Notes

Unprovided Cases

Notes on Standing Order 1:

[1]

The 1867 Rule 116 was adopted on December 20, 1867 (Journals, pp. 115-25).

[2]

See for example, Speaker’s rulings in Journals, May 7, 1868, p. 297; April 20, 1869, p. 23; May 6, 1870, pp. 313-4; March 20, 1871, pp. 112-3; March 22, 1871, p. 133; March 24, 1882, p. 213; May 6, 1882, pp. 405-6; March 30, 1883, p. 159; September 30, 1903, pp. 606-8.

[3]

See for example, motion and debate on the length of speeches in Parliament in Debates, April 19, 1886, pp. 789-92 and the report of the select committee on a Canadian Hansard in Journals, May 8, 1874, p. 200.

[4]

See for example, discussion surrounding the adoption of resolutions pertaining to the election of a Chair of Committees of the Whole House in Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 67-74; February 20, 1885, pp. 175-6.

[5]

See discussions of the Report of the Special Committee on the Rules of the House in Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7460-1, 7471-4, 7478; July 10, 1906, cols. 7607-11.

[6]

Journals, July 10, 1906, p. 580.

[7]

Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 202.

[8]

Some of these distinctions are noted in Beauchesne, 3^rd ed., pp. 4-5.

[9]

See discussion on rules of the House in Debates, February 12, 1908, cols. 2984-8; December 15, 1909, cols. 1536-9.

[10]

See for example, reference to an incident in the U.K. House in Debates, May 5, 1909, cols. 5647-9.

[11]

See for example, discussion on 1910 rule changes in Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8366, 8369-77.

[12]

Journals, December 2, 1909, pp. 97-8. A full discussion on this matter took place under the guise of a debate on an amendment to the motion for Supply (Debates, December 10, 1909, cols. 1305-30).

[13]

Although no decision was called for, the full debate aired all aspects of the difficulty concerning the extent and applicability of the U.K. rules to the Canadian system (Debates, March 25, 1913, cols. 6306-98).

[14]

Note for example, the debate in April 1921 on the motion to set up a special committee to scrutinize the estimates of the various departments (Debates, April 18, 1921, pp. 2193-200, 2202-5).

[15]

Note for example, the Speaker’s ruling on a subamendment to the Supply motion (Journals, June 6, 1922, pp. 301-5), and the Speaker’s ruling on the putting of amendments (Journals, June 29, 1926, pp. 489-91).

[16]

Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 316-9.

[17]

See for example, Speaker’s remarks and discussion on written questions (Debates, March 6, 1930, pp. 323-6).

[18]

See for example, discussion on procedure in taking divisions (Debates, June 26, 1931, pp. 3076-8).

[19]

Journals, December 5, 1947, p. 10.

[20]

See for example, discussion in the report on estimates, budget speech, questions, adjournment motions and appeals to Speaker’s rulings (Journals, December 5, 1947, pp. 7-30).

[21]

See the comments made by Members during debate in Committee of the Whole on the Second Report of the Special Committee appointed to consider with Mr. Speaker the Procedure of this House (Debates, July 1, 1955, pp. 5558-72; July 12, 1955, pp. 5982-6003). As regards continuing U.K. practice, see for example, Speaker’s ruling on Hansard (Journals, February 16, 1960, pp. 156-8) and on Saturday sittings (Journals, May 6, 1961, pp. 511-4).

[22]

In its First Report in the First Session of the Twenty-Sixth Parliament, the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization noted it had established contact with the Speaker of the U.K. House to seek co-operation in making information available on practices and procedures at Westminster (Journals, December 19, 1963, p. 706). In its Second Report in the Second Session of the Twenty-Seventh Parliament, the Special Committee on Procedure sought permission to travel to the U.K. (Journals, December 11, 1967, p. 577). The Fourth and Fifth Reports of this committee clearly demonstrated the influence of that visit on the committee’s deliberations (Journals, March 13, 1968, pp. 761-7; March 20, 1968, pp. 791-2).

[23]

See for example, Item No. 3 of the First Report of the Special Committee on Procedure and Organization in Journals, March 25, 1964, p. 123 and Item Nos. 4 and 5 of the Tenth Report of the same Committee (Journals, August 19, 1964, pp. 631-2).

[24]

Journals, June 15, 1964, pp. 427-31.

[25]

See for example, ruling by Speaker Lamoureux (Journals, July 3, 1969, pp. 1289-90); and ruling by Speaker Jerome (Journals, March 21, 1978, pp. 520-2). The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization was authorized to travel to the U.K. (Journals, December 11, 1974, p. 188); the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure travelled to the U.K. after receiving authorization (Journals, July 6, 1982, p. 5120); and the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons also visited the U.K. Parliament (Journals, December 5, 1984, pp. 153-4).

[26]

Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, March 21, 1985, Issue No. 10, p. 10:4.

[27]

Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710.

[28]

Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1016.

[29]

See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented and concurred in on May 5, 2004 (Journals, p. 378). The report recommended replacing all references to “Orateur” in the Standing Orders with either “Président” or “Président de la Chambre”. Similarly, “Orateur adjoint” was replaced with “Vice-président” or “Vice-président de la Chambre”. Where necessary, it was clarified that previous references in the Standing Orders to “président” referred to either the Chair of Committees of the Whole or to a committee Chair.

[30]

See for example, ruling by Speaker Fraser (Debates, May 29, 1991, pp. 733-5).

[31]

See for example, ruling by Speaker Parent concerning the Official Opposition, based in part on a ruling by New Brunswick Speaker Dysart (Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 16-20). The ruling also took into consideration practice and precedents in the U.K. and Australia, as well as in the provinces of Alberta and Saskatchewan.

[32]

For example, in addition to visiting Westminster, the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons visited the Parliaments of Australia and Scotland. See the Committee’s order of reference (Journals, November 28, 2002, p. 236), as well as paragraph 10 of the Committee’s Fourth Report, tabled on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915).

Notes on Standing Order 1.1:

[1]

Debates, October 7, 1985, pp. 7416-7; November 24, 1992, p. 13977; January 24, 1994, p. 215; February 2, 1998, p. 3181; October 11, 2002, p. 623. Another case is noted in Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 332. Though not mentioned in the Debates, in May 2005, an injured Member, whose regular seat in the House was in the second row, was allowed to vote from the centre aisle while seated in a wheelchair.

[2]

Debates, April 5, 1990, pp. 10242-3; February 15, 2000, p. 3527.

[3]

Debates, March 13, 1878, p. 1072. See also Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 332.

[4]

See the special order adopted on October 5, 2004 (Journals, p. 13), as well as the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented and concurred in October 22, 2004 (Journals, p. 136).

Content Disclaimer