House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

8. The Parliamentary Cycle

[1] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 38.
[2] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 50; Constitution Act, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44, s. 4(1).
[3] 
Constitution Act, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44, s. 5.
[4] 
Section 53 of the Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, and Standing Order 80(1) stipulate that all financial legislation must originate in the House of Commons. The fiscal year is defined in the Financial Administration Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. F-11, s. 2.
[5] 
Standing Order 28(2).
[6] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 50; Constitution Act, 1982, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 44, s. 4(1).
[7]
See Appendix 12, “Parliaments Since 1867 and Number of Sitting Days”.
[8] 
Standing Order 24.
[9] 
For example, on March 30, 1973, there were two sittings in a single day (Journals, March 30, 1973, p. 229). For an example of the House sitting continuously over two days, see Journals, December 18 and 19, 1980, pp. 951-1130. For an example of the House sitting continuously over several days, see Journals, March 10-15, 1913, pp. 326-40. In 1982, the division bells were rung continuously, resulting in a two-week sitting (Journals, March 2-17, 1982, p. 4608).
[10] 
Standing Order 24 provides for adjournments overnight and over weekends. Standing Order 28 provides for periodic adjournments of a week or more. Occasionally, there are brief adjournments of a few hours’ duration. See, for example, Journals, September 9, 1992, p. 1957; June 15, 1995, p. 1768.
[11] 
Standing Order 28(2).
[12] 
See Privy Council minute, P. C. 3374, dated October 25, 1935, a “Memorandum regarding certain of the functions of the Prime Minister”, which stated that recommendations (to the Crown) concerning the convocation and dissolution of Parliament are the “special prerogatives” of the Prime Minister.
[13] 
See proclamations in the Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 131, Extra No. 3 (April 28, 1997), Extra No. 5 (June 20, 1997), Extra No. 6 (July 31, 1997) and Extra No. 7 (August 28, 1997).
[14] 
When the House meets for the despatch of business, the Clerk lays upon the Table a list of the elected Members certified by the Chief Electoral Officer. The certificate and list are printed in the Journals. See, for example, Journals, January 17, 1994, pp. 2-9.
[15] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 128. The requirement stems from British practice dating back to the sixteenth century. Amid the political and religious conflicts of the time, the Act of Supremacy was adopted, requiring all Members to declare their belief in the Sovereign as supreme governor in matters both temporal and ecclesiastical. See Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 62-4.
[16] 
Affirmation is not mentioned in the Constitution. Instructions issued by the Crown in 1905 allowed for Members to take the oath or make an affirmation. See Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 13. For further information on the affirmation, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[17] 
Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states that the oath is to be taken before “the Governor General or some person authorized by him”. For the Thirty-Sixth Parliament, the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Deputy Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms were so authorized (Journals, September 22, 1997, p. 1).
[18] 
For the opening of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament in 1997, group swearing-in ceremonies were organized for Members of the Reform, New Democratic and Progressive Conservative parties. In 1985, the McGrath Committee recommended, in the interest of increasing awareness of parliamentary institutions, a televised collective swearing-in of all Members, in addition to the customary private swearing-in for individual Members (see pages 57 and 58 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, June 1985).
[19] 
Standing Order 2.
[20] 
The Usher of the Black Rod is an officer of the Senate whose responsibilities include delivering messages to the House of Commons when its Members’ attendance is required in the Senate Chamber by the Governor General or a Deputy of the Governor General. (On November 6, 1997, the title of the Office was changed from the “Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod” to the “Usher of the Black Rod”. See the Journals of the Senate, pp. 165-7 and the Debates of the Senate, pp. 333-43.)
[21] 
A Deputy to the Governor General is a person, usually a Justice of the Supreme Court, who exercises the powers of the Governor General on certain occasions (Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 14; see also Part VII of Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada, effective October 1, 1947).
[22] 
Since the opening of the Fifth Session of the Third Parliament in 1878, a Deputy of the Governor General rather than the Governor General has received the House in the Senate prior to the election of a Speaker (Bourinot, 2nd ed., pp. 274-5). See also Beauchesne, 4th ed., p. 19.
[23] 
This message can be delivered on the same day as the election of the Speaker, or on another day. See, for example, Journals, December 12, 1988, pp. 3-4 (the sitting was suspended following the election of the Speaker, and resumed some hours later); September 22, 1997, p. 9 (after the election of the Speaker, the House adjourned to the following day).
[24] 
The tradition of meeting in the Senate accords with the practice established in the United Kingdom whereby the rightful place of the Sovereign in Parliament is in the Upper House— no monarch, or monarch’s representative, having entered the British House of Commons since King Charles I in 1642 (see Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 89-90). During the rebuilding of the Canadian Parliament following the great fire of 1916, the first session in the new building opened on February 26, 1920. Because the Senate Chamber was not ready, the Senate occupied the House of Commons Chamber on opening day, thereafter moving to the Railway Committee Room elsewhere in the building (Debates of the Senate, February 26, 1920, p. 1; February 27, 1920, p. 2).
[25] 
See, for example, Debates of the Senate, September 23, 1997, p. 3.
[26] 
See also Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”. There is not now any question of the choice of Speaker by the House being subject to approbation, confirmation or ratification by the Crown. In the pre-1841 legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada, however, it was customary for the new Speaker to seek the approval of the governor. In 1827 Lord Dalhousie, then Governor General of Lower Canada, refused to accept Louis-Joseph Papineau as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed resolutions declaring this action unconstitutional, and expunged the proceedings from their Journals. The Governor General prorogued Parliament and in a subsequent session Mr. Papineau received the approval of Sir James Kempt, Lord Dalhousie’s successor. The practice of ratifying the Assembly’s choice of Speaker was discontinued in the first session following union in 1841, the Act of Union being silent on the matter (Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 92-3).
[27] 
See, for example, Debates of the Senate, September 23, 1997, p. 4.
[28] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 49-50.
[29] 
See Speaker’s ruling respecting the first day of a session, Journals, March 24, 1873, p. 58. In this ruling, the Speaker referred to the procedural authorities Hatsell, Dwarris, May and Todd. An exception to this established procedure occurred in October 1995, when the First Session of the Fifty-Third Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick was called, pursuant to proclamation, and the Administrator made a short statement after the election of the Speaker; whereupon the Assembly proceeded to consider a resolution concerning the distinct-society status of Quebec. When this was disposed of, a message was read calling the Assembly to the formal opening of the session on February 6, 1996. At that time the Speech from the Throne was read by the Lieutenant-Governor (Journals of the Legislative Assembly, October 25, 1995, pp. 1-6; February 6, 1996, pp. 7-27).
[30] 
Journals, October 14, 1957, p. 8; October 18, 1977, p. 2.
[31] 
On two occasions, the wife of the Governor General shared in the reading of the Speech from the Throne. Jules Léger took office as Governor General in January 1974; in June of that year, he suffered a debilitating stroke which affected his speech. During his tenure, four sessions of Parliament were opened: on September 30, 1974, the Speech from the Throne was read by the Administrator; on October 18, 1977, it was read by the Sovereign; on October 12, 1976, and October 11, 1978, the Governor General and Madame Léger shared the reading of the Speech from the Throne.
[32] 
See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 11.
[33] 
Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada (1947), R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, art. VIII.
[34] 
See, for example, Journals, March 12, 1931, p. 3; May 16, 1940, p. 9; May 16, 1963, p. 9; September 30, 1974, p. 8.
[35] 
See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1974, p. 8.
[36] 
See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 11.
[37] 
See, for example, Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 11. For an example of an occasion on which the practice was not adhered to, see Journals, August 29, 1950, p. 4. The House had been recalled to a special session that day, to deal with a labour dispute, among other matters. Instead of the usual pro forma bill, the government introduced back-to-work legislation which was read the first time and ordered for a second reading later that day. See also Debates, August 29, 1950, pp. 1-2.
[38] 
The introduction of a pro forma bill as a ritual act of independence has existed as a practice of the House since prior to Confederation. It originated in the British House of Commons in 1571, being confirmed in the following resolution adopted on March 22, 1603: “That the first day of sitting, in every Parliament, some one Bill, and no more, receiveth a first reading for form’s sake” (Hatsell, Vol. II, p. 81). The custom is observed in other parliaments where, in most cases, the bill is read a first time and not heard of again until the start of the next session: the Australian House of Representatives refers to its “formal” or “privilege” bill (House of Representatives’ Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 234-5); in the British House, it is called the Outlawries Bill (May, 22nd ed., p. 245). In the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the pro forma bill is Bill 1, An Act to ensure the Supremacy of Parliament (see, for example, Votes and Proceedings for March 17, 1992, and March 26, 1998).
[39] 
The text of the Speech from the Throne used to be printed in the Journals as well as the Debates. However, beginning in 1996, at the opening of the Second Session of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament, the text was tabled and printed in the Debates but not in the Journals (Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 1-6; September 23, 1997, pp. 5-12; Journals, February 27, 1996, pp. 1-2; September 23, 1997, p. 12).
[40] 
The motion is debatable and amendable. In 1988, for example, the motion was debated and adopted on recorded division (Journals, December 12, 1988, pp. 6-7). In 1926, an amendment was moved, debated at length and eventually negatived on recorded division (Journals, January 8, 1926, pp. 12-3; January 15, 1926, pp. 28-9).
[41] 
See, for example, Journals, December 12, 1988, p. 8. The announcement is made pursuant to s. 50(4) of the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2. For further information on the role and functions of the Board of Internal Economy, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[42] 
Standing Order 104(1). See, for example, Journals, January 18, 1994, p. 18. Formerly, this Standing Order provided for the appointment of a seven-member Striking Committee at the commencement of the first session of each Parliament. In 1991, the rule was amended (see Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2904-5, 2922) and the task of selecting committee membership became one of the duties of a new standing committee, since renamed Procedure and House Affairs. The practice has been that a motion to appoint a committee to designate standing and joint committee membership is moved and disposed of on the opening day of the Parliament. In 1962, however, such a motion was moved and adopted by unanimous consent on the eleventh sitting day (Journals, October 12, 1962, p. 63).
[43] 
A well-entrenched practice exists whereby, on opening day, Ministers move certain motions without notice and the House disposes of them. Normally, the Order Paper and Notice Paper is not produced for the first day of the session. Bourinot’s first edition (1884) describes the practice of moving a formal resolution for the appointment of committees without notice (pp. 231-2).
Standing Order 55(1) provides for a Special Order Paper during a prorogation or when the House stands adjourned and the Government wishes a matter requiring notice to be considered when the House reconvenes.  A Special Order Paper and Notice Paper was produced for the opening of the Second Sessions of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament on February 27, 1996, and for the opening of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament on September 23, 1997; they contained notices of items of Government Business.  In 1997, the notice included among other matters, the proposed membership of the committee charged with selecting members for committees.
In Australia, there is no Notice Paper for the first day of sitting and notice would normally be required for first day business, though examples exist of business proceeding by leave of the House or suspension of the rules (House of Representatives Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 235-6).  In New Zealand, an Order Paper is produced and notice is required for opening day motions (McGee, 2nd ed., p. 99).
[44] 
Standing Order 7(1). Standing Order 7(3) provides for the selection of a successor should a vacancy arise during the course of the Parliament.
[45]
However, in 1973 and 1979, for example, the Deputy Speakers (Robert McCleave and Gérald Laniel) were chosen from among the Members of the Official Opposition.
[46] 
They are usually from the government side; however, in 1997, for example, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole (Ian McClelland) was chosen from among the Members of the Official Opposition.
[47]
See also Appendix 3, “Deputy Speakers and Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1885”; Appendix 4, “Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1938”; Appendix 5, “Assistant Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1967”.
[48] 
Exceptions occurred in 1962 when the motion to select the Deputy Speaker was adopted after a recorded division (Journals, January 18, 1962, pp. 6-7); in 1990 when the motion to select the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was adopted on recorded division (Journals, October 2, 1990, p. 2050); in 1996, when the motion to select the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was adopted on recorded division (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 3) and the motion to select the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was also adopted on a recorded division (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 4; February 28, 1996, pp. 9-10). Later in the session, the post of Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was vacated and a motion was moved selecting a successor. It was debated, an amendment was moved and negatived on recorded division, the motion was closured and later adopted on recorded division (Journals, October 28, 1996, pp. 778-9; October 29, 1996, pp. 784-9).
[49] 
Standing Order 81(1). An Order of the Day is an item of business on the House agenda (the Order Paper). “Continuing” means that the Order for the Business of Supply will remain on the Order Paper for every sitting of the session thereafter.
[50] 
See, for example, Journals, May 13, 1991, p. 11; January 18, 1994, p. 17. For further information on the Supply process, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”. On occasion the statement has not been made in the Speech from the Throne (see Journals, September 8, 1930, p. 9; January 25, 1940, p. 8; October 9, 1951, pp. 2-4; December 12, 1988, pp. 5-6; April 3, 1989, pp. 3-12). The Speaker ruled on May 2, 1989, that the Standing Orders do not specify that a request for funds must appear in the Speech from the Throne (Debates, pp. 1175-7).

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page