Chapter XI — Private Members’ Business

Notes on Standing Order 86 to 99:

[1]

See ruling by Speaker Fraser, Debates, November 2, 1989, pp. 5474-5. In current practice, only an item which is virtually identical to another item will be refused.

[2]

For example, when the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament was prorogued, a recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-452 had been requested and deferred (see Order Paper, November 12, 2003, p. 39). At the opening of the Third Session, the Bill remained in the order of precedence, but debate at second reading had to begin again since that stage had not been completed (see Order Paper, February 3, 2004, p. 15).

[3]

Debates, February 2, 2004, p. 10.

[4]

See for example, Debates, February 13, 2004, p. 559.

[5]

See for example, Journals, March 26, 2003, p. 613; September 16, 2003, p. 971.

[6]

See the Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented and adopted on May 11, 2005 (Journals, pp. 738-9). A similar two-week notice requirement for private Members’ motions was removed from Standing Order 86 at the same time.

[7]

See the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on March 26, 2003 (Journals, pp. 569-70).

[8]

Between March 2003 and June 2005, only three items were designated non-votable by the Subcommittee on Private Members’ Business. In each case, the sponsor of the item appeared before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to argue that the item should be votable, but the Committee upheld the recommendation of the Subcommittee. See the Forty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on October 10, 2003 (Journals, p. 1125) and deemed concurred in on October 24, 2003 (Journals, p. 1165); the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on February 27, 2004 (Journals, p. 142) and deemed concurred in on March 12, 2004 (Journals, p. 179); and the Sixteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on November 26, 2004 (Journals, p. 264) and deemed concurred in on December 3, 2004 (Journals, p. 295). In none of the cases was an appeal made to the House.

[9]

See for example, Debates, May 1, 2003, p. 5739; October 3, 2003, p. 8176; March 10, 2005, p. 4299; April 15, 2005, p. 5173. In one case, the sponsor refused to allow an amendment. See Debates, April 20, 2004, p. 2171.

[10]

See for example, Debates, March 31, 2003, pp. 4891-2. In another case, the mover of the amendment indicated he had the support of the sponsor before moving the amendment. See Debates, March 30, 2004, pp. 1896-7.

[11]

See for example, Debates, April 19, 2004, p. 2047.

[12]

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 458.

[13]

Ministers have risen to express qualifications or reservations with the leave of the House (Journals, February 27, 1961, pp. 295-7).

[14]

See for example, Journals, June 7, 1967, p. 104; Debates, December 9, 1981, p. 13891; October 24, 2001, p. 6529.

[15]

See for example, Journals, April 28, 1965, p. 55; Debates, March 10, 1999, p. 12684; October 29, 2003, p. 8906. The request cannot be made by a Parliamentary Secretary. See Debates, November 25, 1998, p. 10436.

[16]

See for example, Debates, November 29, 2001, pp. 7693-4.

[17]

It has happened that committees have reported bills back after having deleted all of the clauses and the title of the bill. This fulfils the requirement to report the bill back. See for example, Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, March 24, 1999, Meeting No. 130; Journals, April 19, 1999, p. 1733. Members may choose to move motions in amendment at report stage to restore the clauses and title of the bill. See for example, Journals, May 28, 1999, pp. 1949-50.

[18]

See for example, the Twentieth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on May 12, 1999 (Journals, p. 1864); the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on June 9, 1999 (Journals, p. 2083); the Twelfth Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on March 1, 2002 (Journals, p. 1148); the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Finance, presented on March 11, 2002 (Journals, p. 1155); and the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on April 11, 2005 (Journals, p. 601).

[19]

See for example, the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, presented on September 21, 2000 (Journals, p. 1935) and concurred in on September 27, 2000 (Journals, p. 1996); and the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Health, presented on May 1, 2003 (Journals, p. 721) and concurred in on June 11, 2003 (Journals, p. 904). In only one case has the House refused to grant an extension. See the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Canadian Heritage, presented on June 3, 2002 (Journals, p. 1459). A motion to concur in the report was deemed negatived on June 6, 2002 (Journals, p. 1482), resulting in the bill being deemed reported back that day.

[20]

See for example, Order Paper, March 28, 2000, p. 40; June 7, 2002, p. 43; May 29, 2003, p. 34.

[21]

See for example, Debates, May 8, 1996, p. 2520; December 1, 1998, p. 10773; March 25, 2003, p. 4704.

[22]

Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7475-7.

[23]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 889, 893.

[24]

The report was presented on April 10, 1962 (Journals, pp. 338-9) and concurred in on April 12, 1962 (Journals, p. 350).

[25]

Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 436-7; December 20, 1968, pp. 563-5.

[26]

See pages 14-5 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328) and the motion adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).

[27]

See the First Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders, presented on December 15, 1983 (Journals, p. 47) and adopted on December 19, 1983 (Journals, pp. 55-6).

[28]

Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535-7.

[29]

Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 950, 953; September 27, 1961, p. 957.

[30]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 340-1.

[31]

See 1927 Rule 27, for instance.

[32]

Such a procedure was initially proposed in 1925 (Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 359).

[33]

Debates, November 28, 1979, p. 1794.

[34]

See pages 22-3 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328) and the motion adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).

[35]

See page 40 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[36]

See Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1020-2.

[37]

In June 1987, Private Members’ Hour was moved on Friday from 4:00 p.m. to 2:00 p.m. In December 1989, Private Members’ Hour was moved from 5:00 p.m. to 1:00 p.m. on Mondays.

[38]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2907-8. In addition, Private Members’ Hour was moved from 1:00 p.m. to 11:00 a.m. on Mondays and from 2:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. on Fridays.

[39]

Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117. Private Members’ Hour moved to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesdays, Wednesdays and Thursdays and to 1:30 p.m. on Fridays.

[40]

Journals, June 19, 1986, p. 2365.

[41]

Debates, December 9, 1986, pp. 1906-8.

[42]

Journals, December 18, 1986, p. 351. See also Journals, February 12, 1987, pp. 476-7; February 20, 1987, pp. 515-6; April 7, 1987, pp. 706-7.

[43]

Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1021.

[44]

Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2921. The Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections had recommended many of these changes in its Twenty-First Report (Journals¸ December 6, 1990, pp. 2385-8), though the Report was not adopted by the House.

[45]

See for example, Debates, April 25, 1986, pp. 12671-2; May 22, 1986, pp. 13531-2; Journals, February 12, 1987, pp. 476-7; April 7, 1987, pp. 706-7.

[46]

See the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business, presented on December 6, 1989 (Journals, pp. 930-1).

[47]

Journals, May 10, 1990, pp. 1685-7; April 11, 1991, pp. 2921-2. The changes provisionally adopted in May 1990 lapsed on the last sitting day in December 1990, despite recommendations that they be made permanent. See the Twenty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, presented on December 6, 1990 (Journals, pp. 2385-6).

[48]

See Standing Order 40(4) in the February 24, 1986 version of the Standing Orders.

[49]

Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1. The House adopted a motion stating that Private Members’ Business be the first order of business on Mondays and instructed the Speaker and the Clerk to draft the appropriate Standing Order changes.

[50]

See the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on June 7, 1995 (Journals, p. 1572) and concurred in on June 8, 1995 (Journals, p. 1594).

[51]

Though not “selected” items, Notices of Motions (Papers) were required to come to a vote and were specifically protected from being dropped from the Order Paper.

[52]

These items take their place automatically at the bottom of the order of precedence without having to be drawn.

[53]

Journals, December 6, 1989, pp. 927-34.

[54]

Journals, May 10, 1990, pp. 1685-7. Some Members objected to the new rules, arguing that they favoured larger parties at the expense of smaller ones. See Debates, May 3, 1990, p. 10996.

[55]

See the Twenty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, presented on December 6, 1990 (Journals, pp. 2385-6).

[56]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2919-22.

[57]

See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented on March 11, 1992 (Journals, p. 1123) and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1338).

[58]

See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270) and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). On November 30, 1998 (Journals, p. 1328), the House adopted a new Standing Order 87(6) to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations. The 100 signatures had to include at least ten Members each from a majority of the recognized parties in the House. Only one such item could be in the order of precedence at any given time.

[59]

A Member objected to the use of his name in support of a bill, claiming that the bill placed in the order of precedence was different from the one he had supported. See Debates, February 7, 2000, pp. 3155-6, 3185-90. The Speaker in his ruling asked that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs look into the matter. See Debates, February 8, 2000, pp. 3211-2. The Committee’s Thirty-Sixth Report, presented on June 12, 2000 (Journals, p. 1844), recommended that the 100-signature rule be deleted. No decision was taken on the report.

[60]

See the Twenty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on May 31, 2001 (Journals, p. 458) and concurred in on June 13, 2001 (Journals, p. 576).

[61]

In 1992, a private Member’s bill was allowed to die on the Order Paper when the legislative committee to which it was referred adopted a motion to adjourn sine die its consideration of the bill (Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of Legislative Committee H on Bill C-203, February 18, 1992, Issue No. 10, p. 10:3; Debates, February 26, 1992, pp. 7620-4). On another occasion, Speaker Parent ruled that the decision of a committee not to report a bill back to the House did not constitute a matter of privilege (Debates, September 23, 1996, pp. 4560-2) and later ruled in order a motion moved by a private Member under Routine Proceedings to have the same bill reported back to the House within a specified time (Debates, November 21, 1996, pp. 6519-20).

[62]

Journals, April 9, 1997, pp. 1366-8.

[63]

See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270) and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). On November 30, 1998 (Journals, pp. 1328-9), the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations.

[64]

See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270) and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). On November 30, 1998 (Journals, pp. 1327-8), the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations.

[65]

Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1649-50; February 13, 1986, p. 1710.

[66]

Journals, April 5, 1989, pp. 40-2.

[67]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2920-1. For the creation of the Subcommittee, see Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on House Management, May 21, 1991, Issue No. 1, pp. 1:4-5.

[68]

Journals, January 25, 1994, p. 61.

[69]

See Journals, May 23, 1986, pp. 2200-1, for a list of these criteria.

[70]

Journals, October 21, 1987, pp. 1717-8.

[71]

See the Seventieth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on April 20, 1999 (Journals, pp, 1737-8). A motion to concur in the report was moved on April 29, 1999 (Journals, p. 1785) but no decision was taken on it.

[72]

Journals, May 10, 1990, pp. 1685-6.

[73]

See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented on March 11, 1992 (Journals, p. 1123) and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1338).

[74]

See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270) and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). On November 30, 1998 (Journals, p. 1328), the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders to give effect to the Committee’s recommendations.

[75]

See for example, Debates, November 19, 1986, pp. 1325-34, and Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 4, 1986, pp. 1759-60. See also Debates, March 10, 1994, pp. 2129-31; November 4, 1998, pp. 9836-7; March 18, 2002, pp. 9762-4; March 22, 2002, p. 10037.

[76]

Journals, June 12, 2001, pp. 536-7.

[77]

See the Sixty-Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on June 12, 2002 (Journals, p. 1571).

[78]

See the Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on October 30, 2002 (Journals, p. 138) and concurred in on November 6, 2002 (Journals, p. 170).

[79]

See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented and concurred in on February 20, 2003 (Journals, p. 439), as well as the Committee’s Third Report, presented on February 28, 2003 (Journals, p. 492) and concurred in on March 17, 2003 (Journals, p. 495).

[80]

See the Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented and concurred in on May 11, 2005 (Journals, pp. 738-9).

[81]

See the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on March 26, 2003 (Journals, pp. 569-70).

[82]

A controversy arose in April 2002, when a Member grabbed the Mace in protest after an amendment was adopted to the motion for second reading of his private Members’ bill, resulting in the withdrawal of the bill and the referral of its subject-matter to a special committee. See Debates, April 17, 2002, pp. 10524-7. The Member was called to the Bar of the House to apologize (Debates, April 24, 2002, p. 10770). See also Debates, May 9, 2002, pp. 11456-8.

[83]

A complaint was raised in June 2000 due to a Member frequently being absent when his item of Private Members’ Business was scheduled for debate. See Debates, June 5, 2000, pp. 7425-6; June 7, 2000, pp. 7632-3; June 15, 2000, pp. 8073-4.