Parliament of Canada
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter III — Sittings of the House

Notes on Standing Order 24(1):

[1]
Motions proposing changes in the times of meeting of the House are possible without notice via Standing Order 54, while with the proper notice motions to have the House sit on days when it would not otherwise sit (or not to sit on days when it should) are also acceptable. In many cases, however, such motions are introduced and agreed to without notice with the unanimous consent of the House.
[2]
Debates, March 13, 1986, p. 11489; June 3, 1991, p. 1002; June 7, 1993, p. 20462; February 17, 1998, p. 4033.
[3]
Journals, May 30, 1977, p. 874.
[4]
The House has met frequently on a Saturday, but only once on a Sunday. See for example, Journals, December 19, 1975, p. 970; December 20, 1975, p. 971; March 23, 1995, p. 1265; March 25, 1995, p. 1277; March 26, 1995, p. 1289. The House has also met during a break week provided under Standing Order 28(2)(a) (Journals, October 5, 2004, pp. 12-4).
[5]
Journals, March 30, 1973, p. 229
[6]
See for example, Journals, June 12, 1998, pp. 1025-6; February 13, 2001, p. 84; February 24, 2004, p. 119
[7]
Debates, June 23, 1887, pp. 1270-1.
[8]
Debates, July 10, 1906, cols. 7611-6.
[9]
Debates, July 9, 1906, col. 7465.
[10]
Debates, July 10, 1906, col. 7613.
[11]
Debates, December 12, 1907, col. 585.
[12]
Debates, January 28, 1913, col. 2282.
[13]
Debates, April 11, 1921, p. 1828.
[14]
Journals, March 14, 1922, p. 23; February 6, 1923, p. 29; March 18, 1924, p. 45; June 4, 1925, p. 390; March 16, 1926, p. 153.
[15]
Journals, March 22, 1927, p. 319. This permanent change had first been recommended in another Procedure Committee report in 1925 (Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 348).
[16]
Debates, June 18, 1936, p. 3846.
[17]
Debates, February 23, 1938, p. 742.
[18]
Debates, June 25, 1947, pp. 4617-9.
[19]
Journals, October 12, 1951, pp. 7-8; October 26, 1951, pp. 49-50; November 2, 1951, p. 65.
[20]
Journals, December 13, 1951, pp. 311-3.
[21]
Journals, July 1, 1952, p. 624.
[22]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 882-3.
[23]
See Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 562; December 6, 1968, pp. 436-7.
[24]
See Appendix “J” of the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 20:53-5.
[25]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See page 35 of Appendix “C” of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). See also the comments of Mr. Pinard in Debates, November 29, 1982, pp. 21069-70.
[26]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1016.
[27]
Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1.
[28]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2906.
[29]
Consult the Indexes to the Journals of the House of Commons under “Sittings of the House” or “House of Commons”.
[30]
See for example, Journals, March 25, 1995, p. 1277. The likelihood of a Saturday sitting came up again on September 16, 1991, when the government of the day moved a motion that the House designate “Saturday or Sunday, or both days as sitting days”, in order to complete consideration of Bill C-29, An Act respecting compensation in the public sector of Canada to force public servants back to work. By unanimous consent, it was replaced by a new motion the next day (Journals, September 16, 1991, pp. 271-2; September 17, 1991, pp. 354-5). See also Standing Order 27 concerning the extension of sitting hours.
[31]
See for example, Journals, March 8, 1955, pp. 245-6; March 30, 1973, p. 229. In the 19th century, these distinct sittings were common toward the end of a session (see for example, Journals, July 18, 1895, p. 300 and subsequent days). See also Journals, June 16, 1869, p. 258; June 21, 1869, pp. 292, 301, 306.
[32]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See pages 13-4 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[33]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1017.
[34]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2906.
[35]
Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117. Standing Order 24 was amended by deleting section (2), and section (3) became the current Standing Order 24(2).

Notes on Standing Order 24(2):

[1]
See for example, Debates, May 21, 1985, pp. 4937-8; March 7, 1986, pp. 11313-4; October 30, 1995, p. 15988.
[2]
On occasion, the House decides to dispose of a question (or the first of a series of questions to be forthwith disposed of) shortly before the fixed hour of daily adjournment. Under such conditions, the length of the voting process causes sittings to last beyond the hour of adjournment. Despite this, following the announcement of the voting result or results, the Chair will still adjourn the House without a motion to that effect. In other circumstances, a motion to adjourn the House is provided for automatically (see Standing Orders 52(12), 53.1(3)(e) and 38(1)). In the case of Standing Order 26, however, a motion to adjourn is needed when business has not been completed; see for example, Debates, April 23, 1975, pp. 5136-7, 5148. (The original version of Standing Order 26 specified this – see 1966 Standing Order 6(2)). The same principle applies to a closure motion (see for example, Journals, June 5, 1956, p. 711) and to a motion on time allocation (see for example, Journals, June 12, 1995, pp. 1641, 1708-9).
[3]
On occasion, the House has adjourned for one or more days on the death of a Member, a former Member or a dignitary (Debates, November 17, 1970, pp. 1227-8; September 28, 2000, pp. 8838-9; September 29, 2000, p. 8845; April 6, 2005, p. 4753). In 1998, a Member collapsed during the sitting and the House adjourned with the unanimous consent of the Members. The next day, the House met for Routine Proceedings and a motion to adjourn was moved and adopted, “out of respect” for the late Member (Debates, December 9, 1998, p. 11122; December 10, 1998, pp. 11129, 11134).
[4]
Debates, February 19, 1877, pp. 99-100.
[5]
Debates, February 19, 1877, p. 102; see also pp. 99-101.
[6]
Debates, March 15, 1877, pp. 777-83.
[7]
Debates, February 20, 1878, pp. 393-5.
[8]
Debates, June 23, 1887, pp. 1270-3.
[9]
Journals, March 11, 1889, p. 142.
[10]
Debates, March 11, 1889, p. 527. See also Debates, March 28, 1890, col. 2667; June 22, 1900, cols. 8073-4.
[11]
Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7463-5.
[12]
Journals, December 12, 1907, p. 55; Debates, May 3, 1920, pp. 1893-5.
[13]
Debates, December 15, 1909, cols. 1536-46.
[14]
Debates, April 11, 1921, pp. 1828-45.
[15]
Journals, May 29, 1925, pp. 358-9.
[16]
Debates, March 22, 1927, pp. 318-9.
[17]
The reference to the closure rule has since been generalized and now forms Standing Order 25.
[18]
Debates, June 18, 1936, p. 3846; February 23, 1938, pp. 742-3.
[19]
Debates, June 25, 1947, p. 4617.
[20]
Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948, p. 235.
[21]
Journals, June 25, 1948, p. 680.
[22]
Journals, October 12, 1951, pp. 7-8; October 26, 1951, pp. 49-50; November 2, 1951, p. 65.
[23]
Journals, December 13, 1951, pp. 311-2.
[24]
Journals, July 1, 1952, p. 624.
[25]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 882-3.
[26]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 562.
[27]
See Standing Order 38.
[28]
See Standing Order 26.
[29]
See Appendix “J”, Report of the subcommittee on the use of time, in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 20:54-5.
[30]
See pages 12-4 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). The recommendation was agreed to on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[31]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1016.
[32]
Journals, December 20, 1989, pp. 1060-1.
[33]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2906.
[34]
Journals, February 7, 1994, p. 117.
[35]
See for example, Journals, February 29, 1916, p. 114.
[36]
See for example, Journals, July 14, 1958, pp. 249-50.
[37]
See for example, Journals, December 1, 1960, p. 69. See also Standing Order 26.
[38]
See for example, Journals, March 8, 1955, pp. 245-6; March 30, 1973, p. 229. In the last century, these distinct sittings were common toward the end of a session (see Journals, July 18, 1895, p. 300, and subsequent days).

Notes on Standing Order 25:

[1]
See Standing Order 24(2).
[2]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 882-3.
[3]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 908-9, 926-7.
[4]
Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 223-4.
[5]
Journals, June 11, 1965, pp. 223-4. See 1965 Standing Orders 6(2) and 6(4).
[6]
See Standing Orders 6(5)(b) and 6(6) on pages 4-6 of the Provisional Reprint of the Standing Orders for the Second Session, Twenty-Seventh Parliament (1967).
[7]
Debates, November 2, 1967, pp. 3831-9.
[8]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 562. 1968 Standing Order 6(4) is identical to present Standing Order 25.
[9]
Debates, May 23, 1985, pp. 4984, 5011-2.
[10]
Debates, December 7, 1990, pp. 16463, 16470; October 20, 1997, pp. 860, 866.
[11]
Debates, January 31, 1983, p. 22341; February 1, 1983, pp. 22400-1; December 6, 1999, pp. 2156-7; December 13, 1999, pp. 2746-7; February 22, 2000, pp. 3833-4; February 25, 2000, pp. 4043, 4046-7.
[12]
Journals, May 11, 2005, pp. 740-2; May 12, 2005, pp. 745-6; May 13, 2005, pp. 751-4. See also the Order Paper, May 11, 2005, p. 26; May 12, 2005, p. 26; May 13, 2005, pp. 26-7; May 16, 2005, pp. 26-7.
[13]
Journals, October 31 and November 1, 1983, pp. 6383, 6388-9; May 25, 1993, pp. 2998-9, 3004.

Notes on Standing Order 26:

[1]
Any Member may move a motion to continue or extend the sitting during the proceedings, but once the motion has been moved, the Member must yield the floor. See for example, Debates, February 4, 1993, p. 15460.
[2]
In one case, a motion was amended with unanimous consent in order to provide for a meal break. See Debates, August 31, 1966, pp. 7862-3.
[3]
See for example, Journals, October 22, 2003, p. 1149 (motion adopted); November 3, 2004, p. 191 (motion deemed withdrawn).
[4]
Debates, February 14, 1969, p. 5560; November 5, 1991, pp. 4513-4; May 20, 1992, p. 10968.
[5]
Debates, February 17, 1987, p. 3541; March 26, 1991, pp. 19010-1; October 30, 2002, pp. 1106-7.
[6]
Debates, November 28, 1996, p. 6876.
[7]
See for example, Debates, February 19, 1877, pp. 99-102.
[8]
See for example, Debates, March 15, 1877, pp. 777-83.
[9]
Debates, December 12, 1907, cols. 584-94.
[10]
See for example, Journals, April 8, 1920, p. 123.
[11]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 318-9.
[12]
See for example, Journals, May 27, 1948, p. 484.
[13]
See Standing Orders 24 and 27.
[14]
Debates, March 26, 1964, pp. 1532-5; March 27, 1964, p. 1539.
[15]
Journals, May 12, 1965, pp. 98-9.
[16]
Debates, June 10, 1965, pp. 2211-3.
[17]
Debates, June 10, 1965, pp. 2211-3.
[18]
Debates, June 10, 1965, pp. 2216, 2229.
[19]
Journals, April 26, 1967, pp. 1769-70. In a ruling on November 27, 1996, the Speaker ruled that such a motion was out of order, as Government Orders had been extended following a Minister’s statement. As a result, the hour during which the motion would have been in order pursuant to Standing Order 26 had been moved back (Debates, November 27, 1996, pp. 6813-4).
[20]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 562-3.
[21]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See pages 13-4 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[22]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1017.
[23]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1017. See Speaker’s ruling dated December 14, 1990 (Debates, pp. 16797-8).
[24]
Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. See pages 13-4 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[25]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1017; April 11, 1991, p. 2906.
[26]
See Standing Order 26 in the consolidated version as of February 14, 1994. Standing Order 26 in the consolidated version as of June 30, 2005 still refers to a “dinner hour”.

Notes on Standing Order 27:

[1]
Until 1991, the Standing Orders allowed any Member to propose such a motion on the tenth sitting day before June 30. On June 15, 1988, the New Democratic Party House Leader moved a motion to extend the hours of sitting pursuant to the Standing Order, as he was permitted to do at that time. See Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2894. See also Debates, June 15, 1988, pp. 16498-501. The Standing Order was amended on April 11, 1991 so as to make these motions the prerogative of Ministers (Journals, p. 2906).
[2]
In 1983, when the rule was invoked, the motion was accepted at the very beginning of Routine Proceedings, before “Tabling of Documents” (Debates, June 15, 1983, pp. 26394, 26412). In 1988, the motion was moved during Routine Proceedings after “Introduction of Private Members’ Bills” (Debates, June 15, 1988, pp. 16495-8). Since 1988, all such motions have been moved under the rubric “Motions” during Routine Proceedings.
[3]
In June 1991, the motion to extend the hours of sitting left out two sitting days: Wednesday, June 12 and Friday, June 14, 1991 (Journals, June 10, 1991, p. 157). In June 1992, the motion did not mention the sitting day of Tuesday, June 16, 1992 (Journals, June 9, 1992, p. 1661). In June 1994, the motion omitted two sitting days: Friday, June 10 and Friday, June 17, 1994 (Journals, June 9, 1994, p. 557). In June 1996, the motion left out four sitting days: Thursday, June 13, Friday, June 14, Thursday, June 20 and Friday, June 21, 1996 (Journals, June 5, 1996, p. 490). In June 2005, the motion did not refer to the sitting day of Friday, June 17, 2005 (Journals, June 13, 2005, pp. 874-5). The normal sitting hours remained in effect on the days in question.
[4]
Journals, June 15, 1983, pp. 6036-7; June 15, 1988, p. 2894; June 10, 1991, p. 157; June 9, 1992, p. 1661; June 9, 1994, p. 557; June 12, 1995, pp. 1639-40; June 5, 1996, p. 490; June 9, 1998, pp. 954-5; June 13, 2005, pp. 874-5.
[5]
Journals, June 14, 1984, p. 566; June 13, 1985, pp. 803-4; June 11, 1986, p. 2301; June 12, 1987, p. 1089; June 13, 1989, pp. 360-1; May 31, 1990, p. 1791.
[6]
See for example, Journals, April 6, 1877, p. 227.
[7]
See for example, Journals, June 8, 1897, p. 222. See also Redlich, Volume I, pp. 194-5 (re: double sittings).
[8]
See for example, Index to the House Journals for 1905, under the heading “House of Commons”.
[9]
See for example, Index to the House Journals for 1920 under “Sittings of the House” and Index to the House Journals for 1943-44 under “Government Business”.
[10]
See for example, Journals, July 20, 1956, p. 911.
[11]
See for example, Journals, June 27, 1950, p. 600.
[12]
See for example, Journals, November 24, 1944, p. 927.
[13]
The last time the House passed a sessional order providing for Saturday sittings was on April 24, 1961 (Journals, pp. 467-8).
[14]
Journals, November 25, 1982, p. 5390; November 29, 1982, p. 5400.
[15]
Debates, June 15, 1983, pp. 26394-412.
[16]
See Note 5. On June 20, 1988, the House also adopted a government motion to extend both the sitting days and the sitting hours throughout the summer (Journals, pp. 2925-7).
[17]
Debates, June 15, 1988, pp. 16498-501.
[18]
Debates, June 9, 1995, pp. 13533-50; June 9, 1998, pp. 7775-92.

Notes on Standing Order 28(1):

[1]
St. John the Baptist Day is not a statutory holiday; nor are the Mondays and Fridays before and after St. John the Baptist and “Dominion” Day. For a complete list of statutory holidays, see the Interpretation Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. I-21, s. 35.
[2]
See for example, Journals, March 26, 1870, p. 114; April 11, 1870, p. 175. When John Sandfield Macdonald died in 1872, it was made clear that the previous practice would no longer be followed. Ironically, this had been the wish expressed by J.S. Macdonald before his death (Debates, June 3, 1872, cols. 947-9).
[3]
See for example, Debates, April 23, 1888, pp. 962-3. In the 1970s and 1980s, it was common practice to adjourn for the rest of the day only if the House learned of the death of a sitting Member while the House was sitting (see Debates, November 17, 1970, pp. 1227-8). In 1998, a Member collapsed during the sitting and the House adjourned with the unanimous consent of the Members. The next day, the House met for Routine Proceedings and a motion to adjourn was moved and agreed to, “out of respect” for the late Member (Debates, December 9, 1998, p. 11122; December 10, 1998, pp. 11129, 11134).
[4]
Journals, June 8, 1891, p. 208.
[5]
See for example, Debates, March 12, 1888, p. 124 (ex-Member); September 18, 1919, pp. 402-3 (non-Member); September 28, 2000, pp. 8838-9; September 29, 2000, p. 8845 (former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau); April 6, 2005, p. 4753 (His Holiness Pope John Paul II). In September 2001, the sitting of the House was suspended for a few hours to enable the Members to attend an interfaith service to commemorate those killed in the attacks on the World Trade Center (Debates, September 20, 2001, p. 5329); the following April, a sitting of the House was again suspended for a few hours to allow the Members to attend a memorial service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Queen Mother (Debates, April 8, 2002, p. 10094; April 9, 2002, p. 10131).
[6]
See for example, Debates, March 24, 1885, p. 714 (Annunciation); June 3, 1885, p. 2301 (Corpus Christi); June 26, 1885, p. 2889 (St. Peter’s and St. Paul’s).
[7]
See for example, Debates, February 16, 1915, p. 206.
[8]
See for example, Debates, May 10, 1926, p. 3233.
[9]
See for example, Debates, March 29, 1877, p. 1051. Other Easter Monday sittings took place in, among other sessions, 1878, 1884, 1893 and as recently as 1964.
[10]
Journals, March 3, 1924, p. 13; Debates, February 15, 1926, pp. 983-4.
[11]
Debates, May 18, 1936, pp. 2895-6. The 1967 amendments to the Interpretation Act eliminated those days as statutory holidays.
[12]
Debates, March 16, 1880, p. 657 (St. Patrick’s Day); December 3, 1909, col. 923 (Immaculate Conception); January 5, 1881, p. 262 (Epiphany); October 28, 1932, p. 641 (All Saints’ Day).
[13]
S.C. 1893, c. 30.
[14]
S.C. 1879, c. 47. See for example, Debates, July 1, 1885, 1891, and 1958.
[15]
S.C. 1894, c. 55. Labour Day was first observed in 1896.
[16]
S.C. 1867, c. 1 (Thanksgiving); S.C. 1921, c. 16 (Remembrance Day).
[17]
S.C. 1901, c. 12. Debates, May 23, 1935, pp. 2994-5; June 3, 1935, pp. 3225-6.
[18]
Journals, April 11, 1872, p. 8; Debates, April 26, 1900, cols. 4331-2.
[19]
Debates, April 12, 1945, pp. 837-9; November 22, 1963, pp. 5069-70. For a more recent example, see Debates, May 9, 1978, pp. 5263-4 (Aldo Moro). For examples of adjournments due to the visit of a foreign dignitary, see Debates, October 20, 1949, p. 965 (visit of Pandit Nehru); February 16, 1995, p. 9694 (visit of the President of the United States of America); October 8, 2004, pp. 190-1 (visit of the President of the United States of Mexico).
[20]
Journals, February 21, 1944, pp. 107-8; Debates, June 15, 1959, p. 4709.
[21]
Journals, October 9, 1964, pp. 780-1; Debates, October 9, 1964, pp. 8956-7.
[22]
In 1973, for example, this was dropped for both Remembrance Day and St. John the Baptist Day (Journals, June 14, 1973, p. 413; November 5, 1973, p. 618). In 1989, the House adopted a similar order, that St. John the Baptist Day be observed on the Friday rather than on the Monday (Journals, May 3, 1989, p. 173).
[23]
Journals, June 27, 1975, p. 671. See Debates, June 20, 1978, p. 6564, for a similar motion which was not agreed to.
[24]
Journals, July 6, 1976, p. 1395. The resulting long and tortuous wording of the Standing Order was modified in a reprint of the Standing Orders in 1978. The corrected wording is still in effect today.
[25]
See Standing Order 28(2). Refer also to Standing Order 28(3) (Recall of the House).
[26]
See the Historical Summary for Standing Order 24(2).

Notes on Standing Order 28(2):

[1]
Because the First Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament opened on October 4, 2004, the calendar could not be tabled before the deadline given in Standing Order 28(2)(b). See Journals, October 13, 2004, p. 85. In September 2001, although the calendar had been tabled before the required date, it was amended the following month by unanimous consent (Journals, September 28, 2001, p. 665; October 31, 2001, p. 773).
[2]
See Standing Order 24(1).
[3]
Journals, October 4, 2004, p. 1.
[4]
Journals, July 24, 1986, p. 2474.
[5]
Journals, December 19, 1986, p. 360; Debates, June 13, 1988, pp. 16376-9; Journals, June 20, 1988, pp. 2925-7; June 12, 1998, pp. 1027-8; June 13, 2003, p. 935.
[6]
Until the 1970s, these were non-controversial motions. Most passed without discussion or disagreement.
[7]
Journals, December 20, 1867, p. 125; December 21, 1880, p. 56.
[8]
Journals, May 21, 1873, p. 423; June 8, 1891, p. 208.
[9]
In some cases, the House sat well into the summer, prompting vociferous complaints. See for example, Debates, July 13, 1904, cols. 6638-9.
[10]
In 1906, the beginning of the fiscal year was changed from July 1 to April 1, and the session began in November in the hope that business could be put through faster and the House would not sit in the summer. Although the fiscal year-end is still March 31, by 1913 the sessional pattern had returned to what it had been, as sessions were not in fact over earlier in the spring under the new arrangement.
[11]
Journals, May 19, 1911, p. 537.
[12]
Journals, December 5, 1947, p. 7.
[13]
Journals, December 5, 1947, pp. 24-5.
[14]
See for example, Journals for the summers of 1956, 1958, 1959, 1960, 1963, 1964, 1966 and 1969. Sessions lasting into the summer had, of course, occurred in previous years, but not so frequently nor in this sustained way (except in the early 1900s).
[15]
See Appendix “J”, Report of the sub-committee on the use of time, in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 20:53-4.
[16]
See Journals, December 23, 1971, p. 1005.
[17]
See pages 4 and 5 of the document entitled “Position Paper: The Reform of Parliament”, tabled on November 23, 1979 (Journals, p. 260).
[18]
Journals, July 18, 1980, p. 488; July 21, 1980, pp. 492-5; July 22, 1980, pp. 498-9; July 10, 1981, pp. 2848-50; July 16, 1981, pp. 2864-5 (notice of closure); July 17, 1981, pp. 2868-71; August 4, 1982, pp. 5279-80.
[19]
See pages 11 and 12 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). The recommendation was agreed to on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[20]
Debates, November 29, 1982, p. 21069.
[21]
See the First Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on December 15, 1983 (Journals, p. 47). The recommendation was agreed to on December 19, 1983 (Journals, pp. 55-6).
[22]
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2906-7.
[23]
See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 8, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 16:3. See also Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563.
[24]
See the Sixteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented and concurred in on May 15, 2001 (Journals, pp. 413-4). In its report, the Committee also suggested that if Easter is early in a particular year, the Speaker might decide that the House should recess for three weeks around Easter, rather than having a separate March break. Similarly, in some years it might be desirable to have a shorter Easter recess, or to break up the sitting weeks in February and March. This last suggestion has been put into practice every year since the amendment was adopted. See the parliamentary calendars for 2002 to 2005, inclusively.
[25]
Journals, July 24, 1986, p. 2474 (recall).
[26]
Journals, December 19, 1986, p. 360. See also Journals, June 18, 2002, p. 1602.
[27]
Journals, June 20, 1988, pp. 2925-7. In 2004, the House adopted a motion allowing it to sit during Thanksgiving week, again altering the dates of a scheduled adjournment in the parliamentary calendar (Journals, October 5, 2004, p. 13).

Notes on Standing Order 28(3):

[1]
The government made the case that there was urgent legislation to be passed in the Senate as a basis for recalling of the House on July 3, 1987. The House was not in fact recalled: the Debates of the Senate of the day reported discussions between the government and the Senate regarding action to be taken on the bills in question (June 30, 1987, pp. 1582-90; July 6, 1987, pp. 1615-7). On August 7, 1987, the government again requested that the House be recalled, using different reasons; the Speaker agreed to the request and the House was recalled on August 11 (Journals, p. 1308; copy of the letter from the President of the Privy Council and Government House Leader, dated August 7, 1987, to the Speaker of the House of Commons, asking that he recall the House of Commons for Tuesday, August 11, 1987, for consideration of bills required in the public interest). During the 1991 Persian Gulf crisis, the House passed a motion permitting two of its standing committees to ask the Speaker to recall the House and providing for a temporary amendment to Standing Order 28(3) to agree to a notice of only 12 hours (Journals, January 21, 1991, pp. 2587-8).
[2]
Before this time, a recall order was published over the Speaker’s signature in a special issue or “extra” of the Canada Gazette. There was no legislative requirement for this practice, and it was discontinued when the House was recalled in February 1991. See for example, the Canada Gazette, Part I, Extra No. 62, Volume 114. See also Standing Order 55, regarding a Special Order Paper and Notice Paper.
[3]
Between 1867 and 1906, for example, there were only three such occasions. The First Session of the First Parliament adjourned in December 1867 and resumed in March of 1868. In 1873, the House adjourned from May to August, while in 1880-81, a one-week adjournment took place, again for Christmas.
[4]
Journals, August 3, 1940, p. 325.
[5]
Debates, August 3, 1940, pp. 2398-401.
[6]
The 1940 adjournment motion did not refer, as the present Standing Order 28(3) does, to the absence of the Speaker. In 1966, the phrase “in the event of the Speaker being unable to act...the Deputy Speaker shall act...” was added as a contingency measure (Journals, July 14, 1966, p. 782). In 1968, the position of Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole was added to that of the Deputy Speaker as a substitute (Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 581), and in 1980, the Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole was added to the list (Journals, July 22, 1980, p. 500).
[7]
Journals, November 22, 1944, p. 921. Other recalls took place in this time period, but these were all made by the Governor General while the House was prorogued, not when it was adjourned (see for example, the Fourth Session of the Twenty-Second Parliament).
[8]
Journals, January 29, 1951, p. 75; August 29, 1966, p. 785; July 6, 1972, pp. 503-4; August 31, 1972, p. 507; August 30, 1973, p. 523; August 9, 1977, p. 1542; October 6, 1980, p. 504; July 24, 1986, p. 2474; August 11, 1987, p. 1308; January 15, 1991, p. 2556; February 25, 1991, p. 2602; September 8, 1992, p. 1924.
[9]
See page 12 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[10]
The original notice recalling the House for July 15, 1992 was issued on June 26; the notice rescinding the recall was issued on July 11 and tabled on September 8, the day the Speaker also tabled the messages received from the government about the recall (Journals, September 8, 1992, p. 1924; Debates, September 8, 1992, p. 12709).

Notes on Standing Order 28(4):

[1]
See for example, Journals, December 23, 1988, p. 80; December 19, 1990, pp. 2513-5; June 16, 1993, pp. 3321-2.
[2]
See Standing Order 29(5). In responding to a summons of the Crown, the House is simply being asked to witness an event, rather than to make a decision. See House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 339-40.
[3]
This also excludes the tabling of any document with the Clerk of the House and the reading of any message from the Senate apart from messages relating to Royal Assent. See for example, Journals, July 7, 1994, pp. 672-3; December 10, 1998, pp. 1439-40; December 15, 2004, pp. 357-8.
[4]
See the Historical Summary for section (3) of Standing Order 28.
[5]
Journals, June 27, 1951, p. 637.
[6]
Journals, November 29, 1956, pp. 11-2; July 7, 1967, pp. 330-1; December 23, 1988, p. 80.
[7]
Journals, December 31, 1971, pp. 1035-6; January 12, 1972, p. 1037. See also the Canada Gazette, Part I, Extra No. 1, Volume 106. See also Journals, December 22, 1978, pp. 304-5; June 27, 1989, p. 463.
[8]
Journals, December 18, 1987, p. 2018. See also Journals, December 20, 1989, p. 1060; June 23, 1992, pp. 1833-4.
[9]
See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, June 8, 1994, Issue No. 16, p. 16:3. See also Journals, June 8, 1994, p. 545; June 10, 1994, p. 563; June 23, 1994, p. 668.

Notes on Standing Order 28(5):

[1]
See Standing Order 32(1.1).
[2]
The written declaration of Royal Assent for Bills C-2 and C-10A, adopted during the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, was signified to the House in the late afternoon on May 8 (Journals, p. 755). As the Senate had already adjourned, it was not notified until May 13, its next sitting date (Journals of the Senate, p. 823). Thus the date of Royal Assent given on copies of the Acts is May 13, 2003.
[3]
Sections 55 to 57 of the Constitution Act, 1867 deal with the granting of Royal Assent by the Governor General, and with the circumstances in which Assent can be disallowed or withheld. Neither the Constitution Act, 1867 nor the Standing Orders of the House of Commons specify any particular procedure that must be followed.
[4]
Norman Wilding and Philip Laundy, An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 3rd ed., p. 642. In 1967, the British Parliament passed the Royal Assent Act, which allowed a simple report of Royal Assent by the Speakers of the two Houses to give a bill the force of law (see May, 23rd ed., pp. 653-4). In Australia, the formal Royal Assent ceremony has not taken place since the early years of the Australian Commonwealth. The usual practice is for the chamber that initiated the bill to transmit copies of it to the residence of the Governor General, who then affixes his or her signature. In New Zealand, the Governor General has not attended in person to assent to bills since 1875. Rather, Royal Assent is signified by written declaration and the Governor General sends a message to inform the House that Assent has been given to the bill on behalf of the Queen.
[5]
See pages 3-4 of the Second Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on March 26, 1985 (Journals, p. 420). In its response to the Committee’s report, the government mentioned that it wanted to modernize the procedure for Royal Assent, in consultation with the Senate (Journals, October 9, 1985, p. 1082).
[6]
Journals, October 10, 1986, p. 72.
[7]
See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on House Management, April 1, 1993, Issue No. 53, p. 31.
[8]
Debates of the Senate, November 6, 1985, pp. 1448, 1469.
[9]
See Debates of the Senate, November 7, 1985, pp. 1480-2; January 22, 1986, pp. 1860-2; January 23, 1986, pp. 1873-5, to read statements made during the debate on the tabling of the Committee’s Fourth Report. See also Debates of the Senate, July 26, 1988, pp. 4122-3; September 20, 1988, p. 4463, to read statements made during second reading debate on Bill S-19.
[10]
Journals of the Senate, April 2, 1998, pp. 576-7.
[11]
See Journals of the Senate, April 28, 1998, p. 597; June 9, 1998, p. 788; June 18, 1998, pp. 862-3, 898-9; December 8, 1998, pp. 1170-2.
[12]
Journals of the Senate, March 10, 1999, p. 1334.
[13]
Journals of the Senate, November 2, 1999, p. 58; November 4, 1999, p. 98.
[14]
Journals of the Senate, February 7, 2001, pp. 49-50; February 20, 2001, p. 68; May 2, 2001, p. 423; October 2, 2001, p. 802.
[15]
Debates, April 19, 2002, pp. 10587-92; May 10, 2002, p. 11500; May 31, 2002, pp. 11977-84, 11998.
[16]
Journals, June 4, 2002, pp. 1470-1; June 13, 2002, p. 1579.
[17]
Journals, February 13, 2003, p. 411. As of July 21, 2005, the new procedure for signifying Royal Assent by written declaration had been used 26 times, while the traditional ceremony had only been held six times.

Notes on Standing Order 29(1):

[1]
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 48.
[2]
In 1990, an opposition Member contended that it was the responsibility of the government to maintain quorum when the House was considering the Business of Supply (Debates, April 2, 1990, p. 10083). In the subsequent ruling, the Speaker expressed the view that it was difficult for the Chair to conclude that the government must bear the sole responsibility for the House adjourning for want of a quorum (Debates, April 3, 1990, p. 10119). For a more recent example, see Debates, May 17, 2000, pp. 6970-1.
[3]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 4.
[4]
1906 Rule 4(1).
[5]
Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 348.
[6]
Mr. Knowles last presented such a bill in May 1980 (Bill C-511, An Act to amend the British North America Acts, 1867 to 1975, with respect to the quorum of the House of Commons).

Notes on Standing Order 29(2) and (3):

[1]
In practice, the bells summoning Members to the House at the start of a sitting are not in fact interrupted until a quorum exists, usually 5 to 10 minutes after the stated hour of meeting. On Wednesdays, custom has it that the bells will begin to ring a few minutes early for prayers and the national anthem so that no time is lost in Statements by Members or Question Period (see Debates, March 27, 1991, p. 19068; December 4, 1991, p. 5762).
[2]
Redlich, Volume II, p. 74.
[3]
Debates, November 1, 2004, p. 987.
[4]
Journals, October 30, 2003, p. 1211; February 10, 2004, p. 36; March 24, 2005, p. 566. In one case, a Member withdrew his quorum call when informed by the Chair that the bells were not working. See Debates, March 13, 2001, p. 1566.
[5]
See Journals, June 6, 1899, p. 239 for an approximation of current procedure.
[6]
See for example, Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2893; May 26, 1989, p. 274. See also the July 12, 1982 ruling, in which the Speaker noted that, since according to the record of the proceedings no one had called for a quorum, “the House must accept the fact that there was a quorum” (Debates, July 9, 1982, p. 19201; July 12, 1982, pp. 19214-5).
[7]
See Standing Order 41(2). Prior to the adoption of Standing Order 41(2) on May 13, 1991, any business before the House when it was adjourned for want of a quorum was dropped from the Order Paper; the House could, however, be asked at a subsequent sitting to reinstate the business dropped following the count-out. See for example, Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; April 3, 1990, p. 1486.
[8]
See for example, Debates, December 13, 1990, p. 16724.
[9]
Debates, April 19, 1982, pp. 16368-70.
[10]
See for example, Debates, February 12, 1997, pp. 8021-2; October 30, 1998, pp. 9664-5; October 27, 1999, pp. 770-1. For examples of Speakers’ rulings concerning the make-up of the House when there is a quorum call, see Debates, November 22, 1994, p. 8077; May 7, 1998, p. 6644.
[11]
See for example, Debates, May 5, 1982, p. 17067.
[12]
See for example, Debates, April 2, 1993, p. 18021.
[13]
See Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; October 19, 1995, p. 2032.
[14]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 2.
[15]
See for example, Journals, June 14, 1869, pp. 243-4; December 17, 1974, pp. 217-8; May 5, 1982, pp. 17067-8.
[16]
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, November 4, 1982, Issue No. 7, p. 7:24. See also Appendix “J”, Report of the sub-committee on the use of time, in the Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, September 30, 1976, Issue No. 20, pp. 20:55-6. See also Debates, December 18, 1974, pp. 2345-6.

Notes on Standing Order 29(4):

[1]
Journals, July 10, 1969, pp. 1329-30.
[2]
Journals, July 10, 1969, pp. 1329-30.
[3]
See Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; October 19, 1995, p. 2032.
[4]
See 1867 Rule 4.
[5]
Debates, June 15, 1869, pp. 785-7.
[6]
See for example, Journals, May 5, 1982, p. 4797; November 16, 1982, p. 5353; Debates, November 16, 1982, p. 20729.

Notes on Standing Order 29(5):

[1]
Proceedings in the House have occasionally given rise to points of order when Members have assembled to wait for the request to go to the Senate for a Royal Assent ceremony when the House is adjourned. On December 30, 1988 and June 29, 1989, a Member rose to make the observation that, since the House was meeting solely in order to wait for the Usher of the Black Rod to request that the House go to the Senate, the House should not have held prayers and the Speaker should not have taken the Chair before the Sergeant-at-Arms announced that the Usher of the Black Rod was at the door (Debates, December 30, 1988, pp. 851-2; June 29, 1989, pp. 3803-6).
[2]
Debates, March 28, 1947, p. 1862.
[3]
May, 13th ed., p. 225; Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 89. See also House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 339-40.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611
trbdrb@parl.gc.ca