come into effect on the first sitting day of the Third Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament (Journals, pp. 2910-1, 2931).
[7]
Journals, May 15, 1991, pp. 28-9; Debates, May 15, 1991, pp. 148-9.
[8]
See remarks by Alex Kindy on June 4, 1992 (Debates, p. 11416), and his point of order raised on June 5, 1992 (Debates, p. 11473).
[9]
See Speaker’s ruling in Debates, June 11, 1992, p. 11789.
[10]
See point of order raised by John Nunziata on December 7, 1999 (Debates, p. 2468).
[11]
See Acting Speaker’s initial ruling and Speaker’s later ruling in Debates, December 7, 1999, pp. 2468, 2477.
[12]
The term “Votes and Proceedings” was changed to “Journals” in Standing Order 44.1 as part of a number of technical amendments contained in the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, adopted by the House on June 3, 1994 (Journals, p. 529).
[13]
See pages 4, 26, 27, 57 and 58 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774).
[14]
See motion moved by Ted White and the ensuing discussion on this matter in Debates, February 6, 1998, pp. 3507-16.

Notes on Standing Order 45(1) and (2):

[1]
When a recorded division is taken on an item of Private Members’ Business, the vote of the Member sponsoring the item is recorded first, if he or she is present, followed by the votes of the other Members on the same side of the House, starting with the back row, who are in favour of the item and then the Members on the other side of the House, starting with the back row, who are in favour of the item. Votes against are recorded in the same order. See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270), and adopted November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). Prior to the adoption of this Report, votes were taken in the same manner but starting with the front row (see the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented February 14, 1992 (Journals, p. 1025), and adopted April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1337)). Prior to that, votes were taken by party unless a Member sought and received unanimous consent to have the vote taken row by row. See for example, Debates, March 27, 1990, p. 9861; October 23, 1991, p. 3908. For an example of a free vote on government business being taken row-by-row, see Debates, June 8, 1987, pp. 6864-5; June 29, 1987, pp. 7817-8.
[2]
Consent is an informal way of settling a question; the Speaker puts the question and the House responds with “agreed”. “On division” is shouted out by Members who want to protest a decision of the House but who do not want to see the matter decided by a formal voting process. See Dawson, p. 183.
[3]
Dawson has written about the diversions Members indulged in while in the House when the division bells were ringing. See Dawson, pp. 114-5.
[4]
Once the time allotted for the bells has expired, either the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip may enter alone. On March 1, 1999, the Speaker indicated that a division could proceed even if only one Whip had entered (Debates, p. 12212). Although this is not recorded in the Debates, votes were also taken after the entrance of only the Chief Government Whip on June 1, 1956; February 3, 1987; and October 8, 1997. A division was also held following the entrance of the Chief Opposition Whip on March 29, 2001.
[5]
Debates, February 19, 1929, p. 266; December 7, 1945, pp. 3133-4; April 4, 1946, p. 572; April 12, 1962, p. 2909.
[6]
Debates, March 5, 1912, cols. 4394-5; October 15, 1919, p. 1014; July 1, 1926, p. 5311.
[7]
Debates, February 21, 1884, p. 458; February 19, 1929, pp. 266-7; April 21, 1931, pp. 790-5.
[8]
Debates, April 28, 1931, pp. 1035-53.
[9]
Journals, June 18, 1931, pp. 363-4; July 22, 1931, p. 598.
[10]
Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 149. The proposed change was recommended again in 1948 to a committee on revision of the rules, in a memorandum by the Clerk of the House. See Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948, p. 237.
[11]
Debates, September 28, 1945, p. 541; June 24, 1963, p. 1523; March 26, 1965, p. 12857.
[12]
Debates, April 26, 1904, cols. 2055-61.
[13]
Debates, July 3, 1919, p. 4527.
[14]
Debates, March 19, 1929, p. 1077.
[15]
Debates, May 25, 1961, p. 5377.
[16]
Debates, June 23, 1992, p. 12686. This position was reiterated on January 30, 2003 (Debates, p. 2926).
[17]
Debates, December 7, 2001, pp. 8028, 8030-1; December 10, 2001, p. 8033.
[18]
Debates, February 11, 1890, col. 460; Journals, February 11, 1890, pp. 78-9; Debates, March 19, 1890, col. 2227; October 15, 1919, p. 1014; May 31, 1926, p. 3915; June 1, 1926, p. 3921; March 26, 1930, p. 962; Journals, March 26, 1930, pp. 137-8; Debates, May 22, 1946, p. 1774; May 23, 1946, pp. 1793-4.
[19]
Debates, July 1, 1926, p. 5311.
[20]
See Note 18 and Debates, June 1, 1954, p. 5348.
[21]
Debates, September 16, 2003, p. 7436; March 31, 2004, p. 1919. After one particularly confusing episode, the Speaker cautioned Members that their behaviour during the taking of divisions should never detract from the authority and dignity of the House. See Debates¸ February 12, 1990, pp. 8187-8.

Notes on Standing Order 45(3):

[1]
Journals, December 19, 1967, p. 611.
[2]
Bourinot and Beauchesne explain that there was no fixed time for the bells to ring (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 379; Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 74).
[3]
Debates, September 8, 1964, p. 7736.
[4]
Debates, March 2, 1967, pp. 13664-5.
[5]
Debates, October 26, 1983, pp. 28354-8. This principle was reiterated on April 10, 1997, when the Chair refused to permit the Opposition Whip to defer the vote on a motion to refer a bill to committee before second reading. Since the proceedings on such a motion are limited to a fixed amount of time, the Chair ruled that the vote could not be deferred and that the bells would ring for only 15 minutes. See Debates, April 10, 1997, pp. 9540-1. Though proceedings on an opposition motion on an allotted day are of a fixed duration, the division on such motions may be deferred (see Standing Order 45(5)).
[6]
See Standing Order 45(4), (5) and (6).
[7]
Debates, August 31, 1987, pp. 8635-6.
[8]
Debates, September 1, 1987, pp. 8640-3.
[9]
Debates, September 15, 1987, pp. 8958-9.
[10]
Debates, October 30, 1991, pp. 4269-70; June 21, 1994, p. 5664. In the 1991 case, one Member objected so strenuously that he physically attempted to prevent the Mace from leaving the Chamber at the end of the sitting, resulting in his being called to the Bar of the House to be reprimanded.
[11]
Debates, March 20, 1990, pp. 9512-3.

Notes on Standing Order 45(4), (5), (6) and (7):

[1]
When faced with conflicting requests, the practice is for the Speaker to defer the vote to the latest time possible. On Thursday, June 15, 1995, the Government Whip requested a deferral to later that day and the Opposition Whip requested a deferral to the following day (which would have automatically been further deferred to the following Monday). The Speaker asked that the parties consult, but when no agreement was reached, the Speaker declared that the vote would be deferred to the following Monday (Debates, June 15, 1995, pp. 13905-6, 13908, 13927). In 1996 and 2005, faced with similar conflicting requests, the Speaker deferred the vote to the following day (Debates, September 24, 1996, p. 4639; May 9, 2005, pp. 5837-8).
[2]
Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2125.
[3]
The bells episode was sparked by a failed request to divide Bill C-94, the Energy Security Act. In protest, an opposition Member moved “That the House do now adjourn” (Debates, March 2, 1982, pp. 15539-41).
[4]
One day after the bells episode had been resolved, the Speaker made a statement to the House explaining her views on the event and why she had decided that the Chair would not intervene at that time to end the impasse on its own authority (Debates, March 18, 1982, pp. 15555-7).
[5]
Bourinot indicates that the bells usually rang “for several minutes,” while the fifth edition of Beauchesne specifies 10 or 15 minutes (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 379; Beauchesne, 5th ed., p. 74).
[6]
See pages 14 and 36 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). Certain parts were adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[7]
Debates, November 29, 1982, pp. 21067-103.
[8]
Debates, May 9, 1983, pp. 25288-9; May 17, 1983, pp. 25529-30; May 24, 1983, p. 25686; October 14, 1983, p. 28050; October 18, 1983, p. 28116; October 26, 1983, pp. 28353-9.
[9]
See the Second Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on March 26, 1985 (Journals, p. 420). Suggestions to consider electronic voting systems have been made numerous times in the past. See for example, Debates, February 10, 1959, p. 895; March 31, 1960, pp. 2641-2; May 25, 1965, p. 1624. The issue has also been examined by certain committees since 1985. See for example the Sixty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled March 24, 1995 (Journals, p. 1274) and the Fifth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915).
[10]
See pages 1 and 2 of the Response to the Second Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on October 9, 1985 (Journals, p. 1082).
[11]
Journals, February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10.
[12]
 Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1017.
[13]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2911-2.
[14]
For an example of a vote on a non-debatable motion being held on Friday, see Journals, October 29, 1999, p. 143.
[15]
In practice, the Deputy Government Whip and Deputy Opposition Whip, or even an acting Whip, have asked that votes be deferred. See for example, Debates, May 28, 1990, p. 11966; November 26, 1991, pp. 5332-3; February 23, 2004, p. 946. In one case, the Opposition House Leader attempted to defer a vote and the Chief Government Whip objected, though she indicated that she agreed with the proposed deferral. The Government Whip rose later in the sitting to ask for consent to further defer the vote. See Debates, November 21, 2001, pp. 7385-6; 7391-2.
[16]
See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and adopted June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563).
[17]
See the Fifty-Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled December 9, 1994 (Journals, p. 1014) and adopted February 6, 1995 (Journals, p. 1081).
[18]
The House instructed the Clerk to draft amendments to the Standing Orders giving effect to a motion and to have them approved by all of the party House Leaders. See Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027-8.
[19]
See for example, Debates, May 10, 1995, p. 12424; December 13, 1999, pp. 2730-1.
[20]
Debates, March 20, 1990, pp. 9512-3.
[21]
See for example, Debates, June 19, 1991, pp. 2116-7.
[22]
Debates, October 23, 1995, pp. 15671-2, 15706.
[23]
Debates, April 10, 1997, pp. 9540-1.

Notes on Standing Order 45(7.1):

[1]
See for example, Debates, November 20, 2001, p. 7344; April 2, 2003, p. 5044.
[2]
See for example, Debates, March 8, 1994, p. 2014.
[3]
See pages 7-8 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[4]
See for example, Debates, May 1, 2002, p. 11060; June 3, 2003, p. 6810.
[5]
See for example, Debates, May 13, 2003, p. 6173; April 6, 2005, p. 4760.

Notes on Standing Order 45(8):

[1]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2911-2.
[2]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 93. This was particularly true at report stage and for Supply. See for example, Debates, November 3, 1983, p. 28774; June 10, 1986, p. 14229.
[3]
Debates, May 12, 1882, pp. 1479-89. By agreement, the results of one division were applied to 25 other divisions. See also Debates, November 4, 1919, p. 1748; June 20, 1923, p. 4148. In 1955 Speaker Beaudoin tried to revive this practice, but was unsuccessful (Debates, February 24, 1955, p. 1493). In 1983, while considering a large number of report stage motions, the House agreed to vote only once on each group of motions and have the result applied to all of the motions in the group. See Debates, November 3, 1983, pp. 28706-75.
[4]
See for example, Debates, November 30, 1994, p. 8512; June 4, 2001, p. 4609.
[5]
For example, votes at report stage of Bill C-9, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act, took more than eight hours (Debates, June 20, 1984, pp. 4918-83). On one occasion, votes on the Estimates and certain government bills took approximately five hours (Debates, June 9, 1998, pp. 7874-918). In the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament, the refusal to allow votes to be applied resulted in two particularly lengthy voting sessions. For Bill C-9, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act, voting on 471 report stage motions took over 40 hours (Debates, December 7, 1999, pp. 2313-682). For Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, there were 411 report stage motions and voting took over 35 hours (Debates, March 13, 2000, pp. 4462-693).
[6]
See the Thirty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled May 17, 2000 (Journals, pp. 1721-2). Amendments to Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5) adopted in February 2001 gave the Speaker greater power to select report stage amendments, thereby decreasing the probability of lengthy voting sessions at report stage. See the Historical Summary for Standing Orders 75, 76 and 76.1.

Notes on Standing Order 46:

[1]
See Rule 14 (1867-1906) and Rule 20 (1906-1927).
[2]
Beauchesne, 1st ed., p. 69.
[3]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9.

Notes on Standing Order 47:

[1]
See for example, Debates, March 26, 1987, p. 4596.
[2]
See remarks by the Speaker in Debates, April 4, 1989, p. 32; February 9, 1993, p. 15637; April 23, 2002, p. 10720 (with reference to Question Period), and by the Deputy Speaker in Debates, June 19, 1992, pp. 12448-9 (with reference to Statements by Members). As well, on one occasion, a Member was reminded of the proper timing of raising matters with respect to Question Period when he rose on a point of order during the middle of Routine Proceedings (Debates, June 10, 1991, pp. 1366-7).
[3]
See for example, Debates, January 14, 1971, p. 2401. As early as 1971, the Speaker indicated points of order should not be raised during the Question Period (Debates, April 26, 1971, p. 5221), but this admonition had little effect until the formal House decision in this regard in 1975.
[4]
See Item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, tabled on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). See also Speaker’s ruling, Journals, April 14, 1975, pp. 439-41.
[5]
The agreement ceased to be in effect in October 1977, when the House failed to make permanent certain sessional orders. The Speaker nevertheless kept to the lapsed practice (see Debates, December 7, 1977, pp. 1649-52; December 7, 1979, pp. 2134-5).
[6]
Debates, November 9, 1978, pp. 947-8; April 19, 1983, pp. 24624-6; June 19, 1992, p. 12448.
[7]
For the treatment of points of order during Adjournment Proceedings, see the Historical Summary of Standing Order 38 in Chapter V of this text. There have been a number of rulings by the Chair on this issue. See for example, Debates, October 6, 1997, p. 567; February 3, 1998, pp. 3300-1; February 11, 1999, p. 11819.
[8]
See the proposed amendments tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1648) and concurred in on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). The current daily routine of business is set out in Standing Order 30(3). The practical implication is that points of order could thus be raised following Routine Proceedings on Tuesday and Thursday mornings.

Notes on Standing Order 48(1):

[1]
Bourinot defines privilege as any matter “...affecting the rights and immunities of the house collectively, or...the position and conduct of members in their representative character” (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 303). This Standing Order, however, refers only to the procedural aspects of privilege. Further information on the legal aspects of privilege is available from a host of sources, notably J. Maingot’s Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd ed. (House of Commons and McGill-Queen’s University Press, 1997).
[2]
See for example, Debates, March 9, 1972, p. 661; February 1, 1973, p. 850. See also remarks by the Speaker in Debates, June 26, 1990, p. 13124; October 4, 1990, pp. 13771-2; March 22, 2001, p. 2130; September 26, 2001, p. 5598.
[3]
Debates, March 31, 1981, pp. 8801-6. See also remarks by the Speaker in Debates, March 28, 2001, p. 2438; November 29, 2001, p. 7685; January 31, 2002, pp. 8518-20; February 20, 2002, p. 9032; February 28, 2002, pp. 9389-90.
[4]
Debates, December 20, 1983, p. 355. See also Debates, April 19, 1983, pp. 24624-6; February 9, 1993, p. 15637. See also Debates, December 17, 1990, p. 16830, when the Chair declined to recognize a Member because the procedure for Royal Assent had commenced.
[5]
Debates, November 25, 1985, p. 8795. See also Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799-802.
[6]
Debates, April 12, 1962, p. 2909; March 20, 1990, pp. 9557-8.
[7]
See remarks by the Speaker in Debates, October 29, 2001, pp. 6671-2, reminding Members of certain rules concerning the raising of questions of privilege.
[8]
This has usually been interpreted to mean “at the earliest possible opportunity”. See for example, Journals, November 9, 1978, p. 127. See remarks by Svend Robinson in bringing forward a question of privilege in Debates, May 25, 1989, p. 2127. See caution by the Speaker regarding bringing matters forward in a timely fashion in Debates, January 28, 1988, p. 12360; May 22, 1990, p. 11636.
[9]
See for example, Debates, April 20, 1961, pp. 3825-6. See remarks by the Speaker in Debates, February 17, 1999, pp. 12011-2.
[10]
Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6. See also Standing Order 20. See motion moved on March 12, 1996 (Journals, p. 79). See also comments made by the Speaker in Debates, September 28, 1998, pp. 8469-73.
[11]
Journals, November 1, 1962, pp. 201-2. See also Debates, April 3, 1918, pp. 314-6. On occasion, a Speaker has asked that documentation relevant to the question of privilege being raised be sent to the Speaker’s office, rather than tabled. See, for example, Debates, March 14, 2001, p. 1652; April 16, 2002, p. 10466.
[12]
In a number of early cases, persons were called to the Bar as a result of motions on matters of privilege. See for example, Journals, May 12, 1879, p. 423. In October 1966, a Member was dissuaded from moving a motion calling a journalist to the Bar (Journals, October 24, 1966, pp. 911-3). References to a committee, however, were the most common. In two more recent cases where privilege was found, the Members were called to the bar of the House and reprimanded. See Journals, October 31, 1991, pp. 574, 579; April 23 and 24, 2002, pp. 1337-8, 1341.
[13]
See for example, Debates, May 6, 1985, p. 4439. See the questions of privilege debated on October 31, 1991 (Journals, p. 574); March 9 and 10, 1998 (Journals, pp. 540, 548, 550-2); April 22, 2002 (Journals, pp. 1323-4).
[14]
Journals, April 15, 1874, pp. 64-5; April 16, 1874, pp. 67-71. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 304-6. Such motions are occasionally defeated. See for example, Journals, March 21, 1978, pp. 525-6; February 20, 1984, p. 188. For examples of where amendments have been moved to the privilege motion, see Journals, March 13, 1996, pp. 88-9; February 4, 2002, p. 997; April 22, 2002, p. 1323.
[15]
Routine Proceedings and Orders of the Day, June 4, 1956, p. 2; March 18, 1964, p. 2. See also Debates, March 16, 1964, pp. 928-9. See Order Paper and Notice Paper, May 4, 1992, p. 11; March 16, 2000, p. 17.
[16]
See for example, Debates, May 7, 1998, pp. 6674-5. See also Commons Debates Index, under the name of the Speaker -“Privilege”.
[17]
A good example can be found in Debates, February 28, 1884, pp. 542-66. Note that Tupper was apprised ahead of time of Blake’s intention to raise the matter. In two rare cases, the Speaker decided the matters raised were not urgent enough to be accorded precedence as matters of privilege (Debates, March 21, 1892, cols. 287-9; April 6, 1892, cols. 1032-5).
[18]
See for example, Debates, May 18, 1883, pp. 1281-3. Some early examples of interference from the Speaker are Debates, February 20, 1877, pp. 122-3; April 11, 1878, pp. 1867-72; April 24, 1883, pp. 785-6.
[19]
A few representative examples are Debates, June 9, 1936, p. 3528; May 16, 1947, p. 3159; March 7, 1955, p. 1761.
[20]
Journals, April 20, 1921, p. 199; May 22, 1924, p. 299; February 8, 1932, pp. 15-6; Debates, June 7, 1928, pp. 3873-4.
[21]
Journals, June 30, 1943, pp. 565-6.
[22]
Beauchesne, 4th ed., pp. 94-6; May, 16th ed., pp. 380-4.
[23]
See Note 15. Other examples are Debates, April 3, 1918, p. 315; May 29, 1951, p. 3494. Speakers’ interventions became more frequent through the 1940s and 1950s.
[24]
See for example, Debates, January 26, 1962, pp. 231-5; May 15, 1964, pp. 3299-302.
[25]
Debates, May 29, 1951, p. 3494.
[26]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 303.
[27]
Debates, April 30, 1964, pp. 2799-802. See also Debates, May 17, 1973, p. 3903.
[28]
The Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was tabled on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).
[29]
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 374; March 24, 1975, p. 399. The provisional part of the rule expired in 1977.
[30]
Debates, April 12, 1962, p. 2909.
[31]
See for example, Debates, March 9, 1972, p. 661.
[32]
See for example, Debates, April 14, 1969, p. 7451. This condition had in fact existed since 1867, but appeared to be misunderstood and hence badly respected because so few matters of privilege were actually considered by the House in the 1920s, 30s, 40s and 50s.
[33]
Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 582-6.
[34]
See for example, Journals, March 11, 1966, pp. 279-81; October 7, 1970, pp. 1423-4; May 16, 1972, pp. 300-1. See also remarks by the Speaker in Debates, September 28, 1998, pp. 8469-73.
[35]
See for example, Debates, October 29, 1970, p. 686. The Chair usually refers to that normal procedure as a substantive motion after notice. By definition, a matter of privilege also involves a substantive proposal which, because it involves the privileges of the House or of its Members, is given precedence with the usual notice requirements being waived.
[36]
See House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Appendix 14, pp. 1045-52, for relevant information on the prima facie cases of privilege from 1960 to 2000. References for the cases from January 2000 to June 2005 can be found in Journals, March 28, 2000, p. 1497; March 19, 2001, p. 187; October 15, 2001, p. 707; February 4, 2002, pp. 997-8; April 23, 2002, pp. 1337-8; May 26, 2003, p. 797; November 6, 2003, pp. 1245, 1249; February 6, 2004, p. 25; March 25, 2004, p. 216; November 23, 2004, pp. 245-6; December 1, 2004, p. 279; April 18, 2005, p. 642; May 3, 2005, pp. 685, 688; May 10, 2005, p. 728.

Notes on Standing Order 48(2):

[1]
See for example, Debates, May 20, 1982, p. 17643; October 19, 2001, pp. 6378-9. See also Debates, November 3, 1989, p. 5511 where a Member sought and obtained the consent of the House to waive the usual one hour’s notice.
[2]
This was last attempted in 1959 (Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 581-6). The Speaker is guided in this respect by historically evolved criteria (see Standing Order 48(1)). See remarks of Svend Robinson in a similar instance in Debates, May 25, 1989, pp. 2122-3.
[3]
See for example, Debates, November 19, 1867, p. 99; September 22, 1891, cols. 6161-2.
[4]
Debates, February 22, 1875, p. 273; February 24, 1875, p. 307.
[5]
Journals, April 15, 1874, p. 64; Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 304-5.
[6]
Debates, April 5, 1886, p. 488.
[7]
Debates, March 18, 1892, cols. 245-9; March 21, 1892, cols. 287-9; April 6, 1892, cols. 1032-5.
[8]
See for example, Debates, April 25, 1877, p. 1810; May 11, 1891, cols. 156-7.
[9]
Debates, March 3, 1911, cols. 4566-7.
[10]
Debates, February 8, 1932, p. 8.
[11]
See for example, Debates, May 22, 1924, p. 2401.
[12]
Debates, June 16, 1959, p. 4761.
[13]
Journals, June 19, 1959, pp. 581-6.
[14]
See Historical Summary for Standing Order 48(1).
[15]
See the First Report of the Special Committee on Procedure, concurred in on June 11, 1965 (Journals, p. 226).
[16]
See Debates, June 11, 1965, p. 2275, for comments on the change before it was agreed to.
[17]
See for example, Debates, March 10, 1966, p. 2477.
[18]
Debates, October 17, 1973, p. 6942.
[19]
Debates, March 14, 1972, p. 795; December 22, 1976, p. 2241. See Standing Order 31 for information about the old Standing Order 43.
[20]
See the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, tabled on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 374) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). The provisional part of the rule expired in 1977.
[21]
See for example, Debates, February 22, 1990, p. 8663; March 2, 1995, p. 10273; December 7, 1995, p. 17392.

Notes on Standing Order 49:

[1]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 66-7; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 330.
[2]
See point of order raised by Jean-Robert Gauthier in Debates, June 26, 1986, p. 14870, and the Speaker’s ruling in Debates, June 27, 1986, p. 14969.
[3]
See Index to the Journals for 1875 and 1876.
[4]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 279. See for example, Journals, March 3, 1882, p. 104; March 10, 1882, p. 142.
[5]
See 1906 Rule 33.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611
trbdrb@parl.gc.ca