Parliament of Canada
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter VII — Special Debates

Notes on Standing Order 50(1) and (2):

[1]
While this has been the practice, there is no requirement for all party leaders to speak on the same day. In 1989, for example, the Prime Minister waited until the second day of resumed debate to make his speech (Debates, April 6, 1989, p. 145). In 1991, when the Prime Minister did not rise to speak after the Leader of the Opposition, a complaint was lodged with the Chair. The Speaker ruled that Members were not bound by any particular speaking order (Debates, May 14, 1991, pp. 24-5).
[2]
Standing Order 43 provides for a ten-minute question-and-comment period following any speech by the Prime Minister or the Leader of the Opposition, though this is a recent addition to the rules (Journals, February 18, 2005, p. 451). The practice once was that the mover and the seconder of the Address in Reply were not questioned after their speeches. In fact, when a Member attempted to ask a question of the mover in 1986, the Speaker suggested that this was not the usual course of action (Debates, October 2, 1986, p. 21). However, in 2001, the seconder did receive several questions, prompting an objection from the Prime Minister (Debates, January 30, 2001, pp. 20-1). In subsequent Address debates, the mover and the seconder have been questioned (see, for example, Debates, September 30, 2002, p. 13; February 2, 2004, p. 13; October 5, 2004, pp. 17-8).
[3]
For example, in 1873 (2nd Session), debate on the Address had lasted 7 days when the government resigned, while in 1899, debate lasted 20 days before an amendment was agreed to and the engrossed Address presented to the Governor General.
[4]
Journals, March 2, 1926, pp. 123-7.
[5]
See for example, 1931, 1939, 1940-42, 1942-43 and 1943-44.
[6]
Beauchesne, 3rd ed., pp. vi-vii.
[7]
Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 148.
[8]
Debates, February 9, 1943, p. 293; March 18, 1946, p. 35; February 4, 1947, pp. 86, 102.
[9]
Journals, April 7, 1952, pp. 189-91; June 27, 1952, pp. 601-2.
[10]
Journals, June 14, 1955, pp. 732-3.
[11]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 881, 908-9. See also Standing Order 2(2) of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1955.
[12]
Journals, July 25, 1960, pp. 825-6; August 8, 1960, p. 898; April 10, 1962, p. 340; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[13]
This was recommended on page 17 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). These changes also resulted in, due to the elimination of evening sittings, the loss of the extra time previously provided in the morning during the Address debate.
[14]
As Standing Order 43 makes clear that there is a ten-minute question-and-comment period after every 20-minute speech, the reference to questions and comments in Standing Order 50(2) was superfluous. See Journals, February 18, 2005, pp. 451-2.
[15]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2912.
[16]
See Address debates in 1956 (both Sessions), 1960 (2nd Session), 1965, 1968 and 1978. Unused days may be added to allotted days in the supply period in which they occur (see Standing Order 81(11)).

Notes on Standing Order 50(3):

[1]
See for example, the 1984 (First Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament) Address Debate, which was suspended for an economic statement and other government initiatives.
[2]
The only exception during this period was the Second Session of the Second Parliament, when the Pacific Scandal occurred.
[3]
Journals, March 19, 1894, p. 15.
[4]
Journals, February 7, 1898, p. 23.
[5]
See Journals for Sessions beginning in 1903, 1905, 1906 (2nd), 1910, 1914 (2nd), 1932 (2nd), 1934, 1935, 1936, 1937, 1939 (2nd), 1940 (1st), 1945 (1st).
[6]
See for example, Journals, January 30, 1947, p. 11; February 6, 1947, p. 39; February 21, 1947, p. 107; March 11, 1947, pp. 176-7.
[7]
Journals, January 30, 1951, p. 4.
[8]
See the Second Report of the Special Committee on Procedure concurred in on July 12, 1955 (Journals, pp. 908-9, 945).
[9]
Journals, April 26, 1967, pp. 1771-2.
[10]
This change was provisionally adopted in March 2003. See the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled February 28, 2003 (Journals, p. 492) and concurred in March 17, 2003 (Journals, p. 495). The change was made permanent May 11, 2005 when the House adopted the Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Journals, pp. 738-9).

Notes on Standing Order 50(4), (5), (6) and (7):

[1]
Journals, January 30, 1959, pp. 56-7; January 24, 1966, pp. 43-4.
[2]
Since the current rules were adopted in 1991, there have been four cases where no second subamendment was moved:  in 1994, in 1997 and in both sessions that began in 2004. (In one case, by unanimous consent, the House agreed not to allow a second subamendment. See Journals, October 8, 2004, p. 64.) In 1999 and 2002, the mover of the second subamendment was a Member of the Official Opposition, and, in 1996, it was a Member of the third party. In 2001, a Member of the fourth largest party moved a second subamendment. In 1991, a second subamendment was moved by a Member of the Bloc Québécois, which was not a recognized party at the time.
[3]
Journals, March 13, 1903, p. 25.
[4]
Journals, January 30, 1893, p. 33.
[5]
The exceptions were in 1873 (Second Session) when two amendments were proposed, and in 1893 when one amendment was put forward.
[6]
Debates, February 5, 1875, p. 12; February 11, 1878, p. 36; February 17, 1879, p. 24.
[7]
Journals, First Session, Twentieth Parliament (1945); Fifth Session, Twenty-First Parliament (1951).
[8]
Journals, July 25, 1960, p. 825; August 8, 1960, p. 898.
[9]
Journals, April 11, 1991, p. 2912.
[10]
Journals, April 18, 1899, pp. 64-5; December 5, 1951, pp. 258-61. In 1899, the Address in Reply consisted of nine paragraphs. The amendment added a tenth paragraph calling for the appointment of an independent judicial commission to investigate the administration of the Yukon Territory. The subamendment noted the speed at which the government had acted on complaints and praised the integrity of the Commissioner appointed. The second example occurred in 1951. To an amendment critical of the government’s failure to make a payment to grain producers, a Member of the government party moved a subamendment commending the government for its continuing attention to the problems of farmers.
[11]
Journals, October 7, 2004, pp. 32-3, 58; October 18, 2004, pp. 97-8; October 20, 2004, pp. 125-6. Neither the amendment nor the subamendment was overtly critical of the government. The amendment recommended that the government consider five specific measures, while the subamendment asked the government to respect provincial jurisdiction and to alleviate financial pressures. It should be noted that, in 1959, the Speaker ruled out of order an amendment which was not deemed to challenge the government’s policies directly (see Journals, January 30, 1959, pp. 56-7).

Notes on Standing Order 51:

[1]
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328).
[2]
Journals, December 5, 1984, pp. 153-4; December 7, 1984, p. 164.
[3]
Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112-20.
[4]
Journals, March 15, 2001, pp. 175-6. In addition to the debate on the motion establishing the special committee (see Journals, March 21, 2001, pp. 208-9), there was an additional debate on May 1, 2001, to “take note of proposals to modernize the Standing Orders” (Journals, p. 351).
[5]
Journals, April 21, 1998, pp. 681-2. This was the 89th sitting day of the session, one day before the debate would have been held automatically. Debate on the motion concluded at the end of the time provided for Government Orders, after which the House proceeded to the taking of deferred divisions and then to Private Members’ Business (Journals, April 21, 1998, pp. 682-9).
[6]
Journals, April 11, 2005, pp. 599, 604. The debate was relatively brief, as consideration of a motion during Routine Proceedings occupied three hours of the sitting (Journals, April 11, 2005, pp. 601-2).

Notes on Standing Order 52(1), (2) and (3):

[1]
Speaker Fraser expressed reservations about holding over requests beyond the day they were filed, as the nature of the emergency could change in a short period of time. See Debates, March 6, 1990, p. 8845. Speakers have refused to hear applications for emergency debates when notice was not filed that day. See for example, Debates, January 29, 1990, p. 7559.
[2]
Debates, April 6, 1989, p. 155-6; May 9, 1989, pp. 1501-2. Speakers may allow Members to expand on the application if the Chair feels that additional information could be of assistance in reaching a decision.
[3]
Bourinot, 3rd ed., pp. 466-7.
[4]
See for example, Debates, May 13, 1904, col. 3017. The Prime Minister’s interjection, “A very urgent question”, shows the frustration felt at the time.
[5]
May, 9th ed., p. 350.
[6]
Debates, July 10, 1906, col. 7611.
[7]
Debates, July 10, 1906, cols. 7608-9.
[8]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons, 1906, p. 21.
[9]
Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1955, p. 16. See also Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 904-5.
[10]
See Standing Order 26(1) in 1962, 1969, 1975 and 1978 and Standing Order 29(1) in 1987.
[11]
Journals, April 5, 1951, p. 247. See also Debates, January 11, 1956, p. 20.
[12]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 904-5; April 12, 1962, p. 350.
[13]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-6. See also Standing Orders of the House of Commons, January 1969 (Standing Order 26).
[14]
Standing Orders of the House of Commons, January 1969, p. 19. See also Journals, December 6, 1968, pp. 434-5; December 20, 1968, pp. 554-6.
[15]
See page 15 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328); and the motion concurred in on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400).
[16]
Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, 1986, p. 20. Had the wording not been changed, written notice would have been required by 8:00 a.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays.

Notes on Standing Order 52(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8):

[1]
See for example, Debates, April 16, 1975, pp. 4863-4; April 4, 1989, pp. 12-3, 40-1. On one occasion, the Speaker accepted two applications on the same day, ordering that one debate be held that night and the second held the following night. See Debates, April 28, 2003, pp. 5456-7.
[2]
There are too many to provide a complete list here. See Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 113-4; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 587-9 for examples.
[3]
In that time period, there were few sessions where four or more requests were made (1910-11, 1912-13, 1915, 1917 and 1923).
[4]
In 1907 for example, one Member’s request to debate the outlet of the Trent Canal into Lake Ontario and another’s to debate railway connections to Ottawa were both accepted (Journals, February 25, 1907, p. 205; December 4, 1907, p. 28). Cases later in the period were not much different; requests seeking to debate salmon canning regulations in British Columbia and the handling and delivery of mail were also accepted (Journals, March 27, 1923, p. 233; June 26, 1924, p. 446).
[5]
Debates, July 10, 1906, col. 7608.
[6]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceeding of the House of Commons, 1906, pp. 22-3.
[7]
Objecting to requests proved the rule from 1906 to 1911-12. Then, given its futility as a tactic, the practice essentially disappeared, although it occasionally resurfaced for brief periods. The most recent case was September 25, 1985 (Journals, p. 1027).
[8]
Debates, December 15, 1910, cols. 1356-8.
[9]
Journals, April 2, 1919, p. 130.
[10]
Journals, May 30, 1921, p. 395.
[11]
Journals, September 8, 1917, pp. 639-40; June 26, 1924, pp. 446-7.
[12]
Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 356 (Rule 39). The session ended June 27, 1925.
[13]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 334-5 (Rule 39).
[14]
Journals, February 19, 1932, pp. 62-3. He did, however, allow an appeal to his ruling that there be no more appeals (the ruling was sustained).
[15]
The deterioration of Speaker Black’s health led him to resign in 1935. His successor allowed these appeals. See Gary Levy, Speakers of the House of Commons, Library of Parliament, 1988, pp. 55-60.
[16]
Journals, March 10, 1939, p. 178. As well, a Special Committee in 1948 considered the question of appeals. See the Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948, p. 238.
[17]
Journals, February 1, 1949, pp. 35-7.
[18]
Journals, January 31, 1963, pp. 461-3.
[19]
The discussions quickly took on the form of mini-debates, taking up government time. See for example the 1966-67 session, when numerous requests were “discussed”, sometimes for several hours, before being rejected.
[20]
Journals, May 22, 1935, pp. 408-9.
[21]
Journals, May 30, 1921, p. 395.
[22]
Debates, June 5, 1947, pp. 3814-5.
[23]
Debates, February 16, 1953, pp. 1959-60.
[24]
Debates, January 11, 1956, p. 21.
[25]
Journals, March 20, 1968, pp. 792-4.
[26]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-6.
[27]
The Standing Orders now specified that the matter raised:  (a) had to fall within either the administrative responsibility of the government or the scope of ministerial action; (b) be such that no other opportunity for debate existed; and (c) be a genuine emergency needing “immediate and urgent consideration”.
[28]
Standing Orders of the House of Commons, January 1969, pp. 18-9 (Standing Order 26(1)).
[29]
Standing Orders of the House of Commons, January 1969, pp. 23-4, section 26(16). The dropped conditions concerned the rule of anticipation.
[30]
There are too many to give an exhaustive list, but these ranged from the matter not being eligible if it was essentially a censure or non-confidence motion, to the matter being unacceptable for discussion given its hypothetical nature (see also Beauchesne, 6th ed., pp. 113-4; House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 587-9).
[31]
In the 1968-69, 1969-70 and 1970-72 sessions, many debates were allowed to proceed, although most took place on Wednesdays and Fridays when government business was not disrupted.
[32]
See page 45 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839); Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[33]
See, for example, Debates, October 7, 1991, pp. 3391-3; February 6, 1992, pp. 6458-64.
[34]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1020.

Notes on Standing Order 52(9), (10), (11), (12) and (13):

[1]
This has been done in consultation with House Leaders, even though it is entirely at the Speaker’s discretion (Journals, June 25, 1970, p. 1121). Emergency debates granted on a Friday often are deferred until the following Monday (see for example, Journals, December 15, 1989, p. 1022; November 27, 1998, p. 1323).
[2]
Journals, December 5, 1947, p. 21. The Speaker based his recommendation on British practice.
[3]
Arthur Beauchesne, the Clerk of the House, in a brief presented to the Special Committee on Procedure, spelled out in more detail the proposal of holding over emergency debates (see the Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948, p. 238). However, when the Committee presented an interim report on June 25, 1948 (Journals, pp. 679-81), the issue was not addressed. The session ended a few days later.
[4]
Journals, March 20, 1968, p. 793.
[5]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 555.
[6]
Fridays remain as a potential source of conflicting demands on House time. See Debates, June 13, 1986, pp. 14373-4.
[7]
The 1986 change was adopted on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710) and was based on proposals initially tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1648). The 1987 change was adopted June 3, 1987 (Journals, p. 1020).
[8]
See for example, Debates, May 29, 1995, p. 12912; November 30, 1998, p. 10590; September 18, 2000, p. 8256.
[9]
See the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[10]
See for example, Journals, May 2, 1913, pp. 546-8.
[11]
Journals, April 26, 1917, p. 128.
[12]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 318-9.
[13]
See for example, Journals, March 17, 1930, pp. 98-9 (motion withdrawn); June 3, 1943, pp. 410-1 (motion deemed carried).
[14]
Journals, May 26, 1966, pp. 579-81.
[15]
Journals, May 5, 1916, pp. 334-5; July 16, 1942, pp. 544-5; February 25, 1957, pp. 181-2.
[16]
Journals, March 16, 1943, pp. 163-4.
[17]
Journals, June 14, 1961, pp. 668-9; November 24, 1967, pp. 534-5.
[18]
As the wide-sweeping 1968 changes also meant that emergency debates would now be held later in the day, perhaps it was felt that the time allotted for them was too short, hence the abolition of the guillotine provision.
[19]
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 556; see also Journals, March 20, 1968, p. 793.
[20]
Journals, May 4-5, 1982, pp. 4796-800.
[21]
The Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons recommended the change in its Third Report, tabled on June 18, 1985, based on testimony by Speaker Bosley, who said he believed the rule lent itself to dilatory tactics. The House agreed to an amendment in this respect on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710); the proposal was initially tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1648). Examples of extensions past midnight are found in Journals, January 28, 1987, p. 413; April 28, 1987, p. 796.
[22]
Journals, April 9, 1974, pp. 108-9.
[23]
See page 45 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[24]
The original recommendation was to allow Members to share their time only with other Members of their party, but this recommendation was modified when the House adopted the report. See the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and the motion adopted October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[25]
Debates, September 27, 2001, pp. 5629, 5674; October 4, 2001, pp. 5983-4. The House had increasingly been using the Committee of the Whole format for take-note debates (see Standing Order 53.1). As a motion to adjourn the House is not appropriate in committee, on these two occasions, the committee considered a motion to “take note” of the matter.

Notes on Standing Order 52(14) and (15):

[1]
See for example, Debates, June 5, 1947, pp. 3814-5 (sub judice); April 28, 1944, pp. 2425-7 (anticipation).
[2]
Journals, February 25, 1957, pp. 181-2.
[3]
Debates, April 13, 1959, p. 2605.
[4]
Journals, September 26, 1961, pp. 950-1; September 27, 1961, p. 957.
[5]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554-6.

Notes on Standing Order 53:

[1]
Journals, March 13, 1964, p. 95; Debates, March 13, 1964, pp. 910-26.
[2]
Journals, December 16, 1966, pp. 1148-50; Debates, December 16, 1966, pp. 11229-34.
[3]
Debates, December 16, 1966, pp. 11230-1.
[4]
Debates, December 16, 1966, pp. 11231-4.
[5]
Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 570-1.
[6]
See the Third Report of the Special Committee on Procedure, tabled on December 6, 1968 (Journals, pp. 434-5).
[7]
Journals, August 9, 1977, p. 1545; Debates, August 9, 1977, pp. 8177-8. Its application in this instance is anomalous: the Minister did not give a reason for the urgency; the Deputy Speaker advised Members opposed to the motion of their right to rise in their places at the wrong time in the proceedings; and the motion itself did not seek to suspend a Standing Order related to notice requirements or the times of sitting.
[8]
Journals, September 16, 1991, pp. 270-1.
[9]
Journals, June 1, 1992, pp. 1560-1.
[10]
Journals, March 15, 1995, p. 1219.
[11]
Journals, March 20, 1995, p. 1240.
[12]
Journals, June 10, 1999, p. 2097.
[13]
Debates, December 11, 1992, pp. 15131-3. The Minister sought to suspend the notice requirements for a government motion, which dealt with proceedings on an amendment to the Constitution concerning official languages in New Brunswick.

Notes on Standing Order 53.1:

[1]
See pages 19-20 of the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, tabled April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774) and the Thirtieth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled June 17, 1994 (Journals, p. 610). Both reports suggested that a special debate be scheduled when requested by 100 Members and that no dilatory motions be receivable during such debates. The 1994 report spelled out a series of measures to limit the length and the number of such debates.
[2]
See for example, Journals, November 14, 1994, pp. 877, 879; March 11, 1996, pp. 75, 78.
[3]
See for example, Journals, February 28, 1996, pp. 9-10; October 7, 1998, pp. 1132, 1135-6.
[4]
See for example, Journals, March 29, 1995, p. 1308; October 17, 2000, pp. 2065-6.
[5]
Only two take-note debates have resulted in a vote, with the motion being adopted in both cases, though in the second case there was a recorded division. See Journals, May 6, 1992, p. 1405; May 7, 1992, p. 1418; November 24, 1994, pp. 927-8; November 30, 1994, pp. 957-9. In the 1994 case, the motion, in addition to taking note of pre-budget consultations, authorized the Standing Committee on Finance to report thereon by a certain date. For an example of a motion being withdrawn, see Journals, February 18, 1994, p. 174.
[6]
See Journals, May 6, 1992, p. 1405; May 7, 1992, p. 1418.
[7]
See comments of the Prime Minister, Debates, January 25, 1994, pp. 261-2.
[8]
See Journals, January 26, 1994, p. 67 (cruise missile testing); October 6, 1994, p. 774 (social security programs); December 6, 1994, p. 983 (violence against women); February 28, 1996. p. 10 (peacekeeping); December 9, 1996, p. 977 (budgetary policy); October 7, 1998, p. 1135 (Kosovo); April 24, 2001, p. 322 (resource industries).
[9]
See the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, presented June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and adopted October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[10]
See Journals, April 24, 2001, p. 322; May 1, 2001, p. 351; September 20, 2001, p. 621; October 1, 2001, p. 671; October 15, 2001, p. 709. See also remarks made by the Chair of Committees of the Whole in Debates, April 24, 2001, p. 3089.
[11]
As provided in Standing Order 7 and 8, Committees of the Whole are usually presided over by the Chair of Committees or, in his or her absence, the Deputy Chair or Assistant Deputy Chair. When the Speaker presides over a Committee of the Whole, he or she does so as the Acting Chair, a role that can be filled by any Member. See Debates, June 11, 2002, p. 12579.
[12]
By consent, a take-note debate may be resumed on a subsequent day, in which case the Committee reports progress upon rising. Such consent must be given by the House, as the Committee is not empowered to consider any motion except a motion to rise. See for example, Journals, October 7, 2004, pp. 33, 59.
[13]
See for example, Journals, November 1, 2001, p. 780; October 28, 2002, p. 119.
[14]
See for example, Debates, January 28, 2002, p. 8298 when the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader obtained unanimous consent for a take-note debate later that day.
[15]
See Debates, February 12, 2004, pp. 516-7. The Opposition House Leader objected to the debate being held on the same day as a supply day.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

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