Chapter IV — Daily Program

Notes on Standing Order 30(1) and (2):

[1]

Some Members contended that reading prayers in the House of Commons was contrary to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In response, the Speaker stated that it was not the role of the Speaker to rule on the constitutionality of this practice or to make decisions concerning the law of the land. He went on to say that the Speaker’s jurisdiction was to make decisions concerning the procedural rules and that it was up to the House, not the Speaker, to make decisions concerning possible changes to the prayers and the practice of reading them (Debates, June 19, 1990, pp. 12927-9).

[2]

In a report presented in the House on November 10, 1995, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs recommended that a Member lead the House in singing the national anthem at the beginning of each Wednesday sitting; later in that same sitting, the House concurred in the Committee’s report. The national anthem was sung for the first time at the beginning of a Wednesday sitting on November 22, 1995. See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, November 10, 1995, Issue No. 53, p. 53:10; Journals, November 10, 1995, pp. 2124-5; Debates, November 22, 1995, p. 16659. On April 23, 1997, and on June 8, 2005, the Speaker invited the pages to lead the House in the singing of the national anthem (Debates, April 23, 1997, p. 10111; June 8, 2005, p. 6807).

[3]

Debates, February 12, 1877, pp. 26-8.

[4]

The committee was appointed on February 13, 1877 (Journals, p. 26) and reported on February 19, 1877 (Journals, p. 42).

[5]

Debates, February 19, 1877, p. 94.

[6]

Debates, February 19, 1877, p. 94.

[7]

Debates, February 19, 1877, pp. 94-6.

[8]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 215-6.

[9]

See for example, Journals, March 22, 1957, p. 303; July 28, 1958, p. 311. There is no record in Journals or Debates of the changes instituted by Speaker Sauvé, nor is there any indication that objections were raised.

[10]

See for example, Debates, November 12, 1957, p. 991; April 21, 1978, p. 4734; Item Nos. 16 and 17 of the Tenth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on September 30, 1983 (Journals, p. 6250); and Item No. 7.12 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[11]

On February 18, 1994, the House adopted the Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which contained the wording of the new prayer. See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, March 15, 1994, Issue No. 3, p. 3:5; Journals, February 18, 1994, pp. 172-3; Debates, February 18, 1994, pp. 1559-60, 1563-5.

[12]

Debates, February 21, 1994, p. 1581.

[13]

See for example, Debates, February 1, 1944, p. 65; Item No. 15 of the Tenth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on September 30, 1983 (Journals, p. 6250); and Item No. 7.12 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[14]

Journals, November 9, 1976, p. 122.

[15]

Debates, November 10, 1976, pp. 939-40.

[16]

On March 19, 1984, for instance, the sitting was suspended until the next day. When the sitting ended at 11:30 a.m., March 20, the next sitting began immediately. Visitors were in the gallery when the prayers were read because the galleries had remained open (Debates, March 19, 1984, pp. 2219-21; March 20, 1984, p. 2223). See also Debates, February 21, 1994, p. 1581, when the Speaker asked the House for permission to read the prayers in public.

[17]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 330-3.

[18]

See Item No. 9 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).

Notes on Standing Order 30(3) and (4):

[1]

Rules, Orders, and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 12.

[2]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 517.

[3]

Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1906, p. 13. The initial proposal actually put forward two new rubrics, one each for private and public bills, but only the general heading “Introduction of Bills” appeared in the reprinted Standing Orders (see Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7475).

[4]

Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, p. 13.

[5]

Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8365-7. It remained thus until 1986, when the rubric “Presenting Petitions” was reinstated (Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710).

[6]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 886-7.

[7]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 886-7.

[8]

See Item No. 9 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).

[9]

See Item No. 9 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).

[10]

See page 46 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[11]

Proposed amendments were tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1646) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710). The period set aside for Routine Proceedings was changed for the Monday sittings on December 20, 1989 (Journals, pp. 1060-1) and for the Tuesday and Thursday sittings on April 11, 1991 (Journals, p. 2907).

[12]

Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117.

[13]

See for example, Debates for May 19, 1983.

[14]

See for example, Debates for April 8 and 9, 1987. A similar situation occurred in the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament, when certain Members vigorously opposed Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. Between the introduction and first reading of Bill C-20 on December 13, 1999 and its second reading on March 15, 2000, dilatory tactics accounted for a total of 22 hours and 15 minutes: moving dilatory motions used up 12 hours, 5 hours and 27 minutes were spent moving concurrence in committee reports, and seeking unanimous consent for Members to table documents took 4 hours and 48 minutes.

[15]

Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5121-2.

[16]

Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8.

[17]

See pages 4-5 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

Notes on Standing Order 30(5):

[1]

On November 1, 1995, following the tribute in Statements by Members by the Leader of the Opposition to Quebec Premier Jacques Parizeau on his resignation, the Speaker recognized the Prime Minister, who in turn also paid tribute to Mr. Parizeau. The Speaker then called for Oral Questions (Debates, pp. 16062-3).

[2]

On one occasion, Statements by Members began with unanimous consent at 1:45 p.m. rather than at 2:00 p.m., so that new Members could be introduced at 2:00 p.m., followed by the 45-minute Oral Question Period (Debates, September 19, 2000, p. 8333).

[3]

In fact, the two stages, Members’ Statements and Question Period, together cannot last more than one hour. It is possible, for example, that Members’ Statements could take up only 10 minutes, after which Question Period would begin and would last for a maximum of 50 minutes. See also Standing Order 30(3) and (4).

[4]

See for example, Debates, February 9, 1982, pp. 14811-3; September 18, 1991, pp. 2299-300; November 29, 1996, p. 6903. Conversely, when Members took more than 30 minutes to pay tribute to Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, there was unanimous consent in the House to skip Statements by Members and proceed directly with Question Period (Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16379-83).

[5]

See Standing Order 37 for a detailed history of Question Period.

[6]

Debates, November 26, 1962, p. 2011.

[7]

Debates, December 19, 1962, p. 2835.

[8]

Journals, April 20, 1964, p. 224.

[9]

Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 226.

[10]

Journals, January 21, 1966, p. 34.

[11]

See Item No. 29 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure of the House, presented on December 6, 1968 (Journals, p. 437); and the Fourth Report of the same Committee, presented on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 453-4) and concurred in on December 20, 1968 (Journals, p. 568).

[12]

See Item Nos. 3, 4 and 5 of the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).

[13]

See pages 12-3 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). A motion to implement these proposals was adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).

[14]

The proposal was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1646) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[15]

Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1.

Notes on Standing Order 30(6):

[1]

For a complete program of House business, see Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, Rule 19.

[2]

These changes are reflected in:  Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1876, Rule 19 and 1906 Rule 25; Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, Rule 25; Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1927, Standing Order 15(3); 1953 Standing Order 15(3); 1955 Standing Order 15(3); 1962 Standing Order 15(3); 1966 Standing Order 15(3); 1969 Standing Order 15(4); Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1975, Standing Order 15(4); Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1982, Standing Order 18(5); 1983 Standing Order 18(5); 1986 Standing Order 19(7); Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1987, Standing Order 19(7); Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1989, Standing Order 30(6); Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1991, Standing Order 30(6); Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1994, Standing Order 30(6).

Notes on Standing Order 30(7):

[1]

See for example, Journals, May 9, 1996, p. 346; May 4, 2005, pp. 702-4.

[2]

See for example, Debates, September 24, 1991, p. 2657; November 6, 1997, p. 1666; May 5, 2005, p. 5702.

[3]

See for example, Debates, October 7, 2003, pp. 8251, 8257, 8297-301.

[4]

See for example, Debates, March 20, 1997, p. 9306-7.

[5]

See for example, Debates, February 16, 2000, p. 3625.

[6]

Prior to February 1994, when Standing Order 30(7) was amended to provide for consideration of delays or interruptions for any reason in Private Members’ Business, it was only possible to extend Private Members’ Hour with the unanimous consent of the House (see for example, Debates, October 2, 1991, p. 3190; June 4, 1992, p. 11438).

[7]

On Tuesday, April 23, 1996, for instance, Private Members’ Hour was scheduled for 5:30 to 6:30 p.m. Because of a ministerial statement, Government Orders was extended by 72 minutes. Moreover, it was then followed by a recorded division. As a result, the House was not ready to proceed with Private Members’ Business until 7:15 p.m., 45 minutes after the time at which it would normally have ended. Pursuant to this Standing Order, the Speaker had to reschedule the debate for another sitting. See Debates, April 23, 1996, p. 1880; May 2, 1996, p. 2283. See also Debates, December 1, 1998, p. 10773; December 7, 1998, p. 10945; October 28, 2003, p. 8887; October 30, 2003, p. 8999.

[8]

See Standing Order 28(2).

[9]

See for example, the Notice Paper, May 2 1996, pp. III-IV; December 8, 1998, p. IV; October 30, 2003, p. IV.

[10]

See for example, the Order Paper, May 2, 1996, p. 15; December 8, 1998, p. 21; October 30, 2003, p. 35.

[11]

Journals, May 10, 1990, pp. 1685-7. See also Standing Order 45(6) in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, February 1990.

[12]

Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2908.

[13]

See page 26 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774).

[14]

Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 117-8.

[15]

See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 16:4; Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563.

Notes on Standing Order 31:

[1]

While Ministers are not permitted to use this period, Parliamentary Secretaries may (see for example, Debates, March 9, 1994, pp. 2036-7). Leaders of parties in opposition have availed themselves of this rule (see for example, Debates, November 27, 1997, p. 2379; February 26, 1998, p. 4495; June 9, 1998, p. 7807). Chair occupants other than the Speaker, in their capacity as Members, have also made statements (see for example, Debates, February 27, 1985, p. 2542; February 25, 1993, p. 16461).

[2]

As well, on occasion, the Chair, after consultation with the official parties, has also indicated to the House how the 15-minute period will be divided. See for example, Debates, January 19, 1994, p. 17.

[3]

Speaker Sauvé warned Members this would happen (Debates, January 17, 1983, pp. 21873-4). See also Debates, October 29, 1986, p. 864; November 23, 1990, pp. 15649-52.

[4]

See for example, Debates, March 19, 1998, p. 5126.

[5]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 301-2.

[6]

Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 356 (Rule 41).

[7]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 334-5 (Rule 41).

[8]

See Journals, March 14, 1975, p. 373; March 24, 1975, p. 399.

[9]

See for example, Journals, October 28, 1971, p. 895; Debates, March 1, 1972, p. 413; Journals, May 16, 1972, p. 299; Debates, February 13, 1979, pp. 3164-6.

[10]

See page 19 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328) and agreed to on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).

[11]

Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710; see also Journals, February 6, 1986, p. 1648.

[12]

See pages 13-4 of the Eighty-First Report of this Committee, presented on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774).

[13]

See page 1 of the Thirtieth Report of this Committee presented on June 17, 1994 (Journals, p. 610)

Notes on Standing Order 32(1), (2), (3), and (4):

[1]

Standing Order 153 obliges the Clerk of the House to publish and distribute a list of many of these reports, returns and other papers at the start of each session, although in fact the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel has been delegated the task.

[2]

In April 1993, the Speaker stated that, in failing to submit a document whose tabling was required by statute within the required time limits, the government had committed a prima facie breach of privilege. The matter was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on House Management (Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16393-4; March 29, 1993, p. 17722; April 19, 1993, pp. 18104-6). In its report to the House, the Committee confirmed that “the statutory and procedural time limits must be complied with. If a document cannot be tabled in the prescribed time, the responsible Minister should advise the House accordingly before the deadline; it is not acceptable that the deadline is ignored.” See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on House Management, June 15, 1993, Issue No. 56, pp. 56:13-5 (the Committee’s One Hundred and First Report), presented on September 8, 1993 (Journals, p. 3338). The Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-93) was dissolved before the House was able to deal with the Committee’s report. See also Debates, February 3, 1992, pp. 6289-93; February 5, 1992, pp. 6425-8; October 30, 2001, pp. 6735-7; November 21, 2001, pp. 7380-1 where related questions of privilege were raised and resolved.

[3]

See for example, Journals, January 31, 2005, pp. 367-8; March 21, 2005, p. 528. Even if a document is technically due during the adjournment period, a Minister still has the option of waiting until the first sitting day following the adjournment to table it in the House or deposit it with the Clerk.

[4]

See for example, Debates, February 5, 2003, pp. 3184-6; February 13, 2003, pp. 3506-7.

[5]

The Speaker has said on numerous occasions that a Minister of the Crown may table a document at any time (see for example, Debates, March 20, 2001, pp. 1960-1; February 27, 2003, p. 4146; April 13, 2005, pp. 5036-7; May 4, 2005, pp. 5657-8).

[6]

See for example, Debates, October 18, 1995, pp. 15530-2; October 25, 1995, pp. 15812-3; February 3, 2004, pp. 64-6; February 9, 2004, p. 320.

[7]

Debates, November 25, 2002, pp. 1845-6.

[8]

Journals, February 25, 1970, pp. 489-90; Debates, April 19, 1971, p. 5022. See also Journals, November 8, 1990, p. 2244 (audio cassette); May 12, 1992, p. 1445 (Braille summary and audio cassette); May 9, 2005, p. 718 (CD-ROM); Debates, November 8, 1990, pp. 15289-90; November 19, 1992, pp. 13604-5 (diskette).

[9]

Journals, April 6, 1971, pp. 475-6. Since the mid-1980s, Members have been authorized to table documents with the unanimous consent of the House (see for example, Debates, December 5, 1990, p. 16330; February 13, 1998, p. 3866; May 10, 2005, pp. 5884-5). Under the provisions of a special order of the House, Members were permitted to table documents in connection with the 1992 constitutional debate (Journals, February 5, 1992, p. 975; Debates, pp. 6429-30). Members have on occasion laid documents on the Table for the information of their colleagues, but this has not been considered an official tabling (see for example, Debates, June 13, 1991, p. 1646; February 24, 1992, p. 7531). During the Second Session of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament, Members who objected to Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference, used the dilatory tactic of asking, on a regular if not daily basis, for unanimous consent for all of the Members of their caucus to table documents. The Speaker ruled that one submission per day per Member was enough (Debates, December 13, 1999, p. 2761; December 14, 1999, pp. 2922-3).

[10]

See for example, Debates, June 8, 1989, pp. 2812-3; December 17, 1990, p. 16824; February 18, 2000, pp. 3722, 3731-2; February 18, 2004, pp. 760-2.

[11]

Debates, April 23, 1879, p. 1453.

[12]

See for example, Debates, May 9, 1892, col. 2268; Journals, June 5, 1899, pp. 227-8.

[13]

See for example, Debates, March 5, 1902, cols. 760-2; October 6, 1986, p. 126; October 7, 1986, p. 156; October 29, 1997, p. 1287; March 17, 2000, p. 4824. See also Debates, February 19, 1998, p. 4125, when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons sought unanimous consent to table a news clipping cited by a Minister that was solely in English. Consent was given.

[14]

See Standing Order 97, which was first adopted on April 29, 1910 (Journals, pp. 536-7).

[15]

See for example, Debates, March 2, 1920, pp. 85-7; December 4, 1968, p. 3472.

[16]

Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 916-7.

[17]

Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 569-70.

[18]

Debates, January 30, 1969, pp. 4925-9; February 3, 1969, pp. 5027-8.

[19]

The report was presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399).

[20]

Journals, September 16, 1988, p. 3556. See also Debates, September 16, 1988, pp. 19352-5.

[21]

See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and concurred in on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563). See also Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, June 9, 1994, Issue No. 16, pp. 16:3-4.

Notes on Standing Order 32(1.1):

[1]

See for example, Journals, June 19, 2003, pp. 939-40.

[2]

See Standing Order 28(5).

[3]

See the Historical Summary for Standing Order 28(5).

[4]

Journals of the Senate, October 2, 2001, p. 802.

[5]

Journals of the House of Commons, June 4, 2002, pp. 1470-1; June 13, 2002, p. 1579.

Notes on Standing Order 32(5) and (6):

[1]

In April 1993, the Speaker stated that, in failing to submit a document whose tabling was required by statute within the required time limits, the government had committed a prima facie breach of privilege. Not only did the Members not have the information required, but the Committee to which the document should have been referred was unable to proceed with its consideration of the orders made by the executive pursuant to section 59(2) of the Customs Tariff. The matter was subsequently referred to the Standing Committee on House Management (Debates, February 24, 1993, pp. 16393-4; March 29, 1993, p. 17722; April 19, 1993, pp. 18104-6). In its report to the House, the Committee confirmed that “the statutory and procedural time limits must be complied with. If a document cannot be tabled in the prescribed time, the responsible Minister should advise the House accordingly before the deadline; it is not acceptable that the deadline is ignored.” See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on House Management, June 15, 1993, Issue No. 56, pp. 56:13-5 (the Committee’s One Hundred and First Report), presented on September 8, 1993 (Journals, p. 3338). The Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-93) was dissolved before the House was able to deal with the Committee’s report. See also Debates, February 3, 1992, pp. 6289-93; February 5, 1992, pp. 6425-8; October 30, 2001, pp. 6735-7; November 21, 2001, pp. 7380-1 where related questions of privilege were raised and resolved. In March 2004, in response to a question of privilege, the Leader of the Government in the House tabled all the Order-in-Council appointments that had been published in the Canada Gazette between December 20, 2003 and February 7, 2004, that had not been tabled before the House adjourned on Friday, February 27, 2004. So as not to impede the right conferred on committees by an explicit order of the House, the Speaker ordered that the relevant committees would have 30 sitting days to study the appointments, from the date on which the appointments were actually tabled, not from the date on which they should have been tabled (Debates, March 8, 2004, pp. 1216-8; March 9, 2004, pp. 1259-60).

[2]

On occasion, motions referring a report to more than one committee have been adopted, notwithstanding any order or practice of the House (see for example, Debates, June 27, 1990, pp. 13172-3; February 27, 1991, p. 17715).

[3]

See for example, Debates, January 31, 1969, p. 4981.

[4]

See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328) and the motion adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).

[5]

Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 914, 919.

[6]

The new Standing Order was proposed on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1654), and was adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[7]

See pages 29-34 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839). See the statement of the Prime Minister on September 9, 1985 (Debates, p. 6399) and the statement of the President of the Privy Council on October 9, 1985 (Debates, p. 7500). See also the Response of the Government of Canada to the Second and Third Reports of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on October 9, 1985 (Journals, p. 1082).

Notes on Standing Order 33:

[1]

In one case, two ministers made a joint statement with the unanimous consent of the House (Debates, March 24, 1999, pp. 13442-4).

[2]

See Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 62. Only Members speaking on behalf of parties recognized by the House are permitted to speak in response to a Minister’s statement (see for example, Debates, October 25, 1990, pp. 14665-9; June 19, 1991, p. 2084; June 1, 1992, p. 11166; June 3, 1992, p. 11306-7).

[3]

However, with the unanimous consent of the House, independent Members and Members who did not belong to recognized parties have been allowed to respond (see for example, Debates, March 10, 1992, pp. 7883-4; April 27, 1995, p. 11843; March 8, 1996, p. 489). The Chair of a Standing Committee was once permitted, by unanimous consent, to reply to a ministerial statement (Debates, March 16, 1994, p. 2364). Government backbenchers have also received unanimous consent to reply to statements by Ministers (Debates, February 8, 1994, p. 1035; March 12, 1997, p. 8955).

[4]

See for example, Debates, March 15, 1991, p. 18543; April 11, 1994, p. 2867.

[5]

The length of each response may not exceed the length of the Minister’s statement; Members who exceed this length are interrupted by the Speaker. See for example, Debates, June 9, 1994, p. 5059; November 27, 2002, p. 1953.

[6]

See for example, Journals, June 9, 1992, p. 1661; Debates, June 10, 1992, pp. 11727, 11787; Journals, June 5, 1996, p. 490; Debates, June 19, 1996, pp. 4092, 4138.

[7]

See for example, Debates, December 3, 1998, pp. 10826-31; March 13, 2001, pp. 1601-3; October 8, 2002, pp. 477-8, 500.

[8]

See for example, Debates, April 11, 1994, p. 2867; October 27, 1994, pp. 7273-4. In one case, a point of order was raised to accuse an Opposition member of having given media interviews about a statement to be given in the House by the Minister of Fisheries before the statement was made. The Acting Speaker reminded all Members that it was important not to divulge the content of a statement before it was delivered in the House (Debates, February 6, 2003, pp. 3211-2).

[9]

See for example, Debates, December 12, 1867, pp. 257-63; September 12, 1919, pp. 242-58; April 19, 1932, pp. 2150-4; June 4, 1940, pp. 482-5.

[10]

See for example, Debates, February 12, 1877, pp. 32-3; February 16, 1915, pp. 207-8.

[11]

Debates, June 4, 1951, p. 3669.

[12]

Debates, November 25, 1953, p. 329.

[13]

Debates, March 24, 1959, pp. 2177-8. See also Debates, June 15, 1955, p. 4812; October 23, 1957, pp. 305-12.

[14]

See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization, concurred in on May 7, 1964 (Journals, p. 297); and Debates, May 7, 1964, pp. 3007-10, particularly the comment of Stanley Knowles.

[15]

Journals, February 18, 1966, pp. 158-60. See also Debates, February 15, 1966, pp. 1224-7.

[16]

See the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, presented on March 14, 1975 (Journals, p. 373) and concurred in on March 24, 1975 (Journals, p. 399). See also Journals, April 18, 1975, pp. 459-60.

[17]

See Debates, February 10, 1983, pp. 22716-7.

[18]

See Item Nos. 7 and 8 of the Tenth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on September 30, 1983 (Journals, p. 6250).

[19]

See pages 18-9 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211). See also Journals, April 18, 1985, p. 486; June 27, 1985, pp. 912-3, 919.

[20]

See for example, Debates, February 27, 1992, p. 7682; May 14, 1992, p. 10695. In another instance, because of a ministerial statement, a sitting was extended past 1:00 p.m., while the House was considering Routine Proceedings, not Government Orders (Debates, January 30, 1987, p. 2927).

[21]

See for example, Debates, March 12, 1987, pp. 4085, 4098; September 24, 1991, pp. 2605-6; October 29, 1991, p. 4141. See also the Commentary and Historical Summary for Standing Order 30(7) of the Standing Orders.

[22]

See proposed amendments tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1647) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[23]

Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1018-9.

[24]

Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1.

[25]

Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 118. See for example, Debates, February 7, 1995, pp. 9253, 9311.

[26]

See pages 4-5 of the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

Notes on Standing Order 34:

[1]

See Standing Order 30(3). The Chair has reminded Members that the report itself is not to be read to the House, nor long speeches made upon presentation (Debates, February 24, 1993, p. 16395; October 20, 1999, p. 398; December 15, 1999, p. 3006).

[2]

See for example, Debates, February 4, 1992, p. 6376. See also Debates, May 16, 1996, p. 2851; March 10, 1997, p. 8842.

[3]

The proposed amendments were tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1663) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[4]

See page 47 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839). This idea had been mentioned as early as 1977 (Debates, December 20, 1977, p. 2054).

[5]

Debates, March 1, 1973, pp. 1803-9.

[6]

Debates, March 25, 1986, p. 11836; October 17, 1986, p. 465.

[7]

Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1026. There is no sanction in the Standing Orders in the instance of a report not being presented within the prescribed time-frame.

Notes on Standing Order 35:

[1]

On occasion, the Chair has reminded the presenter that he or she was to give a succinct explanation of the report. See for example, Debates, June 19, 1995, p. 14094; April 1, 2004, p. 1942.

[2]

See Commentary on Standing Order 108(1)(a) and the Historical Summary of Standing Orders 104 to 122 in Chapter XIII of this text for an explanation of the authority of committees with respect to supplementary or dissenting opinions or recommendations.

[3]

On occasion, however, Members not belonging to the Official Opposition have sought and received unanimous consent to speak. See Debates, April 13, 1994, p. 2980; November 7, 1997, p. 1716; December 1, 1997, p. 2503. When two dissenting opinions are appended to a report, a Member from a party other than the Official Opposition may comment on the appended material only with the consent of the House. See Debates, May 14, 1992, p. 10692. If the Official Opposition does not append a dissenting opinion, but a third party does, a Member from the third party may give an explanation of these views only with the unanimous consent of the House. See Debates, June 18, 1992, p. 12322; June 21, 1995, p. 14322.

[4]

Debates, October 18, 1994, p. 6816; November 7, 1997, pp. 1715-6; March 22, 2002, p. 10038. See also Speaker’s remarks in Debates, December 1, 1997, p 2503.

[5]

See for example, Debates, April 26, 1878, p. 2201.

[6]

See for example, Journals, April 20, 1877, p. 298.

[7]

Journals, July 12, 1955, p. 944.

[8]

The Speaker of the day cited making the Votes and Proceedings more readable and reducing printing costs as reasons for these changes (Debates, December 11, 1981, pp. 13973-4).

[9]

Reports for which the Member presenting stated an intention of moving concurrence later the same day continued to be read by a Table Officer during the 1980s. The practice now is to have such reports read by a Table Officer only when so requested by the Speaker before the House is asked for unanimous consent to proceed immediately with the concurrence motion. See for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2848; May 14, 1993, p. 19469.

[10]

The proposed Standing Order was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1663) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[11]

See page 22 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[12]

Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2908.

[13]

Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2924. See also Standing Order 108(1)(a).

[14]

See ruling by the Chair on this matter in Debates, May 14, 1992, p. 10692; February 6, 1995, p. 9203.

Notes on Standing Order 36(1), (2) and (3):

[1]

Prior to 1986, a petition could be submitted bearing only one signature (see the 1985 Standing Order 73(6)). An individual may still petition the House seeking passage of private bills (see Standing Order 131).

[2]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 232-3. See also Debates, April 23, 1879, pp. 1453-4.

[3]

See text of 1867 Rule 86; Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 263-4; Journals, July 10, 1906, pp. 579-80.

[4]

Journals, May 7, 1868, p. 297.

[5]

Journals, April 20, 1869, pp. 22-3.

[6]

Journals, May 3, 1872, p. 80.

[7]

Journals, April 20, 1874, p. 82.

[8]

See for example, Journals, February 16, 1956, p. 163; October 24, 1973, pp. 591-2.

[9]

Journals, March 22, 1876, p. 180.

[10]

Journals, March 28, 1876, p. 212.

[11]

Journals, February 19, 1877, p. 41.

[12]

See Indexes to the House of Commons Journals for this period under the heading “Petitions”.

[13]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., pp. 263-9.

[14]

See for example, Journals, March 16, 1885, pp. 210-1.

[15]

See for example, Debates, May 21, 1885, pp. 2023-9.

[16]

Journals, April 19, 1886, pp. 163-4. See also Journals, April 1, 1902, p. 144.

[17]

Journals, March 30, 1905, p. 234; April 5, 1909, p. 234.

[18]

Journals, June 13, 1917, p. 342. See also Journals, May 18, 1922, p. 247.

[19]

See for example, Journals, April 16, 1874, p. 67; March 12, 1930, p. 86; May 12, 1936, p. 319; May 26, 1938, p. 373.

[20]

See the Historical Summary for Standing Order 36(4), (5), (6) and (7).

[21]

Debates, October 28, 1983, pp. 28475-9.

[22]

See for example, Journals, October 5, 1983, pp. 6264-5.

[23]

See pages 44-5 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[24]

See pages 44-5 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985, (Journals, p. 839).

[25]

The proposal was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1665) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[26]

Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1026.

[27]

See the Eighty-Second Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented and concurred in on June 14, 1995 (Journals, pp. 1722-3; Debates, pp. 13811-2).

[28]

See Item No. 16 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).

[29]

See Item Nos. 37 to 39 of the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).

[30]

See Item Nos. 41 and 42 of the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995), and the Twenty-Sixth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, concurred in on February 9, 2005 (Journals, pp. 407-8). In essence, the Procedure and House Affairs Committee indicated that Members had questions and concerns, and thus the Committee would report to the House at a future date on this matter.

[31]

The Standing Orders no longer provide for petitions to be deemed received. By unanimous consent, however, a petition was received and referred to a standing committee for consideration on November 18, 1992 (Journals, p. 2070; Debates, pp. 13544-5).

Notes on Standing Order 36(4), (5), (6) and (7):

[1]

The endorsement serves to identify the Member presenting the petition, in part because he or she is responsible for any improprieties the petition may contain, as well as to demonstrate that the Member consents to present the petition. It is also necessary to avoid confusion when many petitions are presented at the same sitting.

[2]

Guidelines issued to each Member of Parliament on February 26, 1986, by Speaker Bosley. In view of the limited time available and of the number of Members with petitions to present on any given day, the Chair is generally quick to intervene when Members appear to be making speeches, indulging in debate, or launching into the lengthy reading of the full text of a petition.

[3]

See Debates, April 23, 1879, pp. 1453-4; March 23, 1987, pp. 4433-4. Other Presiding Officers have presented petitions (Journals, October 26, 1994, p. 829; June 19, 1995, p. 1784).

[4]

See for example, Debates, November 25, 1986, pp. 1501, 1505; December 1, 1986, pp. 1647-8; February 25, 1994, pp. 1863-4. See also remarks by the Deputy Speaker in Debates, April 27, 1994, p. 3576.

[5]

The rule allowed Members to make “a statement from whom [the petition] comes, the number of signatures attached to it, and the material allegations it contains.” See Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 62.

[6]

Bourinot, 1^st ed., p. 261. A typical example is Journals, February 20, 1879, p. 21. See also a discussion of the procedure in Debates, May 3, 1880, pp. 1915-6; May 16, 1885, pp. 1891-5.

[7]

See for example, Journals, May 12, 1868, pp. 339-40.

[8]

See for example, Debates, March 3, 1875, pp. 450-2. See also Bourinot, 3^rd ed., pp. 352-3.

[9]

See for example, Journals, March 20, 1876, p. 171; March 27, 1876, p. 204.

[10]

See for example, Journals, October 19, 1962, pp. 123-4.

[11]

Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8365-6; Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535-6. See also 1910 Rule 25. The Clerk of Petitions was also henceforth required to report the next day (instead of two days later) on the petitions presented.

[12]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 338-9. See also Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 357.

[13]

The proposals were tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, pp. 1646, 1665) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[14]

See for example, Journals, February 22, 1938, p. 97; February 10, 1942, p. 41. The last time this was done was in 1979 (see Journals, December 10, 1979, pp. 330-1). On November 18, 1992, however, by unanimous consent, a petition was received and referred to a standing committee (Journals, p. 2070; Debates, pp. 13544-5).

[15]

Some of the conditions now attached to the formal presentation of petitions (see the Commentary) can be traced to occasions when “Presenting Petitions” took up long periods of House time. See for example, Debates, October 28, 1983, pp. 28457-8 for the origin of the condition that Members would not be recognized more than once during the same sitting for the purpose of presenting petitions.

[16]

Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1017-8. “Presenting Petitions”, formerly the fifth of nine rubrics, became the ninth of ten rubrics.

[17]

Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2908-9.

Notes on Standing Order 36(8):

[1]

See for example, Debates, May 20, 2005, p. 6291.

[2]

See for example, Journals, September 17, 2001, pp. 588-9.

[3]

For recent examples of referral to committees, see Journals, April 23, 2004, pp. 304-5; April 26, 2004, p. 312; April 4, 2005, pp. 573-4.

[4]

Debates, June 27, 1986, p. 14969.

[5]

See for example, Journals, October 19, 1962, pp. 123-4; December 18, 1970, p. 221.

[6]

Debates, June 1, 1983, pp. 25947-54.

[7]

See pages 44-5 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).

[8]

The proposal was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1665) and adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).

[9]

See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545) and concurred in on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563).

[10]

For examples, see Note 3. It is the Member who presents the petition who identifies the committee to which the matter of the failure to respond should be referred. Afterwards, it is up to the individual committee to decide how it wishes to proceed with this reference. The change to the Standing Order on an experimental basis was effected by concurrence in the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons (Journals, September 18, 2003, p. 995), and now forms a permanent part of the Standing Orders through concurrence in the Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, October 29, 2004, pp. 170-1).

Content Disclaimer