House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

12. The Process of Debate

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[301]: Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 382. For one vote in 1946, 124 Members were listed as paired in the Debates (Debates, May 24, 1946, pp. 1874-5).
[302]: Standing Order 44.1(1).
[303]: Standing Order 44.1(2).
[304]: Debates, June 11, 1992, p. 11789.
[305]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49; see also Standing Order 9.
[306]: Standing Order 45(2).
[307]: Standing Order 16(1). See, for example, Debates, June 22, 1988, pp. 16731-2; April 9, 1990, p. 10390; November 27, 1991, p. 5458. See also Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[308]: See, for example, Debates, March 31, 1924, p. 889; Journals, October 27, 1949, pp. 168-9.
[309]: See, for example, Debates, February 14, 1983, pp. 22822-3; June 9, 1986, p. 14140. Members’ votes have been disallowed when it was pointed out that a Member had left his seat immediately after voting (Debates, June 25, 1986, p. 14830) or a Member had entered the House while the division was in progress (Debates, May 29, 1990, p. 12011).
[310]: See Speakers’ rulings, Journals, April 18, 1956, p. 416; Debates, October 28, 1997, p. 1258.
[311]: Debates, January 27, 1881, p. 724; May 3, 1951, pp. 2663-4; October 6, 1971, p. 8495; June 20, 1984, pp. 4939-40. In 1959, a Member was formally granted permission to leave before the vote result was announced (Debates, April 21, 1959, p. 2919). See also Debates, March 13, 1990, pp. 9265-6, and June 9, 1998, p. 7890, when Members’ votes were not counted because they had entered or left the Chamber while voting was in progress.
[312]: See, for example, Debates, April 28, 1988, pp. 14942-3; April 2, 1990, p. 10116.
[313]: See, for example, Debates, June 20, 1984, p. 4940 (a series of votes was being taken and a Member rose on a point of order to say that other Members had left their seats before the results of the previous vote were announced); April 9, 1990, p. 10390 (a Member complained that other Members were moving about the Chamber during the votes). More recently, the Speaker interrupted the calling of a vote to request that the leader of an opposition party remove a prop on the grounds that it was creating disorder in the Chamber(Debates, June 22, 1995, pp. 14465-6).
[314]: See, for example, the proceedings during the taking of the vote on third reading of Bill C-43, An act respecting abortion (Debates, May 29, 1990, pp. 12009-11).
[315]: Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 53.
[316]: See, for example,Debates, February 19, 1929, p. 266; December 7, 1945, pp. 3133-4; April 4, 1946, p. 572; April 12, 1962, p. 2909; November 26, 1996, p. 6770.
[317]: See, for example, Debates, August 9, 1977, p. 8173 (a Member was misidentified in the course of the vote and the matter was raised and addressed after the taking of the vote and before the announcement of the result); June 14, 1995, p. 13853 (a question as to whether a Member’s vote had been recorded was raised and addressed after the taking of the vote and before the announcement of the result); November 20, 1996, p. 6502 (a question as to a Member’s eligibility to vote was raised and addressed after Members were called in and prior to the taking of the vote). On two recent occasions, the taking of the vote was interrupted when points of order as to voting intentions were raised and resolved (Debates, February 10, 1997, p. 7918, Members voted “yea” when their intention was to vote “nay”; March 9, 1998, p. 4586, Members voted “nay” when their intention was to vote “yea”).
[318]: See, for example, Debates, October 29, 1991, p. 4176; February 23, 1994, p. 1729.
[319]: See, for example, Debates, March 26, 1930, p. 962; May 23, 1946, pp. 1793-4; February 1, 1994, p. 751. On June 1, 1954, the Speaker even took the initiative in the matter and had a Member’s vote corrected before the Clerk announced the results of the vote (Debates, June 1, 1954, p. 5348).
[320]: See, for example, Debates, October 15, 1919, p. 1014; July 1, 1926, pp. 5311-2; June 9, 1998, p. 7907. In the 1926 example, a Member inadvertently voted when paired, and the Speaker ruled that the vote must stand. The newly formed government of Prime Minister Meighen was thus defeated on an important vote and the Fifteenth Parliament was dissolved on July 2, 1926.
[321]: See, for example, Debates, March 19, 1992, pp. 8532, 8534. In 1993, a Member rose on a point of order immediately following the announcement of the results of a vote to clarify that the votes of some Members of the House had been misinterpreted. The following day the same Member raised a question of privilege to object to the tallying of the vote and its recording in the Debates. The Speaker subsequently ruled that a corrigendum would be issued to correct the vote (see Debates, April 20, 1993, pp. 18183-4; April 21, 1993, pp. 18226-7; April 22, 1993, pp. 18323-4).
[322]: Standing Order 18; Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 328-9.
[323]: Bourinot also notes that a motion that has been negatived cannot be proposed later as an amendment to a question, nor may an amendment that has been negatived be proposed on a future sitting day (Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 330).
[324]: See, for example, Journals, June 1, 1955, pp. 654-7; Debates, May 19, 1960, p. 4025; October 20, 1970, p. 402; May 11, 1983, pp. 25363-6; November 3, 1983, p. 28661; September 24, 1996, p. 4656; May 7, 1998, p. 6690. While this rule refers to decisions of the House rather than votes of individual Members, the Chair has also cautioned Members against commenting on how other Members voted (see, for example, Debates, May 22, 1991, p. 385; May 4, 1993, p. 18921; April 6, 1995, p. 11612).
[325]: See, for example, Debates, June 1, 1982, p. 17973; March 1, 1996, pp. 187-8.
[326]: Standing Order 18.
[327]: In December 1988, however, the House passed a special order which included a provision allowing a Minister to move without notice a motion to “rescind the order” (see Journals, December 16, 1988, pp. 48-9; December 23, 1988, p. 80).
[328]: See, for example, Journals, May 27, 1898, p. 269; August 1, 1942, p. 708; November 22, 1944, p. 923; November 24, 1944, p. 927.
[329]: See, for example, Journals; May 7, 1987, p. 890; June 6, 1988, p. 2796; March 11, 1999, p. 1594.
[330]: See, for example, Debates, February 10, 1959, p. 895; March 31, 1960, pp. 2641-2; May 26, 1965, pp. 1623-4.
[331]: See pages 119 and 120 of the Second Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, presented on March 26, 1985 (Journals, p. 420).
[332]: See pages 1 and 2 of the Response to the Second Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on October 9, 1985 (Journals, p. 1082).
[333]: See the Sixty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on March 24, 1995 (Journals, p. 1274). The report was not taken up by the House.
[334]: See Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 6, 1997.
[335]: Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 203.
[336]: See, for example, Debates, December 11, 1997, p. 3139.
[337]: The Journals note only that unanimous consent existed for a given proceeding; it may be necessary to refer to Debates in order to learn what rule or practice was circumvented by the use of unanimous consent.
[338]: At one time, there was a rule whereby, with the unanimous consent of the House, motions could be proposed without notice (see 1978 Standing Order 43); it was removed in 1982 (Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400). For information on the former Standing Order 43 as an antecedent of the current Members’ statements pursuant to Standing Order 31, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[339]: Standing Order 54.
[340]: See, for example, Journals, June 14, 1977, p. 1128.
[341]: See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1999, p. 11843 (unanimous consent to change committee membership); December 19, 1990, pp. 6952-3 (no unanimous consent for committee travel); May 19, 1995, pp. 12850, 12862 (unanimous consent for committee travel, given on second request).
[342]: See, for example, Debates, June 21, 1985, p. 6093; November 5, 1997, pp. 1583-4.
[343]: Journals, November 30, 1998, p. 10620.
[344]: See, for example, Debates, October 25, 1990, pp. 14704-5.
[345]: An existing practice was codified in the Standing Orders in 1991, so that a 20-minute speaking time can be divided into two if the party Whip so indicates to the Chair (Standing Order 43(2)). Unanimous consent has been sought for other such divisions of speaking time (see, for example, Debates, November 2, 1989, p. 5461; February 12, 1992, pp. 6864-5).
[346]: See, for example, Debates, May 18, 1983, p. 25550.
[347]: See, for example, Debates, March 17, 1998, p. 5009.
[348]: See, for example, Debates, August 14, 1987, pp. 8081-2 (for consideration of a bill at second reading, including the vote and suspension of Private Members’ Business for that sitting); Journals, June 5, 1998, p. 942 (to adjourn the debate, to see the clock as at the time scheduled for Private Members’ Business, and to proceed to Private Members’ Business).
[349]: See, for example, Debates, May 9, 1994, pp. 4086-7.
[350]: See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1986, p. 1202 (not to sit on what would ordinarily be a sitting day); October 28, 1994, p. 7386 (to proceed with Private Members’ Business in advance of the usual time).