Parliament of Canada
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter VIII — Motions

Notes on Standing Order 54:

[1]
The 48-hour requirement in fact covers two nights and not a full 48 hours. For example, a Member might give notice at 6:00 p.m. on a Tuesday and be free as early as 10:00 a.m. on Thursday to proceed with his or her initiative – the actual notice in this case thus amounts to just 40 hours. See Journals, October 6, 1970, pp. 1417-20.
[2]
See Standing Orders 77(1), 81(14)(a) and 76.1(2), respectively.
[3]
See Standing Orders 48 and 58, respectively.
[4]
This provision is contained in Standing Order 54. “Times of meeting” reads “heures d’ouverture” in the French version. The English version has prompted several procedural arguments, which have typically been settled with reference to the French version of the Standing Order. See for example, Debates, May 21, 1920, pp. 2625-6 and Journals, December 20, 1951, pp. 345-7.
[5]
Standing Order 54 refers to the stages of bills, while Standing Orders 57, 78 and those in Chapter XV deal with closure, time allocation and private bills, respectively. Unique rules also apply to private Members’ bills after their introduction.
[6]
See for example, Debates, September 20, 2001, pp. 5350-1.
[7]
See for example, Debates, June 17, 1986, pp. 14542-3; November 27, 1990, p. 15765. Under special circumstances, Ministers may propose the suspension of notice requirements (see Standing Order 53) or propose to override the need for unanimous consent for certain routine motions (see Standing Order 56.1).
[8]
This procedure has been followed since Confederation (see Bourinot, 1st ed., pp. 308-9). On occasion, Members not satisfied with the Clerk’s changes to their notices have brought their cases to the Speaker, who holds final authority in such matters under Standing Order 10. See for example, Journals, January 14, 1953, p. 127; Debates, December 11, 2002, pp. 2564-5.
[9]
When several notices in the same category (written questions for instance) are received, they are inserted in the Notice Paper in the order of their reception.
[10]
See Stewart, p. 41 for a discussion of the evolution of the practice of printing notices with the Order Paper.
[11]
The same reasoning applies in cases where the House sits on a Saturday (see Journals, May 8, 1961, p. 516 and the Historical Summary to Standing Order 24(1)).
[12]
See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584. This is a practice followed to ensure the integrity of the Clerk’s records and is similar to the requirement for withdrawal from candidacy for the Speakership (see Standing Order 4(1)).
[13]
Journals, January 13, 1910, p. 154; Debates, February 12, 1993, p. 15851.
[14]
See for example, Journals, May 12, 1873, p. 326; March 26, 1928, pp. 200-1.
[15]
The proposal was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1654) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). Changes in the procedure to revoke a regulation led to a consequential amendment to Standing Order 54 in 2003 (Journals, November 5, 2003, p. 1237).
[16]
See Note 7.
[17]
Bourinot, 1st ed., pp. 308-9 and 2nd ed., pp. 367-8, notes that the practice existed.
[18]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 334-5.
[19]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 570.
[20]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1022.
[21]
Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1.
[22]
Journals, May 11, 1991, p. 2912.
[23]
Since 1968, the government could make representations to the Speaker to have a special Order Paper printed with notices of government bills or motions, but there was no equivalent provision for private Members. See Standing Order 55.
[24]
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).
[25]
Debates, February 15, 1993, pp. 15899-900.
[26]
See 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); and the Twenty-Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled and adopted February 9, 2005 (Journals, pp. 407-8).
[27]
An early example is Journals, March 3, 1875, p. 152. The House has, however, always been free to circumvent the rules via unanimous consent and the Chair has on occasion called the attention of the House to this right (see for example, Journals, April 10, 1871, pp. 249-50).

Notes on Standing Order 55:

[1]
Since 1991, it has been the practice to include the time the notice was received in the Special Order Paper and Notice Paper. This serves to demonstrate that the 48-hour notice requirement has been met. See for example, Special Order Paper and Notice Paper, February 25, 1991, p. III.
[2]
Journals, August 29, 1966, pp. 785-7. For the discussion, see Debates, August 29, 1966, pp. 7732-44.
[3]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 570.
[4]
Journals, September 7, 1971, p. 777.
[5]
Journals, August 31, 1972, p. 507; August 30, 1973, p. 523; August 9, 1977, p. 1542; October 10, 1978, p. 962; October 6, 1980, p. 504; August 11, 1987, p. 1308.
[6]
Journals, September 24, 1990, p. 1974; January 15, 1991, p. 2556; February 25, 1991, p. 2602; September 16, 1991, p. 268; September 8, 1992, p. 1924; September 19, 1994, p. 675; March 20, 1995, p. 1239; November 15, 1999, p. 180; September 17, 2001, p. 587. See also for example, Special Order Paper and Notice Paper, September 17, 2001.
[7]
Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 1. Notice was given of a motion to allow for the reinstatement of certain bills, as well as to adjust the Supply calendar.
[8]
Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 11; October 5, 2004, p. 11. In both cases, the notices related to amendments to the Standing Orders and adjustments to the Supply calendar.

Notes on Standing Order 56:

[1]
See Standing Order 38(1)(a) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons of Canada, 1927.
[2]
Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 900.
[3]
Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 900.
[4]
Dawson, p. 232.
[5]
In his speech on the motion to adopt the June 1987 reforms, the Deputy Prime Minister explained that the purpose of the new rule was to allow time allocation motions to be considered under Government Orders without moving them under Routine Proceedings. The lead-off opposition spokesperson took note of this and objected to it (Debates, June 2, 1987, pp. 6624, 6626).

Notes on Standing Order 56.1:

[1]
See the Commentary and Historical Summary of Standing Order 64 found in this Chapter. For additional information with respect to procedures and issues surrounding unanimous consent, see House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 497-502.
[2]
See the ruling by the Speaker on October 24, 2002, where he indicates that motions moved pursuant to Standing Order 56.1 have to be moved under the rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings, unless there is unanimous consent to do otherwise (Debates, p. 828). The Speaker’s ruling was in response to a point of order raised by John Reynolds on October 22, 2002 (Debates, pp. 757-9). Among other concerns, Mr. Reynolds had raised the issue that the motion had been moved under the rubric “Tabling of Documents”. This point was reiterated on May 13, 2005 (Debates, p. 5971).
[3]
For examples where the motion was deemed withdrawn pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3), see Journals, March 19, 1999, p. 1640; October 22, 2002, p. 21.
[4]
For examples where the motion was adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3), see Journals, April 12, 1999, p. 1687; June 13, 2003, p. 935.
[5]
See for example, unanimous consent request sought on April 21, 1997 (Debates, pp. 10012-3) and motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 on April 24, 1997 (Debates, p. 10144).
[6]
See for example, unanimous consent request sought on September 28, 1994 (Debates, p. 6263) and motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 on September 30, 1994 (Debates, p. 6390).
[7]
See for example, unanimous consent request sought on June 7, 1995 (Debates, p. 13375) and motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 on June 8, 1995 (Debates, p. 13443).
[8]
See for example, unanimous consent request sought on December 1, 1997 at the beginning of the sitting prior to Private Members’ Business hour (Debates, p. 2471) and motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 later that day during Routine Proceedings (Debates, p. 2508).
[9]
See for example, unanimous consent request sought on December 12, 1991 and refused (Debates, p. 6174), and the motion moved under Standing Order 56.1 immediately thereafter (Debates, pp. 6174-5). In that case, a point of order was raised that the procedure followed was incorrect. The Acting Speaker ruled that the procedure was “according to the Standing Orders” (Debates, p. 6175). See also three separate requests (proposing different scenarios) moved in sequence by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader for unanimous consent to move a motion with respect to consideration of a government bill (C-77), and the motion moved by a Cabinet Minister under Standing Order 56.1 immediately after the third attempt (Debates, March 23, 1995, pp. 10859-60).
[10]
In fact, from the adoption of the Standing Order in April 1991 until December 1997, the original request for unanimous consent had been sought – in all cases except one – by the individual holding the position of Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. In that one instance, the Chief Government Whip made the original request (Debates, June 15, 1995, p. 13881). Since December 1997, the request for unanimous consent has been sought in all cases by a Minister, with one exception when it was sought by the Deputy Government Whip (Debates, October 21, 2002, p. 669).
[11]
For example, unanimous consent was sought to move a motion concerning travel by the Subcommittee on International Financial Institutions on both December 9 and 10, 1992 (Debates, pp. 14913, 14995), prior to the invocation of Standing Order 56.1 with respect to this motion during Routine Proceedings on December 10, 1992 (Debates, p. 14997).
[12]
Standing Order 56.1 was invoked twice on December 12, 1991 (Journals, p. 935) and twice on December 10, 1992 (Journals, pp. 2387-8).
[13]
See Speaker’s ruling on September 18, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5256-8).
[14]
See Speaker’s ruling on October 24, 2002 (Debates, pp. 828-9).
[15]
See Speaker’s ruling on May 13, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5973-4).
[16]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2912-3. See point of order raised by Nelson Riis on the procedural acceptability of the motion to amend the Standing Orders, with particular reference to his concerns in respect of Standing Order 56.1, on March 26, 1991 (Debates, pp. 19042-6). See Speaker’s ruling on April 9, 1991 (Debates, pp. 19233-7) which found the motion and the proposed Standing Order 56.1 to be in order.
[17]
See for example, Journals, March 23, 1995, p. 1265; April 12, 1999, p. 1687.
[18]
See for example, Journals, March 16, 1995, p. 1226; June 13, 2003, p. 935.
[19]
See for example, Journals, October 7, 1994, p. 780; June 8, 1995, p. 1594.
[20]
See for example, remarks by Nelson Riis on December 12, 1991 (Debates, pp. 6174-5); by Randy White and other Members on June 9, 1998 (Debates, p. 7774); by Peter MacKay and other Members on June 12, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5027-31); and by John Reynolds and Don Boudria on October 22, 2002 (Debates, pp. 757-9).
[21]
See specific remarks on study by the Committee by Speaker Parent on June 9, 1998 (Debates, p. 7774) and by Speaker Milliken on September 18, 2001 (Debates, p. 5258). In his examination of how the rule had been used since its adoption in 1991, Speaker Milliken noted what he termed a “disturbing trend” since December 1997 when Standing Order 56.1 was used, or attempted to be used, for “the adoption of motions less readily identified as routine” and indicated this expanded use “causes the Chair serious concern” (Debates, pp. 5256-8). The Standing Committee did not take up this issue.
[22]
The three points of order were raised on June 12, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5027-31), on October 22, 2002 (Debates, pp. 757-9), and on May 13, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5972-3). The points of order were ruled on September 18, 2001 (Debates, pp. 5256-8), October 24, 2002 (Debates, pp. 828-9), and May 13, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5973-4) respectively.

Notes on Standing Order 56.2:

[1]
See Standing Order 107(1) in Chapter XIII of this text for the mandate of the Liaison Committee.
[2]
See for example, requests for unanimous consent with respect to committee travel sought on February 8, 2005 (Journals, pp. 399-401).
[3]
See for example, the First Report of the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Oceans seeking permission of the House to travel, tabled on December 15, 1999 and concurred in on February 8, 2000 (Journals, pp. 818, 853).
[4]
See for example, motions adopted pursuant to Standing Order 56.1(3) on December 11, 1991 (Journals, p. 935) and December 10, 1992 (Journals, pp. 2387-8).
[5]
Journals, October 4, 2001, pp. 691-3.
[6]
See page 12 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). For an example of the difficulties sometimes inherent in securing permission for a committee to travel, see the proceedings during debate on a motion authorizing travel by the Standing Committee on Finance in Debates, October 29, 1999, pp. 881-95. Notice of closure was given on the motion (Journals, October 29, 1999, p. 144), but never applied. The motion was adopted by unanimous consent on the next sitting day (Journals, November 1, 1999, p. 145).
[7]
See pages 12-3 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons (Journals, June 1, 2001, p. 465).
[8]
That is not to imply, however, that standing, special and joint committees did not travel following the adoption of this Standing Order. In fact, there were at least 50 travel motions passed by unanimous consent during the remainder of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament. In the Thirty-Eighth Parliament, as of June 2005, more than 25 such motions had been adopted, including 16 separate motions in one day (Journals, February 8, 2005, p. 399-401).

Notes on Standing Order 57:

[1]
See point of order raised by Jean-Robert Gauthier on December 14, 1988 (Debates, pp. 71-4) and the Speaker’s decision on December 15, 1988 (Debates, pp. 76-8) where he ruled a notice of intention to impose closure out of order since debate on the item (a government motion) had not yet begun. See also the ruling by the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees of the Whole (appealed and sustained by the Speaker) on December 21, 1988, with respect to the acceptability of a notice of closure given during debate in Committee of the Whole on a bill (Debates, pp. 532-41).
[2]
Debates, April 12, 1921, p. 2026; December 20, 1988, p. 500.
[3]
Debates, March 1, 1926, p. 1431.
[4]
Debates, July 16, 1981, p. 11629; March 22, 1999, p. 13257; June 10, 1999, pp. 16225-6; October 29, 1999, pp. 892-3; December 6, 2002, p. 2384.
[5]
Debates, April 6, 1981, p. 9014; February 16, 1990, pp. 8470-1; October 9, 1990, p. 13900; May 28, 1991, p. 699; June 19, 1995, p. 14150; December 5, 1995, p. 17250; February 26, 2001, p. 1190; December 5, 2002, p. 2350.
[6]
Debates, October 22, 1980, p. 3934; June 16, 1989, p. 3146; September 28, 1989, p. 4047; December 7, 1989, p. 6618; March 20, 1990, p. 9559; March 1, 1996, p. 188; October 4, 2002, p. 317.
[7]
See point of order raised by Jean-Robert Gauthier and the ruling by the Deputy Speaker on the procedural acceptability of giving notice on the second reading of three government bills and the third reading of a fourth government bill, all at the same time (Debates, June 16, 1989, pp. 3147-8).
[8]
See Speaker’s remarks, Debates, October 23, 1980, pp. 3976-8.
[9]
See Commentary and Historical Summary of Standing Order 67.1 in this chapter. For an example of the questioning of a Minister on an item which had been the subject of a closure motion, see Debates, December 9, 2002, pp. 2412-7.
[10]
When debate takes place in Committee of the Whole on an item which has been closured, the Member speaking is also limited to 20 minutes and that time period includes time taken to reply to any questions asked by that Member. See ruling by the Chair in Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 573-5.
[11]
Any amendment or other motion that may be proposed to a main motion comes under the cut-off time set out in the Standing Order if the whole debate is to be closured (Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1393-6). If an amendment or subamendment is to be closured, only that particular debate is cut off.
[12]
See Speaker’s ruling, Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 1000; Debates, June 22, 1989, pp. 3492, 3535-6.
[13]
See remarks by the Chairman of Committee of the Whole, Debates, April 13, 1921, p. 2094. It should also be noted that points of order and questions of privilege have been addressed to the Chair after the deadline, but were ruled not valid (Debates, October 23, 1980, pp. 4049-53).
[14]
For examples of a closured debate ending before the cut-off time, and the bells being rung for a 30-minute period, see Debates, June 26, 1989, pp. 3674-5; October 26, 1989, pp. 5208-10; November 20, 1989, pp. 5927-8; December 8, 1989, pp. 6718-9.
[15]
See for example, the closure motion moved on May 9, 1913 (Debates, col. 9445); August 28, 1917 (Debates, p. 5016); April 28, 1919 (Debates, p. 1797); April 13, 1921 (Debates, p. 2076). See also Debates, December 21, 1988, pp. 539-41.
[16]
Prior to 1955, the exemption of the closure rule to the automatic 10:00 p.m. adjournment was spelled out in the text of the applicable rule. In July 1955, the reference to the closure rule was deleted from that Standing Order (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 882-5). The proceedings on the Adjournment Motion, known as the “late show”, were adopted provisionally in 1964 and these proceedings were suspended during closure, pursuant to a former Standing Order. On June 10, 1994, that portion of the relevant Standing Order (i.e. 1994 Standing Order 38(7)) was deleted through concurrence in the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, p. 563). Since that time, 12 items have been closured. On two of those occasions, the “late show” took place: on June 20, 1995 pursuant to a Special Order adopted June 12, 1995 (Journals, pp. 1639-40); and on December 9, 2002, following the deferred division, pursuant to special order, on a subamendment to an item being closured (Journals, p. 281).
[17]
Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9.
[18]
Debates, May 9, 1913, col. 9445.
[19]
Between 1913 and 1932, closure was applied in the following instances: Debates, August 28, 1917, p. 5016; Journals, August 30, 1917, p. 606; Journals, September 10, 1917, p. 643; Debates, September 12, 1917, p. 5707; Journals, September 14, 1917, p. 659; Debates, April 28, 1919, p. 1797; Debates, April 13, 1921, p. 2076; Journals, March 2, 1926, p. 123; Journals, March 29, 1932, pp. 177-8; Debates, April 1, 1932, p. 1609.
[20]
Debates, May 15, 1956, p. 3895; May 22, 1956, p. 4165; May 31, 1956, p. 4498; June 5, 1956, p. 4689.
[21]
Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 996.
[22]
Journals, July 24, 1969, p. 1396.
[23]
Journals, October 23, 1980, p. 598.
[24]
Journals, July 17, 1981, pp. 2868-9.
[25]
Journals, June 29, 1987, p. 1274.
[26]
Journals, June 20, 1988, p. 2920.
[27]
Journals, December 16, 1988, pp. 42-3.
[28]
Journals, December 19, 1988, pp. 52-3; December 21, 1988, pp. 67-8; December 23, 1988, pp. 78-9.
[29]
Journals, June 21, 1989, pp. 425-6 (Bill C-21); June 26, 1989, pp. 450-1 (Bill C-20); June 27, 1989, pp. 470-1 (Bill C-15); October 26, 1989, pp. 754-5 (Bill C-36); November 20, 1989, pp. 851-2 (Bill C-28); December 8, 1989, p. 950 (Bill C-49); February 7, 1990, pp. 1183-4 (Bill C-62).
[30]
Journals, March 13, 1990, pp. 1331-2.
[31]
Journals, March 21, 1990, pp. 1379-80.
[32]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2898-9.
[33]
Journals, May 29, 1991, pp. 101-2.
[34]
Journals, June 20, 1995, pp. 1817-8; December 6, 1995, pp. 2214-5; March 4, 1996, pp. 33-4; March 14, 1996, pp. 94-5; October 29, 1996, pp. 784-5.
[35]
Journals, March 23, 1999, pp. 1649-50; June 11, 1999, pp. 2101-2.
[36]
Journals, February 27, 2001, pp. 139-40; October 7, 2002, pp. 29-30 (Note: the closure motion was voted on once (covering Government Business 2A and 2B), but pursuant to a Speaker’s ruling, the final votes on these two matters were taken separately); December 9, 2002, pp. 280-1; February 10, 2004, pp. 34-5.
[37]
Journals, June 23, 2005, pp. 974-5.
[38]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 910-1.
[39]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2913.
[40]
Journals, October 4, 2001, pp. 691-3 See pages 9-10 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).
[41]
Journals, December 9, 1957, p. 255.
[42]
Debates, July 21, 1960, p. 6676.
[43]
Journals, March 26, 1962, p. 277.
[44]
Journals, September 27, 1962, p. 15.
[45]
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, p. 20:57.
[46]
See pages 23-4 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774).
[47]
See pages 8-9 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) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[48]
See for example, attempts to delete the closure rule from the Standing Orders found in Debates, May 26, 1998, pp. 7246-7; May 27, 1998, p. 7292; June 8, 1998, pp. 7737-8 (rescinded June 12, 1998, p. 8121); November 26, 1999, p. 1819.
[49]
On March 2, 1926, the government moved closure on the motion on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne (Journals, p. 123). Debate on this motion had continued for 26 days.
[50]
Third reading of the bill on the Canadian Northern Railway began on August 29, 1917 and a notice of closure was given that same day (Journals, p. 605). The motion for closure was moved the following day on August 30, 1917 (Journals, p. 606). In December 1988, notice of closure was given during the first day of debate of the second reading, Committee of the Whole and third reading stages of Bill C-2, An Act to implement the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America (Journals, December 15, 1988, p. 37; Debates, December 20, 1988, p. 500; Journals, December 22, 1988, p. 73). For other examples of notice given on the first day of debate, see Journals, March 1, 1996, p. 25; October 28, 1996, p. 779; March 22, 1999, p. 1646; October 29, 1999, p. 144; February 26, 2001, p. 133; October 4, 2002, p. 24; June 22, 2005, p. 968.
[51]
Donald S. Macdonald gave notice of closure on the motion for concurrence in the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization on July 22, 23 and 24, 1969 (Journals, pp. 1383, 1386, 1393). The motion was finally moved on July 24, 1969 (Journals, p. 1396). Don Mazankowski gave notice of closure on the motion concerning capital punishment on June 18, 1987 (Journals, p. 1200) and on June 26, 1987 (Journals, p. 1263). The closure motion was moved the following sitting day (Journals, June 29, 1987, p. 1274). For other examples of multiple notices of closure, see Journals, October 5 and 25, 1989, pp. 581 and 720, with respect to second reading of Bill C-28 (Income Tax Act amendment); February 5 and 6, 1990, pp. 1166 and 1176, with respect to second reading of Bill C-62 (Goods and Services Tax); December 5 and 6, 2002, pp. 264 and 277, with respect to debate on Government Business No. 9 (ratification of the Kyoto Protocol).
[52]
For examples of notice of motions for closure on items that were never moved, see Journals, December 4, 1986, p. 272; August 26, 1987, p. 1384; September 28, 1989, p. 549; December 11, 1989, p. 959; February 16, 1990, pp. 1235-6; April 23, 1990, p. 1576; October 9, 1990, p. 2086; September 16, 1991, p. 272; October 29, 1999, p. 144.
[53]
See Standing Orders 50, 81, 84, 93, 95, 97.1, and 98(2).
[54]
Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1396-402.
[55]
See Chapter IX “Public Bills” and, more particularly, the Commentary for Standing Orders 66(2), 68(4), 73(1), and 73(5).
[56]
See for example, remarks by Speaker Lamoureux in Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1393-4.
[57]
See remarks on the point of order raised by Stanley Knowles in Debates, July 24, 1969, pp. 11551-7; the alleged question of privilege raised by Robert Kaplan in Debates, June 19, 1987, pp. 7375-9; and the point of order raised by Nelson Riis in Debates, February 7, 1990, pp. 7947-53.
[58]
See Speakers’ rulings in Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1397-9; Debates, June 29, 1987, pp. 7713-4; February 7, 1990, pp. 7953-4.

Notes on Standing Order 58:

[1]
This does not mean that all the motions listed in the rule can only be moved when a question is under debate. There are countless examples of motions to proceed to the Orders of the Day, or to proceed to another order, or to adjourn the House for example, being moved at a time when no question was before the House. See in particular, events during Routine Proceedings of November 6, 7, 19, 20, 21, 24 and 25, 1986 and those of April 1987, culminating in the Speaker’s ruling of April 14, 1987 (Debates, pp. 5119-22).
[2]
Debates, March 10, 1966, pp. 2493-6; Journals, December 30, 1971, p. 1014.
[3]
Journals, May 14, 1956, p. 543.
[4]
Debates, November 24, 1986, p. 1435; November 25, 1986, p. 1488.
[5]
Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7480. Laurier was probably referring to Bourinot, 3rd ed., pp. 435-51 and May, 10th ed., pp. 266-71, although the wording of the rule appears to have been based on the then Senate Rule No. 23 (see Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the Senate of Canada, 1896, p. 7).
[6]
Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 226-7.
[7]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571.
[8]
There are too many to enumerate. For key examples, see Historical Summaries for Standing Orders 26, 59, 60, 61 and 67.

Notes on Standing Order 59:

[1]
Journals, June 29, 1971, p. 759.
[2]
In 1873, the Speaker rejected an amendment to the motion “that the House do now proceed to the Orders of the Day”, stating that if the motion were adopted, it would “obliterate the original motion, and no further amendment can be proposed, pending its consideration” (Journals, May 8, 1873, p. 300). Nonetheless, in 1880, the Speaker did allow an amendment to the motion (Journals, April 5, 1880, p. 194), although since that time, the original ruling has held. Since the motion is not included in Standing Order 67(1), there is now no question that it is non-debatable and non-amendable.
[3]
Debates, May 10, 1956, pp. 3763-8. The motion had been put to a vote but, after the division, the Speaker ruled that it should not have been admissible as there was no question before the House.
[4]
Debates, March 11, 1966, p. 2586.
[5]
Debates, November 13, 1970, p. 1138.
[6]
Debates, May 24, 1983, p. 25686; May 25, 1983, pp. 25698-705. In this case, during the ringing of the division bells, the House reached the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. The Speaker declared that the motion had lapsed and adjourned the House until the next sitting day.
[7]
Debates, February 9, 1987, p. 3219.
[8]
Debates, February 10, 1987, pp. 3267-8.
[9]
A motion to proceed to the Orders of the Day has been moved during Routine Proceedings under “Presenting Petitions” (Journals, November 6, 1986, pp. 180-1); under “Tabling of Documents” (Journals, October 27, 2003, pp. 1170-1); and under “Presenting Reports from Committees” (Journals, February 5, 1993, pp. 2461-2). The Chair has ruled, however, that the motion cannot be moved on a point of order (Debates, November 20, 1996, p. 6503).

Notes on Standing Order 60:

[1]
See for example, Debates, December 13, 1999, pp. 2746-7; February 25, 2000, pp. 4046-7.
[2]
Debates, December 7, 1990, pp. 16463, 16470.
[3]
See for example, Journals, May 11, 2005, pp. 740-2; May 12, 2005, pp. 745-6; May 13, 2005, pp. 751-4. In all three cases, the motion to adjourn was moved and adopted before debate resumed on the concurrence motion. The debate was thus rescheduled for the following sitting day. See Order Paper, May 11, 2005, p. 26; May 12, 2005, p. 26; May 13, 2005, pp. 26-7; May 16, 2005, pp. 26-7.
[4]
“Intermediate proceeding” is defined as “a proceeding that can properly be entered on the Journals.... it is not applied to [speeches or] arguments but it covers such things as utterances bearing directly on making motions, moving amendments, presenting reports, putting the questions, answering questions placed on the Order Paper, voting, naming a Member; it is construed as relating to procedure and not to debates” (Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 112-3). In 1904, the Speaker ruled that unanimous consent to withdraw a motion to adjourn does not constitute an intermediate proceeding, and thus ruled out of order a subsequent motion to adjourn (Debates, April 13, 1904, cols. 1152-3). For an example of two adjournment motions being moved in the same sitting, see Journals, February 24, 2000, pp. 1021-4.
[5]
Debates, March 10, 1966, pp. 2494-5.
[6]
Standing Order 41(2). Until 1991, if a motion to adjourn the House was adopted, the item under consideration was dropped from the Order Paper. See Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 323.
[7]
Debates, May 10, 1956, p. 3767; March 10, 1966, pp. 2494-5.
[8]
See for example, Debates, November 19, 1986, pp. 1335-6.
[9]
Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, pp. 20-1.
[10]
See Standing Order 52.
[11]
The House adopted an amendment to the Standing Orders surrounding which motions were debatable, while specifying that all other motions were to be decided without debate (Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9). While the 1906 changes established the process for what are now emergency debates, regular motions to adjourn were still, in theory, debatable. The Prime Minister, in introducing the 1913 changes, pointed out that this would no longer be the case under the new rule (Debates, April 9, 1913, col. 7403, 7406).
[12]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 566.

Notes on Standing Order 61:

[1]
The present British version of the previous question is “That the question be not now put” which dates back to the late nineteenth century (May, 23rd ed., pp. 395-6).
[2]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 326; Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 160-1. Since Confederation, the motion “That this question be now put” has been negatived four times. In 1869, the main motion was not presented to the House again. On the other three occasions, it was. In 1870 and 1929, the revived motions were adopted and, in 1928, no decision was taken (Journals, May 31, 1869, pp. 163-4; April 28, 1870, pp. 254-5; June 1, 1928, p. 489; April 15, 1929, p. 242).
[3]
See Appendix “A” of The Previous Question, Procedural Paper No. 3, Table Research Branch, House of Commons, 1983.
[4]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 160-1. See also Debates, October 29, 1999, p. 886.
[5]
Debates, June 4, 1948, p. 4808; December 17, 1964, p. 11298; February 9, 1983, p. 22685; May 10, 1990, p. 11290.
[6]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 160-1. See for example, Journals, May 10, 1995, pp. 1458-9.
[7]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 160-1. For examples of closure being applied on the previous question, see Journals, March 2, 1926, pp. 123-7; March 29, 1932, pp. 177-9.
[8]
Journals, May 31, 1869, pp. 163-4; April 28, 1870, pp. 254-5; March 11, 1879, p. 77; March 11, 1886, p. 45.
[9]
See Note 3.
[10]
In the Thirty-Third Parliament (1984-88), the previous question was moved 20 times; in the Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-93), 15 times; in the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), three times; in the Thirty-Sixth Parliament (1997-2000), 12 times; in the Thirty-Seventh Parliament (2001-04), 14 times.
[11]
See for example, Journals, January 28, 1985, p. 248; October 24, 1989, pp. 712-3; April 14, 1994, p. 347; May 10, 1999, p. 1841; April 2, 2003, p. 651.
[12]
See for example, Journals, March 27, 1990, pp. 1417-20; May 3, 1990, pp. 1636-9; January 16, 1991, p. 2571; December 11, 1992, p. 2394.
[13]
See for example, Journals, October 29, 1999, p. 143; November 3, 2004, pp. 190-1.
[14]
See for example, Journals, June 7, 1999, pp. 2057-9.

Notes on Standing Order 62:

[1]
This is the lone exception to the rule that Members cannot move motions when recognized on a point of order (Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 96; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 507). See also Debates, November 7, 1979, p. 1049; February 3, 1987, p. 3086; November 20, 1996, pp. 6503-4.
[2]
See Speaker’s rulings in Debates, July 19, 1960, p. 6506; March 13, 1961, p. 2922. The Member named in the motion has the right to vote on the motion (Debates, April 29, 1965, p. 766).
[3]
See Rule 11 of the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, 1866; Rule 7 of the Rules for the Government of the Assembly of New Brunswick, 1862; and Rule 9 of the Rules for the Regulation and Practice of the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia, 1862.
[4]
Rule 11 of the Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868.
[5]
Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80; Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7465.
[6]
See for example, Debates, April 23, 1870, p. 1163; April 27, 1870, p. 1226.
[7]
See for example, Debates, March 30, 1870, p. 772. Bourinot, in all four editions of his work, writes that it was irregular to interfere with the Speaker’s call in favour of any other Member (Bourinot, 1st ed., pp. 344-5).
[8]
Journals, April 9, 1913, pp. 452-3.
[9]
Debates, April 14, 1913, cols. 7652-3.
[10]
See for example, Debates, May 26, 1920, p. 2756; March 15, 1923, p. 1159; June 30, 1926, p. 5176; March 7, 1927, p. 953; March 16, 1927, p. 1282.
[11]
A review of the records of the House indicates that no recorded divisions were held between 1913 and 1955 on the motion “That the Member be now heard”.
[12]
See for example, Debates, March 13, 1942, pp. 1310-1; July 2, 1942, pp. 3878-9; December 20, 1951, pp. 2280-1; July 19, 1960, p. 6506; May 18, 1961, pp. 4981-2; April 17, 1962, pp. 3079-80; January 25, 1963, pp. 3137-8; January 20, 1966, p. 82; January 27, 1966, p. 320; April 21, 1980, p. 248; March 24, 1981, pp. 8567-8; October 9, 1986, p. 223; October 3, 1990, pp. 13761-2.
[13]
The Chair has refused to put the motion if the Speaker saw the moving of the motion as a challenge to the authority of the Chair (Debates, November 7, 1979, p. 1049), or if the motion was proposed when no motion for debate was already before the House (Debates, October 26, 1979, p. 646; June 8, 1984, p. 4484; January 31, 1990, p. 7660; March 11, 1992, p. 7988), although there are precedents where the Chair has accepted such motions when no motion was under debate (Journals, November 7, 1986, pp. 188-9; April 8, 1987, pp. 722-3). On one occasion, when the Speaker had recognized a Member on a question of privilege, another Member rose on a point of order to move this motion. The Speaker did not accept the motion “that a Member be now heard” because such a motion is traditionally moved during the course of a debate, and a question of privilege has precedence over any other matter. See Debates, April 27, 1989, p. 1003.
[14]
Debates, November 25, 1957, pp. 1491-2; December 5, 1963, p. 5471.
[15]
Debates, December 4, 1980, p. 5377; January 22, 1987, p. 2615; February 3, 1987, p. 3078; September 24, 1990, pp. 13244-5; October 29, 1999, p. 894.
[16]
Debates, July 14, 1981, p. 11522; October 26, 1983, p. 28350; October 27, 1983, p. 28390; November 7, 1986, p. 1191; February 3, 1987, p. 3067; June 18, 1987, p. 7305.
[17]
Debates, May 24, 1956, p. 4310.
[18]
Debates, November 7, 1986, p. 1191; February 12, 1997, p. 8025. The motion also cannot be moved at the end of a speech (see Debates, May 12, 1995, p. 12528).
[19]
Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2109.
[20]
Debates, October 29, 1999, p. 894.
[21]
Debates, October 30, 1991, p. 4231.
[22]
Debates, February 25, 2000, p. 4048.

Notes on Standing Order 63:

[1]
This is not to be confused with a bill referred to committee before second reading, pursuant to Standing Order 73(1).
[2]
Journals, March 22, 1927, p. 337. The House agreed to the revision, without debate, on the same day (Debates, March 22, 1927, p. 1426).
[3]
Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 914, 919.
[4]
During debate, the Prime Minister (Mr. King) moved “That the original motion and amendment be referred to the committee appointed to deal with all matters connected with pension...”. In response to Members’ questions, the Speaker made a series of rulings on the admissibility and operation of then Standing Order 50 (Debates, March 6, 1930, pp. 331-4).

Notes on Standing Order 64:

[1]
Implicit here is the notion that it is typically the Member who proposed the motion who requests its withdrawal. However, Members have occasionally received the consent of the House for the withdrawal of motions moved by other Members. See for example, Debates, March 3, 1997, p. 8482; February 16, 1999, p. 11982; February 3, 2004, p. 64. A Minister may request a withdrawal of a motion in the absence of the sponsoring Minister (see Debates, November 13, 1981, p. 12743; April 24, 2002, p. 10771).
[2]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 178.
[3]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 178; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 478; Journals, April 7, 1941, p. 260.
[4]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 178; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 478. See for example, Debates, May 14, 2001, p. 4024; September 27, 2001, p. 5629.
[5]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 178; Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 299; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 478. See for example, Debates, April 29, 1980, p. 542; May 26, 1993, p. 19858. Even corrections to apparent errors in wording require unanimous consent (Debates, May 6, 1976, p. 13245; April 9, 1990, p. 10382), unless accomplished by way of an amendment moved by another Member.
[6]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 178; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 478; May, 23rd ed., p. 393. See for example, Debates, March 23, 2000, p. 5126.
[7]
See for example, Standing Orders 26(2), 53(4), 56.1(3) and 56.2(2). In a similar way, Standing Order 98(3) provides for the withdrawal of a motion if fewer than twenty Members rise in support of it.
[8]
Journals, May 12, 1873, p. 326.
[9]
Journals, April 7, 1941, p. 260.
[10]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 918-9. The original wording read: “A Member who has made a motion may withdraw the same by leave of the House, such leave being granted without any negative voice”.

Notes on Standing Order 65:

[1]
May, 23rd ed., p. 392.
[2]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 296.
[3]
Debates, June 21, 1994, p. 5698; June 8, 1999, pp. 15965-6.
[4]
The requirement that a motion be seconded does not apply in any House committee, pursuant to Standing Order 116.
[5]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 297.
[6]
Debates, February 1, 1957, p. 888; January 25, 1983, p. 22176; October 28, 1991, pp. 4070-2, 4076.
[7]
On occasion, consent to dispense with the reading of a motion has been refused. For example, in June 1987 and March 1991, when the text of the motion involved extensive revisions to the Standing Orders Members specifically requested that the entire text be read in both languages as is required by Standing Order 65 (Debates, June 2, 1987, p. 6618; March 26, 1991, pp. 19025-7). In 2002, when faced with a number of particularly lengthy report stage motions, the Chair indicated that, when putting the questions to a vote, only the motion number would be read and that Members could refer to the Notice Paper for the full text of the motions. See Debates, March 21, 2002, p. 9936; June 10, 2002, p. 12431.
[8]
However, for an earlier example where Members insisted that the motion be read in both languages, see Debates, April 9, 1913, col. 7413.
[9]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 217.
[10]
Quoted in Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 218.

Notes on Standing Order 66:

[1]
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 109.
[2]
See for example, Debates, April 7, 2005, p. 4818. On some occasions, the designation has been announced by the Chief Government Whip (Debates, May 10, 2005, p. 5897; May 16, 2005, p. 6016).
[3]
See for example, Order Paper, May 19, 2005, p. 27; May 20, 2005, p. 27; May 31, 2005, pp. 27-8; June 2, 2005, p. 29.
[4]
Though the Standing Order provides that the motion should be considered for three hours, time taken for voting on dilatory motions has been counted in the three hours of debate. See for example, Debates, May 4, 2005, pp. 5661-6.
[5]
Concurrence motions superseded by motions to adjourn the House have, however, remained on the Order Paper. See for example, Journals, May 11, 2005, pp. 739-42; May 12, 2005, pp. 745-6; Order Paper, May 13, 2005, p. 28.
[6]
See Debates, May 2, 2005, p. 5517; May 3, 2005, p. 5549; May 4, 2005, p. 5661.
[7]
See Proposals for changes in the Procedures of the House of Commons, May 12, 1965, explanatory notes to Government Order No. 15, p. 15.
[8]
Debates, June 10, 1965, p. 2234.
[9]
Debates, June 11, 1965, pp. 2274-5.
[10]
Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 438.
[11]
Journals, December 6, 1968, p. 456.
[12]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 571.
[13]
See page 13 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). The provisions were formally adopted, by motion, on November 29, 1982, to become effective December 22, 1982 (Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400).
[14]
This amendment was made pursuant to provisions in the motion for adoption of the amended Standing Orders which allowed the Clerk to make any consequential amendments necessary (Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710).
[15]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1022.
[16]
Like the 1986 change, the Clerk was instructed to amend the text of the Standing Orders to give effect to a motion adopted by the House (Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1).
[17]
Journals, February 18, 2005, p. 452.
[18]
For examples of another type of motion being transferred to Government Orders under this Standing Order, see Journals, February 21, 2001, pp. 121-2; November 22, 2002, pp. 219-20.
[19]
For an example of debate being resumed under Government Orders, see Debates, July 6, 1969, p. 11028. In this case, the concurrence motion had been moved by a government backbencher.
[20]
Journals, September 20, 1973, pp. 565-6.
[21]
See for example, Debates, September 19, 1973, p. 6711; April 21, 1998, pp. 5876, 5892; November 20, 2002, p. 1670.
[22]
Concurrence motions were moved on 13 consecutive sitting days between April 19, 2005 and May 12, 2005.
[23]
As of June 2005, consideration of a concurrence motion was resumed in only one case. See Debates, April 14, 2005, p. 5132. (As there were only two minutes remaining for debate, no Members rose and the vote on the matter was deferred.) In another case, the motion was withdrawn (Journals, May 30, 2005, p. 796). In all other cases, the House agreed that the debate be deemed to have taken place and that a recorded division be deemed requested and deferred. See for example, Journals, May 16, 2005, p. 758; May 17, 2005, p. 764; May 20, 2005, p. 789.
[24]
See point of order raised on May 2, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5512-7) and Speaker’s ruling on May 5, 2005 (Debates, pp. 5725-7). See also Debates, May 5, 2005, p. 5696; May 9, 2005, p. 5821.

Notes on Standing Order 67:

[1]
See for example, Speaker’s rulings in Journals, May 30, 1928, p. 476; May 11, 1944, p. 365; May 2, 1961, pp. 493-5. This is not to say that the rubric “Motions” under Routine Proceedings is the exclusive purview of the government, despite the government’s unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of the House. See Speaker’s rulings in Debates, July 13, 1988, pp. 17504-9 (concerning motions of instruction to a committee); September 23, 1996, pp. 4560-2; November 21, 1996, pp. 6519-20 (concerning the reporting back of a private Member’s bill from committee). The Chair has ruled that motions for a free conference with the Senate may not be moved during Routine Proceedings (Debates, June 18, 1996, pp. 3981-2).
[2]
Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507-9.
[3]
Debates, April 9, 1913, cols. 7403-6.
[4]
The amendments were adopted following debate on April 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 22 and 23, 1913. The three measures involved a listing of debatable motions, the closure rule and a restriction on the number of days when the motion to resolve into Supply was debatable.
[5]
These were reflected in Rules 17, 18 and 39 of the 1912 version of the Rules of the House of Commons of Canada.
[6]
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 344.
[7]
In total, seven new entries were made to the list of debatable motions (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 322-5).
[8]
The new text was listed as Standing Order 38 in the 1927 version of the Standing Orders.
[9]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 906-7.
[10]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 566-7.
[11]
These changes were made to subsections (d) and (e) (Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 913-4).

Notes on Standing Order 67.1:

[1]
The closure rule was adopted on April 23, 1913 (Journals, pp. 507-9). For a full description of this rule, see the Commentary and Historical Summary of Standing Order 57 in this chapter.
[2]
For the exact wording of the time allocation rule when it provided for a maximum two-hour debate, see Standing Order 78(2) and 78(3) in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons dated February 1990, pp. 43-4. The amendments to Standing Order 78, which deleted the provision for such debates, were adopted on April 11, 1991 (Journals, pp. 2915-6).
[3]
Journals, October 4, 2001, pp. 691-3.
[4]
See page 8 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). Some of the recommendations with respect to time allocation were similar to those proposed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in its Thirty-First Report, tabled on May 17, 2000 (Journals, pp. 1721-2). The Thirty-First Report, however, was neither debated nor adopted. With respect to time limits of questions and answers during this 30-minute period, the limits have varied between one and two minutes, depending on the number of Members who have indicated an interest in participating. See the Chair’s observation on November 4, 2003 (Debates, p. 9114).
[5]
See Debates, November 27, 2001, pp. 7532-8; February 4, 2002, pp. 8628-33; March 11, 2002, pp. 9447-54; June 3, 2002, pp. 12023-31; June 10, 2002, pp. 12374-80; May 6, 2003, pp. 5840-5; June 10, 2003, pp. 7065-70; October 7, 2003, pp. 8251-7; November 4, 2003, pp. 9113-9.
[6]
See Debates, October 7, 2002, pp. 335-40; December 9, 2002, pp. 2412-8; February 10, 2004, pp. 350-5; June 23, 2005, pp. 7688-94.
[7]
Debates, March 11, 2002, p. 9448.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

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