Parliament of Canada
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter IX — Public Bills

Notes on Standing Order 68(1) and (2):

[1]
The requirement for 48-hours’ written notice is specified in Standing Order 54.
[2]
See for example, Journals, December 13, 1985, p. 1390.
[3]
See Rule 39 in Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868. The rule was also numbered 39 in the 1866 version of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada.
[4]
Contrary to motions for leave, motions to appoint a committee are debatable and must be considered either under Government Orders or under Private Members’ Business. See Speaker’s ruling in , Debates, November 10, 1969, pp. 661-6. See also, for example, the motion moved under Private Members’ Business, Journals, December 13, 1985, p. 1390; the motion moved under Government Orders, Journals, April 27, 1987, pp. 783-5; and the motion adopted by unanimous consent, Journals, November 22, 1991, pp. 717-8. Standing Orders 68(4) to (8), adopted in 1994, now deal specifically with committees drafting and bringing in bills.
[5]
See for example, Journals, March 17, 1933, p. 318; February 21, 1936, pp. 61-2; October 29, 1945, p. 191; April 30, 1949, pp. 409-10.
[6]
See for example, Journals, April 30, 1874, pp. 142-3; November 29, 1909, p. 82; January 25, 1911, p. 125; February 9, 1915, p. 21.
[7]
Journals, March 4, 1884, pp. 184-5.
[8]
Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9.
[9]
See Speakers’ remarks in Debates, February 27, 1912, col. 3902; February 13, 1933, p. 2016; December 15, 1982, p. 21623; September 23, 1983, p. 27427; March 1, 1995, p. 10196; June 15, 2000, pp. 8075-6. Note that Cabinet Ministers also have the right to explain succinctly the purpose of the bill on introduction. See Speaker’s remarks in Debates, December 1, 1987, pp. 11343-4. See also examples in Debates, February 27, 1992, p. 7681; February 5, 1998, pp. 3402-3.
[10]
Debates, February 22, 1932, pp. 380-4; August 3, 1964, p. 6285; November 13, 1967, pp. 4165-6; December 5, 1967, pp. 5035-6; November 7, 1986, p. 1193.
[11]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 930-1.
[12]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2913.

Notes on Standing Order 68(3):

[1]
Debates, April 2, 1878, p. 1583.
[2]
Journals, May 6, 1882, pp. 405-6.
[3]
Journals, May 16, 1923, p. 373.
[4]
For text of report adopted, see Journals, June 14, 1923, pp. 469-70. The text of the report was incorporated in the Senate Rules and is currently reflected as Rule 72 in that House. The text, however, was never incorporated into the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
[5]
Debates, May 12, 1931, pp. 1514-7.
[6]
Journals, May 10, 1938, p. 322.
[7]
Journals, June 14, 1938, pp. 450-1.
[8]
Debates, April 16, 1943, pp. 2275-7.
[9]
Journals, May 17, 1956, pp. 567-9.
[10]
See for example, Debates, April 2, 1962, p. 2382; Journals, October 1, 1962, p. 26; May 20, 1963, pp. 23-4; February 20, 1964, p. 17. As a result of rule changes adopted in December 1982, private Members’ public bills were no longer introduced en masse but were subject to a balloting system using Members’ names only. Following further changes in 1985, the balloting system took place after introduction. For the current procedures surrounding Private Members’ Business, see Commentary on Standing Orders 86 to 99.
[11]
Debates, April 20, 1970, pp. 6046-8. Similar rulings were made by Speaker Lamoureux in 1971 (Debates, February 24, 1971, p. 3712) and by Speaker Fraser in 1988 (Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16252-9). Even when the matter of interdependent bills has been raised at third reading, Speakers have been hesitant to intervene, though Speaker Fraser expressed grave concern that the House could find itself “in the invidious situation of legislating in the subjunctive”. See Debates, November 28, 1991, pp. 5513-5. See also ruling of Deputy Speaker McCleave in Debates, February 5, 1973, pp. 972-5.
[12]
Debates, March 29, 1972, pp. 1267-8.
[13]
Debates, May 16, 1978, p. 5461; December 15, 1980, p. 5746.
[14]
Debates, February 19, 1981, pp. 7480-2.
[15]
Debates, December 3, 1981, pp. 13699-700.
[16]
Debates, February 5, 1982, pp. 14732-3.
[17]
Debates, June 26, 1984, p. 5139.
[18]
See remarks by Herb Gray and Lloyd Axworthy, Debates, January 23, 1987, pp. 2634, 2637.
[19]
Debates, January 26, 1987, pp. 2667-9.
[20]
Debates, February 23, 2004, pp. 932-3. In this case, the bill in question had been reinstated from a previous session, pursuant to a special order. The Member raising the matter argued the bill was not in the same form as its predecessor, as it was required to be under the terms of the order.

Notes on Standing Order 68(4), (5), (6) and (7):

[1]
See for example, Journals, March 22, 1946, p. 35; March 27, 1972, p. 224; December 13, 1985, p. 1390; April 27, 1987, pp. 783-5; November 22, 1991, pp. 717-8. See also Speaker’s ruling in Debates, November 10, 1969, pp. 661-6.
[2]
See pages 21-2 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, tabled June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[3]
Debates, February 7, 1994, pp. 961-2.
[4]
Debates, February 7, 1994, p. 967.
[5]
Journals, April 19, 1994, pp. 363, 368-70. The motion spelled out several matters the Committee should consider during its study. An amendment to these terms of reference was moved and adopted by the House.
[6]
See the Fifty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled November 25, 1994 (Debates, p. 8299).
[7]
Journals, February 9, 1995, pp. 1107-8; February 14, 1995, pp. 1125-6.
[8]
Journals, February 16, 1995, p. 1141.
[9]
Journals, February 22, 1995, p. 1162; Debates, February 24, 1995, pp. 9987-92. The Committee reported the Bill with amendments a few weeks later. See Journals, March 22, 1995, p. 1256.
[10]
Journals, October 30, 1997, pp. 174-5. For another example of a motion instructing a committee to draft a bill being moved on an opposition day, see Journals, February 5, 2002, pp. 1006-9. In this case, the motion was negatived.
[11]
See the Twenty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, tabled May 25, 1999 (Journals, p. 1905).
[12]
Journals, June 7, 1999, p. 2060. The Minister of Justice had given notice of a motion to concur in the Committee’s report on May 25, 1999, but did not move it.
[13]
Journals, June 9, 1999, pp. 2085-6. The Committee of the Whole reported an amendment to the Bill, as it had been instructed to do by the House.
[14]
See for example, Journals, November 26, 1997, pp. 273-4; May 26, 1998, p. 893; June 2, 1998, p. 924; February 8, 2000, p. 858; May 15, 2001, pp. 415-6. Under the rules for Private Members’ Business in place at the time, two such motions were designated as votable items. One was defeated (Journals, March 25, 1998, pp. 624-7), while the other did not come to a vote before the end of the session (Journals, May 11, 1999, p. 1862). The Standing Order also allowed a Minister to become the sponsor of the bill after it was drafted by a committee, even if the original motion of instruction was initiated by a private Member. Since none of the private Members’ motions ever carried, these provisions were never invoked.
[15]
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled February 28, 2003 (Journals, p. 492) and concurred in March 17, 2003 (Journals, p. 495). The change was made permanent May 11, 2005 when the House adopted the Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, pp. 738-9).

Notes on Standing Order 69:

[1]
Although the motion for first reading usually follows immediately after leave has been granted, the motion has sometimes, because of circumstances, been moved on a subsequent sitting day. See for example, Journals, May 9, 1983, p. 5873; May 10, 1983, p. 5878; November 6, 1986, pp. 181-2; November 7, 1986, pp. 190-1.
[2]
For exceptions to this procedure, see Journals, March 21, 1877, p. 160; April 21, 1879, pp. 266-7. A motion for placing a bill on the orders of the day was divided upon on May 22, 1956 (Journals, p. 594). The Speaker declined to propose the question on May 24, 1988 (Debates, pp. 15722-3).
[3]
See Rule 42 in the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868.
[4]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 518.
[5]
Debates, April 2, 1878, pp. 1582-4.
[6]
See for example, remarks by the Speaker in Debates, February 27, 1912, col. 3902; February 13, 1933, pp. 2016-7; February 26, 1934, p. 927; April 2, 1962, p. 2383; April 6, 1982, p. 16202; February 1, 1983, pp. 22398-9.
[7]
See Item No. 10 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, tabled on December 6, 1968 (Journals, p. 432).
[8]
See Item Nos. 10 and 11 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, tabled on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 432-4).
[9]
The revised text was contained in the Fifth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, adopted without debate on December 20, 1968 (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 576).
[10]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2913-4. During the Second Sessions of both the Thirty-Third Parliament (1986-1988) and Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1989-1991), the opposition parties frequently forced recorded divisions on the introduction and first reading motions for both government and private Members’ bills as a means of delaying the proceedings. For example, between June 9 and June 22, 1988, there were 15 such divisions. See also Debates, May 26, 1989, pp. 2209-12; January 24, 1990, pp. 7434-42.
[11]
See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and concurred in June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563). Until the rule was changed, motions for first reading of Senate bills were occasionally voted on and even defeated. See for example Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1059-60; June 18, 1990, pp. 1920-1.

Notes on Standing Order 70:

[1]
The decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Re Manitoba Language Rights, [1985] (1 S.C.R. 721-83) interprets section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 as a requirement that bills proceed in both languages through the entire legislative process, including first reading. See also section 18 of the Constitution Act, 1982 and section 6 of the Official Languages Act, S.C. 1988, c. 38.
[2]
Débats, 29 mars 1876, p. 929. It should be noted that the English version of the Debates for March 29, 1876 does not indicate the correct version of the amended rule.
[3]
Section 133 provided for the use of both English and French in the debates, records and journals of the House and Senate and indicated that Acts would be printed and published in both these languages.
[4]
Debates, April 29, 1879, p. 1620.
[5]
Debates, July 27, 1903, cols. 7467-9.
[6]
Debates, April 6, 1897, cols. 552-65; May 17, 1960, p. 3957; February 10, 1961, pp. 1928-9; July 7, 1966, pp. 7332-5.
[7]
Journals, April 6, 1910, pp. 418-20; Debates, March 11, 1957, pp. 2067-73; June 3, 2003, pp. 6810-4.
[8]
Debates, April 1, 1947, pp. 1919-20.
[9]
The Speaker has also not interfered with the progress of a bill when one text seemed to be at variance with the text in the other official language (Journals, January 19, 1970, pp. 322-3). See also Debates, January 31, 2002, p. 8527. When discrepancies have been pointed out in the French and English versions of amendments to bills proposed at report stage, the Chair has sometimes offered corrections (Debates, November 1, 1990, pp. 14981-2, 14986) or, with the consent of the House, suggested that the language in which the amendment was originally drafted apply (Debates, October 4, 1995, p. 15229).
[10]
Journals, September 13, 1968, p. 31; September 16, 1968, p. 35.

Notes on Standing Order 71:

[1]
Stewart, p. 80; Campion, pp. 22-3.
[2]
The rule was numbered 43 in the 1866 version of the Rules of the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada.
[3]
See Mr. Blake’s remarks in Debates, June 1, 1886, p. 1714. In the first three parliaments from 1867 to 1878, bills were expedited on 27 occasions.
[4]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 559.
[5]
Debates, April 15, 1878, pp. 2006-7; April 24, 1878, p. 2157; October 11, 1949, pp. 667-9; February 24, 1969, pp. 5893-4.
[6]
Journals, February 24, 1969, pp. 738-9.
[7]
This principle is also reiterated in Standing Order 76(10). On occasion, by unanimous consent, the House has agreed to proceed to third reading, even if the bill was concurred in at report stage and read a second time in that sitting. See for example, Journals, April 18, 1997, p. 1489; March 26, 2004, p. 219.

Note on Standing Order 72:

[1]
Beauchesne, 3rd ed., pp. 239-40.

Notes on Standing Order 73(1), (2), (3) and (4):

[1]
In the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), the practice was for a Minister to inform the House of the government’s intention at the moment of first reading (see for example, Debates, May 5, 1995, p. 12257; October 31, 1996, p. 5919). Though the weekly business statement has become the preferred moment, notification has also been given on a point of order (see for example, Debates, May 1, 2001, p. 3427; February 24, 2004, p. 1001).
[2]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 200-2; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 636-41.
[3]
In 1968, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House recommended rewording the second reading motion so that it included reference to a committee. This was part of their goal to explain more clearly the philosophy behind each of the reading stages. See the Third Report of the Committee, tabled December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 432-3). From 1968 to 1991, the Standing Order also specified that a motion to refer a bill to committee was to be decided without debate or amendment, though this applied only to referral motions distinct from the motion for second reading. It was always clear that the motion for second reading and reference of a bill could be debated and amended.
[4]
See for example, Speakers’ rulings in Journals, February 2, 1954, p. 257; February 13, 1969, pp. 697-8.
[5]
See for example, Speakers’ rulings in Journals, March 10, 1933, pp. 298-300; March 8, 1934, pp. 156-7; April 24, 1934, pp. 271-3; June 18, 1940, p. 124; February 26, 1942, pp. 101-2; June 11, 1942, pp. 379-81; June 17, 1942, pp. 396-7; October 30, 1963, pp. 505-6.
[6]
See for example, Journals, July 25, 1944, pp. 606-7.
[7]
See for example, Item No. 2 of the First Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization of the House, tabled on December 19, 1963 (Journals, p. 706); Item No. 9 of the First Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, tabled on March 25, 1964 (Journals, p. 125); and the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, tabled on March 13, 1968 (Journals, pp. 761-7).
[8]
See motion adopted on June 8, 1965 (Journals, pp. 210-1).
[9]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 560.
[10]
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, tabled on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 432-3).
[11]
See page 8 of the “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”, tabled on November 23, 1979 (Journals, p. 260).
[12]
See the Sixth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on March 29, 1983 (Journals, p. 5765).
[13]
See pages 7 to 10 and 21 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211).
[14]
Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 919.
[15]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2914. In moving second reading, a Minister could give notice that he or she intended to move that the bill be referred after second reading to a standing or special committee. This motion was deemed adopted unless five or more Members rose to object. In the case of such an objection, the motion would be deemed withdrawn and would be put to the House again after the bill had received second reading. If rejected, the bill would be referred to a legislative committee. During the time this rule was in effect, there were no cases where more than five Members objected to the proposed referral. For an example of a motion being deemed adopted, see Journals, October 4, 1991, p. 444.
[16]
See page 24 of the First Report of the Liaison Committee, tabled April 2, 1993 (Journals, p. 2784).
[17]
Journals, January 25, 1994, p. 61. The sponsor of the bill usually designates the committee of his or her choice when the bill is placed on notice.
[18]
Journals, February 10, 2000, pp. 869-71 (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); November 20, 2002, pp. 205-6 (Bill C-17, An Act to amend certain Acts of Canada, and to enact measures for implementing the Biological and Toxin Weapons Convention, in order to enhance public safety); May 4, 2005, pp. 698-701 (Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes).
[19]
See pages 21-2 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, tabled June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[20]
For example, in 1991, the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations had been instructed to do a pre-study, before second reading, of Bill C-22, An Act to enact the Wage Claim Payment Act, to amend the Bankruptcy Act and to amend other acts in consequence thereof (Journals, June 19, 1991, p. 242). This was the first time that the House had used this procedure, and the initiative was very favourably received (see Debates, October 7, 1991, p. 3388).
[21]
See pages 22-3 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774) and pages 27-8 of the First Report of the Liaison Committee, tabled April 2, 1993 (Journals, p. 2784).
[22]
Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112-4.
[23]
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). The first motion to refer a bill to committee before second reading was moved on June 14, 1994 (Journals, pp. 578-9).
[24]
Speaker Parent ruled that this prerogative cannot be invoked by private Members (Debates, May 11, 1994, pp. 4226-7; June 1, 1994, pp. 4710-1).
[25]
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).
[26]
See page 5 of the document entitled “Ethics, Responsibility, Accountability: An Action Plan for Democratic Reform”, tabled February 4, 2004 (Journals, p. 15).
[27]
See Debates, February 7, 1994, pp. 966. See also Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5875, 5891.
[28]
Journals, February 18, 2005, p. 452.

Notes on Standing Order 73(5):

[1]
Debates, December 10, 1974, pp. 2138-9; December 11, 1974, p. 2143; March 20, 1975, pp. 4357-62; March 21, 1975, pp. 4364-5.
[2]
Debates, December 9, 1975, pp. 9880-3.
[3]
Journals, December 16, 1975, p. 943. The bill was considered at second reading, in Committee of the Whole and at third reading in one sitting.
[4]
Journals, March 21, 1977, p. 598; Debates, March 24, 1977, p. 4298; Journals, March 13, 1978, p. 476; Debates, March 16, 1978, pp. 3837-8.
[5]
No procedural objection was raised in the 1977 case, though the opposition suggested it was not usual to include borrowing provisions in an income tax bill (Debates, November 7, 1977, p. 646). In 1981, objections were raised regarding the inclusion of borrowing provisions in an income tax bill (Debates, January 16, 1981, pp. 6276-82). Speaker Sauvé ruled that she had no quarrel with the practice of combining in the same bill taxation matters based on a ways and means motion with other matters. However, while the ways and means motion constituted notice for the taxation provisions, no notice had been given of the borrowing provisions. She therefore ordered that the borrowing provisions be struck from the bill (Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319). In the 1982 case, as proper notice of the borrowing provisions had been given, the Speaker allowed the bill to proceed (Debates, February 16, 1982, p. 15053).
[6]
Debates, May 7, 1982, pp. 17203-4.
[7]
See pages 9-12 of the document entitled “The Canadian Budgetary Process – Proposals for Improvement”, tabled May 23, 1985 (Journals, pp. 648-9).
[8]
Time allocation was used for second reading of borrowing bills in 1980, 1981, 1983, 1984 and 1990. In the 1981 and 1983 cases, a time allocation motion was also adopted for report stage and third reading.
[9]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2914.
[10]
Journals, April 30, 1993, pp. 2884, 2887; March 19, 1996, p. 114; March 21, 1996, pp. 129-30.
[11]
Journals, December 1, 1992, pp. 2265-6.

Notes on Standing Order 74:

[1]
Debates, February 17, 1987, p. 3541; Debates, March 15, 1985, p. 3060.
[2]
Debates, May 16, 1983, p. 25477; January 20, 1987, p. 2491.
[3]
Debates, May 26, 1983, p. 25746.
[4]
For an example of a Member sharing his or her time with someone from another party, see Debates, May 5, 2005, p. 5695.
[5]
See for example, Debates, October 21, 2003, pp. 8526-7; April 19, 2004, p. 2091. Members with unlimited time have also asked for consent to share their time, after having indicated to the Chair how long they intend to speak. See Debates, March 21, 2001, p. 1998.
[6]
Debates, October 29, 1999, pp. 893-4.
[7]
See Standing Order 43.
[8]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See also the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[9]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2914-5.
[10]
Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 112.
[11]
See pages 9-10 of the Fourth 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) and adopted September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).
[12]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2914-5.
[13]
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.
[14]
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.
[15]
Debates, October 29, 1999, pp. 882-3.
[16]
Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 452-3.
[17]
This change was made editorially, as references to questions and comments were removed from all other Standing Orders. The question-and-comments provisions in Standing Order 43 now apply to all speeches, except those listed in that Standing Order. See Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451-5.

Notes on Standing Order 75, 76, and 76.1:

[1]
See for example, Debates, February 26, 1992, pp. 7620-4; September 23, 1996, pp. 4560-1.
[2]
Journals, June 2, 1970, pp. 908-9.
[3]
See for example, Debates, February 23, 2004, p. 904.
[4]
See for example, Notice Paper, November 6, 2003, p. XIII.
[5]
Journals, June 20, 1969, p. 1218.
[6]
Journals, February 13, 1969, pp. 698-9.
[7]
See remarks of Speaker Jerome on the subject of motions to delete (Journals, June 29, 1976, pp. 1384-5; Debates, July 6, 1976, pp. 15051-2). Speakers have expressed reservations about a series of motions to delete every clause in a bill. See remarks of Speaker Fraser (Debates, October 10, 1989, pp. 4464-5; April 3, 1990, pp. 10124-6).
[8]
Debates, December 30, 1971, p. 10887.
[9]
See for example, Debates, June 7, 2000, p. 7633.
[10]
Debates, November 15, 2004, p. 1299; June 10, 2005, p. 6922. For examples of amendments judged to be of exceptional significance, see Debates, April 3, 2000, pp. 5558-9, 5608-9; February 18, 2002, p. 8899.
[11]
Debates, March 21, 2001, p. 1993. On occasion, when Members have presented reasons why they were not able to propose certain motions in committee, the Speaker has selected them at report stage. See for example, Debates, November 6, 2001, p. 6974; January 28, 2003, p. 2766.
[12]
Speaker Milliken pointed out that much of the United Kingdom practice regarding what is called “consideration stage” at Westminster is not relevant to our own procedures. See Debates, March 21, 2001, p. 1993. Regarding the fact that documents from the United Kingdom are available in English only, see Speaker’s ruling in Debates, March 15, 2001, pp. 1726-8.
[13]
Debates, February 7, 1969, p. 5285; April 28, 1969, pp. 8063-8; November 28, 1973, p. 8233. Amendments must always be relevant to the motion they seek to amend; they must not attempt to modify the clause. See Debates, December 12, 1989, p. 6797.
[14]
See for example, proceedings on time allocation motion (Debates, December 21, 1978, pp. 2380-91).
[15]
Debates, July 5, 1976, p. 15017.
[16]
Standing Order 43 provides for a ten-minute question-and-comment period after 20-minute speeches, and a five-minute question-and-comment period after ten-minute speeches. The provisional rules were adopted February 18, 2005 (Journals, pp. 451-5). There is no equivalent provision for an opening round of 20-minute speeches for bills considered at report stage after second reading (see Standing Order 76.1(7)).
[17]
See for example, deferred recorded divisions on amendments and subamendments to report stage motions on Bill C-176 (Journals, November 28, 1973, pp. 693-4).
[18]
For an example of the deferring of divisions and the taking of such votes prior to further consideration of motions in amendment at report stage, see the proceedings on Bill C-84 (Journals, July 8, 1976, pp. 1410-5; July 9, 1976, pp. 1417-9).
[19]
See for example, Journals, April 21, 1997, p. 1493.
[20]
See for example, Journals, October 20, 2003, p. 1129.
[21]
See for example, Journals, May 27, 1996, p. 444.
[22]
See for example, Journals, February 25, 2003, p. 465.
[23]
See for example, Journals, April 18, 1997, p. 1489.
[24]
Journals, June 2, 1970, pp. 908-9.
[25]
See for example, Notice Paper, November 22, 1995, p. VIII.
[26]
Journals, June 20, 1969, p. 1218.
[27]
Journals, February 13, 1969, pp. 698-9.
[28]
See remarks of Speaker Jerome on the subject of motions to delete (Journals, June 29, 1976, pp. 1384-5; Debates, July 6, 1976, pp. 15051-2). Speakers have expressed reservations about a series of motions to delete every clause in a bill. See remarks of Speaker Fraser (Debates, October 10, 1989, pp. 4464-5; April 3, 1990, pp. 10124-6).
[29]
Debates, December 30, 1971, p. 10887.
[30]
See for example, Debates, March 1, 2002, p. 9399. The exception regarding motions which require a Royal Recommendation is explicitly stated in the equivalent provision of Standing Order 76(5).
[31]
Debates, November 15, 2004, p. 1299; June 10, 2005, p. 6922. For examples of amendments judged to be of exceptional significance, see Debates, April 3, 2000, pp. 5558-9, 5608-9; February 18, 2002, p. 8899.
[32]
Debates, March 21, 2001, p. 1993. On occasion, when Members have presented compelling reasons why they were not able to propose certain motions in committee, the Speaker has selected them at report stage. See for example, Debates, November 6, 2001, p. 6974; January 28, 2003, p. 2766.
[33]
Speaker Milliken pointed out that much of the United Kingdom practice regarding what is called “consideration stage” at Westminster is not relevant to our own procedures. See Debates, March 21, 2001, p. 1993. Regarding the fact that documents from the United Kingdom are available in English only, see Speaker’s ruling in Debates, March 15, 2001, pp. 1726-8.
[34]
Debates, February 7, 1969, p. 5285; April 28, 1969, pp. 8063-8; November 28, 1973, p. 8233. Amendments must always be relevant to the motion they seek to amend; they must not attempt to modify the clause. See Debates, December 12, 1989, p. 6797.
[35]
See for example, proceedings on time allocation motion (Debates, December 21, 1978, pp. 2380-91).
[36]
Debates, July 5, 1976, p. 15017.
[37]
The provisional rules were adopted February 18, 2005 (Journals, pp. 451-5). Prior to then, there were no questions and comments after speeches at report stage. See Debates, April 7, 1978, p. 4259; January 18, 1983, p. 21963.
[38]
See for example, deferred divisions on amendments and subamendments to report stage motions on Bill C-176 (Journals, November 28, 1973, pp. 693-4).
[39]
For an example of the deferring of divisions and the taking of such votes prior to further consideration of motions in amendment at report stage, see the proceedings on Bill C-84 (Journals, July 8, 1976, pp. 1410-5; July 9, 1976, pp. 1417-9).
[40]
See proceedings on Bill C-92, Journals, July 11, 1988, pp. 3129-30.
[41]
See proceedings on Bill C-121, Journals, July 11, 1988, p. 3138.
[42]
See proceedings on Bill C-136, Journals, September 26, 1988, p. 3632.
[43]
See proceedings on Bill C-54, Journals, October 8, 1996, p. 725.
[44]
Journals, February 24, 1969, pp. 738-9.
[45]
Dawson claims that the practice was that a motion for concurrence in the amendments was made and decided at once. Dawson, p. 234.
[46]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 932-3.
[47]
Journals, October 9, 1964, pp. 777-80. This provisional change was extended for the First and Second Sessions of the Twenty-Seventh Parliament (Journals, January 21, 1966, p. 34; April 26, 1967, pp. 1769-74).
[48]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-62.
[49]
Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 432-4.
[50]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See also the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). Under provisional rules currently in effect, the House has reinstituted 20-minute speeches for the opening round of a bill being considered at report stage and second reading. See Journals, February 18, 2005, p. 453.
[51]
Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 919.
[52]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2915.
[53]
Speaker Lamoureux ruled in October 1970 that a bill which had been reported back from committee on the day Parliament adjourned for the summer (June 26, 1970) could not be taken up on the first sitting day of the resumed session (Journals, October 6, 1970, pp. 1417-20). With respect to the reporting of a bill on a Friday, Speaker Jerome ruled in July 1977 that while technically the bill could be taken up on the following Monday, he had no hesitation in indicating that the bill ought not to be taken into consideration until the following Tuesday (Debates, July 15, 1977, p. 7712). He repeated in March 1979 that, in the strictest interpretation of the language of the Standing Order, a bill reported on a Friday could be called on Monday, but that was a practice that ought to be discouraged (Debates, March 9, 1979, pp. 3999-4001).
[54]
See for example, Debates, May 7, 1992, pp. 10277-82; November 26, 2001, pp. 7474-8; June 3, 2003, pp. 6810-4.
[55]
Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 113-5.
[56]
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).
[57]
Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[58]
See pages 38-40 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839), and page 6 of the Response of the Government to the Third Report of the Special Committee, tabled on October 9, 1985 (Journals, p. 1082).
[59]
The wording of the “Note” adopted by the House in February 1986 contrasts with remarks by Speaker Jerome (Debates, April 23, 1975, p. 5116), wherein he noted “There is no disagreement, however, that the report stage is one of reconsideration of events that have taken place in the standing committee.”
[60]
See for example, Debates, December 14, 1990, p. 16772.
[61]
For example, there were 267 motions for report stage of Bill C-68 concerning firearms (Debates, June 12, 1995, p. 13568); 192 motions for Bill C-12 concerning Employment Insurance (Debates, May 2, 1996, p. 2214-5); and 206 motions for Bill C-43 concerning the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (Debates, December 2, 1998, p. 10794).
[62]
There were 471 report stage motions for Bill C-9, the Nisga’a Final Agreement Act. Voting on these motions took over 40 hours (Debates, December 7, 1999, p. 2681). For Bill C-20, commonly known as the Clarity Bill, there were 411 motions and voting took over 35 hours (Debates, March 13, 2000, p. 4693). When 3,133 motions were filed for report stage of Bill C-3, the Youth Criminal Justice Act, some Members argued that the Chair needed to make more vigorous use of his selection powers. The Deputy Speaker replied that he was hesitant to institute a new procedure without some direction from the House (Debates, September 25, 2000, pp. 8569-73). Parliament was dissolved before report stage of the bill concluded.
[63]
Journals, February 27, 2001, pp. 140-3.
[64]
Debates, March 21, 2001, pp. 1991-3.

Notes on Standing Order 77:

[1]
The number of managers has varied for each conference. For the conferences held in 1903, the numbers of Members and Senators were 12 and 6 respectively. For the conferences held in 1919, the numbers were 11 and 8; in 1922, 8 and 5; and in 1924, 5 and 3. In each of the other conferences, the number of Members and Senators was equal. For five of the fourteen free conferences, the breakdown was three managers from each House.
[2]
See Rule 99 in Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868.
[3]
Journals, July 12, 1905, pp. 500-1.
[4]
Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80.
[5]
A review of the Indexes to the Journals between 1867 and 1902 does not reveal a single instance of a conference being held in that time period.
[6]
Journals, October 22, 1903, p. 716.
[7]
Journals, October 22, 1903, p. 723.
[8]
Journals, October 22, 1903, p. 727.
[9]
Journals, October 23, 1903, pp. 757-8.
[10]
Journals, October 24, 1903, p. 759.
[11]
House records indicate these 13 conferences were held on the following dates:  Journals, May 4, 1910, pp. 619-20; June 18, 1919, p. 386; July 4, 1919, p. 521; May 27, 1921, p. 382 and May 28, 1921, p. 385; June 27, 1922, p. 519 (two conferences); July 16, 1924, p. 572; June 25, 1925, p. 532; May 27, 1933, p. 650; June 29, 1934, p. 562; June 24, 1938, p. 522; July 31, 1940, p. 307; July 14, 1947, p. 905. On one occasion, the Senate declined an invitation to participate in a free conference (Journals, July 19, 1924, p. 653). Though the practice has fallen into disuse, the Senate has attempted to revive it on two occasions. On November 18, 1987, the Senate passed a motion that the Leader of the Government in the Senate ask his Cabinet colleagues whether they would agree to a conference on Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act. On November 19, the Leader of the Government in the Senate informed the Senators that the government would not recommend such a conference to the House of Commons (Senate Debates, November 18, 1987, pp. 2179-84; November 19, 1987, pp. 2212-3). On May 22, 1990, when the Senate was examining the possibility of sending to the House a message respecting the amendments it wished to make to Bill C-21, An Act to amend the Unemployment Insurance Act, Senator Allan J. MacEachen moved that the motion being considered be referred to a conference between the two Houses of Parliament. Senator MacEachen’s amendment was negatived on October 22, 1990 (Senate Journals, May 22, 1990, pp. 991-2; October 22, 1990, pp. 1848-9).
[12]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2915.
[13]
See for example, Debates, October 6, 1970, p. 8811; July 11, 1988, p. 17363. On occasion, the sponsor delivered his or her speech after the Order of the Day had been read, only moving the motion at the end of his or her remarks (see for example, Debates, July 12, 1988, p. 17445; June 18, 1990, p. 12888). In some rare cases, notice was required for motions relating to Senate amendments. In 1959, Speaker Michener ruled that a motion to waive the House’s financial privileges in relation to money bills required notice, as it effectively suspended what is now Standing Order 80(1). See Journals, July 14, 1959, pp. 707-10. Notice must also be given of a Royal Recommendation, if the motion in question proposes further amendments which entail spending provisions. See for example Order and Notice Paper, August 21, 1987, pp. I-II.
[14]
See for example, Journals, August 21, 1987, pp. 1364-7; January 26, 1988, pp. 2061-4; March 12, 1990, pp. 1324-6.
[15]
Debates, March 22, 1990, p. 9617.

Notes on Standing Order 78:

[1]
Standing Order 78(1) has been invoked on nine occasions since its adoption in 1969. On the first six occasions, the motion was moved during Routine Proceedings. On two occasions, the agreement under Standing Order 78(1) was announced during debate on the bill being allocated (Journals, April 2, 1993, pp. 2791-2; June 4, 1993, p. 3122). On the most recent occasion, Standing Order 78(1) was invoked on a bill respecting back to work legislation, and the announcement was made under Government Orders during the Budget Debate (Journals, March 15, 1995, pp. 1219-20). The motion adopted on April 2, 1993 is especially interesting since it was expressed in terms of “decimals” of an hour (0.1 hours for report stage and 0.25 hours for third reading stage). For an example of a time allocation motion under Standing Order 78(1) being moved on the stage of a bill not yet debated, see proceedings on Bill C-74, An Act respecting the supervision of longshoring and related operations at west coast ports, Journals, March 15, 1995, pp. 1219-23.
[2]
For an example of motions moved and adopted pursuant to Standing Order 78(2), see Journals, June 21, 1994, pp. 633-7; March 22, 1995, pp. 1257-60; March 25, 1995, pp. 1277-8; June 8, 1995, pp. 1595-8; April 2, 2001, p. 271; June 23, 2005, pp. 981-2; June 27, 2005, pp. 991-3. For examples of time allocation motions under Standing Order 78(2) being moved on the stage of a bill not yet debated, see proceedings at report stage and third reading stage of Bill C-34, An Act respecting self-government for first nations in the Yukon Territory, Journals, June 21, 1994, pp. 633-4, 637-8; proceedings at third reading stage of Bill C-35, An Act to establish the Department of Citizenship and Immigration and to make consequential amendments to other Acts, Journals, June 21, 1994, pp. 636-7; June 22, 1994, p. 660; proceedings at third reading stage of Bill C-38, An Act respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, Journals, June 27, 2005, pp. 991-3; June 28, 2005, p. 1003. See also Speaker’s Ruling, Debates, June 21, 1994, pp. 5693-4.
[3]
There is no requirement to actually move a time allocation motion, even though notice of time allocation has been given. See, for example, notice of time allocation given in Journals, May 1, 1996, p. 286, on Bill C-33, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act which was never moved. Equally, the time allocation motion does not have to be moved on the day after notice, but can be moved days or even months afterwards. See notice of time allocation given on February 14, 2003 (Journals, p. 419) and the motion moved on May 6, 2003 (Journals, pp. 739-40) with respect to Bill C-10, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals and firearms) and the Firearms Act.
[4]
A practice has developed whereby the Minister moving the motion does not necessarily have to be the Minister who gave notice of the motion. For recent examples, see notice of intention to move time allocation on report and third reading stages of Bill C-43, An Act to establish the Canada Customs and Revenue Agency (Journals, October 26, 1998, p. 1184) and the moving of the motion by a different Minister (Journals, October 27, 1998, pp. 1189-91). See also Journals, April 7, 2000, p. 1565; April 10, 2000, pp. 1567-8; May 18, 2001, p. 429; May 28, 2001, pp. 433-4; April 26, 2002, p. 1351; June 10, 2002, pp. 1495-6.
[5]
See the Commentary and Historical Summary of Standing Order 67.1 in Chapter VIII of this text. Standing Order 67.1, adopted in October 2001, applies both to motions moved under Standing Order 78(3) and those moved under Standing Order 57 (closure rule). For an example of the questioning of a Minister on a bill which had been the subject of a time allocation motion, see Debates, November 27, 2001, pp. 7532-6.
[6]
In the First Session of the First Parliament, a select committee was appointed on March 31, 1868 to consider whether “the dispatch of public business can be more effectually promoted” (Journals, March 31, 1868, pp. 168-9). In June 1869, a motion was adopted concerning the times for the assembling of Parliament and, during debate, concern was expressed that important business was rushed through at the close of the session (Journals, June 14, 1869, p. 241; Debates, pp. 779-80). A similar motion was adopted in 1873 (Journals, May 12, 1873, p. 330). On April 19, 1886, a motion was adopted concerning the length of speeches. Debate on the motion indicated that, in order to ensure proper attention to business before the House, some plan would have to be adopted to economize time (Debates, April 19, 1886, pp. 789-92).
[7]
Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9.
[8]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9. This rule was numbered 37 in the subsequent reprint of the Standing Orders.
[9]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 908-9, 922-9. These rules were numbered 38, 56, 58 and 59 in the subsequent reprint of the Standing Orders.
[10]
Journals, April 12, 1962, p. 350. These rules were numbered 31(2), 38 and 58 in the subsequent reprint of the Standing Orders.
[11]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 573. This rule was numbered 55(3) in the subsequent reprint of the Standing Orders.
[12]
See for example, comments by Donald Fleming (Debates, May 9, 1960, pp. 3685, 3687); by Lester B. Pearson and Hazen Argue (Debates, January 18, 1961, pp. 1169-70); by the J.W. Pickersgill and Erhart Regier (Debates, March 26, 1962, pp. 2164-7); by former Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker (Debates, October 23, 1963, pp. 3925-31); by Stanley Knowles (Debates, May 20, 1965, pp. 1530-1) and by Gilles Grégoire (Debates, May 21, 1965, p. 1564).
[13]
Motions to appoint these committees were adopted on May 9, 1960 (Journals, p. 434); January 18, 1961 (Journals, p. 163); March 26, 1962 (Journals, p. 277); October 23, 1963 (Journals, p. 482); March 9, 1964 (Journals, pp. 76-7); January 25, 1967 (Journals, pp. 1227-8); May 8, 1967 (Journals, p. 12).
[14]
Journals, August 19, 1964, p. 633.
[15]
Journals, May 19, 1965, pp. 128-9.
[16]
Journals, May 19, 1965, pp. 128-9.
[17]
The motion was debated on May 19, 20, 21, 25, 26 and 27 and on June 1, 2, 3, 4, 7 and 8, 1965.
[18]
Journals, May 27, 1965, pp. 155-6.
[19]
Journals, June 8, 1965, pp. 210-1.
[20]
Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 220-3.
[21]
These guidelines were that written notice would have to have been sent to the Speaker one hour prior to the normal time of adjournment indicating the desire of the Member to speak on the matter under consideration; that a time limit would be imposed on the Member speaking; and that no Member speaking during the extended sitting could move an amendment or subamendment (see Standing Order 15-A(9), Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 223).
[22]
Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 219-23.
[23]
Journals, April 25, 1966, p. 433; April 28, 1966, p. 460; February 1, 1968, p. 651.
[24]
Journals, April 13, 1967, p. 1727; April 18, 1967, p. 1733; April 20, 1967, pp. 1739-42.
[25]
See for example, remarks by T.C. Douglas (Debates, April 20, 1967, pp. 15140-1), by H.A. Olson (Debates, April 20, 1967, p. 15145), and by G. Churchill (Debates, April 20, 1967, p. 15161).
[26]
Journals, September 20, 1968, p. 58.
[27]
Journals, September 24, 1968, p. 68.
[28]
Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 439-40.
[29]
The Proceedings Committee proposal specified that the quorum for the meeting would be those Members in attendance. If a unanimous decision of the committee could not be reached, the Minister, acting on his own, could move a time allotment order which would be debatable for a maximum of two hours. The requirement for a minimum amount of debate on the item under consideration had been removed and, under the new proposed Standing Order 16-A, the Government House Leader by himself could constitute a quorum of the Proceedings Committee.
[30]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 579.
[31]
Journals, June 20, 1969, pp. 1211-2.
[32]
Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1393-402. The rules were numbered 75A, 75B and 75C in the subsequent reprint of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dated October 1969.
[33]
Standing Order 78(3) (then numbered 75C) was invoked on December 2, 1971 (Journals, pp. 951-2) and on December 14, 1971 (Journals, p. 975), while Standing Order 78(1) (then numbered 75A) was invoked on December 30, 1971 (Journals, p. 1013).
[34]
See for example, remarks by Stanley Knowles and Gerald Baldwin (Debates, December 1, 1971, pp. 10047-51); remarks by Stanley Knowles (Debates, March 10, 1976, p. 11677); remarks by James McGrath (Debates, April 1, 1976, p. 12381); and remarks by Claude-André Lachance (Debates, February 9, 1977, pp. 2888-90).
[35]
Journals, December 1, 1971, pp. 947-8.
[36]
Journals, December 30, 1971, pp. 1013-4. See also Speaker’s ruling in Journals, February 18, 1966, pp. 158-60; Debates, February 15, 1966, pp. 1224-7. This matter arose in a later Parliament as well. See Speaker’s Ruling in Debates, April 2, 1993, pp. 18051-2.
[37]
Debates, November 13, 1975, p. 9022.
[38]
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 20:59-63.
[39]
Debates, December 20, 1978, pp. 2317-20.
[40]
Debates, March 20, 1979, pp. 4330-6.
[41]
See pages 20-1 of the document entitled “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”, tabled on November 23, 1979 (Journals, p. 260).
[42]
Debates, March 7, 1983, pp. 23510-1.
[43]
Debates, October 26, 1983, pp. 28357-8.
[44]
Debates, May 16, 1985, pp. 4821-2.
[45]
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1026-7.
[46]
See point of order raised by Herb Gray on June 6, 1988 and the Speaker’s immediate ruling (Debates, pp. 16142-9).
[47]
Debates, August 15, 1988, pp. 18309-11; August 16, 1988, pp. 18352-5, 18380-1.
[48]
Debates, March 29, 1990, pp. 9916-7. The Chair reiterated that point on October 1, 1990 (Debates, p. 13622) and on October 11, 1990 (Debates, p. 14030).
[49]
Debates, April 4, 1990, pp. 10183-5.
[50]
Journals, April 30, 1990, pp. 1612-3. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections eventually reported on this matter on March 20, 1991 (Journals, p. 2727). This Twenty-Fifth Report, which contained a dissenting opinion as an Appendix, was never debated nor concurred in.
[51]
See point of order raised on April 2, 1990 and the withdrawal of the motion on April 3, 1990 (Debates, pp. 10102-3, 10124).
[52]
See point of order raised and ruled on April 3, 1990 (Debates, pp. 10153-6).
[53]
See point of order originally raised by Jean-Robert Gauthier, the ensuing wide-ranging discussion, and the Speaker’s ruling on October 11, 1990 (Debates, pp. 14019-28, 14030). See also the notice of time allocation given by the same Minister for the same stage of the same bill on October 22, 1990 (Debates, p. 14523).
[54]
Debate on these and other amendments to the Standing Orders took place on March 26, April 8, 9, 10 and 11, 2001. Closure was moved on April 11 and the motion was adopted later that day. See Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2904-32. The specific textual changes to Standing 78(2) and 78(3) are found on pages 2915-6.
[55]
See, for example, remarks by Bill Blaikie and Peter MacKay (Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5874-5, 5878), as well as remarks by Deborah Grey (Debates, May 16, 2000, pp. 6854-5), and by a number of other Members later that same day (Debates, May 16, 2000, pp. 6903-9). See also comments made by various Members during debate on the motion to establish the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons held on March 21, 2001 (Debates, pp. 1996-7, 2002, 2007, 2011-2, 2017, 2025, 2053-4, 2061). See also comments by Members during a take-note debate on the modernization of the procedures of the House held November 20-22, 2002 (Debates, pp. 1676-7, 1749-50). Some Members have, from time to time, attempted to remove the Standing Order from operation. In two instances in 1995 and in two instances in 1998, Members unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to have Standing Order 78 deleted (Debates, May 11, 1995, p. 12461; June 15, 1995, p. 13902; May 26, 1998, pp. 7246-7; May 27, 1998, p. 7292). On June 8, 1998, the House agreed, by unanimous consent that the Chair would not receive motions pursuant to Standing Order 57 (closure) or Standing Order 78 (time allocation) for the remainder of the session, an Order which was rescinded four sitting days later (Journals, June 8, 1998, p. 948; June 12, 1998, pp. 1027-8). In November 1999, a Member unsuccessfully sought unanimous consent to have motions moved pursuant to certain standing orders (including Standing Order 78) found not receivable for the duration of that Parliament (Debates, November 26, 1999, p. 1819).
[56]
Debates, December 9, 1992, pp. 14917-22; March 31, 1993, pp. 17854-61; October 8, 1997, pp. 662-6; May 16, 2000, pp. 6903-9; March 1, 2001, pp. 1415-6; June 3, 2002, pp. 12019-22.
[57]
See point of order raised by John Williams on November 25, 1996 and ruled on by the Deputy Speaker that same day (Debates, pp. 6645-6).
[58]
See Debates, February 25, 2000, pp. 4046-7 which mirrored a decision taken by Speaker Sauvé (Debates, January 31, 1983, p. 22341; February 1, 1983, pp. 22400-1; Journals, February 1, 1983, p. 5557). On both the February 1983 and February 2000 occasions, the motion to adjourn the House was attempted while the House was subject to a time allocation motion as part of the day’s procedural activities. It should be noted, however, that in both cases it was the present day Standing Order 25 which was cited as the principal authority for refusing to receive the motion to adjourn.
[59]
See point of order raised by Peter MacKay on June 12, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5027-31), and ruled on by the Speaker on September 18, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5256-8).
[60]
See point of order raised by John Reynolds on April 7, 2003 (Debates, pp. 5182-6), and the Speaker’s Ruling on April 10, 2003 (Debates, pp. 5363-4).
[61]
See pages 23, 24, 50 and 51 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774).
[62]
See the Thirty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled on May 17, 2000 (Journals, pp. 1721-2).
[63]
See pages 8, 9 and 27 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465).
[64]
Journals, October 4, 2001, pp. 691-3; Debates, October 4, 2001, pp. 5946-64.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

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