Chapter X — Financial Procedures

Notes on Standing Order 79 to 85:

[1]

A 1994 amendment allows the Royal Recommendation to be provided after the bill has been introduced in the House, as long as it is provided before the bill is read a third time and passed. However, the government has maintained the practice of providing the Royal Recommendation to their own bills at the moment they are put on notice for introduction in the House. See for example, Bill C-12, An Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Superannuation Act (Journals, October 23, 1997, p. 140), and Bill C-54, An Act to provide first nations with the option of managing and regulating oil and gas exploration and exploitation and of receiving moneys otherwise held for them by Canada (Journals, June 1, 2005, p. 814.)

[2]

The government has on occasion provided the Royal Recommendation after first reading. See for example, Bill C-45, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (judicial review of parole ineligibility) and another act, which was introduced and read the first time on June 11, 1996 (Journals, p. 510) prior to the Royal Recommendation, which was received at the second reading stage on June 14, 1996 (Journals, p. 553). On another occasion, a Royal Recommendation was attached to a private Member’s public bill prior to the report stage (Journals, December 6, 1994, p. 997).

[3]

The Speaker has ruled that a Senate bill which had been read a first time in the House was in fact imposing a tax and should have originated in the Commons; the proceedings on the bill were declared null and void and the bill was ordered withdrawn from the Order Paper (Debates, December 2, 1998, pp. 10788-91; June 12, 2001, pp. 5024-7). In some instances, the House of Commons has rejected the Senate’s amendments to a financial bill and claimed its financial privilege (see for example, Journals, July 18, 1988, pp. 3210, 3223-4; May 9, 1990, pp. 1668-71). In other cases, however, the House of Commons has chosen to accept a Senate amendment to a financial bill and waived its financial prerogative, while insisting that its decision in this instance did not constitute a precedent (see for example, Journals, March 20, 1997, pp. 1326-8).

[4]

The traditional request to appropriate the funds required has on occasion been omitted from the Speech from the Throne. On the last occasion, a Member rose on a question of privilege and contended that, because no supply had been requested from the Crown, the House was not required to consider it (Debates, April 6, 1989, p. 177). In his ruling, Speaker Fraser pointed out that the Standing Orders do not specify that a request for funds must appear in the Speech from the Throne, and that the phrase is a tradition but not a requirement of the Standing Orders (Debates, May 2, 1989, p. 1177).

[5]

See for example, Journals, October 5, 2004, p. 15.

[6]

On March 30, 1990, an allotted day, the House adjourned for lack of quorum. At that point, the absence of a quorum and the subsequent adjournment brought the Business of Supply already under way to an end (Debates, p. 10050). The continuing order for supply was dropped from the Order Paper. Speaker Fraser subsequently ruled that the withdrawal of the continuing order did not erase previous supply-related decisions made by the House. The order could be re-established by way of a non-debatable motion proposed by a Minister (Debates, April 3, 1990, pp. 10119-21). A motion for the redesignation of the continuing order for supply was then moved and adopted (Journals, April 3, 1990, p. 1486). In 1991, an amendment to the Standing Orders was adopted to ensure that a lack of quorum would no longer bring an end to proceedings under way in the House (Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2910). See Standing Order 41(2).

[7]

See the discussion on this matter and the ruling by Speaker Sauvé, Debates, February 11, 1982, pp. 14896-904; the ruling by Deputy Speaker Francis, Debates, October 27, 1983, p. 28375; and the ruling by Speaker Fraser, Debates, March 26, 1990, p. 9759. See also Debates, April 18, 2005, p. 5237.

[8]

See for example, Journals, November 16, 1999, p. 189.

[9]

The government may also decide not to restore a Vote that has been reduced or eliminated by the committee. See for example, Journals, June 12, 2003, p. 925; June 14, 2005, p. 888.

[10]

See the statement by the Chair of Committees of the Whole, Debates, May 7, 2002, p. 11333; May 31, 2005, p. 6443.

[11]

See for example, Debates, November 16, 2004, pp. 1439, 1449, 1461; May 18, 2005, pp. 6165, 6173.

[12]

In 1999, because the Leader of the Opposition had chosen not to provide such a notice, Progressive Conservative MP Peter MacKay placed a notice of motion on the Notice Paper to the effect that consideration of the Main Estimates of the Department of Human Resources Development by the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities be extended beyond May 31, 1999 (Notice Paper, May 27, 1999, p. V). The Member asked that the Speaker transfer the power which is normally reserved solely for the Leader of the Opposition under Standing Order 81(4) to another opposition party (Debates, May 27, 1999, pp. 15351-2). After taking the matter under advisement, the Acting Speaker stated that Standing Order 81(4) permits the measure but does not require it, that there is no Standing Order that allows anyone other than the Leader of the Opposition to propose an extension and that, on the issue of extension, the Standing Orders leave the Speaker no discretionary power (Debates, May 28, 1999, pp. 15429-30).

[13]

In its report, the Committee pointed out that, for historical reasons, the House was unable to refer the estimates to standing committees without first voting on a motion to do so, and expressed the concern that, if such a vote were not to pass, it was “unclear from a procedural point of view what would happen with the estimates.” See pages 13-5 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[14]

Such studies have previously been permitted under Standing Order 108(2), which sets out the general mandate for standing committees, but the inclusion of an explicit Standing Order for this purpose indicates the House’s willingness to empower its committees accordingly.

[15]

Many House standing committees have studied the future expenditure plans and priorities of the departments and agencies whose estimates they were considering, but none have reported back to the House (see for example, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and Agri-Food, April 13, 1994, Issue No. 14, p. 14:4; April 19, 1994, Issue No. 15, p. 15:3-4; April 26, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 16:3; April 28, 1994, Issue No. 17, p. 17:3-4; May 3, 1994, Issue No. 18, p. 18:3; May 5, 1994, Issue No. 19, p. 19:3; May 31, 1994, Issue No. 20, p. 20:3-4).

[16]

In reply to a point of order raised regarding the admissibility of this proposed amendment to the Standing Order in April 1991, the Speaker stated that it was very difficult to see these changes as any more than an adjustment to the supply process, and went so far as to say that the proposed changes, by establishing a set formula to determine how adjustments are to be made, would add an element of certainty to what had until then been an ad hoc process (Debates, April 9, 1991, pp. 19233-5).

[17]

See for example, Journals, February 2, 2004, p. 2.

[18]

See for example, Journals, January 30, 2001, p. 13.

[19]

It is clear from previous rulings, such as that given on November 14, 1975 (Journals, pp. 861-2), that the Chair was not disposed to interfere with the use of the allotted day “except on the clearest and most certain procedural grounds.” On December 10, 1974, it is also interesting to note that an allotted day was used to discuss a motion moved by the President of the Privy Council, specifically the referral of a Green Paper on Conflict of Interest to a standing committee for study (Journals, p. 183).

[20]

See Speakers’ rulings in Journals, December 6, 1973, pp. 725-6; Debates, December 10, 1979, p. 2189.

[21]

 See Standing Order 81(8) and (9).

[22]

See Speakers’ rulings in Journals, March 24, 1976, pp. 1144-5; June 22, 1972, pp. 401-2.

[23]

See Speakers’ statements in Debates, March 3, 1969, p. 6121; December 10, 1973, p. 8569; February 18, 1982, p. 15143; December 7, 1989, p. 6584; November 5, 2002, pp. 1263-4.

[24]

For an example of an opposition motion debated over two sitting days, see Journals, April 21, 1989, pp. 124, 128; April 24, 1989, pp. 132-5.

[25]

See for example, Debates, June 7, 2005, pp. 6696, 6711.

[26]

The practice has been to decide the question of restoring or reinstating items in the estimates (which items must be concurred in before a bill can be introduced based on them), followed by decisions on specific concurrence motions (in response to a notice of objection), followed by a decision on the global concurrence motion.

[27]

 While Standing Order 81(18) enumerates which items must be called, the rule does not establish the sequence; this has been established by practice.

[28]

The term “at any time” has been interpreted quite literally. Notices of Ways and Means motions have been tabled at the start of a sitting (Debates, April 15, 2005, p. 5139), on a point of order (Debates, September 9, 1985, p. 6420), during Routine Proceedings (Debates, April 29, 1994, pp. 3710-1), during Government Orders (Debates, December 6, 2004, pp. 2328-9), during an emergency debate (Debates, October 14, 1971, p. 8689) and during an Address Debate (Journals, April 21, 1980, pp. 61-2).

[29]

The Speaker ruled that a private Member’s bill proposed an amendment to the Income Tax Act that would have the effect of eliminating from the act an existing deduction from taxation for fines or penalties imposed by law. As a bill that seeks to eliminate an existing tax deduction cannot be introduced in the House unless it is preceded by a Ways and Means motion, the Speaker ruled that the bill’s first reading was null and void, and ruled that the order for second reading of the bill be discharged and the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper (Debates, October 24, 2002, p. 889; March 11, 2004, p. 1366).

[30]

This restriction may be waived with the unanimous consent of the House (see for example, Journals, October 15, 2001, p. 705; June 2, 2005, pp. 825, 827).

[31]

See for example, Journals, March 23, 2004, p. 201-2 (Sessional Paper No. 8570-373-05).

[32]

See for example, Journals, October 15, 2004, pp. 95-6 (Sessional Paper No. 8570-381-01).

[33]

See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, January 29, 1990, pp. 7546-9.

[34]

The announcement does not necessarily have to be made by the Minister of Finance. See for example, Debates, February 24, 1992, p. 7522; April 23, 1993, p. 18385; February 10, 2003, p. 3361.

[35]

In 1991, the Standing Orders were amended to provide that, if required, the House could sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for a Budget presentation (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2918-9); it was then no longer necessary for the House to adopt a special order to suspend the normal course of House business and allow the Minister of Finance to present the Budget (see for example, Journals, April 19, 1989, p. 116).

[36]

In 1989, the House adopted a special order for the Budget to be presented at 5:00 p.m. on April 27. Due to a major Budget leak in the late afternoon of April 26, highlights of the Budget speech were presented during a televised press conference that same evening, even though the House had already adjourned, despite attempts by the Government House Leader to extend the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment (Debates, April 26, 1989, p. 1001). The next day, the opposition tried without success to withdraw its consent to the special order authorizing the Budget presentation, on the grounds that the Budget had already been presented. However, the Speaker ruled that he was bound by the House Order, as adopted (Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1060).

[37]

See for example, Journals, February 23, 2005, pp. 473-5.

[38]

Convention dictates that taxation proposals are effective as soon as the Minister tables a notice of a Ways and Means motion, even though the government’s taxation plans have not yet been officially adopted by way of legislation.

[39]

Since the early 1990s, bills based on a Ways and Means motion are normally introduced and read a first time during the first sitting of the House following the adoption of the motion. Notwithstanding this recent practice, a Minister will sometimes proceed with the introduction and first reading of the bill immediately after the Ways and Means motion has been adopted (see for example, Journals, March 25, 2003, pp. 548-9, 551-3).

[40]

See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16254-5. Even though two different procedures are used, such bills are acceptable as long as the required notice has been given.

[41]

Prior to 1994, the Finance Committee already had the authority to undertake this type of consultative study. However, the inclusion of an explicit Standing Order for this purpose indicates the House’s willingness to receive and consider a report on the matter. See Standing Order 108(2), which authorizes the Finance Committee to look into the mandate and operations of the Department of Finance.

[42]

See for example, Journals, November 24, 1994, pp. 927-8; November 1, 1999, p. 145; October 10, 2002, pp. 57-8.

[43]

For examples of reports tabled in the House, see Journals, December 8, 1994, p. 1004; December 4, 1998, p. 1397; November 29, 2002, p. 243.

[44]

In certain cases, the House has authorized the Committee to table its report after the deadline (see for example, Journals, November 30, 1994, pp. 957-8; December 8, 1994, p. 1004; November 23, 1998, p. 1288; November 25, 1998, p. 1313; December 4, 1998, p. 1397; December 1, 2004, p. 280; December 10, 2004, p. 337; January 31, 2005, p. 367).

[45]

On three occasions since 1994, the House debated a motion to concur in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance dealing with the pre-budget consultations (Journals, December 15, 1999, pp. 819-20; December 13, 2001, p. 953; April 22, 2005, pp. 673-4; May 30, 2005, pp. 803-4). On November 1 and 7, 2001, the House debated the government motion “That this House take note of ongoing pre-budget consultations” (Journals, November 1, 2001, pp. 780-2; November 7, 2001, p. 811). On November 26, 2001, the Standing Committee on Finance presented its Tenth Report (Pre-Budget Consultations) (Journals, p. 853). On December 10, the budget speech was delivered; it was debated on December 11 and 12 (Journals, December 10, 2001, p. 939; December 11, 2001, p. 943; December 12, 2001, p. 950). On December 13, concurrence was moved in the Tenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance and debated that day (Journals, p. 953). In accordance with the procedural rules in effect at the time, the motion was transferred to Government Orders. The Budget was debated again on January 28 and on January 29, 2002, when it was adopted (Journals, January 28, 2002, p. 964; January 29, 2002, p. 976). At the time, no objections were raised as to the acceptability of moving a motion to concur in the committee’s report made under Standing Order 83.1.

[46]

See for example, Journals, November 28, 1994, p. 943; November 30, 1994, p. 957; December 10, 2002, pp. 289-90, 295; December 12, 2002, pp. 305-7.

[47]

See Note 45. See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, May 5, 2005, pp. 5725-7).

[48]

In 1987, the then Minister of Finance announced that, every year from that year forward, the Budget would be brought down in mid-February, just before the beginning of the new fiscal year (Debates, January 30, 1987, p. 2924). Exceptions were made to this commitment on April 27, 1989 (Journals, p. 150) and on April 26, 1993 (Journals, p. 2859). See also Journals, March 6, 1996, p. 54; December 10, 2001, pp. 939-40; March 23, 2004, pp. 201-3.

[49]

For instances when the debate has not lasted the maximum number of days, see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 756.

[50]

Journals, December 20, 1867, pp. 115-25.

[51]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 462-3.

[52]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 474.

[53]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 477.

[54]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 491.

[55]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 496-7.

[56]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 503.

[57]

See for example, the discussion in Debates, July 10, 1905, cols. 9085-105, on the motion for the House to resolve into Committee of Supply.

[58]

Journals, April 9, 1913, pp. 451-2. The first section dealt with debatable motions, the second introduced the closure rule, while the third dealt with the right to move amendments to the motion for resolving into the Committee of Supply.

[59]

Debates, April 9, 1913, col. 7409.

[60]

Debate on the motion to amend then Rule 17 and on the motion “that the question be now put” began on April 9, 1913 and was debated on April 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22 and 23, 1913. The effect of the adoption of the change was that from 1913 to 1955 only 132 amendments to the motion were moved, while in the period 1867 to 1913, 271 amendments had been moved.

[61]

Debates, April 18, 1921, pp. 2193-211; Journals, June 6, 1922, pp. 301-5; Debates, March 6, 1923, pp. 856-7; March 19, 1923, pp. 1299-307.

[62]

Debates, February 23, 1925, pp. 412-29.

[63]

Debates, February 25, 1925, pp. 521-39.

[64]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 342-3.

[65]

Journals, February 15, 1933, p. 227; Debates, June 23, 1936, pp. 4123-6; July 24, 1943, pp. 5382-6; Journals, March 3, 1944, pp. 146-52; April 10, 1946, pp. 125-6; December 5, 1947, pp. 13-7.

[66]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881-945.

[67]

Journals, February 8, 1955, pp. 127-8.

[68]

Journals, May 30, 1958, p. 71.

[69]

Journals, April 26, 1967, pp. 1769-74. These temporary changes resulted from a consensus gained through House decisions and recommendations of procedure committees tabled throughout the period 1964-67. See for example, the Fifteenth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on December 14, 1964 (Journals, pp. 985-96); the Nineteenth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 26, 1965 (Journals, pp. 1176-7); and the motion adopted concerning Supply proceedings on June 8, 1965 (Journals, pp. 210-1).

[70]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 495.

[71]

This occurred in 1867, 1868, 1875, 1876, 1878, 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1911.

[72]

This occurred in 1870, 1874 and 1879.

[73]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 316-68. This rule was adopted as 1927 Standing Order 49. This had followed agitation throughout the 1920s to bring about such an amendment to the rules. See for example, Journals, June 6, 1922, pp. 301-5; Debates, April 28, 1924, p. 1534; Journals, March 26, 1925, pp. 171-2.

[74]

See for example, the resolution debated and adopted April 19, 1886 (Journals, pp. 167-8).

[75]

This rule was adopted as Standing Order 37 in 1927 (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328-9).

[76]

Debates, March 18, 1927, pp. 1352-7, 1364-71.

[77]

This was adopted as Standing Order 58 in 1955 (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 926-7).

[78]

Journals, August 8, 1960, p. 898; September 27, 1961, p. 957.

[79]

Journals, April 12, 1962, p. 350.

[80]

For example, motions were ruled out of order on April 4, 1870 (Journals, p. 145); on March 13, 1871 (Journals, pp. 72-3); and on March 10, 1898 (Journals, p. 74).

[81]

For example, bills were not proceeded with on February 27, 1889 (Journals, p. 110) and on June 12, 1895 (Journals, p. 147).

[82]

Journals, March 13, 1871, p. 72; September 30, 1903, pp. 606-8.

[83]

For examples of this dispute, see Debates, October 15, 1919, pp. 1013-4; Journals, February 23, 1942, p. 89; March 26, 1953, pp. 419-21. For further discussion on this matter, see Debates, April 11, 1946, pp. 761-3; March 26, 1947, pp. 1760-3; March 27, 1947, pp. 1795-6; May 20, 1952, pp. 2371-2; Journals, December 5, 1947, pp. 11-3; June 25, 1948, p. 680; December 13, 1951, pp. 311-3; June 18, 1952, pp. 534-5; March 26, 1953, pp. 419-21; January 26, 1954, pp. 218-20.

[84]

This was adopted as Standing Order 53 in July 1955 (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1).

[85]

See for example, comments by former Prime Minister John G. Diefenbaker, Debates, March 9, 1964, p. 718.

[86]

Journals, October 9, 1964, pp. 777-8.

[87]

See for example, remarks made in Debates, October 9, 1964, by G.W. Baldwin (p. 8929), F. Howard (pp. 8930-1) and H.A. Olson (pp. 8931-2).

[88]

Journals, January 21, 1966, p. 34.

[89]

See for example, Journals, July 18, 1959, pp. 750-1; July 6, 1961, p. 812. The House of Commons’ assertion that the Senate cannot amend appropriation and taxation bills is, however, a matter of dispute between the two Houses. See the Senate’s assertion of its rights in Senate Journals, May 15, 1918, pp. 193-204.

[90]

See for example, Journals, September 15, 1917, pp. 662-3; June 11, 1941, p. 491.

[91]

Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-79.

[92]

Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 429-31.

[93]

Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 556-9.

[94]

Journals, March 24, 1975, p. 399. Dissatisfaction with the Supply procedures and especially with the work carried out by the standing committees studying estimates had surfaced frequently in the period 1969-75. See for example, the debates on opposition motions moved on April 21, 1970; March 7, 1972; May 26, 1972; May 25, 1973.

[95]

Study of specific items of the Main and Supplementary Estimates was carried out in Committee of the Whole on May 9, 12, 13, 22, 28 and June 5 and 17, 1975, and on May 20 and 21, 1976.

[96]

For example, proposals were made by J. Clark on December 9, 1976 (Debates, p. 1828), April 26, 1977 (Debates, p. 5011), and October 12, 1978 (Debates, p. 26). In a document tabled in the House on November 23, 1979, entitled “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”, the government put forward three specific proposals “to widen the range of options available to the Opposition and the House in considering the business of Supply” (Journals, p. 260).

[97]

Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.

[98]

Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 919. A further technical change concerned provision for delaying the ordinary daily hour of adjournment pursuant to Standing Order 33(2).

[99]

Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710.

[100]

The text of these amendments as agreed to by the House is found in Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1022-3 and was reflected in sections (4)(a) and (b), (8), 12(a) and 14 of Standing Order 82 of the June 1987 version of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.

[101]

Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 431-2.

[102]

Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 559-60.

[103]

See for example, remarks by the Ministers of Finance in Debates, May 25, 1976, p. 13829; December 11, 1979, p. 2266; May 23, 1985, p. 5019. Also, see the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839); and the text of the First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on December 19, 1985 (Journals, p. 1443). A Green Paper entitled “The Budget Process – A paper on budget secrecy and proposals for broader consultation” was tabled in the House by the Minister of Finance on April 20, 1982 (Journals, p. 4722). On May 23, 1985, the Minister of Finance tabled a discussion paper entitled “The Canadian Budgetary Process – Proposals for Improvement” (Journals, p. 649).

[104]

Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.

[105]

This is reflected in Standing Order 73(3), the wording of which was adopted on June 27, 1985 (Journals, p. 919).

[106]

Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 432.

[107]

See for example, Speakers’ rulings in Journals, May 21, 1970, pp. 836-7; October 26, 1970, p. 53; Debates, November 2, 1970, pp. 783-4; Journals, November 3, 1970, p. 82; December 16, 1974, pp. 212-3.

[108]

For purposes of comparison, Bill C-44 (introduced on December 16, 1974) contained a recommendation divided into four parts, with one of the parts containing 15 sub-paragraphs. Towards the end of the First Session of the Thirtieth Parliament, a new form of abbreviated recommendation began to appear on government bills (see for example, Bill C-88, introduced on March 8, 1976, Journals, p. 1093 and Bill C-92, introduced on March 29, 1976, Journals, p. 1159). With the commencement of the Second Session of the Thirtieth Parliament in October 1976, all the bills introduced bore a brief standard recommendation (Journals, October 21, 1976, pp. 46-9).

[109]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2917-8.

[110]

Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 117, 120.

[111]

This was a consequential amendment necessitated by amendments to Standing Order 45 (deferred divisions) through concurrence in the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563).

[112]

This was a consequential amendment necessitated by amendments to Standing Order 28 (regarding Royal Assent) through concurrence in the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563).

[113]

Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1027-8.

[114]

See pages 13-7 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[115]

A practice had developed whereby Members of the opposition parties moved amendments to their own supply motions in order to prevent government amendments. For an example of an amendment moved by a government member to a supply day motion which changed the direction and purpose of the original motion, see Journals, October 23, 1997, pp. 142-3; October 28, 1997, pp. 155-7. For an example of a member of an opposition party moving an amendment to the motion originally moved by a Member of his or her own party on a supply day, see Journals, February 8, 2001, p. 54. See pages 16-7 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3) which noted this practice and recommended the amendment to the Standing Orders.

[116]

See Items 43 and 44 of the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons adopted on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).

[117]

Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 453, 455.

[118]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2918-9.

[119]

Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117.

[120]

Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563.

[121]

See for example, Speaker’s statement at the beginning of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament with respect to the Royal Recommendation in Debates, November 18, 2004, pp. 1553-4, and Speaker’s rulings in Debates, November 22, 2004, p. 1621 (Bill C-243); December 8, 2004, pp. 2474-5 (Bill C-278); February 8, 2005, p. 3253 (Bill C-280); February 24, 2005, pp. 3939-42 (amendments moved by Members at the committee stage of Bill C-23); March 21, 2005, pp. 4372-3 (Bills C-331 and C-333); May 5, 2005, pp. 5743-4 (Bill C-281). Note that in December 1994, a Royal Recommendation was provided for a private Member’s public bill, Bill C-216 (Unemployment Insurance Act (Jury Service)). See Debates, December 6, 1994, p. 8734; Journals, December 6, 1994, p. 997.