The Prime Minister outlines the motion at the beginning of their speech and defines the meaning of any terms in the motion which require interpretation. The definitions provided must have a clear and logical link to the motion; the intention of the definition is to clarify the resolution with increased specificity.

It is not required that the government provide the opposition with the definition ahead of time, however a good definition will be neither confusing nor surprising. Creating the definition is an advantage for the government, however if the government oversteps its bounds, the opposition may object to it (see below).

In order to certify the definition of a resolution debatable, the Prime Minister must provide the Speaker with a copy of the definition before the debate. The Speaker will verify that none of the following prohibited grounds are encountered: As part of a new pilot project, the Prime Minister is now being requested to send the definition directly to the Leader of the Opposition prior to the debate. The intent of this pilot is to determine if quality of debates improve when less time is spent debating the definition during the debate. The Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition should both agree that none of the following prohibited grounds are encountered:

Prohibited Definition Types

There are three types of definitions which are not permitted. For the following examples, consider the resolution: “There are no bad dogs, only bad dog owners.”

Squirreled: A motion has an obvious meaning and the wording is twisted to represent something unexpected. This makes the debate too easy for the government and is unsporting. Example: “dogs” are defined as “hot dogs.”

Tautological: The government is trying to have it both ways by forcing the resolution into a form such that the truth is logically guaranteed. Example: “bad dogs” are defined as only “dogs with bad owners,” and excludes dogs bred to be violent, et cetera.

Special Knowledge: The government calls on expert knowledge not widely available to or understood by a layperson. Example: “bad dog owners” are defined as “people having a statistically prevalent genetic marker that predisposes them to not properly care for dogs,” and the source of this information is a biologist friend of the PM whose work is not widely published. If the information is available via a basic internet search, it is fair game and not special knowledge.