House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page
[51] 
See, for example, Debates, February 27, 1985, p. 2542; February 25, 1993, p. 16461.
[52] 
Standing Order 47. See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1991, pp. 5509-10; February 25, 1998, pp. 4406-7.
[53] 
See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1992, pp. 12437, 12448; March 19, 1998, p. 5126.
[54] 
Standing Order 31. On at least one occasion, the Speaker has allowed a Member who was initially asked to resume his seat to revise his statement and present an acceptable version at the conclusion of the period for “Statements by Members” (Debates, December 8, 1992, pp. 14849-51).
[55] 
Debates, November 29, 1996, p. 6899.
[56] 
Standing Order 30(5). On occasion, if “Statements by Members” has been delayed or extended, or if the Speaker has delivered a ruling that could impact on Question Period, the start of Question Period has been delayed. Under these circumstances, the Speaker has typically extended the time allotted for “Oral Questions”. See, for example, Debates, May 2, 1994, pp. 3762-3; September 19, 1994, p. 5811.
[57] 
Standing Order 30(3). Routine Proceedings may be delayed if the Speaker delivers a ruling or is asked to consider a question of privilege or point of order.
[58] 
On occasion, a Minister or Member is not present during Routine Proceedings to participate under a specific rubric, or a document is not available for presentation at the time. Later in the sitting, the Minister or Member may seek unanimous consent to revert to a specific rubric under Routine Proceedings to table a document or present a committee report, make a statement, present a petition or move a motion. See, for example, Debates, February 9, 1995, p. 9390; September 19, 1995, pp. 14622-3.
[59] 
Standing Order 30(4)(a). On September 25, 1989, a question of privilege was raised at the commencement of the sitting. The House was unable to proceed to Routine Proceedings until after Question Period later that afternoon. The House completed Routine Proceedings up to and including “Introduction of Government Bills” before proceeding to Government Orders. See Debates, September 25, 1989, p. 3842; Journals, pp. 492-505.
[60] 
Standing Order 30(4)(b).
[61] 
Standing Order 24(2).
[62] 
Standing Order 30(5).
[63] 
Standing Order 30(6). See, for example, Journals, April 23, 1997, p. 1519.
[64] 
Rules, Orders and Forms of Procedure of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule No. 19.
[65] 
Rules, Orders and Forms of Procedure of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, Rule No. 25.
[66] 
Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, Rule No. 25. Although the rubric for presenting petitions was removed, any Member wishing to present a petition in the House (as opposed to filing it with the Clerk) could do so anytime during Routine Proceedings before the introduction of bills (Rule No. 75). See also Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8365-7.
[67] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 886-7. “Government Notices of Motions” had previously been an item set down in the order of business to be called after the daily routine of business.
[68] 
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399. The headings under Routine Proceedings were reordered as follows: “Presenting Reports from Standing or Special Committees”, “Tabling of Documents”, “Statements by Ministers”, “Introduction of Bills”, “First Reading of Senate Public Bills”, “Government Notices of Motions” and “Motions”.
[69] 
Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1663, 1665; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[70] 
Standing Order 59 states that such a motion has preference over any other motion before the House. For examples of this motion being moved under different rubrics, see Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1437 (moved under “Presenting Petitions”); March 20, 1997, pp. 9241-2 (moved under “Tabling of Documents”); March 19, 1997, pp. 9230-1; April 1, 1998, pp. 5649-50; June 2, 1998, pp. 7452-6 (moved during debate on a motion to concur in a committee report under “Motions”). On January 30, 1990, a motion to proceed to Orders of the Day was moved under “Tabling of Documents”. A question of privilege was raised concerning the use of this motion to prevent Members from presenting petitions; the Chair ruled that this was not a matter of privilege (Debates, pp. 7588-9).
[71] 
See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1986, pp. 1192-3; November 25, 1986, pp. 1485-8; April 8, 1987, p. 4983; April 9, 1987, pp. 4996-7. In all four examples, the motion was moved under “Presenting Petitions”, which at that time preceded “Introduction of Bills”.
[72]
For example, at that time motions for introduction and first reading of a public bill, even though not debatable, were votable, and recorded divisions were frequently demanded.
[73]
The moving of such motions during Routine Proceedings is a procedural tactic used by both the government and the opposition parties either to delay the progress of an item of business (for example, the introduction of bills, or the concurrence in a committee report) or to accelerate consideration of some matter by abruptly ending Routine Proceedings so that the House can proceed immediately to Orders of the Day. Indeed, the government often uses such motions to proceed as quickly as possible to Government Orders while the opposition employs them to delay the introduction of certain government bills, or the moving of government motions under the rubric “Motions”, or even to prevent altogether the calling of “Orders of the Day”.
[74] 
On November 6, 1986, at the conclusion of “Presenting Petitions”, an Opposition Member moved that the House proceed to Orders of the Day. After the motion was negatived on a recorded division, a Minister moved the introduction of the bill; the motion was adopted on a recorded division. The following day, during “Presenting Petitions”, an Opposition Member again moved the motion that the House proceed to the Orders of the Day, and the motion was again negatived on a recorded division. An Opposition Member then moved the motion “That a Member be now heard”, which was agreed to without a recorded vote. The government subsequently moved that “The House do now proceed to the next item of Routine Proceedings” (“Introduction of Bills”); the motion was adopted on a recorded division. After motions for the introduction of two private Members’ bills were negatived on recorded divisions, Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Patent Act, was finally read a first time and printed following a recorded division. See Journals, November 6, 1986, pp. 180-2; November 7, 1986, pp. 188-91. Also see Debates, November 7, 1986, pp. 1187-1202. Eight more recorded divisions, the majority of them resulting from the moving of these two motions, took place during Routine Proceedings before the bill was read a second time on December 8, 1987. See Journals, November 21, 1986, p. 224; November 24, 1986, pp. 229-30; November 25, 1986, pp. 234-5; December 3, 1986, p. 269-70; December 5, 1986, p. 280; December 8, 1986, pp. 286-8.
[75] 
Journals, March 16, 1987, pp. 586-91.
[76] 
Journals, April 7, 1987, p. 719.
[77] 
See Debates, April 8, 1987, pp. 4983-8; April 9, 1987, pp. 4990-7.
[78] 
Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1435. The Speaker ruled that it is not in order to propose a motion that would exclude certain rubrics from consideration on a given sitting day (for example, to go from “Tabling of Documents” to “Motions”).
[79] 
Debates, April 13, 1987, pp. 5071-82.
[80] 
See Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5119-22.
[81] 
Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5120.
[82] 
Debates, April 14, 1987, p. 5121.
[83] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8.
[84] 
Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399.
[85]
Documents for which an order or address of the House for tabling has been made, or which are required by statute to be tabled.
[86] 
See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1892, col. 2268; Journals, June 5, 1899, pp. 227-8.
[87] 
Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 536-7.
[88] 
See, for example, Debates, March 2, 1920, pp. 85-7; December 4, 1968, p. 3472.
[89] 
Standing Order 32(2). See also Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 569-70.
[90] 
Standing Order 109. See Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[91] 
Standing Order 36(8). See Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1665; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10.
[92] 
Standing Order 110. See Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1664; February 13, 1986, pp. 1709-10.
[93] 
In April 1993, the Speaker ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege occurred when the government failed to table a document required by statute in a timely manner. The matter was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on House Management. See Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16393-4; March 29, 1993, p. 17722; April 19, 1993, pp. 18104-6. In its report to the House, the Committee stated its belief that “… the statutory and procedural time limits must be complied with. If a document cannot be tabled within the prescribed time, the responsible Minister should advise the House accordingly before the deadline; it is not acceptable that the deadline is ignored.” See Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 15, 1993, Issue No. 56, pp. 13-5 (One Hundred and First Report), presented on September 8, 1993 (Journals, p. 3338). The Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-93) was dissolved before the report could be considered by the House. See also Debates, February 3, 1992, pp. 6289-93; February 5, 1992, pp. 6425-8, when a related question of privilege was raised and ruled on.
[94] 
Standing Order 153. At the beginning of each session of Parliament, the Clerk of the House has a list printed and delivered to all Members of all the reports and periodical documents which certain public officers, government departments and private corporations must have tabled in the House.
[95] 
A Minister will often table a document under this rubric and then proceed to speak on its subject matter under the next rubric, “Statements by Ministers” (see, for example, Journals, May 25, 1994, pp. 472-3).
[96] 
Standing Order 32(1). This Standing Order was implemented in 1955 as a time-saving procedure (see Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 916-7).
[97] 
Standing Order 32(3).
[98] 
Standing Order 32(5) and (6). There have been instances when motions have been adopted, notwithstanding any order or practice of the House, to refer a report to more than one committee (see, for example, Debates, June 27, 1990, pp. 13172-3; February 27, 1991, p. 17715).
[99]
For further details, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[100] 
Standing Order 32(4). In 1988, a private Member’s motion moved by Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa–Vanier), calling on the House to require that official documents tabled or distributed in the House be in both French and English, was adopted, thus leading to the addition of this Standing Order to the rules of the House (Journals, September 16, 1988, p. 3556). See also Debates, June 8, 1989, pp. 2812-3; December 17, 1990, p. 16824.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page