Chapter 15Special Debates

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Designating a Day for Consideration

Although there is no Standing Order that requires the Speech from the Throne to be debated at the beginning of a new session, traditionally, when the House returns from the Senate, a day is designated for the consideration of the Speech.¹ The Prime Minister moves a motion to consider the Throne Speech either later that day or at the next sitting of the House.² The motion does not require notice and while it is generally moved and adopted without debate, it is debatable and amendable.³

Initiating Debate

On the day specified in the motion for the consideration of the Speech from the Throne, a government backbencher moves that an Address be presented to the Governor General (or depending on who delivered the speech, to the Sovereign or to the Administrator of the Government of Canada) “to offer our humble thanks … for the gracious speech which Your Excellency has addressed”.⁴ This allows for wide-ranging debate on the government policies announced in the Throne Speech, and provides a rare opportunity for Members to address topics of their choice.⁵

From 1867 to 1893, the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne typically consisted of several paragraphs, each of which received separate consideration. The paragraphs collectively formed a resolution that was adopted and referred to a select committee. The committee would then report the Address in Reply to the House where it would be agreed to, engrossed (that is, reproduced in larger print on parchment-like paper) and presented to the Governor General. This cumbersome procedure was changed in 1893, when a new practice was adopted whereby the House itself considered the Address in the form of a presentation to the Governor General.⁶ It was not until 1903 that the motion for an Address in Reply became one brief paragraph of thanks for the Speech from the Throne.⁷

Following the mover’s speech, a second government backbencher⁸ (usually one who speaks the official language that is not that of the mover) is recognized to speak to and second the motion. Both the mover and seconder are typically chosen from the ranks of those Members most recently elected.⁹ Their speeches are followed by a 10-minute questions and comments period.¹⁰ When the seconder has finished speaking and has responded to the questions and comments, the Leader of the Opposition normally moves to adjourn the debate.¹¹ The usual practice is for the Prime Minister or a Minister, often the Government House Leader or President of the Privy Council, to then move the adjournment of the House.¹²

Resuming Debate on the Address

The Standing Orders provide for six additional days of debate on the motion and on any amendments proposed thereto.¹³ These days are designated by a Minister, usually the Government House Leader, and are not necessarily consecutive. The House normally debates the Address early in the session when there is little or no government business on the Order Paper. In the following days, the government typically places bills or motions on notice to sustain the work of the House later on.

The fact that the debate on the Address has not been completed or that the House has not yet voted on it does not preclude the House from discussing or voting on other issues.¹⁴ The purpose of giving first reading to the pro forma Bill C-1, An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office, is to assert the independence of the House of Commons and its right to choose its own business and to deliberate without reference to the causes of summons as expressed in the Speech from the Throne.¹⁵

Since 1955, the Standing Orders have provided that when the Order of the Day is called to resume debate on the motion for an Address in Reply, the Order takes precedence over all other business of the House, with the exception of the daily routine of business, that is, Routine Proceedings, Statements by Members, Oral Questions,¹⁶ and Private Members’ Business.¹⁷

Rules of Debate on the Address

Leaders’ Day

The first day of resumed debate is known as “Leaders’ Day”. It is traditional for the Leader of the Opposition to speak first and to move an amendment to the main motion. Normally, the Prime Minister speaks next, and is followed by the leader of the second largest party in opposition, who may propose a subamendment. Other leaders of parties with official status in the House are then recognized in turn.¹⁸ Leaders of parties holding fewer than 12 seats are not automatically recognized for debate on Leaders’ Day.¹⁹

While this has been the customary speaking order, there is no specific rule stating the order in which party leaders are recognized during the debate on the Address in Reply. During the Address in Reply proceedings in 1989, the leader of the second largest party in opposition spoke after the Leader of the Opposition; the Prime Minister delivered his speech the day after Leaders’ Day.²⁰ In 1991, when the Prime Minister did not rise to speak after the speech of the Leader of the Opposition, the Opposition House Leader raised a point of order. The Speaker ruled that, in the absence of any Standing Order to this effect, Members were not bound to any particular speaking order.²¹ The Prime Minister subsequently addressed the House the next day, and the leader of the second largest party in opposition delivered her speech immediately thereafter.

Duration of Debate on the Address

Until 1955, there was no prescribed limit on the length of the debate on the Address in Reply, and debates lasted anywhere from one day to a record length of 28 days.²² In 1955, further to the recommendations of a special committee on procedure, the House first instituted a limit on the length of debate on the Address in Reply when it agreed to a maximum of 10 days of debate and to morning sittings (not then a feature of the regular sitting day) for the duration of the debate.²³ This was further reduced to eight days in 1960,²⁴ and, in 1991, the Standing Orders were again amended to provide for the current maximum of six days of debate.²⁵

There have been, however, a number of instances where the House has voted on the motion even though the debate lasted for less than the maximum number of days provided for in the Standing Orders.²⁶ There have also been instances where the debate was not completed because of either a prorogation or dissolution.²⁷

As indicated in the Standing Orders, any unused days may be added, if the House so agrees, to the number of allotted days for the supply period in which they occur. However, this rule has never been applied since coming into effect in 1968.²⁸

Length of Speeches on the Address Debate

With the exception of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition who have unlimited speaking time, Members may speak for a maximum of 20 minutes on the Address.²⁹ In every instance, a 10-minute questions and comments period may be held following each speech.³⁰ Members limited to a 20-minute speech may indicate to the Chair that they wish to share their time with a colleague, either from their own party or from another party. A party Whip may also indicate that Members of his or her party will be sharing their 20-minute speaking time over the course of a debate.³¹ In such cases, each Member may speak for 10 minutes, followed by five minutes for questions and comments.³²

Any Member may be recognized to speak in this debate. The speaking order normally follows a rotation that reflects party standings in the House. On occasion, in order to allow as many Members as possible to speak to the motion, the House has reduced the length of speeches or the length of the period for questions and comments, sometimes even eliminating the questions and comments period altogether.³³

Disposal of Amendments and Termination of the Debate on the Address

In the early years of Confederation, one view held that attempts to amend the Address in Reply motion ought not to be made.³⁴ In 1873, the first amendments were moved to the Address in Reply motion when a motion of censure was made against the government for its conduct in the “Pacific Scandal”. Although a subamendment subsequently proposed an expression of confidence in the government,³⁵ the Prime Minister resigned, the Leader of the Opposition was invited to form the government, and Parliament was prorogued before the amendments were put to a vote. Amendments were moved again in 1893 and 1899.³⁶ Over the course of the next 40 years, amendments were commonly moved, although not systematically. It was not until World War II that the practice of moving amendments to the Address in Reply motion became more entrenched.

Recent practice has been that the Leader of the Opposition moves an amendment on the first day of resumed debate. A subamendment is then normally proposed by the leader of the second largest opposition party. However, another Member from that party may also do so.³⁷

Given the general nature of the motion, the rule of relevance is not strictly applied to the proposed amendment (as opposed to the subamendments). Precedents indicate that an amendment may add some distinct element of its own, whereas a subamendment must be relevant to the amendment and cannot raise a new issue.³⁸

A subamendment adding words with the effect of making the amendment a motion of non-confidence in the Official Opposition has been ruled inadmissible since “votes of want of confidence are only directed against the Government of the day”.³⁹ The Speaker has ruled out of order amendments which were not deemed to challenge directly the government’s policies⁴⁰ or which, in the Speaker’s view, were the equivalent of ordering the House to increase government spending and as such requiring a royal recommendation.⁴¹ An amendment similar to one on which the House had already expressed a judgment earlier in the debate has also been disallowed.⁴²

Until 1955 there were no provisions in the Standing Orders dealing with the moving of amendments or when to put the question thereon. As with an amendment to any motion, the question was put only once no further Members rose to speak to it. In 1955, a new Standing Order was adopted which established a framework for deciding amendments.⁴³

The first subamendment must be disposed of on the second appointed day when the Speaker interrupts the proceedings 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for debate to put the question on the subamendment.⁴⁴ Subamendments may again be proposed on the third or fourth day.⁴⁵ On the fourth day, the Speaker interrupts the debate 15 minutes⁴⁶ before the expiry of the time provided for debate to dispose of any amendment or subamendment before the House.⁴⁷ No further amendments are permitted to the main motion on the fifth and sixth days.⁴⁸ Finally, on the sixth day, unless the debate has previously concluded, the Speaker interrupts the debate 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for debate to put all the questions necessary to dispose of the main motion.⁴⁹

The Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne has been adopted with an amendment on only six occasions.⁵⁰ In the first two instances, an amendment moved by a Member of the opposition was itself amended by a subamendment moved by a Member of the government party.⁵¹

In the next two instances, the House voted in favour of the subamendment moved by the second largest party in opposition and concurred in the amendment and the main motion, as amended. In recent instances, the House has concurred in the amendment moved by the Official Opposition and then in the main motion, as amended.⁵² Concurrence in these amendments was not deemed to be a test of the confidence of the House in the government of the day,⁵³ as the government was in agreement with the amendments.

Furthermore, the Address adopted in 2004 during the First Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament asked the government to consider the advisability of giving orders of reference to three standing committees, instructing each to make recommendations on specific matters. The House concurred in this suggestion shortly after it was made, and adopted a Special Order to this effect for each of the three committees.⁵⁴

Engrossing of Address

Immediately after the adoption of the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the House adopts a motion without debate or amendment that the Address be engrossed, that is, reproduced in larger print on parchment-like paper, and presented to the Governor General in person by the Speaker of the House of Commons.⁵⁵ It is customary for the Speaker to be accompanied by the Speaker of the Senate, a few invited Members (including the mover and seconder of the Address, the House Leaders and the party Whips), and the Clerks of both Houses.

1.: The Standing Orders do not prescribe such a debate; however, they do set the rules for resuming debate on the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, should it be moved, and for the disposal of any amendments and subamendments, as well as the main motion (Standing Order 50). In 1940, for instance, no Address debate was held for the Sixth Session of the Eighteenth Parliament. The session lasted only one day, January 25, 1940, with the government using the Speech from the Throne to advise Parliament of its intention to dissolve Parliament in order to hold a general election. Dissolution occurred the same day (Journals, January 25, 1940, pp. 1, 8, 23–5).
2.: See, for example, Journals, October 16, 2013, pp. 3–4. It is noted in Bourinot (Sir John George Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, 4th ed., ed. Thomas Barnard Flint (Toronto: Canada Law Book, 1916), p. 95) that other Ministers in the absence of the Prime Minister may move this motion. In fact, this has occurred on a number of occasions. Examples of this can be found on April 18, 1895, (Journals, p. 5) and on January 8, 1926, (Journals, p. 12). Since the 1950s, the Prime Minister has moved the motion. Between 1896 and 1956, the motion appointed a specific day on which consideration of the Speech from the Throne would begin.
3.: Debate has occurred on at least three occasions. On January 8, 1926, an amendment was moved to the motion to consider the speech of the Governor General. This amendment was debated over the course of two sittings and negatived on a recorded division (Journals, pp. 12–3; January 14, 1926, pp. 28–9). On February 17, 1972, an amendment to the motion to consider the speech of the Governor General to provide for a 40-minute oral question period was proposed. The Speaker ruled the amendment out of order because it was a substantive motion, which could not be attached to the motion before the House. The Speaker noted, however, that the motion could be amended if a procedurally acceptable amendment were proposed (Journals, pp. 5–6). The third instance of debate on the motion for consideration can be found in the Journals, December 12, 1988, p. 6.
4.: On the first day of the Second session of the Forty-First Parliament, the Prime Minister moved the motion to consider the Speech from the Throne later that day, and it was agreed to. However, the ordinary hour of daily adjournment was reached before the Speech from the Throne could be considered that day. It was not debated at any time during the session (Journals, October 16, 2013, pp. 3–4).
5.: Furthermore, on two occasions, ministers of finance took the opportunity provided by their speeches during the Address in Reply to make an economic statement and table notices of ways and means motions (Journals, October 20, 1977, pp. 18–9, Debates, pp. 98–102; Journals, April 21, 1980, pp. 61–2, Debates, pp. 241–8). In the latter case, the speech gave rise to a question of privilege. A Member was of the opinion that the Minister of Finance had breached the privileges of the House by making a budget presentation under the pretext of the debate on the Address, preventing the budget debate from taking place as prescribed by the Standing Orders (Debates, April 22, 1980, pp. 265–85). In her ruling, Speaker Sauvé reiterated that the Minister never said he was making a budget presentation and that Members are entitled to address any issue when speaking during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. She also pointed out that the Standing Orders clearly established that a budget presentation is not necessary in order to table notices of ways and means motions and that notices may be tabled at any time (Debates, April 28, 1980, pp. 459–60).
6.: Journals, January 30, 1893, p. 33.
7.: Journals, March 13, 1903, p. 25.
8.: In 2007, the seconder was the Parliamentary Secretary for Official Languages (Journals, October 16, 2007, p. 5). In 2011, the seconder was the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services, for Official Languages and for the Economic Development Agency for the Regions of Quebec (Journals, June 3, 2011, p. 15).
9.: Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 4th ed., p. 97. Three times in recent years, however, this practice was not followed. In 2004 and 2006, two Members (Karen Redman (Kitchener Centre) and Rick Casson (Lethbridge)) seconded the motion for an Address in Reply even though both had first been elected to the House in 1997 (Journals, February 2, 2004, p. 4; April 4, 2006, p. 14). In 2011, the seconder was a Parliamentary Secretary, first elected in 2006 (Journals, June 3, 2011 p. 15).
10.: Previously speeches from the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply were not followed by a questions and comments period. The last time this practice was followed dates back to 1999 (Debates, October 12, 1999, pp. 7–12). However, starting in 2001, the practice began to evolve that the mover and seconder’s speeches are followed by questions and comments. See, for example, Debates, January 30, 2001, pp. 17–21; September 30, 2002, pp. 8–14; April 4, 2006, pp. 11–5. In 2005, Standing Order 43(1)(b) was amended so that a period for questions and comments of up to 10 minutes would automatically be held after any 20-minute speech when the Speaker is in the Chair (Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451, 455). In 2015, Standing Order 50(2) was amended to specify that there would be a 10-minute period for questions and comments following each Member’s speech (Twenty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on December 8, 2014 (Journals, p. 1915), and concurred in on February 4, 2015 (Journals, p. 2092)).
11.: The Leader of the Opposition has adjourned the debate since 1935. See, for example, Journals, January 26, 2009, p. 4; June 3, 2011, p. 15.
12.: See, for example, Journals, June 3, 2011, p. 15. From 1904 until 1979, with only a few exceptions, the Prime Minister would move the motion that the House do now adjourn. Since 1980, with one exception, a Minister has moved the adjournment of the House (Journals, December 8, 1983, p. 21). In 1989, 1996 and 2013, the House did not adjourn the traditional way due to an emergency debate (Journals, April 4, 1989, pp. 22–3), or points of order in relation to the debate on reinstatement of government bills (Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 26–30; October 16, 2013, pp. 3–4, 14–5).
13.: Standing Order 50(1).
14.: The House has initiated the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne after introducing other legislation (Journals, August 31, 1950, pp. 18–9), initiated the Address debate but failed to conclude it prior to prorogation (Journals, January 26, 2009, pp. 3–4) or dissolution (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 4), or refrained from moving the motion to initiate the Address debate altogether (Order Paper and Notice Paper at dissolution, August 2, 2015, p. 37).
15.: For further information on the pro forma Bill C-1, An Act respecting the Administration of Oaths of Office, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
16.: Standing Order 50(3); Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881–945, in particular, pp. 908–9. Beginning in the 1890s and until 1950, the House routinely agreed that the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne should have varying degrees of precedence over other business. See, for example, Journals, February 7, 1898, p. 23; December 8, 1947, p. 40. Such motions were not moved in 1903, in 1905, in the Second Session of the Tenth Parliament in 1906, in the Third Session of the Eleventh Parliament in 1910, in the Third Session of the Twelfth Parliament in 1914, in the First Session of the Seventeenth Parliament in 1930, in either session in 1932, 1934 and 1935, in the First Session of the Eighteenth Parliament in 1939, and in the Sixth Session of the Nineteenth Parliament in 1945. For further information, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
17.: Standing Order 50(3).
18.: In 1997 and 2001, the House adopted a motion whereby the House would not adjourn until the leaders of all recognized parties had spoken in the debate on the Address (Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 15; January 31, 2001, p. 18). In 2007, a Special Order provided for an extension of the time provided for Government Orders if a representative of any political party had not had the opportunity to speak before the conclusion of Government Orders (Journals, October 17, 2007, p. 10).
19.: Debates, October 10, 1979, pp. 47–51; October 11, 1979, p. 69.
20.: Debates, April 5, 1989, p. 131; April 6, 1989, p. 145. In this example, the New Democratic Party Leader, Edward Broadbent, spoke after the Leader of the Opposition, John Turner; Prime Minister Brian Mulroney spoke the following day.
21.: Debates, May 14, 1991, p. 24.
22.: In 1926, the government imposed closure on the 28th day of debate in order to terminate these proceedings so that it could adjourn the House for a brief period to prepare the work of the session (Journals, March 2, 1926, pp. 123–7). The lengthy debate was the result of the challenge by the Conservative Opposition led by Arthur Meighen of the King government’s right to summon Parliament and remain in office following the results of the general election of October 29, 1925 (speech of Ernest Lapointe (Leader of the House) (Debates, March 2, 1926, pp. 1434–8)).
23.: Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 908–9.
24.: Journals, July 25, 1960, p. 825; August 8, 1960, p. 898.
25.: Standing Order 50(1); Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2912.
26.: See, for example, the Address debates in 1956 (both sessions), 1960 (Fourth Session of the Twenty-Fourth Parliament), 1965 (Third Session of the Twenty-Sixth Parliament), 1968 (First Session of the Twenty-Eight Parliament) and 1978 (Fourth Session of the Thirtieth Parliament).
27.: See, for example, Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 4; January 26, 2009, pp. 3–4.
28.: Standing Order 81(11). The first occasion when it could have occurred was in 1978 when the Address in Reply debate concluded after only six days of debate. At that time, the Standing Order provided for eight days of resumed debate. However, on October 20, 1978, the House adopted a Special Order designating October 30, 1978, the sixth and final appointed day (Journals, October 20, 1978, p. 42). In the discussion that took place in the House, it was noted and agreed that the two days taken away from the debate would not be added to the number of allotted days (Debates, October 20, 1978, pp. 312–3).
29.: Standing Order 50(2). The House has sometimes extended to other party leaders the opportunity to speak for longer than 20 minutes. See, for example, Debates, November 7, 1984, p. 31; October 3, 1986, p. 52; May 15, 1991, p. 114.
30.: Standing Orders 43 and 50(2). The length of speeches on the motion for an Address in Reply has been subject to limitation since 1960 when the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders, which provided for speeches of 30 minutes in length with 40 minutes being granted to the movers of amendments and subamendments (Journals, July 25, 1960, pp. 825–6; August 8, 1960, p. 898). In 1982, the length of speeches was reduced to 20 minutes and the extra time for movers of amendments was eliminated (Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400; Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, November 5, 1982, Issue No. 4, pp. 3, 16–17). The 10-minute questions and comments period was also added in 1982, although explicit reference to it was removed from Standing Order 50(2) as Standing Order 43 already stated that a period for questions and comments could be held following any 20-minute speech and any speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition (Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451–2, 455). See, for example, Debates, January 26, 2009, p. 6. In the interest of consistency, the provision for the 10-minute questions and comments period was reincorporated into Standing Order 50(2) in 2015 (Twenty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on December 8, 2014 (Journals, p. 1915), and concurred in on February 4, 2015 (Journals, p. 2092)).
31.: Standing Orders 43 and 50(2). See, for example, Debates, January 20, 1994, p. 72.
32.: Debates, April 11, 2006, pp. 322–3.
33.: See, for example, Debates, April 12, 1989, pp. 404–5; May 22, 1991, p. 433; January 28, 1994, p. 594; October 3, 1997, pp. 484, 486.
34.: This emulated British practice. See, for example, Debates, February 5, 1875, p. 12; February 11, 1878, p. 36; February 17, 1879, p. 24.
35.: Journals, October 27, 1873, p. 126; October 28, 1873, p. 128.
36.: Journals, January 30, 1893, pp. 34–5; April 13, 1899, p. 55; April 18, 1899, pp. 64–5.
37.: See, for example, Journals, February 28, 1996, pp. 8–9.
38.: See, for example, Journals, February 19, 1942, pp. 61–3; January 24, 1966, pp. 43–4; January 11, 1973, p. 28.
39.: Journals, February 6, 1934, p. 51.
40.: Journals, January 30, 1959, pp. 56–7. The amendment in question called upon the government to establish a special committee to investigate whether Canadian companies were governed by U.S. trade legislation and policies, and had no direct link to the Speech from the Throne.
41.: Journals, March 5, 1948, pp. 223–5. See also Constitution Act, 1867 (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 54, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5; Standing Order 79(1).
42.: Journals, April 12, 1965, p. 34. Similarly, later during the session, if amendments comparable to those on which the House decided during the Address in Reply debate are moved to other motions, these amendments could be ruled out of order (Journals, May 3, 1955, pp. 545–6).
43.: Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881–945, in particular pp. 908–9.
44.: Standing Order 50(4). The House has agreed, by special order, to put the question on any subamendment on the third day of the Address debate, rather than the second. See, for example, Journals, November 20, 2008, pp. 17–8.
45.: On occasion, the House has agreed, by special order, not to allow a second subamendment. See, for example, Journals, October 8, 2004, p. 64.
46.: Standing Order 50(5) was modified in 2015 to change this period from 30 to 15 minutes (Twenty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented to the House on December 8, 2014 (Journals, p. 1915), and concurred in on February 4, 2015 (Journals, p. 2092)).
47.: Standing Order 50(5). If a recorded division is demanded, the division bells are rung for not more than 15 minutes (Standing Order 45(3)). Since the Standing Orders were amended in 1991 to limit the Throne Speech debate to six days, there have been seven instances where a subamendment was disposed of on the second day, and a subamendment and an amendment were disposed of on the fourth day. There is a great deal of variation in the parties sponsoring the second subamendment. See, for example, Journals, May 14, 1991, p. 20; May 16, 1991, p. 36; February 28, 1996, pp. 8–9; March 5, 1996, p. 47; September 24, 1997, p. 20; September 29, 1997, p. 39; October 13, 1999, pp. 12–3; October 15, 1999, pp. 27–8; January 31, 2001, p. 18; February 6, 2001, pp. 45–6; October 1, 2002, pp. 5–6; October 3, 2002, pp. 19–20; December 8, 2015, pp. 28–30; January 25, 2016, pp. 73–7.
48.: Standing Order 50(6).
49.: Standing Order 50(7). The main motion may be disposed of without a recorded division. See, for example, Journals, November 27, 2008, p. 48. There have, however, been instances of recorded divisions on the main motion. See, for example, Journals, March 2, 1926, pp. 126–7; January 23, 1957, pp. 69–70; October 11, 1962, pp. 60–1; February 17, 2004, pp. 90–1; October 24, 2007, pp. 56–7. In such cases, the division bells are rung for not more than 15 minutes (Standing Order 45(3)).
50.: In one instance, in 2005, a question of privilege was raised in relation to the government’s action on one of the items contained in the amendment to the Address in Reply adopted the previous year. The Speaker concluded that this was a dispute as to interpretation and a matter of debate, not a prima facie breach of privilege (Debates, March 8, 2005, pp. 4122–4; March 22, 2005, pp. 4452–3).
51.: Journals, April 18, 1899, pp. 64–5; December 5, 1951, pp. 258–62; December 12, 1951, pp. 305–6.
52.: The most recent instances occurred during the Thirty-Eighth, Thirty-Ninth and Fortieth Parliaments, when the government was in a minority situation. See, for example, Journals, October 7, 2004, p. 58; October 18, 2004, pp. 101–2; October 20, 2004, pp. 125–6, Debates, p. 635; Journals, April 6, 2006, pp. 28–9; April 10, 2006, p. 41; April 11, 2006, p. 48; April 24, 2006, pp. 51, 53–4; November 20, 2008, p. 17; November 24, 2008, pp. 29–30, 33–5; November 25, 2008, p. 39; November 27, 2008, p. 48.
53.: For further information on the confidence convention, see Chapter 2, “Parliaments and Ministries”.
54.: Journals, October 20, 2004, pp. 125–6; November 25, 2004, pp. 260–1.
55.: See, for example, Journals, February 17, 2004, pp. 90–1. In this case, the motion was agreed to on division. In the First Session of the Fortieth Parliament, the motion for the Address in Reply was adopted on November 27, 2008 (Journals, p. 48). The motion to engross the Address was moved and adopted by unanimous consent the following day (Journals, November 28, 2008, p. 52).

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca