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

2000 Edition — More information …

10. The Daily Program

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[101]: See, for example, Journals, November 8, 1990, p. 2244 (audio cassette); May 12, 1992, p. 1445 (Braille summary and audio cassette); December 11, 1996, p. 991 (CD-ROM). See also Debates, November 8, 1990, pp. 15289-90; November 19, 1992, pp. 13604-5 (computer disk).
[102]: See, for example, Debates, October 17, 1995, p. 15488; October 2, 1997, p. 415; October 29, 1997, p. 1287; April 29, 1998, p. 6293. See also Debates, February 19, 1998, p. 4125, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader sought unanimous consent to table a newspaper article which was quoted by a Minister and which was available in English only. Consent was given.
[103]: Journals, April 6, 1971, pp. 475-6. Speaker Lamoureux submitted that while Ministers must table official documents cited in debate in support of an argument, this rule has never been interpreted to apply to a document, official or otherwise, referred to by private Members. In 1974, when a Member attempted to seek unanimous consent to table a document, Speaker Lamoureux stated that there was “no provision in the rules for a private Member to table or file documents in any way.” The Speaker concluded by suggesting that Members “could presumably make them public in a number of other ways” (Debates, December 3, 1974, p. 1882). See also Debates, February 1, 1985, p. 1914; May 14, 1985, p. 4744; January 28, 1987, p. 2821.
[104]: Speakers have occasionally refused to put to the House a request by a private Member for unanimous consent to table a document. See, for example, Debates, March 25, 1985, pp. 3326-7; June 27, 1986, p. 15006.
[105]: Standing Order 32(1) and (2).
[106]: Standing Order 32(4).
[107]: See, for example, Debates, June 8, 1989, pp. 2812-3; December 5, 1990, p. 16330; November 30, 1992, p. 14276; February 1, 1994, p. 690; March 16, 1994, p. 2369; October 2, 1997, p. 415; February 13, 1998, p. 3866. By special order of the House, private Members tabled documents during debate on the reform of the Constitution in 1992 (Journals, February 5, 1992, p. 975; Debates, pp. 6429-30). The first time a private Member was allowed to seek unanimous consent to table a document occurred on November 15, 1978, although it appears that there may have been consultation or agreement with the government to do so (Debates, pp. 1160-1). Speaker Sauvé tried twice to discourage Members from tabling material by unanimous consent, but allowed the request to be made (Debates, January 18, 1983, pp. 21954-5; May 6, 1983, p. 25229). Speaker Francis allowed unanimous consent to be sought on two separate occasions (Debates, February 14, 1984, pp. 1362-3; April 18, 1984, p. 3185). Speaker Bosley regularly refused such requests (see, for example, Debates, February 13, 1985, p. 2313; September 23, 1985, p. 6864). In 1986, in allowing a Member to table a document by unanimous consent, Speaker Fraser advised the House that while he would abide by its wishes, “the House has quite clearly decided to move outside the usual practice” (Debates, October 24, 1986, pp. 709-10).
[108]: See, for example, Journals, December 5, 1990, p. 2379; November 30, 1992, p. 2254; February 1, 1994, p. 88; March 16, 1994, p. 260; October 2, 1997, p. 70.
[109]: See, for example, Debates, June 13, 1991, p. 1646. See also Speaker’s comments, Debates, February 24, 1992, p. 7531.
[110]: See, for example, Journals, April 5, 1989, p. 26 (Annotated Standing Orders of the House of Commons); February 4, 1992, p. 970 (report of an official visit); September 8, 1992, p. 1924 (documentation concerning a recall of the House); June 1, 1993, p. 3091 (report concerning initiatives undertaken by the House to serve Canadians with disabilities); September 23, 1997, pp. 11-2 (letter from government concerning notice of two government motions for a Special Order Paper; copy of the Speech from the Throne); September 24, 1997, p. 19 (Standing Orders of the House of Commons); October 1, 1997, p. 56 (Estimates of the House of Commons); October 23, 1997, p. 139 (Report of the Administration of the House for the Thirty-Fifth Parliament).
[111]: Standing Order 148(1) requires the Speaker to table, within 10 calendar days after the opening of each session, a report containing the minutes of the Board’s meetings for the previous session (see, for example, Journals, May 16, 1991, p. 36; January 27, 1994, p. 71). Since June 1994, the minutes have been tabled as soon as they are approved by the Board (see Debates, June 8, 1994, p. 5030). They are typically deposited with the Clerk of the House and recorded in the Journals (see, for example, Journals, October 10, 1997, p. 109; February 13, 1998, p. 464).
[112]: Standing Order 121(4). See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1994, p. 758; September 18, 1995, p. 1908; October 10, 1997, p. 109; October 9, 1998, p. 1145. Standing Order 148(2) also requires the Speaker to table any Board of Internal Economy decision concerning committee budgets. See, for example, Journals, January 15, 1991, pp. 2560-1; June 10, 1993, p. 3197. Since the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), these decisions are part of the Board minutes which are now laid upon the Table as soon as they are approved.
[113]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (sbs. 52.5(2)). Any by-laws made by the Board are to be tabled within 30 calendar days of their making. They are typically deposited with the Clerk of the House and recorded in the Journals (see, for example, Journals, December 2, 1996, p. 950; October 10, 1997, p. 109; February 13, 1998, p. 464).
[114]: See, for example, Journals, March 25, 1998, p. 620; March 5, 1999, p. 1561.
[115]: See, for example, Journals, November 18, 1998, p. 1271.
[116]: See, for example, Journals, February 2, 1999, p. 1455.
[117]: See, for example, Journals, September 24, 1997, p. 20 (Proceedings of the Royal Society of Canada for 1995); May 26, 1998, p. 891 (Report of the Commissioner of the Environment and Sustainable Development to the House for the year 1998).
[118]: Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 195(3); Auditor General Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-17, ss. 7(3), 8(2), 19(2) as amended by S.C. 1994, c. 32; Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, 4^th Supp., c. 31, ss. 65(3), 66, 67(1), 69(1); Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, ss. 38, 39(1), 40; Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, ss. 38, 39(1), 40(1). See, for example, Journals, November 26, 1996, p. 918; April 8, 1997, p. 1351; September 24, 1997, pp. 19-20; September 29, 1997, p. 40.
[119]: The Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 32. See, for example, Journals, March 23, 1999, p. 1649.
[120]: Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, s. 21(1) as amended by c. 6 (2^nd Supp.), s. 5. See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1995, p. 1867. If Parliament is not sitting, the reports are tabled on any of the first five sitting days when the House returns. See Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”, for additional information.
[121]: Standing Order 32(1). See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545), and concurred in on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563). See also Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, pp. 3-4.
[122]: See, for example, Journals, September 18, 1995, pp. 1894, 1904; February 3, 1997, p. 1034; February 2, 1998, p. 404; September 21, 1998, pp. 1040, 1053.
[123]: See, for example, Journals, September 18, 1995, p. 1908 (deposited with Clerk on first sitting day).
[124]: Standing Order 49.
[125]: Debates, June 27, 1986, p. 14969.
[126]: See, for example, Journals, January 18, 1994, pp. 19-26; September 23, 1997, pp. 15-7.
[127]: Frequently, a Minister will first table a document under the rubric “Tabling of Documents”. The subsequent statement will expand on the context of the tabled document (see, for example, Journals, May 25, 1994, pp. 472-3; Debates, pp. 4395-400). Prime Ministers have also used this proceeding to make announcements in the House (see, for example, Debates, November 27, 1989, pp. 6229, 6234-39 (visit to U.S.S.R); June 11, 1990, pp. 12590, 12604-10 (Meech Lake Accord); September 24, 1991, pp. 2585-91 (proposals to renew Canadian federation); February 8, 1994, pp. 1029-32 (tobacco smuggling); June 16, 1994, pp. 5395-7 (integrity in government); November 22, 1994, p. 8097 (appointment of new Governor General); June 10, 1999, pp. 16195-6 (Kosovo)). The Leaders of the recognized parties in opposition customarily respond to the Prime Minister’s statement.
[128]: Standing Order 33(1).
[129]: See, for example, Debates, December 12, 1867, pp. 257-63; September 12, 1919, pp. 242-58; April 19, 1932, pp. 2150-4; June 4, 1940, pp. 482-5.
[130]: See, for example, Debates, February 12, 1877, pp. 32-3; February 16, 1915, pp. 207-8.
[131]: Debates, March 24, 1959, pp. 2177-8.
[132]: See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, concurred in on May 7, 1964 (Journals, p. 297); see also Debates, May 7, 1964, pp. 3007-10, in particular the comments of Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre).
[133]: See Journals, February 18, 1966, pp. 158-60. See also Debates, February 15, 1966, pp. 1224-7; Senate and House of Commons Act, S.C. 1963, c. 14, s. 3.
[134]: See the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). See also Journals, April 18, 1975, pp. 459-60, for a statement by the Speaker on the operation of this new rule.
[135]: See Debates, February 10, 1983, pp. 22716-7.
[136]: See Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, September 29, 1983, Issue No. 24, pp. 3-5, and Journals, September 30, 1983, p. 6250; Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 19, 1984, Issue No. 2, pp. 18-9, and Journals, December 20, 1984, p. 211.
[137]: Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 912-3, 919; February 6, 1986, p. 1647; February 13, 1986, p. 1710; June 3, 1987, pp. 1018-9.
[138]: Prior to 1994, the extension of the sitting could take place during the lunch hour (see, for example, Debates, February 27, 1992, p. 7682; May 14, 1992, p. 10695). If necessary, any additional time was added to the end of the day (see, for example, Debates, March 12, 1987, pp. 4085, 4098; September 24, 1991, pp. 2605-6).
[139]: Standing Order 33(1). On one occasion, two Ministers made a joint statement (see Debates, March 24, 1999, pp. 13442-4).
[140]: See, for example, Debates, October 25, 1990, pp. 14665-9. See also Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2084; June 1, 1992, p. 11166; June 3, 1992, pp. 11306-7.
[141]: See, for example, Debates, March 10, 1992, pp. 7883-4; November 24, 1992, pp. 13905-6; February 8, 1994, p. 1034; April 27, 1995, p. 11843; March 8, 1996, p. 489. On one occasion, the chairman of a standing committee received unanimous consent to respond to a ministerial statement (Debates, March 16, 1994, p. 2364). Government backbenchers have also been granted unanimous consent to respond to ministerial statements (Debates, February 8, 1994, p. 1035; March 12, 1997, p. 8955).
[142]: See, for example, Debates, April 11, 1994, p. 2867.
[143]: Standing Order 33(1). See, for example, Debates, May 25, 1994, p. 4400; June 9, 1994, p. 5059.
[144]: Standing Order 33(1).
[145]: See, for example, Debates, November 1, 1974, p. 957; March 2, 1977, pp. 3578-9; February 17, 1978, p. 2972; February 8, 1982, p. 14755; December 2, 1985, p. 9027; October 4, 1989, p. 4309; February 18, 1998, p. 4073; December 3, 1998, pp. 10826-31.
[146]: See, for example, Debates, March 18, 1987, p. 4305; April 2, 1987, p. 4810; April 8, 1987, p. 4982; April 12, 1988, pp. 14357-62; April 11, 1994, p. 2867; October 27, 1994, pp. 7273-4.
[147]: Standing Order 33(2). There have been occasions when the consideration of Government Orders has been extended by more than 60 minutes: Debates, March 12, 1987, pp. 4085, 4098 (71 minutes); September 24, 1991, pp. 2605-6 (107 minutes); October 29, 1991, p. 4141 (67 minutes); February 7, 1995, p. 9253 (80 minutes).
[148]: See page 47 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839). The proposed amendments to the Standing Orders were tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1663), and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). Similar concerns had been expressed as early as 1973, when a Member proposed a motion aimed at “bringing to the attention of the House of Commons… some of the deliberations that are held at the various meetings of the ipu” (Debates, March 1, 1973, pp. 1803-9). This idea was also mentioned in 1977 (Debates, December 20, 1977, p. 2054).
[149]: On one occasion, a question of privilege was raised in regard to the announcement by a Minister of the creation of a new parliamentary association. The Member who raised the matter argued that the creation of inter-parliamentary groups is not an executive matter to be decided by Cabinet. In his ruling, Speaker Parent agreed that the Minister overreached his authority. He stressed that the creation of parliamentary associations is governed by certain administrative bodies within the House of Commons and the Senate. See Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5910-4; April 23, 1998, pp. 6035-7.
[150]: Standing Order 34(1). The Standing Order was amended in 1987 to increase from 10 to 20 the number of sitting days within which delegations must present a report (Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1026).