Precedence and Sequence / Miscellaneous

Report stage; notice requirement

Journals pp. 1417-20

Debates pp. 8841-2

Background

The report of the Standing Committee on Agriculture on Bill C-196, an Act respecting grain, was tabled in the House on June 26, the day Parliament adjourned for the summer. When the House resumed its sittings on October 5, Mr. Macdonald (Minister of National Defence) outlined the agenda of projected government business. Mr. Horner (Crowfoot) rose on a point of order to object to consideration of Bill C-196 at report stage. He claimed that the obligatory 48-hour delay before consideration had not yet lapsed. While the Speaker agreed, he suggested that the time requirements would be met by the following day. On October 6, Mr. Horner again rose on a point of order and claimed that a government item had not had the required 48-hour notice. He sought clarification from the Chair because he felt that a dangerous precedent might have been established had the government order been taken up on October 5. A number of Members spoke to the point of order and the Speaker gave his ruling.

Issue

Is there a time requirement to be met after the presentation of a report by a committee before report stage can begin?

Decision

Yes, 48 hours. The requirement has been met in this case.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The Standing Orders clearly state that a committee report cannot be considered by the House until 48 hours have elapsed following its presentation. This is a relatively new standing order [Standing Order 75(3)], but there is another standing order which also requires 48-hour notice [Standing Order 42]. "The unquestioned practice of the House has been that the 48-hour notice requirement is met when that period extends over a weekend or over two sitting days." The report stage could not have been taken up yesterday as this would have deprived Members of the time required to file motions on amendment. This would have been unfair and contrary to the spirit of the Standing Order. "The point is that the motion was not put yesterday, precisely in order that the spirit of the Standing Order could be complied with ... [The] 48-hour requirement specified in ... (the] Standing Order ... has been met in the present case.

Sources cited

Standing Order 75(3), (5) and (8).

Journals, April 14, 1913, p. 461.

Debates, April 14, 1913, pp. 7694-5.

Beauchesne, 3rd ed., p. 827.

References

Journals, June 26, 1970, pp. 1125-8.

Debates, October 5, 1970, pp. 8708-9: October 6, 1970, pp. 8824-7, 8836-40.