Category Archives: aPolitical Science

Electoral Boundaries

Electoral Boundaries in Canada

While section 51 of the Constitution Act, 1867 sets out the formula for the allocation of seats in the House of Commons among the provinces after each decennial census, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Actprovides for the drawing of constituency or electoral district boundaries within each province by an electoral boundaries commission.[41] The boundaries of electoral districts need to be adjusted whenever a province’s representation changes or when there have been significant population fluctuations within a province, such as movement from rural to urban areas. The readjustment of boundaries is a federal matter controlled by Parliament.

  

 Historical Perspective

In the early years of Confederation, after each decennial census, the government would introduce a bill describing the boundaries of each electoral district and then have the bill adopted like any other piece of legislation. This was subject to criticism as being a highly biased task focused on maximizing the governing party’s electoral successes, often referred to as “gerrymandering”.[42] In 1903, Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier altered this procedure by placing the readjustment of constituency boundaries in the hands of a special committee of the House of Commons on which Members from all parties were represented.[43] Each time a redistribution of seats was scheduled to occur, as provided for by the Constitution Act, 1867 and the latest census, the government brought in a bill which did not contain any details about the boundaries of individual ridings. After the bill was read a second time, it was referred to a special committee instructed to “prepare schedules to contain and describe the several electoral divisions entitled to return Members to this House”.[44] This process remained highly partisan and Members were not provided with guidelines upon which to base their decisions.[45] This system remained in place until 1964 when non‑partisan electoral boundaries commissions were established to draw and readjust the boundaries of electoral constituencies.

Even before Confederation, suggestions had been made to place the drawing of electoral boundaries into the hands of an impartial body, and not with Members.[46] This continued to be a concern after Confederation and, on a number of occasions, it was recommended that the process be placed instead into the hands of judges.[47] In 1963, the government introduced legislation to assign the drawing of electoral boundaries to non‑partisan commissions operating under specified general principles and, in 1964, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed.[48]

   

Readjustment of Electoral Boundaries

Appointment of Electoral Boundaries Commissions

As soon as possible after the completion of each decennial census, the Chief Statistician provides the Chief Electoral Officer, an Officer of Parliament who is responsible for the administration of federal elections, with the population figures.[49] The Chief Electoral Officer then calculates the total number of House of Commons seats and their distribution among the provinces and territories.[50] After this information is published in the Canada Gazette,[51] the process begins to appoint the members of each commission.

An electoral boundaries commission is appointed for each province by the Governor in Council within 60 days of the Chief Electoral Officer receiving the population figures.[52] No commission is appointed for the Yukon Territory, the Northwest Territories or Nunavut as these territories are allotted only one seat each. Each commission consists of a chairperson, normally a provincial court judge who is appointed by the chief justice of the province,[53] and two other individuals appointed by the Speaker of the House of Commons “from among such persons resident in that province as the Speaker deems suitable”.[54] No sitting member of the Senate or of the House of Commons or of a provincial or territorial legislature can be appointed to a commission.[55]

As soon as the electoral boundaries commissions have been established, the Chief Electoral Officer provides each chairperson with the population figures. The commission has up to one year from that date to recommend constituency boundaries.[56]

Drawing of Boundaries

Each commission is required to draw constituency boundaries in such a way that the population of each constituency is as close as possible to the quotient obtained by dividing the provincial population by the number of seats allocated to the province. No constituency is permitted to have a population smaller than 75% of this figure or greater than 125%, although in extraordinary circumstances a commission may exceed these limits. Commissions may vary the size of constituencies within this range on the basis of special geographic considerations, such as density of population in various regions of the province, and the accessibility, size and shape of such regions. Because accessibility, transportation, and communications are often seen as obstacles both to effective representation and to ease of campaigning, electoral boundaries commissions generally draw boundaries so that there are fewer voters in rural constituencies than in urban constituencies. Variations may also occur on the basis of a special community of interest or the historical background of a particular district.[57]

Before writing its report, each commission publishes in the Canada Gazette, as well as in newspapers in the province, a map or drawing showing the proposed electoral boundaries for the province and invites electors and Members of the House of Commons to public meetings held in locations that will encourage the attendance of as many interested people as possible. The commission’s proposals must be published at least 60 days before the date of the first hearing. Interested persons wishing to make a representation must submit their notice in writing to the commission within 53 days after the date of publication of the commission’s advertisement.[58]

Following the hearings, each commission reviews its proposals, prepares a report and forwards it to the Chief Electoral Officer before the end of its one‑year mandate, unless the Chief Electoral Officer has granted an extension of not more than six months.[59] The Chief Electoral Officer transmits a copy of each report to the Speaker of the House of Commons who tables them in the House and ensures that they are referred to a committee designated to deal with electoral matters, currently the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.[60] If reports are received between sessions, the Speaker of the House will have the reports published in the Canada Gazette and a copy of that Canada Gazette will be sent to the Members representing the electoral districts in that province.[61]

Consideration by the House

Members have 30 days following the tabling or publication of the reports to file objections in writing with the clerk of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Members must specify the provisions objected to in the reports and the reason for the objection. These representations are made in the form of a motion signed by at least 10 Members.[62] Following the filing deadline, the Committee has 30 sitting days to review the Members’ representations,[63] unless the Committee asks the House for an extension.[64] At the conclusion of its consideration of the reports and the objections thereto, the Committee returns the reports to the House along with a copy of the objections and its minutes of proceedings.[65] The reports and attached documents are then sent by the Speaker to the Chief Electoral Officer for distribution to the various electoral boundaries commissions.[66] No discussion of the reports or the objections thereto takes place in the House.[67]

The commissions must consider the objections but they are not compelled to make any changes as a result of the objections. Each commission then submits a final report, with or without amendment, to the Chief Electoral Officer who forwards it to the Speaker of the House.[68] Tabled in the House by the Speaker,[69] the commission’s decision is final and without appeal.

Representation Order

After each commission has submitted its final report, the Chief Electoral Officer prepares a draft representation order. The draft representation order specifies the number of Members to be elected in each province and territory, divides each province and territory into electoral districts, describes the boundaries of each district and specifies the population of and the name to be given to each district.[70] The Chief Electoral Officer forwards the draft representation order to the Minister designated by the Governor in Council as being responsible for implementing the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, and it must be proclaimed by the Governor in Council within five days of its receipt.[71] The new boundaries cannot be used at the time of an election unless one year has passed between the date the representation order was proclaimed and the date that Parliament is dissolved for a general election.[72] The representation order and the proclamation declaring it to be in force must be published in the Canada Gazette within five days of the issue of the proclamation.[73]

The Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act also stipulates that maps showing the new electoral district boundaries resulting from the readjustment process must be prepared and printed.[74]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Resources

See Also

  • Parliament

Notes

[41] R.S. 1985, c. E-3, s. 3.

[42] Gerrymandering is the manipulation of riding boundaries by the government party to ensure that the opposition’s vote is concentrated in as few constituencies as possible. John McMenemy explains in The Language of Canadian Politics: A Guide to Important Terms and Concepts (4th ed., Waterloo: Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 2006, p. 151) that the term “gerrymander” comes from such a manipulation in Massachusetts in 1812 by the party of Governor Elbridge Gerry, which resulted in constituencies whose configurations resembled those of a salamander. In his book, The Canadian House of Commons: Representation, Professor Norman Ward briefly describes the 1872, 1882 and 1892 redistributions as being affected by gerrymandering (pp. 26‑9).

[43] Journals, April 14, 1903, p. 116.

[44] Journals, February 19, 1914, p. 153; March 25, 1924, p. 81; November 25, 1932, p. 148; February 24, 1947, pp. 122‑3; June 28, 1952, p. 618.

[45] For a more detailed look at the history of readjustment up to the 1960s, see Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, pp. 207‑20.

[46] Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, p. 211.

[47] Debates, May 25, 1933, pp. 5468‑9; February 21, 1947, pp. 698‑9. Between 1958 and 1962, a private Member, Frank Howard (Skeena), annually introduced a bill to assign this task to an independent body.

[48] S.C. 1964‑65, c. 31. The bill took more than a year to go through Parliament because of disagreements over some of the major clauses (Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, pp. 212‑6). The Act has not been amended significantly since its adoption in 1964. Since 2000, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has recommended on numerous occasions that the Act be amended (Sixteenth Report, presented to the House on April 2, 2004 (Journals, p. 264) and presented again as its Seventh Report on October 22, 2004 (Journals, pp. 135-6) and the government’s response tabled on March 21, 2005 (Journals, p. 528); Thirty‑First Report, presented to the House on February 7, 2007 (Journals, p. 978) and the government’s response tabled on June 5, 2007 (Journals, p. 1477)). See also “Enhancing the Values of Redistribution—Recommendations from the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada Following the Representation Order of 2003”, tabled by the Speaker on May 18, 2005 (Journals, p. 767), which proposed changes to the Act.

[49] The Office of the Chief Electoral Officer is discussed in detail later in this chapter.

[50] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, ss. 13 and 14.

[51] The Canada Gazette is a periodical publication of the Government of Canada containing orders in council, proclamations, regulations and other statutory instruments, and Acts of Parliament.

[52] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 3(1). In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick had incorrectly applied the rules governing the establishment of boundaries with respect to two ridings in 2003 (Raîche v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 679). The Court set aside the Commission’s recommendations pertaining to the boundaries of the two ridings for one year. Subsequently, on October 19, 2004, the government used the Inquiries Act (R.S. 1985, c. I-11) to create an electoral boundaries commission outside the normal decennial process to review the boundaries of the Acadie–Bathurst and Miramichi ridings and to propose changes.

[53] If the chief justice of the province does not or cannot appoint someone for whatever reason, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court may make the appointment (Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 5). This occurred in 1993 when the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court appointed the chairman of the British Columbia electoral boundaries commission. Originally, there was a fourth person appointed to each commission, a representation commissioner. The office of Representation Commissioner was abolished in 1979 when the incumbent retired and most of his duties were transferred to the Chief Electoral Officer.

[54] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, ss. 4 to 6. After the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act was passed in 1964, many Members expected the Speaker to consult with party leaders prior to making appointments to the electoral boundaries commissions. Instead, the Speaker consulted with the chief justice in each province and the chairman of each commission, and generally appointed a university professor in political science and a citizen whose professional employment indicated some semblance of impartiality such as the clerk of a legislature (Ward, “A Century of Constituencies”, p. 216). See also the Thirty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on February 7, 2007 (Journals, p. 978), par. 51 to 57.

[55] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 10.

[56] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 20(1).

[57] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 15. In 2004, the Federal Court of Canada ruled that the Electoral Boundaries Commission for New Brunswick had not complied with this section of the Act when determining the boundaries of two ridings in the province following the 2001 census. This decision provided guidance as to the interpretation of “community of interest” (Raîche v. Canada (Attorney General), 2004 FC 679, in particular par. 66 to 82). The Commission’s recommendations were suspended and a new electoral boundaries commission was established to review the boundaries of the two ridings in question. The new Commission’s preliminary report was tabled in the House on December 3, 2004 and referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, p. 292). In its Nineteenth Report presented to the House on December 7, 2004 (Journals, pp. 311‑2), the Committee reported that it had not received any objections to the Commission’s recommendations. The Commission’s final report was tabled in the House on December 9, 2004 (Journals, p. 323) and on December 10, 2004, legislation to change the boundaries of the two ridings was introduced and subsequently passed through all stages in the House the same day (Journals, pp. 338-9). The bill received Royal Assent on February 24, 2005 (Journals, p. 479). See Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, S.C. 2005, c. 6. See also the Fifth Report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages, presented to the House on April 9, 2003 (Journals, p. 672), in which the Committee recommended that electoral boundaries commissions consider official language minority communities when drawing boundaries. The government supported the recommendation (Journals, September 15, 2003, pp. 959-60).

[58] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 19.

[59] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 20(2).

[60] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3. s. 21(1). If the House is not sitting, the reports are tabled on any of the first five sitting days when the House returns. On June 10, 1994, the Standing Orders were amended to designate the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as the parliamentary committee responsible for electoral matters (Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563; Twenty‑Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, pp. 7‑8). See also Standing Order 108(3)(a)(vi).

[61] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 21(2).

[62] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 22.

[63] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 22. In 1995, because of the large number of objections filed, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs established four regional subcommittees to hear from Members and to make recommendations to the Committee (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, October 17, 1995, Issue No. 52, pp. 25‑6). In 2002, the Committee established one subcommittee to deal with 85 objections (Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, November 7, 2002, Meeting No. 6).

[64] See, for example, Journals, October 4, 1995, p. 1990; May 29, 2003, p. 826; June 12, 2003, p. 915.

[65] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑2, s. 22(1) and (2). For the Committee’s final report on the 1995 readjustment of electoral boundaries, see Journals, November 29, 1995, p. 2188; Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, November 28, 1995, Issue No. 53, pp. 16‑118, in particular pp. 18‑26. In 2003, the Committee presented nine reports to the House on the readjustment of boundaries (Journals, February 5, 2003, p. 374; March 19, 2003, p. 518; May 8, 2003, p. 754; June 3, 2003, p. 837; June 5, 2003, p. 860; September 15, 2003, pp. 958-9).

[66] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑2, s. 22(3).

[67] Until 1986, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act contained provisions which allowed Members to discuss their objections to a report of an electoral boundaries commission on the floor of the House. Four debates—in 1966, 1973, 1976 and 1988—were held under the Act’s provisions (S.C. 1964‑65, c. 31, s. 20). Within 30 days of the tabling in the House of such a report, a motion for consideration of an objection to the report signed by not less than 10 Members could be filed with the Speaker. The motion would detail the provisions of the report objected to and the reasons for the objection. Within 15 days of the filing of the motion, time would be set aside under Government Orders for Members to voice their concerns about the report. Upon the conclusion of consideration of the objections, the Speaker was required to refer the objections and the relevant Debates pages back to the commission. In 1986, the Act was amended to provide for the current procedure (Representation Act, 1985, S.C. 1986, c. 8, ss. 9 and 10).

[68] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 23(1).

[69] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 23(2). See, for example, Journals, March 4, 1996, p. 36; June 13, 2003, p. 933; September 15, 2003, pp. 952, 959.

[70] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 24.

[71] R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 25(1).

[72] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 25(1). In 2003, the representation order set August 25, 2004 as the date when the new electoral boundaries were to come into effect. The Act respecting the effective date of the representation order of 2003 (S.C. 2004, c. 1) changed the date to April 1, 2004 to ensure that the order was effective on the first dissolution of Parliament that occurred on or after that date. See the remarks of Don Boudria (Government House Leader) at second reading of the Bill (Debates, September 17, 2003, pp. 7464‑5).

[73] Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 26.

[74] R.S. 1985, c. E‑3, s. 28.

Electoral Process

Electoral Process in Canada

A dissolution of Parliament terminates all business in the Senate and in the House of Commons and is followed by a general election. Unless Parliament is dissolved earlier, the date of a general election is set in accordance with the provisions of the Canada Elections Act which stipulates that each general election must be held on the third Monday of October in the fourth calendar year following polling day for the last general election.[1]

The election process has evolved considerably since 1867. The Constitution Act, 1867 stated that electoral laws in force at the time in the provinces would apply to the election of Members until such time as Parliament enacted its own legislation.[2] Thus, in 1867 and in 1872, polling days were held on different days in different locations over several weeks:[3] in 1867, elections were held on different dates in different ridings over a period of six weeks; the 1872 election lasted three months.[4] Moreover, with the exception of elections in New Brunswick where the secret ballot had been adopted in 1855, voting was done orally.[5]

In 1874, Parliament passed electoral legislation which stipulated that votes had to be cast on the same day in all electoral districts and by secret ballot.[6] A number of administrative and process amendments were made to the legislation over the following decades and in 1920 a new statute was enacted. Among other matters, the Dominion Elections Act created the office of the Chief Electoral Officer to oversee the election process.[7] In 1929, the Act was amended to establish Monday as polling day, unless that day was a statutory holiday, in which case the election was held the next day.[8] Statutory provisions to limit the length of an election were only introduced in 1982 when the electoral period was set at a minimum of 50 days;[9] in 1993, the election period was shortened to a minimum of 47 days.[10]

In 1996, amendments to the Canada Elections Act introduced a permanent register of electors, reduced the minimum time required between the issue of the election writs and polling day to 36 days and staggered the hours of voting across Canada’s six time zones with polling stations open 12 hours in each region.[11] In 2000, the Canada Elections Act was repealed and replaced with an identically titled new statute which modernized the organization and terminology of electoral legislation.[12] In addition, the new statute repealed the Dominion Controverted Elections Act which dealt with disputed election results; new provisions for resolving such matters were added to the Canada Elections Act. The Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act (1876) and the Disfranchising Act (1894) were also repealed.[13] In 2007, the Act was amended to provide for fixed elections every four years.[14]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Accessibility and the Electoral Process

The right to vote expanded gradually until the First World War and then the electorate doubled when women gained the franchise. By 1920, nearly all adults had the right to vote, although many individuals were still disqualified on racial, religious or economic grounds.

Mechanisms to ensure that electors could exercise their franchise multiplied in this period. In 1948, for example, time off from work to vote was increased to three hours. This rose to four hours in 1970, before settling back at three hours in 1996, when polling hours were extended, making the extra time off unnecessary.

A greater change in voting procedures was the postal ballot for members of the armed forces. The Mackenzie King government instituted the system for military personnel serving overseas during the Second World War, allowing some 342,000 members of the armed forces to vote in the 1945 general election.

For the same election, proxy voting was introduced for Canadians being held as prisoners of war. Proxy votes, some 1,300 in 1945, were cast by the nearest relatives of those being held prisoner. The provision was restored in 1951 and used again during the Korean conflict, when 18 Canadians were prisoners of war.

Voting by people who were away from home on election day was accommodated by several innovative procedures in this period. In 1951, special arrangements were introduced in sanatoriums and chronic care hospitals. Voting at polling stations set up in these locations, and in homes for the elderly after 1960, would be suspended temporarily so that election officers (with permission from those in charge of the facility) could take the voting equipment from room to room, enabling anyone who was bedridden to vote if he or she wished to do so.

In addition, the military postal ballot was extended to the spouses of armed forces personnel in 1955, so that they could vote while accompanying their husbands or wives on a posting away from the home constituency.

The electoral process itself can influence voter turnout. Qualifications determining eligibility, the registration process, the available methods of voting, and information about electoral rights and procedures – all can have an effect on turnout. Illness and hospitalization or absence from home for other reasons are often cited as reasons for not voting, as are weather conditions at various times of the year.

Source: “A History of the Vote in Canada” (Ottawa, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada, 2007)

See also the consolidation of voting in this legal encyclopedia.

Issue of the Writs of Election for a General Election

When a general election is called, the Chief Electoral Officer issues each returning officer a writ of election. A writ is a formal written order instructing the returning officer in each electoral district to hold an election for a Member of Parliament.

Resources

See Also

  • Parliament
  • Elections
  • Vote
  • Readjustment Process

Notes

  1. S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 56.1. It is important to note that the Canada Elections Act does not affect the powers of the Governor General, including the discretionary power to dissolve Parliament at any time (s. 56.1(1)). If the Chief Electoral Officer is of the opinion that the third Monday in October is not suitable, for cultural, religious or other reasons, he or she may recommend another date to the Governor in Council (s. 56.2(1)). The alternate day must either be the Tuesday immediately following the Monday that would otherwise be polling day or the Monday of the following week (s. 56.2(4)). For further information, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
  2. R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 41.
  3. Jackson and Jackson (6th ed., p. 437) states that this allowed the government to control the timing of elections in each region: “Elections were held first in those areas where the government was the most popular, moving to areas of lesser support only later”. This system even allowed a candidate who lost in one riding to run again in another riding (A History of the Vote in Canada, 2nd ed., p. 43).
  4. A History of the Vote in Canada, 2nd ed., p. 43. See also Appendix 12, “General Election Results Since 1867”.
  5. A History of the Vote in Canada, 2nd ed., p. 43.
  6. An Act respecting the Elections of Members of the House of Commons, S.C. 1874, c. 9.
  7. S.C. 1920, c. 46, in particular s. 19.
  8. An Act to amend the Dominion Elections Act, S.C. 1929, c. 40, s. 15.
  9. An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 1980-81-82, c. 96, s. 2. The government had originally proposed a 47-day campaign period. Prior to 1982, campaigns averaged about 60 days because of the time needed to prepare and finalize the voters’ list. See the comments of Donald S. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) in 1970 at second reading of Bill C-215, An Act respecting the franchise of electors and the election of members to the House of Commons (Debates, May 27, 1970, pp. 7391-4) and of David Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council) in 1981 at second reading of Bill C-58, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act (Debates, April 14, 1981, pp. 9279-81).
  10. An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 1993, c. 19, s. 3.
  11. An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, the Parliament of Canada Act and the Referendum Act, S.C. 1996, c. 35. See also Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing, Reforming Electoral Democracy: Final Report, Vol. 2, Ottawa: Minister of Supply and Services Canada, 1991, p. 79, tabled in the House on February 13, 1992 (Journals, p. 1016). Prior to the passage of the 1996 amendments, the enumeration or collection of names of voters was done after an election was called. Since mid?campaign enumeration is no longer required because of the establishment of a permanent register of electors, it was feasible to shorten the election campaign period to 36 days. In addition, the staggered hours of polling rectified the long?standing grievance of western voters who heard election results from eastern and central Canada while the polls in the west were still open. For further information, see A History of the Vote in Canada, 2nd ed., pp. 103-4.
  12. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9. The new statute reflected recommendations made by the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing in 1991, by the Chief Electoral Officer in his reports to Parliament and by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in 1998 (Thirty-Fifth Report, presented on June 18, 1998 (Journals, September 21, 1998, p. 1039)). See also the remarks of Don Boudria (Government House Leader) during debate on the motion to refer the Bill to committee before second reading (Debates, October 19, 1999, pp. 307?9).
  13. The Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act was adopted in 1876 and provided for the establishment of a commission of inquiry to investigate the existence of corrupt or illegal practices at the election of Members of the House of Commons (S.C. 1876, c. 9 and c. 10). The Disfranchising Act was enacted in 1894 and provided for the presentation to the courts of a petition alleging bribery in an election and for the disenfranchment of electors who had taken bribes (S.C. 1894, c. 14).
  14. An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2007, c. 10. Further information on the evolution of the electoral process can be found on the Elections Canada Web site at elections.ca. See also Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
  15. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 57(1). See, for example, Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 139, Extra, December 1, 2005; Part II, Vol. 142, Extra, September 8, 2008. The Governor in Council may order the withdrawal of the writ for an electoral district if the Chief Electoral Officer advises that it would be impractical to conduct an election because of a flood, fire, or other disaster. The new polling day must be within three months after the issue of the new writ (s. 59).
  16. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, ss. 57(1.2)(a) and 58.
  17. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, ss. 57(1.2)(b) and (c) and 57(2)(c).
  18. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 57(2).
  19. Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, s. 24(2).

Further Reading

If you’re interested in diving deeper, our reading included:
Black, Jerome H. “Reforming the Context of the Voting Process in Canada: Lessons from Other Democracies.” Voter Turnout in Canada, ed. Herman Bakvis. Vol. 15 of the research studies of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. Toronto and Oxford: Dundurn Press, 1991.

Brodie, Janine, with the assistance of Celia Chandler. “Women and the Electoral Process in Canada.” Women in Canadian Politics: Toward Equity in Representation, ed. Kathy Megyery. Vol. 6 of the research studies of the Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing. Toronto and Oxford: Dundurn Press, 1991.

Canada. Royal Commission on Electoral Reform and Party Financing (RCERPF). Reforming Electoral Democracy. Volumes 1 and 2 of the Final Report. Ottawa: RCERPF, 1991.

The Canadian Gallup Poll Ltd. “Attitudes of the Public Towards the Federal Electoral Process in Canada.” Commissioned by Elections Canada. 1979.

The Canadian Gallup Poll Ltd. “Attitudes of the Public Towards the Federal Electoral Process in Canada.” Commissioned by Elections Canada. 1980.

By-Elections

By-Elections in Canada

Between general elections, when a seat in the House of Commons becomes officially vacant, the Speaker must inform the Chief Electoral Officer without delay with a Speaker’s warrant for the issue of a writ for the election of a new member. Between the 11th and the 180th day after the Chief Electoral Officer receives this warrant, the Governor General, acting on the advice of the Prime Minister, must set the date for holding a by-election.

Once the date is known, the Chief Electoral Officer issues a writ to the returning officer of the electoral district concerned, directing him or her to hold a by-election on that date. If a general election is called after the by-election writ has been issued and before the by-election is held, the writ for the by-election is considered withdrawn, and the Chief Electoral Officer publishes a notice in the Canada Gazette to that effect.

Conduct of By-elections

A by-election is conducted in almost the same way as a general election, except that it is held in only one or a few specified electoral districts. There are some other differences, as outlined in the table below.

General Election By-election
A general election always follows a dissolution of the House of Commons. The House of Commons is not dissolved.
To allow electors in the Canadian Forces to vote, a polling station is set up on every base for a specified period before election day. Elections Canada automatically sends a special ballot voting kit to each Canadian Forces elector who is registered in an electoral district where a by-election is taking place.
To allow electors in correctional institutions to vote, a polling station is set up in every correctional institution, and voting takes place on the 10th day before election day. If Elections Canada approves an application from an incarcerated elector whose place of ordinary residence is in the electoral district where the by-election is being held, it sends a special ballot voting kit to the elector.
To vote in a general election, the elector must be ordinarily resident in the electoral district on election day. To vote in a by-election, the elector must have been ordinarily resident in the electoral district from the beginning of the revision period until election day.
Political parties receive partial reimbursement for the election expenses they incur. Political parties receive no reimbursement for the election expenses they incur.
The Broadcasting Arbitrator determines the allocation of free and paid broadcasting time among registered political parties. Registered political parties are not allocated broadcasting time to advertise during a by-election.
The Chief Electoral Officer submits a report covering the administration of a general election within 90 days after the return of the writs. The Chief Electoral Officer submits a report 90 days after the end of the year, covering the administration of all by-elections held during that year.

Source: “The Electoral System of Canada” (4th Edition, Ottawa, Office of the Chief Electoral Officer of Canada)

Resources

See Also

  • Elections
  • Vote
  • Federal Electoral Legislation
  • Readjustment Process
  • Federal Electoral Districts
  • Contested Elections
  • Women Rights
  • Electoral Finance
  • Chief Electoral Officer
  • Dominion Elections
  • Writ of Election
  • Voting
  • Electoral Boundaries
  • Federal Electoral System
  • Federal Elections

Notes

Parliaments

Parliaments in Canada

Since 1867, the number, names and boundaries of federal electoral districts have changed repeatedly. In successive elections, voters in each electoral district have chosen a candidate to represent them in the House of Commons.

Parliament Date the writs
were issued
Election date Dissolution date Duration
(years, months)
Political party
in power
Seats (won/total)
1st August 6, 1867 Aug. 7–Sept. 20, 1867 July 8, 1872 4 y, 9 m Liberal-Conservative 101/181
2nd July 15, 1872 Jul. 20–Oct. 12, 1872 January 2, 1874 1 y, 5 m Liberal-Conservative 103/200
3rd January 2, 1874 January 22, 1874 August 17, 1878 4 y, 6 m Liberal 133/206
4th August 17, 1878 September 17, 1878 May 18, 1882 3 y, 7 m Liberal-Conservative 137/206
5th May 18, 1882 June 20, 1882 January 15, 1887 4 y, 6 m Liberal-Conservative 139/210
6th January 17, 1887 February 22, 1887 February 3, 1891 4 y, 0 m Liberal-Conservative 123/215
7th February 4, 1891 March 5, 1891 April 24, 1896 5 y, 1 m Liberal-Conservative 123/215
8th April 24, 1896 June 23, 1896 October 9, 1900 4 y, 3 m Liberal 118/213
9th October 9, 1900 November 7, 1900 September 29, 1904 3 y, 9 m Liberal 132/213
10th September 29, 1904 November 3, 1904 September 17, 1908 3 y, 9 m Liberal 139/214
11th September 18, 1908 October 26, 1908 July 29, 1911 2 y, 8 m Liberal 133/221
12th August 3, 1911 September 21, 1911 October 6, 1917 6 y, 0 m Conservative 133/221
13th October 31, 1917 December 17, 1917 October 4, 1921 3 y, 8 m Unionist 153/235
14th October 8, 1921 December 6, 1921 September 5, 1925 3 y, 6 m Liberal 118/235*
15th September 5, 1925 October 29, 1925 July 2, 1926 0 y, 6 m Liberal 115/245*
16th July 20, 1926 September 14, 1926 May 30, 1930 3 y, 7 m Liberal 125/245
17th May 30, 1930 July 28, 1930 August 14, 1935 5 y, 1 m Conservative 137/245
18th August 15, 1935 October 14, 1935 January 25, 1940 4 y, 3 m Liberal 173/245
19th January 27, 1940 March 26, 1940 April 16, 1945 5 y, 1 m Liberal 181/245
20th April 16, 1945 June 11, 1945 April 30, 1949 3 y, 9 m Liberal 125/245
21st April 30, 1949 June 27, 1949 June 13, 1953 4 y, 0 m Liberal 190/262
22nd June 13, 1953 August 10, 1953 April 12, 1957 3 y, 7 m Liberal 171/265
23rd April 12, 1957 June 10, 1957 February 1, 1958 0 y, 5 m Progressive Conservative 111/265*
24th February 1, 1958 March 31, 1958 April 19, 1962 4 y, 1 m Progressive Conservative 208/265
25th April 19, 1962 June 18, 1962 February 6, 1963 0 y, 6 m Progressive Conservative 116/265*
26th February 6, 1963 April 8, 1963 September 8, 1965 2 y, 3 m Liberal 128/265*
27th September 8, 1965 November 8, 1965 April 23, 1968 2 y, 4 m Liberal 131/265*
28th April 25, 1968 June 25, 1968 September 1, 1972 4 y, 2 m Liberal 155/264
29th September 1, 1972 October 30, 1972 May 9, 1974 1 y, 5 m Liberal 109/265*
30th May 9, 1974 July 8, 1974 March 26, 1979 4 y, 7 m Liberal 141/264
31st March 26, 1979 May 22, 1979 December 14, 1979 0 y, 5 m Progressive Conservative 136/282*
32nd December 14, 1979 February 18, 1980 July 9, 1984 4 y, 4 m Liberal 147/282
33rd July 9, 1984 September 4, 1984 October 1, 1988 4 y, 1 m Progressive Conservative 211/282
34th October 1, 1988 November 21, 1988 September 8, 1993 4 y, 8 m Progressive Conservative 169/295
35th September 8, 1993 October 25, 1993 April 27, 1997 3 y, 5 m Liberal 177/295
36th April 27, 1997 June 2, 1997 October 22, 2000 3 y, 4 m Liberal 155/301
37th October 22, 2000 November 27, 2000 May 23, 2004 3 y, 5 m Liberal 172/301
38th May 23, 2004 June 28, 2004 November 29, 2005 1 y, 4 m Liberal 135/308*
39th November 29, 2005 January 23, 2006 September 7, 2008 2 y, 6 m Conservative 124/308*
40th September 7, 2008 October 14, 2008 March 26, 2011 2 y, 4 m Conservative 143/308*
41st March 26, 2011 May 2, 2011 August 2, 2015 4 y, 3 m Conservative 166/308
Average 3 y, 4 m

Seats

For the number of seats in the House, broken down by province and party, in 2017, see below:

Liberal Conservative NDP Bloc Quebecois* Green Party* Ind. Vacant Total
Alberta 4 28 1 1 34
British Columbia 17 10 14 1 42
Manitoba 7 5 2 14
New Brunswick 10 10
Newfoundland and Labrador 7 7
Northwest Territories 1 1
Nova Scotia 11 11
Nunavut 1 1
Ontario 80 33 8 121
Prince Edward Island 4 4
Quebec 40 12 16 10 78
Saskatchewan 1 10 3 14
Yukon 1 1
Total 183 98 44 10 1 1 1 338
Last Modified: 2017.07.06
*A political party must have at least 12 Members in the House of Commons to be a “recognized party” for the purposes of parliamentary proceedings.

Ways and Means

Ways and Means in Canada

The Business of Ways and Means

The business of “ways and means” is the process by which the government sets out its economic policy through the presentation of a budget and obtains parliamentary approval to raise the necessary revenues through taxation. The most important revenue‑raising statutes (i.e., those which replenish the Consolidated Revenue Fund) are the Income Tax Act, the Excise Tax Act, the Excise Act, and the Customs Tariff.
A principle fundamental to the ways and means process is the requirement that taxation bills originate in the House of Commons. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides that “Bills for appropriating any Part of the Public Revenue, or for imposing any Tax or Impost, shall originate in the House of Commons”,[377] a requirement echoed in the Standing Orders of the House.[378]
There are two types of ways and means proceedings:
* the debate on a motion to approve in general the budgetary policy of the government (the budget presentation followed by the four‑day ensuing debate); and

* the consideration of legislation (bills based on ways and means motions already approved by the House) which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer.

A ways and means motion proposes that a particular financial measure be considered by the House. For a budget, the motion seeks to approve the budgetary policy of the government; for legislation, the motion sets out the terms and conditions of the proposed measures, most notably the rates and incidence of taxation. While a budget is normally followed by the introduction of ways and means bills, such bills do not have to be preceded by a budget presentation. Generally, taxation legislation can be introduced at any time during a session; the only prerequisite being prior concurrence in a ways and means motion.

The Crown, on the advice of its responsible Ministers, initiates all requests to impose or increase a tax on the public and the House either grants or withholds its consent.[379] A ways and means motion may therefore only be moved by a Minister of the Crown.[380] Once adopted, a ways and means motion forestalls the passage of any amendment that would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown.[381]

Ways and Means Proceedings (1867-1968)

Initially, the business of ways and means involved the consideration and authorization of measures to raise revenue and measures to appropriate, or set aside, from the Consolidated Revenue Fund, the funds approved in the estimates by the Committee of Supply.[382] Ways and means procedures remained essentially unchanged for the first 100 years following Confederation. Measures were proposed in the form of resolutions, each of which had to be debated and adopted formally in the Committee of Ways and Means, then reported to the House. Once reported, the resolutions were read a first and second time and agreed to, before being embodied in one or more bills which then passed through the same legislative stages as other bills.[383]

Over the years, the major business of ways and means became the consideration and adoption of resolutions emanating from the budget speech. However, the financial statement by the Minister of Finance, and opposition responses, could hardly be termed a debate. On a designated day, the Minister of Finance would rise in the Chamber and address the House on the “financial condition of the Dominion”. Once the opposition had been given an opportunity to reply, the House would go into the Committee of Ways and Means and consider any resolutions respecting taxation or tariffs which the Minister had proposed in the budget. At first, consideration of the budget speech and consequential ways and means resolutions accounted for only a small proportion of the work of the Committee; the bulk of its time was occupied with appropriating the funds voted under supply. Gradually, however, the financial statement evolved into a major political event. Debate on the budget lengthened as the opposition used it both to challenge the government’s financial policy and, through the use of amendments, to draw attention to specific government actions and programs.
For many years after Confederation, the Minister of Finance followed no established procedure when presenting the budget. Sometimes, the presentation was made on the motion for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Supply[384] and, on other occasions, while the House was sitting as the Committee of Ways and Means.[385] From 1912 to 1968, the budget statement was presented on the motion for the House to resolve itself into the Committee of Ways and Means. As with supply, the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair to go into the Committee of Ways and Means was debatable, amendable and not subject to time limitations. This meant that budget proposals were debated initially on the motion to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means, debated in the form of resolutions in the Committee, debated when the resolutions were reported to and read in the House, and debated again as bills passed through the normal legislative process. This practice was not modified until 1913, at which time the House resolved that, when the order was read to consider ways and means on a Thursday or a Friday, the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair would be decided without debate or amendment.

Following changes to the Standing Orders in 1955,[386] there was no longer any debate on the motion for the Speaker to leave the Chair for the House to go into the Committee of Ways and Means, except on occasions when a budget was to be presented. In such cases, the motion, together with any amendments, could be debated for a total of eight sitting days. Any subamendment would be disposed of on the fifth day of debate; any amendment on the seventh.[387] In the early 1960s, the House further limited the budget debate to six days,[388] with the subamendment and amendment disposed of on the second and fourth day, respectively. Speeches, with the exception of those of the Minister of Finance, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, were limited to 30 minutes; the Member moving the subamendment could speak for 40 minutes.[389]
Before the 1968 changes to the Standing Orders, tax changes could only be introduced in a budget. Most felt this procedure was ill‑suited to the modern context in which government saw fiscal policy as its prime instrument for influencing economic activity and needed the flexibility to respond quickly to changing economic conditions.[390]

Ways and Means Proceedings (1968 to Present)

In 1968, the House agreed to abolish the Committee of Ways and Means[391] in order to do away with the Committee’s role in considering resolutions to authorize any withdrawals from the Consolidated Revenue Fund following the adoption of supply, and to eliminate the repetitive process of debating budget proposals initially on the motion to resolve into the Committee of Ways and Means, again in the Committee of Ways and Means, and yet again during the various stages of the bills subsequently introduced.[392] Ways and means bills, however, continued to be considered in a Committee of the Whole until 1985.[393]

As a result of these changes, the budget debate takes place on a generally worded motion respecting the budgetary policy of the government. Ways and means motions (proposals respecting changes to government revenues) resulting from the budget are proposed to the House once the budget debate has concluded and are decided without debate or amendment. Detailed consideration of the proposed ways and means measures takes place only during the debate on the bills brought forward to implement them.[394]

In 1982, the time limit for all Members speaking on the budget motion, except the Minister of Finance, the Member speaking first on behalf of the Opposition, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition, was reduced from 30 to 20 minutes and a 10‑minute period for questions and comments was set aside following each 20‑minute speech.[395] In 1991, the total number of sitting days allocated to the budget debate was reduced from six to four, with the subamendment and amendment disposed of on the third and fourth day, respectively. As well, amendments were adopted governing the notice provisions for a budget presentation as well as the provisions governing proceedings on the day of the budget presentation.[396]

In February 1994, the House decided that the adoption of a ways and means motion could apply to amendments to a bill then before the House, provided that such amendments were otherwise admissible.[397] At the same time, a new rule authorized the Standing Committee on Finance to consider and report on proposals with respect to the budgetary policy of the government.[398] The Committee could begin its review on the first sitting day in September of each year and present its reports on this matter until the tenth sitting day before the last normal sitting day each December.

The Legislative Phase

The legislation required to give effect to taxation proposals, whether outlined in a budget or initiated independently of a budget during the course of a session, must go through a unique preliminary step in the legislative process. The House must first adopt a ways and means motion before a bill which imposes a tax or other charge on the taxpayer can be introduced. Charges on the people, in this context, refer to new taxes, the continuation of an expiring tax, an increase in the rate of an existing tax, or an extension of a tax to a new class of taxpayers. Industry levies and service fees imposed by departments do not constitute charges on the people in the context of ways and means.[454] Legislative proposals which are not intended to raise money but rather to reduce taxation[455] or to change the way in which the funds are to be used once they have been paid into the Consolidated Revenue Fund[456] need not to be preceded by a ways and means motion before being introduced in the House.

Ways and Means Motions

Before taxation legislation can be read a first time, a notice of a ways and means motion must first be tabled in the House by a Minister of the Crown; this may be done at any time during a sitting.[457] The notice normally indicates that the government will ask that the legislation be retroactive to the time of its notice, although it can also be used as a vehicle for public scrutiny prior to the introduction of the relevant legislation. On the day the notice is tabled or at some other time during the session, a Minister of the Crown may make a request to the Speaker that an Order of the Day be designated for the consideration of the motion at a subsequent sitting, that is, to put it on the Order Paper.[458] Although there are virtually no restrictions on when a notice can be tabled, a ways and means motion cannot be moved during the same sitting in which the notice is tabled,[459] or when the ways and means proceedings regarding the budget have yet to be completed.[460] When the Order of the Day is called, a Minister moves that the motion be concurred in. The motion for concurrence must then be decided immediately without debate or amendment.[461] The adoption of a ways and means motion stands as an order of the House either to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of that motion or to propose an amendment or amendments to a bill then before the House.[462]

Ways and means motions can be expressed in general terms,[463] or be very specific, as in the form of draft legislation.[464] In either case, they establish limits on the scope―specifically tax rates and their applicability―of the legislative measures they propose. Neither the provisions of a ways and means bill nor any amendment subsequently proposed to the bill may exceed the limits imposed in the ways and means motion. In particular, they may not increase the amount of a tax or extend the incidence of a tax or the applicable tax base.[465] Should this occur, either a new ways and means motion must be adopted authorizing the exceptions before those provisions may be considered in committee, or the offending provisions must be amended to conform to the resolution on which the bill is based.[466] To proceed otherwise would infringe on the financial initiative of the Crown in taxation measures. “The terms of the Ways and Means motion are a carefully prepared expression of the financial initiative of the Crown and frequent departures from them can only invite deterioration of that most important power.”[467] When a new ways and means motion is required, it must also be adopted rather than simply tabled.[468] Should a bill be found not to conform to the provisions of a ways and means motion, a new motion will be required before the non‑conforming provision can be considered and a decision taken.[469]

A ways and means motion often refers to more than one legislative proposal; it can encompass more than one provision in a bill and may seek to introduce more than one bill or a bill amending more than one statute. There are essentially no procedural restrictions on the motion’s wording or content.[470]

Ways and Means Bills

Concurrence in a ways and means motion constitutes an order to bring in a bill or bills based on the provisions of the motion.[471] A ways and means bill must be “based on” but not necessarily “identical to” the provisions of its ways and means motion.[472] Such a bill can then be read the first time and printed, immediately after the motion is concurred in or at a subsequent sitting of the House.[473] From this point on, the legislative steps that ways and means bills must complete are exactly the same as those followed for other public bills.[474] Like all tax measures, bills imposing a charge upon the people, and thereby requiring a ways and means motion, must originate in the House of Commons.[475]

Amendment in Committee and at Report Stage

No amendment may be proposed to the text of a bill until the bill is considered in committee. Amendments to ways and means bills are subject to the normal rules respecting legislation.[476] Amendments which exceed the scope of the motion on which the bill is based are procedurally unacceptable unless a new ways and means motion is concurred in prior to the amendment being moved.[477] Since ways and means motions may only be proposed by a Minister of the Crown, and since Ministers do not usually sit on committees, any amendment exceeding the provisions of the authorizing ways and means motion may only be proposed and considered at report stage. If the House has concurred in the required ways and means motion prior to the bill reaching report stage, the Minister may put amendments on notice and they will be considered with any other report stage amendments. If the debate at report stage has begun before the required ways and means motion has been concurred in, the Minister will require the House’s consent to table and decide on the ways and means motion and to proceed to consider the amendments.

Ways and Means Bills Requiring a Royal Recommendation

If a bill based on a ways and means motion also contains provisions relating to government expenditure, the bill will also require a royal recommendation.[478] In such cases, the House must both adopt the ways and means motion authorizing the government to proceed with the taxation measures, and give leave, after the normal 48‑hour notice period, to introduce those spending provisions which are subject to the royal recommendation, before proceeding to the first reading of the bill.[479]

In the event that the notice requirements for the expenditure provisions in a bill requiring a royal recommendation have not been met, the bill will be withdrawn and the order for second reading of the bill discharged and removed from the Order Paper. However, this would not affect the validity of any ways and means motion previously concurred in by the House.[480]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Other Matters related to the Parliamentary Financial Procedures

Parliamentary Financial Procedures

The development of parliamentary financial procedure is closely bound up with the evolution of the financial relationship between Parliament and the Crown.

The Royal Recommendation

Under the Canadian system of government, the Crown alone initiates all public expenditure and Parliament may only authorize spending which has been recommended by the Governor General. This prerogative, referred to as the “financial initiative of the Crown”, is the basis essential to the system of responsible government and is signified by way of the “royal recommendation”.

The House of Commons’ Claim to Predominance in Financial Matters

The Constitution and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons require that bills which appropriate (impose a charge on the public revenue) or levy any tax or duty (impose a charge upon the people) must first be introduced and passed in the House of Commons.

The Business of Supply

The business of supply is the process by which the government asks Parliament to appropriate the funds required to meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already approved by Parliament. The Crown, acting on the advice of its responsible Ministers, transmits to the House of Commons the government’s projected annual expenditures, or “estimates”, for parliamentary scrutiny and approval. (…) The supply procedures established in 1867 remained basically unchanged for the first hundred years following Confederation.

Borrowing Authority

The government exercises its borrowing authority when there is a shortfall between its expenditures, as authorized by Parliament in the main and supplementary estimates and in interim supply, and its revenues, whose projected levels are also approved by Parliament. The government borrows principally by issuing treasury bills, marketable bonds and Canada Savings Bonds, on domestic and foreign markets. The Financial Administration Act states that the Governor in Council may authorize the Minister to borrow money on behalf of Her Majesty in right of Canada.

Governor General’s Special Warrants

In special circumstances, the Financial Administration Act allows the Governor in Council to ask the Governor General to issue a Special Warrant permitting the government to make charges on the Consolidated Revenue Fund, not otherwise authorized by Parliament.

The Budget

By tradition, the Minister of Finance annually makes a formal budget presentation, offering a comprehensive assessment of the financial standing of the government and giving an overview of the nation’s economic condition. The Minister also declares if and where the burden on the taxpayer will be increased or reduced.

The Public Accounts of Canada

Under the Financial Administration Act, the Receiver General is responsible for ensuring that accounts are kept for each department and agency of the Government of Canada. These accounts must show all expenditures made under each appropriation, all government revenues, and all other payments into and out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund, together with the assets and liabilities, the contingent liabilities of Canada and the related reserves that are deemed necessary to present a fair picture of the country’s financial position.

The Auditor General of Canada

The Auditor General of Canada is an officer of Parliament, appointed by the Governor in Council under the Auditor General Act, to audit the accounts of Canada and investigate the financial affairs of the federal government. The position was first established in the Audit Act, 1878.

Resources

See Also

  • Public Finances
  • Parliament

Notes

[377] R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 53.

[378] Standing Order 80(1): “All aids and supplies granted to the Sovereign by the Parliament of Canada are the sole gift of the House of Commons, and all bills for granting such aids and supplies ought to begin with the House, as it is the undoubted right of the House to direct, limit, and appoint in all such bills, the ends, purposes, considerations, conditions, limitations and qualifications of such grants, which are not alterable by the Senate”.

[379] May, 23rd ed., p. 848.

[380] On a number of occasions, the Speaker has ruled that a private Member’s bill proposed an amendment to the Income Tax Act that would have the effect of increasing the amount of tax payable by taxpayers or businesses. As a bill that seeks to eliminate an existing tax deduction cannot be introduced in the House unless it is preceded by a ways and means motion, the Speaker ruled that the bill’s first reading was null and void, and ruled that the order for second reading of the bill be discharged and the bill withdrawn from the Order Paper (Debates, October 24, 2002, p. 889; November 22, 2002, pp. 1808‑9; March 11, 2004, p. 1366; November 28, 2007, pp. 1463‑4).

[381] May, 23rd ed., p. 896. The royal recommendation has the same limiting effect with respect to amendments relating to spending. See the section in this chapter entitled “The Royal Recommendation”.

[382] The Committee of Supply and the Committee of Ways and Means were Committees of the Whole House. The rules held that all financial measures―to tax as well as to spend―should be given the fullest possible consideration, both in committee and in the House (Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 88).

[383] Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 495.

[384] This occurred in 1867, 1868, 1875, 1878, 1889, 1892, 1896 and 1911.

[385] This occurred in 1870, 1874 and 1879.

[386] See Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 922‑7. See also Debates, July 1, 1955, pp. 5558‑65.

[387] Criticism of ways and means proceedings focused on two concerns: the right to move subamendments to the motion to resolve into Committee, and the length of debate on the motion relating to the budget presentation. The first was resolved in 1927, when the House agreed to the right to move a subamendment (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 316‑68). The second issue—the length of debate—was more complex. The questions of limiting individual speeches and the overall proceedings were often discussed in the context of time allotment for debate in general. See, for example, the resolution debated and adopted on April 19, 1886 (Journals, pp. 167‑8). In 1927, a new rule limited speeches to 40 minutes on most occasions and for most speakers (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 328‑9), although some Members attempted unsuccessfully to exempt the budget debate from the application of these limits (Debates, March 18, 1927, pp. 1352‑7, 1364‑71).

[388] Journals, July 25, 1960, p. 826; August 8, 1960, p. 898.

[389] These changes were introduced provisionally at first and made permanent on April 12, 1962 (Journals, p. 350). They remained in force until 1968.

[390] See Stewart, pp. 102‑4.

[391] Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554‑79, in particular pp. 559‑60.

[392] In its Third Report, presented to the House on December 6, 1968, the Special Committee on Procedure of the House declared the existing ways and means procedure “if anything, even less readily comprehensible than that relating to supply”, with an underlying purpose which appeared “to be lost in obscurity” (Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 429, 431‑2). See also Stewart, pp. 102‑4.

[393] In 1985, amendments were made to the Standing Orders whereby ways and means bills would no longer be dealt with in a Committee of the Whole, but would be referred after second reading to a legislative committee (Journals, June 27, 1985, p. 919). Standing Order 73 was further amended in 1994 to allow for all bills, except supply bills, to be referred after second reading either to a standing, special, or legislative committee (Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112‑20).

[394] See the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, presented to the House on December 20, 1968 (Journals, pp. 559‑60).

[395] See Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400.

[396] Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2918-9.

[397] Standing Order 83(4). See Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117.

[398] Standing Order 83.1. For further information on this procedure, see the section in this chapter entitled “Pre-Budget Consultations”.

[454] May, 23rd ed., pp. 896‑903. See also Speaker Parent’s rulings, Debates, February 12, 1998, p. 3765; December 2, 1998, pp. 10789‑91; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, June 12, 2001, pp. 5024‑7.

[455] See Speaker Michener’s ruling, Journals, December 9, 1957, p. 254; Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 27, 1972, p. 223; Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, February 1, 2008, p. 2480. See also May, 23rd ed., pp. 901‑2.

[456] See Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, June 13, 2005, pp. 6990‑2.

[457] Standing Order 83(1). The term “at any time” has been interpreted quite literally. Notices of ways and means motions have been tabled at the start of a sitting (Debates, June 2, 2005, p. 6521; December 4, 2007, p. 1677), on a point of order (Debates, September 9, 1985, p. 6420), during Routine Proceedings (Debates, April 29, 1994, p. 3711; September 18, 2006, pp. 2902‑3), during “Statements by Ministers” (Journals, June 12, 1987, p. 1089; June 18, 1987, pp. 1200‑1), during Government Orders (Debates, December 6, 2004, pp. 2328‑9, March 27, 2007, p. 7997), during an emergency debate (Debates, October 14, 1971, p. 8689), during an Address debate (Journals, April 21, 1980, pp. 61‑2), immediately following Oral Questions (Debates, March 11, 2008, p. 3971) and immediately before Private Members’ Business (Debates, November 2, 2006, p. 4673). However, the Speaker has clearly indicated that such tabling would not be appropriate during Question Period or when another Member is speaking unless the House was about to adjourn. See Speaker Bosley’s ruling, Debates, September 11, 1985, p. 6498. For an exception to this rule, see Debates, October 31, 2006, p. 4502. Prior to 1968, the practice was for notices of ways and means motions to be given only during the budget speech. It is now procedurally acceptable for a Minister to introduce ways and means legislation based on budget proposals presented in a previous session. See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, March 20, 1972, p. 202, Debates, pp. 963‑5.

[458] Standing Order 83(2). See, for example, Journals, March 27, 2007, p. 1163, Debates, p. 7997; Journals, June 12, 2008, p. 983, Debates, p. 6896.

[459] Standing Order 83(1). This restriction has been circumvented with the consent of the House. See, for example, Journals, October 15, 2001, p. 705; June 2, 2005, pp. 825, 827.

[460] Standing Order 83(3).

[461] See, for example, Journals, December 5, 2007, p. 265; March 13, 2008, pp. 598‑9. Occasionally, by unanimous consent, the order for consideration of a ways and means motion is deemed to have been read, the motion to concur is deemed moved and seconded, the question is deemed put, and a recorded division is deemed requested and deferred until an appointed date and time. See, for example, Journals, February 5, 2001, p. 35; March 24, 2003, p. 546. On occasion, the motion to concur is deemed moved, seconded and agreed to. See, for example, Journals, February 20, 2001, p. 117; April 19, 2005, p. 648; October 29, 2007, pp. 73‑4.

[462] Standing Order 83(4). No notice is required for such a bill, even though recent practice seems to suggest otherwise. Since the early 1990s, bills based on a ways and means motion have normally been introduced and read a first time during a sitting of the House following the adoption of the motion. See, for example, Journals, March 13, 2008, pp. 598‑9, Notice Paper, p. III; Journals, March 14, 2008, p. 608, Order Paper, p. 7. Notwithstanding this recent practice, a Minister will sometimes proceed with the introduction and first reading of the bill immediately after the ways and means motion has been adopted. See, for example, Journals, March 25, 2003, pp. 548‑9, 551‑3, Order Paper, pp. 7, 21; Journals, November 23, 2005, pp. 1316‑7, Order Paper, p. 30; Journals, October 29, 2007, pp. 73‑6, Order Paper, pp. 7‑8, 17. On occasion, two or more ways and means motions were adopted and a single bill was introduced. See, for example, Journals, February 16, 1971, p. 334; April 3, 1973, p. 237; October 31, 2007, pp. 119‑21; November 14, 2007, pp. 154‑6; November 21, 2007, pp. 185‑6.

[463] See, for example, Journals, March 19, 2007, p. 1111 (Sessional Paper No. 8570‑391‑19).

[464] See, for example, Journals, March 11, 2008, p. 560 (Sessional Paper No. 8570‑392‑12).

[465] May, 23rd ed., p. 915. In the fall of 2006, a Member rose on a point of order to state that Bill C‑253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions), was improperly before the House. He contended that the bill contained provisions that would effectively increase the amount of tax payable by the taxpayer, which would result in potentially more taxes being collected, and therefore should have been preceded by the adoption of a ways and means motion (Debates, June 21, 2006, pp. 2758‑9). The Speaker stated that the proposal amounted to a tax deferral, and that consequently it did not impose any increased tax burden on the taxpayer (Debates, November 1, 2006, p. 4540). In the spring of 2008, a Member rose on a point of order concerning the admissibility of sections 45 to 48 of ways and means motion No. 10 to implement certain provisions of the budget tabled in Parliament on February 26 and to enact provisions to preserve the fiscal plan set out in that budget (Debates, March 11, 2008, p. 3971). More specifically, the point of order involved conditional amendments that sought to amend or repeal the amendments to the Income Tax Act contained in Bill C‑253, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act (deductibility of RESP contributions), should the latter receive Royal Assent. In reply to the fact that the ways and means motion contained measures that were not included in the budget, the Speaker has pointed out that their stated objective was “to protect Canada’s fiscal framework” as set out in the budget and that therefore the motion could proceed in its current form (Debates, March 13, 2008, pp. 4109‑10).

[466] See, for example, Speaker Jerome’s rulings, Journals, July 15, 1975, p. 710; May 19, 1978, p. 786; Debates, June 7, 1978, p. 6155.

[467] See Speaker Jerome, Journals, December 18, 1974, p. 224. See also Journals, July 14, 1975, p. 707; May 19, 1978, p. 784.

[468] See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Debates, June 7, 1978, p. 6155.

[469] See Speaker Jerome’s ruling, Journals, May 19, 1978, p. 786.

[470] See Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, December 13, 1973, pp. 746‑7; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, January 29, 1990, pp. 7546‑9.

[471] Standing Order 83(4). This allows for debate on ways and means bills to begin one sitting day earlier than the debate on other government bills.

[472] See, for example, Speaker Jerome’s rulings, Journals, December 18, 1974, pp. 224‑5; July 14, 1975, pp. 706‑7; May 19, 1978, pp. 784‑6. See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, March 13, 2008, pp. 4109‑10.

[473] On one occasion, a ways and means bill was introduced and read the first time without prior concurrence in the ways and means motion and the proceedings on the bill were subsequently declared null and void. See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, October 9, 1986, p. 246.

[474] See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[475] Speaker Parent ruled that a Senate bill imposed a tax and thus should have been preceded by a ways and means motion. The bill was deemed to be improperly before the House and the first reading proceedings were declared null and void. See Debates, December 2, 1998, p. 10791. See also Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, June 12, 2001, pp. 5024‑7.

[476] See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[477] See, for example, Debates, December 19, 1984, p. 1380; Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, December 3, 1991, Issue No. 29, pp. 16‑35, in particular pp. 30‑1. On occasion, by unanimous consent of the House, a new ways and means motion has been concurred in, and a Minister of the Crown has proposed amendments to bills which went beyond the provisions of the original ways and means motion. Consent to move these amendments was usually requested either in a Committee of the Whole or during report stage. For examples where the House has proceeded by way of unanimous consent in a Committee of the Whole, see Debates, April 9, 1973, p. 3121; January 7, 1974, p. 9115. For an example where the House has proceeded by unanimous consent at report stage, see Debates, May 26, 1981, pp. 9931‑2, 9948.

[478] See, for example, Journals, October 19, 1978, p. 38; October 20, 1978, p. 42; April 8, 1997, pp. 1353‑5; April 9, 1997, pp. 1362‑3; March 13, 2008, pp. 598‑9; March 14, 2008, p. 608.

[479] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, June 8, 1988, pp. 16254‑5. Despite the fact that two different procedures are invoked, such bills are acceptable providing the notice provision is respected. See Speaker Sauvé’s rulings, Debates, January 19, 1981, p. 6319; February 16, 1982, p. 15053; Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, January 18, 1984, p. 526.

[480] See Speaker Francis’ ruling, Debates, January 18, 1984, p. 526.

Parliamentary Documents

Parliamentary Documents in Canada

The House of Commons produces many documents for the use of its Members, their staff and the general public. These documents enable all interested parties to follow parliamentary business; they also provide a permanent record of debate, decisions taken and other business coming before the House and its committees. The House of Commons also ensures the broadcasting of the proceedings of the House of Coommons and its committees.

The following publications of the House of Commons are described in this entry:

  • Journals: The official record of what is done in the House, drawn from the scroll kept by Table Officers during the sittings of the House and signed by the Clerk of the House.
  • Debates: The transcribed, edited and corrected record of what is said in the House and in a Committee of the Whole.
  • Order Paper and Notice Paper: The Order Paper is the official agenda of the House, produced for each sitting day, and listing all items that may be brought forward in the Chamber on that day. The Notice Paper contains notices of items which Ministers and Members may wish to bring before the House.
  • Projected Order of Business: A document, produced each day the House sits, containing an unofficial forecast of the order of business for the House that day, including such information as the length of speeches and any time limits on debate.
  • Status of House Business: Updated daily when the House is sitting, this document provides cumulative information on the status of bills, motions and written questions.
  • Minutes of Proceedings, Evidence and Reports of Committees: These three documents form the records produced by parliamentary committees: the “minutes” being the official record of business; the “evidence” being the verbatim transcript of proceedings held in public; and the “reports” containing the observations and recommendations that committees make to the House.
  • Bills: A bill is a proposed law, submitted to Parliament for its approval.

In 1994, the House began to distribute its publications electronically and, the following year, it began the process of making its publications accessible worldwide through the Parliament of Canada Web site.[1] The growing accessibility of official publications by electronic means rationalized the production and distribution of the printed product.[2]

Governing Provisions

The House of Commons has exclusive control of its publications.[3] These documents are published under the authority of the House (as represented by the Speaker or the Clerk). All parliamentary publications are produced in both official languages. The Constitution and the Official Languages Act provide for the use and equal status of the official languages in the “records and journals” of Parliament.[4]

Many of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons make explicit reference to the Journals, the Debates, the Order Paper and the Notice Paper.[5] These publications, along with minutes of committees and bills introduced in the House of Commons, are produced by order of the House, under the authority of the Speaker and are considered “official” publications. Other unofficial publications (for example, the Projected Order of Business and the Status of House Business) have come into existence through administrative decisions or following recommendations of committees. The Status of House Business is published under the authority of the Speaker, while the Projected Order of Business is published under the authority of the Clerk of the House.

The Standing Orders confer on the Clerk of the House responsibility for the preparation of House documents, as well as the safekeeping of parliamentary documents and records.[6]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

The Journals

The Journals record all that is done, or deemed done, by the House. They are the minutes of the meetings of the House[7] and as such, the authoritative record of its proceedings, which may be used as evidence in a court of law.[8] The Journals are prepared by House staff under the authority of the Clerk. The basis of the Journals is the scroll—notes and records kept by the Clerk of the House and other Table Officers in the course of a sitting. Formerly, the House produced daily Votes and Proceedings which were not designated as Journals until they had been revised and bound at the end of the session. Since September 1994, revised weekly Journals have been produced as well as unrevised daily Journals.[9]

No explicit authority exists by which the Journals are published. At the time of Confederation, the then Votes and Proceedings were published under a Sessional Order[10] which read as follows:

That the Votes and Proceedings of this House be printed, being first perused by Mr. Speaker, and that he do appoint the printing thereof, and that no person but such as he shall appoint, do presume to print the same.[11]

The record has since been produced without interruption; by the late 1870s, however, the practice of adopting a sessional order appeared to have fallen into disuse.[12]

When the House is sitting, the printed unrevised Journals for a given sitting are available on the morning of the following weekday; revised compilations are published on a weekly basis. The Journals are also available in electronic format on the Parliament of Canada Web site within a few hours of the adjournment of the House. At the end of a session, a compilation of the revised Journals along with other information is produced in a limited number of bound copies;[13] and a CD‑ROM of this information is made available at the end of a Parliament.

Format and Contents

Until the Second Session of the Thirtieth Parliament (1976‑77), the Journals were printed in separate English and French editions; thereafter they have been printed in a bilingual side‑by‑side format. The Journals follow the order of proceedings in the House and succinct entries are made of the business conducted and decisions taken by the House.

The Standing Orders expressly state that a record is to be made in the Journals when a vote is cast by the Chair and reasons are given,[14] when documents and papers are tabled, presented or filed, including petitions and reports from committees and parliamentary delegations,[15] and when a question is made an Order for Return.[16] In the event the House adjourns for want of a quorum, the names of Members present are to be recorded in the Journals.[17]

Similarly, when a recorded vote has taken place, and Members have been registered as paired, their names are to be recorded in the Journals.[18] When a bill involving expenditure of public funds is introduced in the House, the accompanying royal recommendation is recorded, as are royal recommendations accompanying report stage motions in amendment.[19] During adjournments of the House, when Royal Assent is granted by written declaration, the Speaker may inform the House by having published in the Journals the message received concerning the written declaration of Royal Assent, as well as the prior messages from the Senate concerning every bill in the declaration.[20]

Also, when the Clerk of Petitions reports to the House following the presentation of a petition for a private bill, the report is published in the Journals[21], and further Journals entries are made at subsequent points in the legislative process with regard to private bills.[22]

The Journals contain no record of debate in the House, except to note that it took place on a question. Likewise, no record is made of the proceedings or decisions taken in a Committee of the Whole, except to note when a Committee of the Whole sits, reports progress and reports a bill with or without amendment. When amendments are reported, they are published in the Journals.

Corrections and Alterations

The daily Journals are revised and corrections or changes are incorporated prior to publication of the weekly Journals. The accuracy of the record has rarely been questioned.[23] Errors or omissions have on occasion been brought to the attention of the House;[24] editorial errors are corrected by those responsible for the publication.[25] On one occasion, the Speaker informed the House that the record of the previous day’s proceedings had to be reprinted to correct a number of inaccuracies in voting lists.[26] On another occasion, the Speaker informed the House that a decision on a motion recorded in the previous day’s Journals could not stand, as it rested on one incorrectly recorded vote.[27]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

The Debates

The House of Commons Debates, commonly known as the Debates or as Hansard,[28] is the report in extenso of the debates which take place in the House and in a Committee of the Whole, with due regard to necessary grammatical, vocabulary and editorial changes.

In the pre‑Confederation assemblies, and for some years after Confederation, there was no official reporting of debates in the House of Commons.[29] Contemporary newspapers carried accounts of legislative proceedings including debates, with varying degrees of thoroughness, accuracy and impartiality.

After Confederation, there were attempts to establish a reporting service, which did not succeed as not all Members were convinced of the need.[30] In 1875, reporting of proceedings in the House of Commons began to be carried out on a contract basis, overseen by a committee of the House and in accordance with guidelines meant to ensure the accuracy of the record.[31] Over time, the system of contract reporting was found wanting, and the House came to the view that an improved and comprehensive official parliamentary report was needed.[32]

In April 1880, the House concurred in a committee report which recommended, in the interests of “greater permanency” and “a higher state of efficiency”, that the House engage its own permanent reporting staff.[33] Thus, verbatim reporting of debates became an official function of the House under the control of a committee of the House. In 1882, with the adoption of a report from a committee appointed to supervise the Official Report of the Debates, the House agreed to produce an index to the Debates.[34]

The Debates are published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. They are compiled using the audio recording of the proceedings as well as information provided by Reporting Service staff stationed on the floor of the House. They are produced in both official languages and are available on the following weekday. The Debates are also available in electronic format on the Parliament of Canada Web site within several hours of the adjournment of the House. At the end of a session, a compilation of the revised Debates is produced in a limited number of bound copies and a CD‑ROM is made available at the end of a Parliament.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

The Order Paper and Notice Paper

The Order Paper and the Notice Paper are published together daily when the House sits. The Order Paper is the complete and authoritative agenda of all items of business which may be considered by the House of Commons; unless otherwise provided for in the Standing Orders, only those items may be considered by the House during a sitting.

Other Documents

The Projected Order of Business

The Order Paper lists all the business which might be taken up by the House on a given day, but it does not indicate which items the government intends, or is likely, to call. The Projected Order of Business, published each sitting day, is a tentative working agenda which lists all the government and private Members’ business expected to be taken up on a particular day. It was first published in 1983 as a result of a special procedure committee’s identification of the need for a “simplified, unofficial, daily agenda, in addition to the Order Paper, to indicate the likely order of business for any particular day”.[35]

The Status of House Business

The Status of House Business provides a concise history of each item of business which has been considered by the House or which has appeared on the Order Paper and Notice Paper since the beginning of the session or, in the case of private Members’ items, since the beginning of the Parliament. Produced under the authority of the Speaker, it is available electronically and updated daily. Until the end of the Thirty‑Fifth Parliament (1994‑97), the Status of House Business was printed approximately once a month when the House was sitting.

Minutes of Proceedings, Evidence and Reports of Committees

Each committee of the House produces its own records. Since 1995, these records have become available primarily by electronic means. They include three main documents:

  • the Minutes of Proceedings: the formal record of business occurring during a committee meeting;
  • the Evidence: the in extenso transcript of what is said during a committee meeting;[36] and
  • reports to the House: the means by which committees make their views and recommendations known.

All committee records are made available electronically under the authority of the Speaker of the House. Under the Standing Orders, committees are empowered to print papers and evidence as may be ordered by them.[37] However, this authority is somewhat qualified by limitations set by the Board of Internal Economy.[38]

Bills

The House of Commons considers proposed laws—or bills—submitted for its approval by Ministers or private Members. Bills originating in the House are published and circulated under the authority of the Speaker; they are also available in electronic format. They are designated by letter and number in accordance with the type of bill and its chamber of origin. Bills originating in the House and sponsored by Ministers are numbered from C‑1 to C‑200, in the order of their introduction during a session. Bills originating in the House and sponsored by private Members are numbered from C‑201 to C‑1000 throughout a Parliament.

Senate government bills are numbered from S‑1 to S‑200, while Senate public bills are numbered from S‑201 to S‑1000. Numbers from S‑1001 onward are reserved for private bills. While most private bills originate in the Senate, those originating in the Commons are numbered from C‑1001. All bills originating in the House are published in both official languages by order of the House.[39]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Resources

See Also

  • Parliament
  • Delegated Legislation
  • Parliamentary Privileges
  • Proportional Representation
  • Readjustment Process

Notes

  1. See minutes of the meeting of the Board of Internal Economy on June 21, 1995, tabled in the House on October 16, 1995 (Journals, p. 2012). The Senate, the House of Commons and the Library of Parliament jointly created and maintain the Parliament of Canada Web site (parl.gc.ca) which provides information on the Parliament of Canada.
  2. See minutes of the meeting of the Board of Internal Economy on April 12, 1994, tabled in the House on May 12, 1994 (Journals, p. 461), and September 19, 1995, tabled in the House on December 1, 1995 (Journals, p. 2199).
  3. See May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 23rd ed., edited by Sir W. McKay, London: LexisNexis UK, 2004, p. 98; Maingot, J.P.J., Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, 2nd ed., Montreal: House of Commons and McGill‑Queen’s University Press, 1997, pp. 40‑4. For further information, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
  4. Subsection 18(1) of the Constitution Act, 1982 (R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44) states: “The statutes, records and journals of Parliament shall be printed and published in English and French and both language versions are equally authoritative”. This repeats a portion of section 133 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5). See also subsection 4(3) and section 5 of the Official Languages Act (R.S. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.)).
  5. Most such references are to the Order Paper or Notice Paper (see Standing Orders 37(1), 39, 40(1), 54, 55(1), 76(2) and (3), 76.1(2) and (3), 79(2), 86.1, 86.2(1), 87(1)(c), 90, 94(1)(a)(ii), 97(1), 97.1(2)(a), 123(5), 124, 141 and 152); there are also references to the Journals (see Standing Orders 9, 28(5), 29(4), 32(3), 39(7), 44.1(2), 45(1), 79(2), 131(5), 135 and 141(2)(b)) and to the Debates (see Standing Orders 39(3)(b) and 44.1(2)).
  6. Standing Order 151.
  7. Unlike some assemblies, such as the United States House of Representatives, there is no requirement to adopt or approve the minutes at the beginning of the following sitting.
  8. Bourinot, Sir J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, 4th ed., edited by T.B. Flint, Toronto: Canada Law Book Company, 1916, pp. 186‑7.
  9. The current system was put into place following decisions taken by the Board of Internal Economy and the adoption of the Twenty‑Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, June 3, 1994, p. 529). For the text of the report, see Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 1, 1994, Issue No. 14, pp. 4‑5.
  10. An order is a decision of the House governing the conduct of House or committee business. A sessional order is effective for the remainder of the session in which it is adopted.
  11. Journals, November 7, 1867, p. 5.
  12. Sessional Orders for the publication of the Votes and Proceedings were also adopted on the following dates: Journals, April 15, 1869, p. 8; February 15, 1870, p. 8; February 15, 1871, p. 10; April 11, 1872, p. 8; March 6, 1873, p. 5; March 27, 1874, p. 4; February 4, 1875, p. 54; February 8, 1877, p. 12.
  13. The bound Journals, produced at the end of a session for use of the Clerk and the Library of Parliament, contain a comprehensive index, lists and other information of general interest: proclamations of the Governor General opening and closing the session; the Ministry in order of precedence, as of the final day of the session; alphabetical list of Members, including constituency names and party affiliations; and alphabetical list of constituencies, including Members’ names and party affiliations.
  14. Standing Order 9. For further information on the casting vote of the Chair, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
  15. Standing Order 32(3). It also happens on occasion that papers are tabled with the unanimous consent of the House. See, for example, Journals, October 21, 1991, p. 496. For further information on tabling of documents, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
  16. Standing Order 39(7). For further information on responses to written questions, see the information about this issue in this legal encyclopedia.
  17. Standing Order 29(4). For further information on quorum, see the information, on this legal encyclopedia, about “Sittings of the House”.
  18. Standing Order 44.1(2). For further information on recorded votes and pairing, see th information on this legal encyclopedia about the Process of Debate.
  19. Standing Orders 79(2), 76(3) and 76.1(3). For further information on the royal recommendation, see the information on this legal encyclopedia about the financial procedures.
  20. Standing Order 28(5). As this is not a regular sitting of the House, the Journals assign to it the sitting number of the last regular sitting day of the House, along with a letter. See, for example, Journals, June 20, 2007, p. 1565 (sitting No. 175); June 22, 2007, p. 1583 (sitting No. 175A). This is the case whether the Speaker of the House receives a message signifying Royal Assent by written declaration for one or more bills, or whether the House convenes for the sole purpose of attending Royal Assent. Sitting numbers including a letter also appear in the Journals when Parliament has been prorogued or dissolved during an adjournment and the Speaker is bound to advise the House of the documents, if any, that were deposited with the Clerk of the House during the adjournment. See, for example, Journals, September 14, 2007, p. 1587.
  21. Standing Order 131(5). For further information on private bills, see the entry, on this legal encyclopedia, about “Private Bill Practice”.
  22. Standing Orders 135(1) and (2) and 141(2)(b).
  23. On one occasion when this occurred, the Speaker found that the record was correct (Debates, June 26, 1985, pp. 6203‑4). There have been occasions where the decision was taken to remove items from the Votes and Proceedings (as the daily Journals were formerly known). On April 6, 1925, for example, the Speaker ruled that the Government’s answer to a written question contained unnecessary facts and that it should be “expunged from the records” (Journals, p. 193). On June 6, 1944, the House ordered that a committee report “presented by mistake” be deleted from the Votes and Proceedings (Journals, p. 434). On June 7, 1973, the Speaker informed the House that an item in the Votes and Proceedings of the previous day would be expunged, a Senate public bill having inadvertently been treated as a private bill (Journals, p. 389).
  24. See, for example, Journals, March 31, 1871, pp. 173‑4; Debates, November 6, 1996, p. 6191; Journals, June 20, 2002, p. 1614; Debates, October 7, 2002, pp. 365‑6.
  25. See, for example, the corrigendum appended to the daily version of the Journals for May 30, 2006, and for February 15, 2007.
  26. Debates, June 4, 1992, pp. 11381‑2.
  27. Journals, June 22, 2005, pp. 966‑8, Debates, pp. 7645‑6; Journals, June 23, 2005, p. 976, Debates, pp. 7694‑6.
  28. Hansard is the name of the family responsible for arranging the official reporting of debates in the British House of Commons throughout most of the nineteenth century. The term is now used to refer generally to official reports of parliamentary debates. See Wilding, N. and Laundy, P., An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed., London: Cassell & Company Ltd., 1972, pp. 340‑5.
  29. An exception took place in 1865, when by Special Order of the United Canada Legislative Assembly, the debates on Confederation were officially recorded. See the history of Canadian parliamentary reporting in the Introduction to the reconstructed Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada, 1841‑1867, Vol. I, edited by E. Nish, Montreal: Presses de l’École des hautes études commerciales, 1970‑93, pp. XXVIII‑LIV.
  30. Bourinot, 2nd ed., rev. and enlarged, Montreal: Dawson Brothers, Publishers, 1892, pp. 227‑8. Members argued that the newspaper accounts were adequate, that costs to the House of setting up its own service would be prohibitive, and that official verbatim reporting would encourage excessive verbosity and lead to unnecessary lengthening of parliamentary sessions. See, for example, Debates, December 10, 1867, pp. 231‑2; March 27, 1868, pp. 409‑10; April 25, 1870, pp. 1176‑80.
  31. See the First and Second Reports of the select committee appointed to report on the subject of a Canadian Hansard, presented to the House on May 8, 1874 (Journals, pp. 200‑1), and concurred in on May 18, 1874 (Journals, pp. 264‑5).
  32. See, for example, Debates, April 28, 1880, pp. 1815‑9.
  33. See the report of the committee, presented to the House on April 26, 1880 (Journals, pp. 268‑9), and concurred in on April 28, 1880 (Journals, p. 281).
  34. See the report of the committee, presented to the House on March 30, 1882 (Journals, p. 231), and concurred in on April 3, 1882 (Journals, p. 242).
  35. See section 9 in Part II of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented to the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). Although the report was not concurred in, a motion agreed to on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400), put this and other portions of the report into effect. The Projected Order of Business appeared for the first time on January 17, 1983.
  36. Evidence is generally transcribed and published on the Parliament of Canada Web site in chronological order. It is standard procedure in the Committees Directorate to give precedence to clause-by-clause meetings over those at which testimony is heard. See Speaker Milliken’s ruling, Debates, November 26, 2001, pp. 7503, 7527.
  37. Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5). For further information on this and other powers of committees, see on this legal encyclopedia information about the parliamentary Committees.
  38. For example, committee reports may be printed and distributed from time to time in accordance with guidelines established by the Board of Internal Economy. See the Board’s decision of October 29, 1986. On May 9, 2007 (Journals, p. 1375, Debates, p. 9253), the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development rose on a point of order to clarify an administrative issue related to the presentation, on March 29, 2007 (Journals, p. 1188, Debates, p. 8096), of the Seventh Report of the Committee. In accordance with Standing Order 109, the Committee had agreed to a motion requesting a government response to the Report within 120 days (Minutes of Proceedings, March 22, 2007, Meeting No. 42). The Chair had also requested a government response when he presented the Report to the House but since the request did not appear in the text of the Report itself, it was not printed in the Journals for that sitting. The Chair signed a revised copy of the Report in order to correct this oversight and the Speaker directed the Clerk of the House to take the appropriate administrative measures to address the situation.
  39. Standing Orders 69(1) and 70. See also the information on this legal encyclopedia about the Legislative Process.

Order Paper

Order Paper in Canada

The Order Paper and the Notice Paper are published together daily when the House sits. The Order Paper is the complete and authoritative agenda of all items of business which may be considered by the House of Commons; unless otherwise provided for in the Standing Orders, only those items may be considered by the House during a sitting. As its name suggests, the Notice Paper contains all items for which notice must be given. Together, these documents contain virtually all items of business which are before the House or which may be brought before the House.

The rules of the House require notice to be given before almost any matter of substance can be raised for consideration by the House.[56] The sponsoring Member gives notice by sending a secure electronic notice, or a written and signed notice, to the Clerk for inclusion in the Notice Paper. Notices given or deemed given on a particular day are published in that day’s Notice Paper and transferred to the Order Paper after the applicable notice period has elapsed.

All items, with the exception of Government Orders, are to be taken up in accordance with the precedence assigned them on the Order Paper.[57] Thus, the Order Paper has a double significance. It contains, first, all items of business to be considered (orders), and, second, the sequence in which the orders are to be considered.[58]

The Standing Orders require the Clerk of the House to provide the Speaker, each day before the House meets, with the official agenda of proceedings for the day.[59] This rule has traditionally been interpreted to mean that the Speaker must be in possession of a copy of the Order Paper and Notice Paper before the business of the House may proceed.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Historical Perspective

The Order Paper originated as a document containing any item of business which the House had ordered to be taken up on a specified day. The Order Paper still contains such items;[60] other items are placed on the Order Paper not because the House has adopted an order but because the Standing Orders require it, after proper notice.[61]

Formerly, it was the practice for notices submitted by Members to be appended to the Votes and Proceedings of the sitting during which the notice was given.[62] The current practice of producing the Notice Paper with the Order Paper began on October 27, 1969, when the House was in the process of computerizing its production processes for publications.[63] On April 4, 2005, the E-Notices Web site was introduced, enabling Members to submit notices of motions and written questions electronically for inclusion in the Notice Paper.[64]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Role of the Speaker

As with other parliamentary publications, the Order Paper and Notice Paper is published under the authority of the Speaker of the House. When a notice is submitted for inclusion on the Notice Paper, it is examined by procedural staff of the Clerk. If any procedural irregularity is found, modifications as to the form and content of the notice may then be made in consultation with the sponsoring Member.[65] Where items of Private Members’ Business are concerned, it may happen that a certain item for which notice has been given is deemed to be substantially the same as another. In such cases, the rules give the Speaker discretionary power to refuse the most recent notice, inform the Member and return the item.[66]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Format and Contents

The Order Paper and Notice Paper is a bilingual publication, available electronically and in a printed version. The part containing the Order Paper is divided into sections corresponding to the various categories of orders the House considers:

  • Order of Business: Items of business that can be dealt with in a given sitting follow a predetermined sequence outlined in the Standing Orders. The sequence of items varies from day to day, and includes: Daily Routine of Business, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers (Wednesdays only), Orders of the Day, Statements by Members, Oral Questions and Private Members’ Business.
  • Privilege, Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and Statutory Debates: Items which are already before the House and are awaiting first consideration, resumption of debate, or decision. When debate on a privilege motion is not concluded by the time of adjournment, then on the next sitting day the item takes priority over all other Orders of the Day and appears on the Order Paper in first position in the Orders of the Day. Similarly, when the Order of the Day is called to resume debate on the motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the Order takes precedence over all other business of the House, except the Daily Routine of Business and Private Members’ Business, and appears on the Order Paper in first position in the Orders of the Day.[67] Finally, when a statute requires that a debate take place on the use of an instrument of delegated legislation and as soon as the notice period has expired, the item appears on the Order Paper in first position in the Orders of the Day.
  • Government Orders: Items which are already before the House and are awaiting first consideration, resumption of debate, or decision. They are listed under Business of Supply, Ways and Means, Government Bills (Commons), Government Bills (Senate), Government Business and Concurrence In Committee Reports.
  • Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers: This list is published in the Order Paper on Wednesdays only[68] and may be consulted on the Parliament of Canada Web site. On other days of the week, the complete list is available for consultation at the Table in the House, or by consulting the previous Wednesday’s Order Paper on the Parliament of Canada Web site.
  • Private Members’ Business: Items in the Order of Precedence appear in the order in which they are to be considered by the House. The list may change from day to day as items are added or dropped and because the rules allow exchanges of place.[69] Although it is not printed for distribution, the list of items outside the Order of Precedence is available electronically on the Parliament of Canada Web site, and an updated copy is kept for consultation at the Table in the House.
  • Questions: Written questions are printed only when they appear on the Notice Paper. However, the complete list of questions on the Order Paper is available electronically on the Parliament of Canada Web site and at the Table for consultation.

Similar to the Order Paper, items on the Notice Paper are listed under the following categories of business:

  • Introduction of Government Bills;
  • Introduction of Private Members’ Bills;
  • Notices of Motions (Routine Proceedings);
  • Questions;
  • Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers;
  • Business of Supply;
  • Government Business;
  • Private Members’ Notices of Motions;
  • Private Members’ Business;
  • Report Stage of Bills;
  • Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills;
  • Appeal of Designation of an Item of Private Members’ Business; and
  • Statutory Debates.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Transfer from Notice Paper to Order Paper

When the notice requirement for a given item has been met, the notice is transferred to the appropriate section of the Order Paper. Some particularities found in the Notice Paper are worth noting:

  • Notices of opposition to any item in the estimates require only 24 hours’ notice in the supply periods ending not later than December 10 and March 26. However, 48 hours’ written notice must be given in the supply period ending not later than June 23.[70] These notices appear on the Notice Paper under the heading “Business of Supply” and remain in it even after the notice requirement has been met.
  • Motions respecting Senate amendments to a bill require only 24 hours’ notice.[71] They appear on the Notice Paper under the heading “Motions Respecting Senate Amendments to Bills” and remain in it even after the notice requirement has been met.
  • Motions to amend a bill at report stage following second reading also require only 24 hours’ notice.[72] In order to keep all such proposed amendments together, the list of these notices, together with the list of any deferred divisions on report stage motions, are kept in the Notice Paper even after the notice requirement has been met.
  • The Standing Orders require that any item of Private Members’ Business to be considered on a given day must also appear on that day’s Notice Paper; if the notice does not appear, no Private Members’ Business is taken up that day.[73]
  • Written questions appear once on the Notice Paper when notice is given, and are then moved to the list of questions on the Order Paper which is available electronically and at the Table.[74] When a question has been dealt with (answered, made an Order for Return, withdrawn or transferred[75]), it is removed from the Order Paper and its status is noted in the Status of House Business.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Withdrawing Items from the Order Paper

As long as a motion has not been proposed to the House, it remains a notice and the sponsoring Member is free to withdraw it; the consent of the House is not required.[76] A notice may be withdrawn in one of two ways: the Member either makes a written request to the Clerk to withdraw the notice or rises in the House to withdraw the notice orally.[77] This applies to items on the Notice Paper and on the Order Paper, as long as the House has not been seized of them—for example, bills not yet introduced, motions not yet moved[78] and notices of motions for the production of papers.[79]

The item is then removed from the Notice Paper or the Order Paper. In addition, in certain circumstances notices have been removed from the Order Paper and Notice Paper by the Speaker upon his being informed, for example, of the death or resignation of a sponsoring Member.[80] On one occasion, the Speaker informed the House that a revised Notice Paper had been prepared, which included notices of report stage amendments inadvertently left off the original.[81]

Once a notice has been transferred to the Order Paper and moved in the House,[82] it is considered to be in the House’s possession and can only be removed from the Order Paper by an order of the House; that is, the Member who has moved the motion requests that it be withdrawn, and the House must give its unanimous consent.[83]

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Special Order Paper

From time to time, a Special Order Paper is published.[84] This may happen before the opening of the first or a subsequent session of a Parliament, or when the House stands adjourned and the government wishes the House to give immediate consideration to a matter or matters for which notice would have to be given.[85] Once advised of this, the Speaker ensures that the required notice is published in a Special Order Paper, which is circulated to Members at least 48 hours before the session either begins or resumes.

The format of a Special Order Paper is like that of a regular Order Paper. It contains only the notices of the item or items which are to receive the immediate consideration of the House.

Source: House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, 2009

Resources

See Also

  • Parliament
  • Parliamentary Documents
  • Delegated Legislation
  • Parliamentary Privileges
  • Proportional Representation
  • Readjustment Process
  • Contested Elections
  • Federal Electoral Districts
  • Writ of Election
  • Bills
  • Private Bill
  • Chief Electoral Officer

Notes

[56] Standing Order 54. For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[57] Standing Order 40.

[58] See, for example, Standing Order 66, which stipulates that not more than one motion for the concurrence in a report from a standing or special committee may be moved on any sitting day. When two or more Members rise to move a concurrence motion on the same day, the Speaker moves the motion which was submitted on notice first. See Debates, May 2, 2005, p. 5517; May 3, 2005, p. 5549; May 4, 2005, p. 5661.

[59] Standing Order 152. The rule, which dates from Confederation, has precursors in the pre‑Confederation assemblies. Redlich, tracing the evolution of British parliamentary practice, refers to the establishment in the seventeenth century of the “custom … of making the daily programme known to the House at the beginning of the sitting” (Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form, Vol. I, translated by A.E. Steinthal, New York: AMS Press, 1969 (reprint of 1908 ed.), p. 47). The 1854 Rules and Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, for example, required the Clerk “to lay on the Speaker’s table, every morning, previous to the meeting of the House, the order of the proceedings for the day”; and secondly, “that a copy of the same be hung up in the lobby, for the information of Members”. This seems to indicate that at that time, the daily distribution of the Order Paper to all Members was not possible and that it was produced by the Clerk, primarily for the Speaker.

[60] For example, after a bill is read a first time, the Speaker asks when it shall be read a second time, and the usual reply is “At the next sitting of the House”. An order for the bill’s second reading is then placed on the Order Paper so that the bill might, in principle, be taken up at that time.

[61] See, for example, Standing Order 56(1).

[62] Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 295‑6.

[63] For background information, see Small, A., “The Use of Computers in the Bilingual Publishing and Retrieval of Parliamentary Publications”, The Table, Vol. XLII, 1974, pp. 66‑72. The Standing Orders were changed in 1987 to reflect alterations to publications (Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1002‑28, in particular p. 1022).

[64] In June 2003, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons recommended the creation of a portal for the e-filing of notices, which would include a security procedure to verify the authenticity of the notices. See the Fourth Report of the Committee, par. 32, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995). It was in the subsequent Parliament that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs endorsed the proposal for a system for the electronic submission of notices prepared by the staff of the House of Commons. See the Twenty-Sixth Report of the Committee, presented to the House and concurred in on February 9, 2005 (Journals, pp. 407‑8).

[65] This practice has a long history. See Bourinot, South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1884), pp. 308‑9.

[66] Standing Order 86(4). For further information on the interpretation of this rule, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[67] Should orders relating to the resumption of debate on a privilege motion and on a motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne both appear in the Order Paper, the entry respecting privilege will precede the entry respecting the Address in the Orders of the Day. See, for example, Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 18, 1996, p. 9. See also Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”, and Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.

[68] See Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”, and Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.

[69] Standing Order 94(2)(a).

[70] Standing Order 81(14)(a).

[71] Standing Order 77(1).

[72] Standing Order 76.1(2). Where report stages precedes second reading, the notice period is 48 hours (Standing Order 76(2)).

[73] Standing Order 94(1).

[74] Under the heading “Questions”, the printed Order Paper refers readers to the electronic version and to the complete list of questions on the Order Paper, which is available for consultation at the Table. At one time all questions were printed on the Order Paper. In 1983, in accordance with the recommendation of a special committee on procedure (see Section 9 in Part II of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented to the House on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328), and the Special Order adopted by the House on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400)), questions began to be printed in a Monthly Supplement to the Order Paper. The Monthly Supplement ceased to be published in 1997 when a recommendation of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (see Minutes, Issue No. 3, pp. 26‑7) was approved by the Board of Internal Economy (see minutes of the meeting of the Board on March 18, 1997, tabled in the House on April 25, 1997 (Journals, p. 1557)).

[75] See Chapter 11, “Questions”.

[76] See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584.

[77] See Journals, January 13, 1910, p. 154; Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584.

[78] See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2111.

[79] This is one of the options open to Members when the government is unable to accede to the request for the production of papers. See, for example, Debates, March 18, 1981, pp. 8377‑8; April 19, 1989, pp. 691‑2. For further information on notices of motions for the production of papers, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.

[80] For example, notices sponsored by Jean‑Claude Malépart (Montreal–Sainte‑Marie) (died November 16, 1989), Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque) (resigned January 25, 1993) and Stephen Harper (Calgary West) (resigned January 14, 1997) were withdrawn. They included notices of motions for Private Members’ Business (including items in the Order of Precedence), notices of written questions and notices of motions for the production of papers. Private Members’ bills awaiting introduction and notices of motions under Routine Proceedings would also be withdrawn in such circumstances. In another instance, the House concurred in a committee report by unanimous consent, following which an earlier notice of motion to concur in the same report was removed from the Order Paper (Order Paper and Notice Paper, November 25, 1997, p. 9, Journals, p. 257; Order Paper and Notice Paper, November 27, 1997, p. 10).

[81] Debates, September 27, 1971, p. 8173.

[82] In the case of Private Members’ Business, the item must first be placed in the Order of Precedence (Standing Order 87(5)).

[83] Standing Order 64. See, for example, Journals, March 12, 1993, p. 2627, Debates, pp. 16925‑6; Journals, May 11, 1994, p. 451, Debates, p. 4211; Journals, October 3, 2005, p. 1085, Debates, p. 8335.

[84] Standing Order 55. See also Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.

[85] See, for example, the Special Order Papers published on September 23, 1997, October 5, 2004, and April 4, 2006 (before the opening of a first session), February 27, 1996 (before the opening of a subsequent session), and August 11, 1987, September 19, 1994, and September 17, 2001 (during an adjournment of the House).