Chapter VII — Special Debates

Introduction

Two general features distinguish these special debates from those which occur in the regular course of House proceedings. The first is that the procedures differ, often substantially, from the conduct of normal debate in the House. For example, all “special” debates are governed by procedures to limit their length. Second, these debates arise either from a specific motion at a pre-determined time in the parliamentary cycle (as in the case of the Address in Reply, debated once each session, and the motion “to take note of the Standing Orders…”, debated once each Parliament), or from a motion to debate a matter of such an important or urgent nature that the normal process of debate is set aside to allow for the temporary operation of special procedures.

Two further types of special debates also fall under these criteria, but are not included in this group. The Budget Debate is included in Chapter X on Financial Procedures, and the Adjournment Proceedings, because it stems from the daily oral Question Period, is included in Chapter V on Questions.

Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne

Commentary — Standing Order 50(1) and (2)

Usually on the day after the Speech from the Throne is delivered in the Senate, and following the adoption of a motion (usually moved by the Prime Minister) that the Speech be taken into consideration, a motion for an Address in Reply is moved by a government backbencher and is seconded by another. By custom, the mover and seconder speak on the motion the day it is proposed. When debate subsequently resumes, a maximum of six additional days of deliberation are permitted, the first of which is usually given over to speeches by the party leaders and is thus called Leaders’ Day. [1] There can, in fact, be up to seven days of consideration on the Address. Although the widest possible latitude for debate is accorded during the seven days, speeches are limited to the standard length so that as many Members as possible may take part. Each participant has 20 minutes at his or her disposal, after which other Members may ask questions or make comments, allowing for an exchange of views, for a further ten minutes pursuant to Standing Order 43. As an exception, the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition have unlimited time, though their speeches are also subject to questions and comments. [2]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 50(1) and (2)

Until 1955, there was no time limit on the length of the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne. Before 1910, it was not uncommon for the debate to last only one day, although during this time the opposition did not hesitate to lengthen the debate to embarrass or press the government. [3] Long debates on the Address became common beginning in 1910 and reached a record 28 days in 1926, forcing the government of the day to impose closure. [4] Subsequent debates, although not quite as long, were protracted enough to establish a troubling pattern. [5]

Calls for a time limit on the debate began during the Second World War. Beauchesne, in the preface to his third edition, suggested that a solution would be either no debate at all on the Speech from the Throne, or a “maximum number of days” of debate. [6] In 1944, a Special Committee charged with revising the Standing Orders stopped short of recommending time limits on Address debates and instead suggested these should be negotiated among the parties. [7] During the 1940s numerous suggestions were made to reduce the time spent debating the Address. [8] Eventually in 1952, a private Member’s motion proposing a time limit on the debate was considered and the subject matter referred to a Select Committee which, when it reported later that year, recommended morning sittings during the Address debate. [9] The recommendation was never acted upon. Finally, in 1955, the Special Committee on Procedure recommended both a fixed number of days (10) and morning sittings for the debate. [10] This time, the House considered the proposed changes and agreed to them. [11]

Provisional changes in 1960 resulted in eight rather than 10 days of debate, and time limits on speeches were set at 30 minutes except for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the movers of amendments. These provisional changes became permanent in 1962 [12] and remained unchanged until 1982, when the length of speeches was further reduced to a standard 20 minutes and the extra time for movers of amendments eliminated. [13] The ten-minute question-and-comment period was also added in 1982, though explicit reference to it was removed from this Standing Order in 2005 (see Standing Order 43). [14] In 1991, the maximum number of days was again reduced from eight to six. [15] There have been several instances of Address debates lasting fewer than the maximum number of days possible. [16]

Commentary — Standing Order 50(3)

Debate on the Address has precedence over all other business, except the ordinary daily routine of business, Statements by Members, Question Period and Private Members’ Business, only to the extent that a Minister, usually the Government House Leader, designates certain days for this purpose. Although the six days of debate provided for in the Standing Orders must be announced, they need not be consecutive or uninterrupted. [1]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 50(3)

In the first 30 years after Confederation, the Address debate almost always took precedence over other business and was typically taken as the first order of business in each session. [2] No motion giving the debate precedence was proposed, probably because debate usually lasted only one day. In 1894, however, when debates began to lengthen, the House agreed to a motion which postponed the consideration of Notices of Motions until after the Address debate was completed. [3] Similar motions were adopted each session until 1898 when, for the first time, the House formally gave precedence to the Address debate over all other business. [4] Thereafter, motions of this kind were moved, usually by the Prime Minister, immediately following the Speaker’s report to the House on the Speech from the Throne, although in many sessions no such motion was proposed. [5]

In all cases where precedence was formally agreed to, Introduction of Bills was always excepted, as were on occasion Questions, Government Notices of Motions, Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers and, during the Second World War, Government Orders. During and after the war, “precedence” motions became more complex and were sometimes amended or suspended during the course of the debate. [6] The complicated and disjointed way in which the Address debate was conducted probably led to the addition, beginning in 1951, of the phrase “unless and until otherwise ordered” in the “precedence” motion. [7] This addition was reflected in a new rule regulating the Address debate adopted in 1955. The 1955 changes took the determination of the day-to-day precedence of the Address debate out of the hands of the House, and made it a prerogative of the government. [8] The changes also provided that on days appointed for the debate, the ordinary daily routine of business was not pre-empted, thereby building in a series of exceptions to the precedence rule. In 1967, a separate rule was added to specify that no Private Members’ Business could be taken up on days provided for the Address debate. [9] In order to increase opportunities for private Members, this prohibition was removed in 2003, and section (3) was modified accordingly. [10]

Commentary — Standing Order 50(4), (5), (6) and (7)

Sections (4) and (5) establish deadlines for the disposition of all amendments proposed to the Address motion; section (7) sets a similar deadline for the main motion, and section (6) prohibits amendments on the last two days. Although very specific with regard to amendments once they have been moved, these rules do not govern when amendments are to be moved nor whether they are to be moved at all. Similarly, the acceptability of amendments is determined by precedent rather than by any specific Standing Order. [1] Hence, no definitive sequence of events for the Address debate can be described.

Nonetheless, recent practice has it that on the first appointed day, commonly known as Leaders’ Day (the first of six days allotted for the resumption of the debate), an amendment to the main motion is moved by the Leader of the Opposition. This amendment is followed by a subamendment moved by the leader of the party with the next largest standing in the House. The subamendment is debated until the end of the second appointed day, when a decision on it is required by Standing Order 50(4). The decision clears the way for another subamendment which in turn, along with the amendment, must be dealt with at the end of the fourth appointed day. Further amendments are precluded by Standing Order 50(6) and the final decision, taken on the sixth appointed day, disposes of the main motion. Debate beyond the decision on the first subamendment has been pursued differently from session to session. In some cases, a second subamendment is moved, while other times debate merely continues on the amendment. [2]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 50(4), (5), (6) and (7)

It was not until 1903 that the motion for an Address in Reply was couched in one short, general paragraph. [3] It had previously consisted of numerous paragraphs (usually more than ten), each of which was, before 1893, considered as a separate motion and thus subject to amendment and decision. Taken together, they formed resolutions. Between 1867 and 1893, the resolution, when adopted, was referred to a Select Committee which reported an Address, which was in turn agreed to, engrossed and delivered to the Governor General. Invariably the Address was identical to the resolution. Beginning in 1893, the cumbersome resolution stage was abandoned and the House simply considered an Address. [4] Although it was still multi-paragraphed and was fully debatable and amendable, the Address motion usually passed in one day, with no amendments proposed. [5] Indeed throughout the early years of Confederation, one view held that attempts to amend the Address ought not to be made. [6] In 1899, however, two amendments were proposed, and for the next 40 years amendments were commonly moved, although not systematically, as is done today. During the Second World War, the practice of moving amendments to the Address motion became entrenched. In fact, the second session of 1945 saw a record five amendments. This record was surpassed in 1951, when seven amendments were moved. [7]

As there were at that time no limitations on the length of the Address debate, amendments were decided only when no more Members wished to speak. The adoption of a new Standing Order in 1955 governing the debate on the Address in Reply changed this by establishing a definite framework for deciding amendments. The rule provided that on the sixth of a maximum ten days, the question was to be put on any subamendment before the House. A guillotine also applied on the ninth day, this time for all outstanding amendments. On the tenth day, all questions necessary to dispose of the main motion had to be put. When the maximum number of days allotted to the Address debate was reduced from ten to eight in 1960 on a provisional basis, a system of deciding on amendments on the second, fourth and sixth days was adopted. Section 50(6) was also added to the Standing Order in that year. [8] In 1991, the maximum number of days was again reduced from eight to six, establishing the present system of voting on amendments on the second and fourth days. [9]

On only three occasions were amendments successfully made to an Address in Reply. The first two cases, in 1899 and in 1951, both involved subamendments supporting the government. [10] In 2004, the government agreed to accept modified versions of both the subamendment moved by the third party and the amendment moved by the Official Opposition. [11]

Standing Orders and Procedure

Commentary — Standing Order 51

This rule provides for an automatic debate on the Standing Orders and procedures of the House and its committees early in each Parliament, so long as a Minister does not request one beforehand within the specified time period. This debate takes precedence and, as section (2) indicates, lasts at most one sitting day. To ensure maximum participation, speeches are limited to 10 minutes each for all Members.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 51

Standing Order 51 was first agreed to by the House in 1982 on the recommendation of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which believed an opportunity should be provided for Members to “express their views concerning the procedures and Standing Orders of the House.” [1] Since its adoption, however, the rule has been suspended regularly, as Members have been given other forums to debate procedural matters.

The first opportunity for a debate under this Standing Order came at the beginning of the Thirty-Third Parliament in 1984. However, well before the required sixtieth sitting day of the first session had been reached, the House unanimously agreed to suspend the Standing Order, presumably because debate to establish a special committee to study reform of the House along very broad terms of reference had recently taken place. [2] The next opportunity came in the Thirty-Fourth Parliament, but the First Session ended after only 11 sitting days, thereby pre-empting the use of the Standing Order. The rule was again suspended in the Thirty-Fifth Parliament, when the House debated several amendments to the Standing Orders early in the session, [3] and in the Thirty-Seventh Parliament, when the House established a special committee to study the modernization of the Standing Orders. [4]

There have only been two debates under this Standing Order. The first took place in the Thirty-Sixth Parliament on a day designated by the Government House Leader. [5] The second occurred in the Thirty-Eighth Parliament, also on a designated day. [6]

Emergency Debates

Commentary — Standing Order 52(1), (2) and (3)

Requests for permission to move the adjournment of the House to debate a “specific and important” matter must always be made after the conclusion of the ordinary daily routine of business. At least one hour before permission is sought, the Member must give the Speaker a written statement of the matter he or she wants to raise in the House. If for any reason the application cannot be heard on the day notice is submitted, the Member must resubmit his or her written statement on a subsequent sitting day. [1] It is this same concise statement that the Member reads to the House in seeking leave to move the motion to adjourn. No argument or discussion is allowed in presenting the statement, as this may provoke debate. [2]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 52(1), (2) and (3)

Until the turn of the century, any Member, at virtually any time in the proceedings, could introduce a new matter for discussion by moving the adjournment of the House. More often than not this was a tactical manœuvre employed by Members who, having already spoken, wished to speak again; under graver circumstances by Members who wished to deny a charge; and by others for purely dilatory purposes. [3] The result could be a brief interruption of a debate, but often the entire day’s program was disrupted, much to the government’s concern. [4] In Britain, where a similar practice had developed, such motions were restricted in 1882, resulting in significant limitations on private Members’ claims to House time. [5] When the Canadian House followed suit in 1906 with the ancestor to the present Standing Order 52, Members complained of its restrictive nature and undue curtailment of the right of free speech among Members. [6] When the Prime Minister tried to explain that the rule was a “reproduction of the rule of the English House of Commons”, another Member retorted that “The circumstances in this legislature are somewhat different from those in the imperial Parliament, and the existing rules in that Parliament are the result of conditions there which do not exist here.” [7] Despite objections, the new rule was implemented and had an immediate effect. Debate was now permitted only on those adjournment motions which dealt with definite matters of urgent public importance.

The time at which Members could seek permission to move the adjournment of the House to discuss such “specific and important matters requiring urgent consideration” varied with the oft-changed daily order of business. In 1906, when the precursor to the present rule was introduced, requests were to be made “after the ordinary daily routine of business… has been concluded and before notices of motions or orders of the day…”. [8] In 1955, concurrent with a major reorganization of the daily routine of business, the time was changed to “after starred questions on Wednesdays and on other days after the daily routine of business… has been concluded.” [9] Comparable adjustments were made in 1962, 1968, 1975, 1977 and 1987. [10]

On occasion, Members asked for leave at the wrong stage in the proceedings. Attempts in 1949 and 1951 prompted the Speaker to explain that “the rule was drawn in this way … to make sure that all the business of the House which was not of a controversial nature would be duly attended to.” [11] Later changes to section (1) in 1955 and 1962 served to “state more clearly the stage at which leave should be requested.” [12] Thus the explanation given in 1951, together with a more clearly-worded rule, guided the House up to 1968. Until then, debate took place immediately after leave had been granted, but rule changes in that year authorized the Speaker to postpone debate, making the stage at which requests could be made less important. [13] Nevertheless, the Chair continued to ensure leave was sought at the correct stage in the proceedings.

From 1906 to 1968, a Member seeking leave to move the adjournment of the House simply stood at the appropriate time, asked for leave, and stated the matter of urgent public importance he or she wanted to debate. A written statement was then handed to the Speaker, who ruled on the request. In late 1968, the rules were substantially changed to require Members to give the Speaker their written statement two hours before the sitting opened or, if the matter was then still unknown, “as soon as practicable”. [14] In the House (still at the appropriate time), the Member simply presented “without argument” the statement originally given to the Speaker.

The advance notice requirements were ostensibly changed in 1982 from two to three hours, although in reality the rewording, which essentially maintained the status quo, was made necessary by the new parliamentary timetable. [15] In addition, because these changes provided that an emergency debate would normally be put over until 8:00 p.m. the same day, such debates no longer threatened to interfere with the normal business of the House.

Notice requirements were again amended in 1986 when the calling of Routine Proceedings was switched to 11:00 a.m. (except on Wednesdays and Fridays), making the three-hour deadline difficult to meet. As a result, notice requirements were modified so that only one hour’s notice would be needed. The reference to unknown matters was dropped altogether in the same round of changes. [16]

Commentary — Standing Order 52(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

After giving the Speaker notice and formally asking permission to move an adjournment motion, a Member must await the Chair’s decision on the merits of the case. If the application is accepted, the emergency debate normally proceeds later that same day.

First, the Speaker considers whether the matter raised constitutes a genuine emergency. In so doing, due consideration is given to the importance and specificity of the issue, the degree to which the matter falls within “the administrative responsibilities of the government” or “could come within the scope of ministerial action” and the likelihood of the matter being discussed in the near future by the House in some other way. The Speaker then determines whether the request meets certain other criteria. For instance, no more than one motion may be moved in any sitting (however, many requests have been received in one sitting, with the Speaker having to choose between those acceptable). [1] As well, the motion can involve only one subject, should not revive a discussion already held under this Standing Order earlier in the session and cannot raise a question of privilege; nor can the motion deal with a matter normally debatable only by substantive motion. Other conditions, evolved from the decisions of previous Speakers, are also considered. [2] The Speaker is free to defer a decision on the matter until later in the sitting and, in ruling, need not state reasons, although these are sometimes offered. If the Speaker accepts a request, the Member may then proceed with the motion at a time specified by the Speaker.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 52(4), (5), (6), (7) and (8)

From 1906 — when the first version of Standing Order 52 was adopted — to 1927, requests for emergency debates were relatively infrequent. [3] However, because the Speaker’s role in ruling on them was ill-defined (the Standing Order explicitly required the Speaker to rule on whether the matter to be discussed was “in order”, rather than on whether it was “of urgent public importance”), most of the requests were accepted for debate even though many plainly were not urgent. [4] The problems Speakers faced in interpreting the rule were compounded by the then prevalent view that Members themselves were the best judges of whether “a matter is a matter of urgency or not.” [5] Thus, despite an ostensibly stronger control on adjournment motions from 1906 on, if the request met the basic procedural conditions, [6] the Speaker almost always accepted it. In the event an objection was raised (a common occurrence), obtaining leave from the House, which was required until 1987, was arranged by securing the support of 20 other Members. [7]

There were, of course, exceptions to the Speakers’ ready acceptance of requests. On December 15, 1910, the Speaker denied a request because a Member failed to provide him with a written statement of the matter. [8] In 1919, a request was rejected because it raised more than one matter and was not urgent or recent. [9] In 1921, a Member asking permission was refused because there was “ample opportunity to present the matter to the House.” [10] As well during this time, motions to proceed to Orders of the Day were twice successfully moved, effectively denying the Member concerned the right to a debate. [11]

The obvious shortcomings of the rule were initially addressed in a 1925 report on House procedure which recommended that the Speaker rule not only on the form of the motion, but also on the urgency of the matter raised. [12] The session ended before the House could agree to the recommendation. Eventually, in 1927, the House adopted the same recommendation. [13]

Although the Speaker’s new power made the rejection of non-urgent requests easier, it did not prevent Members from challenging the Chair’s decisions. After a ruling on a denied request had been appealed in 1931, Speaker Black, using the opportunity of a request early in 1932, ruled that he would allow no further appeals to Speakers’ rulings in these matters. [14] Oddly, he then allowed one later that year, and three more were allowed in 1935. [15] These contradictory rulings continued to haunt successive Speakers for the next 30 years. In 1939, the Speaker said he would no longer allow appeals, [16] yet in 1949 one was permitted. [17] Major discussions on the power of the Speaker in this regard continued throughout the fifties and early sixties. The crisis came in 1963 when an appeal not only went ahead but also successfully overturned the Speaker’s original decision. [18] As a result, still more appeals later took place, and only when the Standing Order was provisionally amended in 1964, specifically to prohibit appeals, was the matter finally resolved.

In effect, this change substituted the right of appeal for a process whereby, if the Chair questioned the urgency of a request, Members could discuss it before the Speaker ruled definitively. The new procedure met with little success. [19]

Meanwhile, throughout this turbulent “appeals” period, the number of conditions necessary for a request to be accepted increased significantly. For example, a 1935 request was denied because the matter was not under the administrative responsibility of the government. [20] A 1921 ruling, which made “ample opportunity (for debate)” a condition, was reiterated countless times beginning in 1931. [21] A request in 1947 was denied because the matter was before the courts, [22] while in 1953 one was rejected since the matter raised was not of national importance. [23] The “orderly discussion” of the Throne Speech disqualified a request in 1956. [24] These new conditions, their rigidity and unchecked growth and the failure of the new procedure that replaced appeals created unprecedented pressure for reform.

To “reduce [the Speaker’s] obligation to follow previous interpretations of the Standing Order”, and to ensure it would be used only for debating genuine emergencies, a special committee recommended in 1968 a virtual rewriting of the Standing Order. [25] Parliament was dissolved before the House could act on it, but the suggestion was reintroduced early in the next Parliament and adopted soon afterward. [26] The new version provided that discussion on whether or not a matter raised was “proper to be discussed” was eliminated (thus ending the practice begun in 1964), leaving the decision entirely up to the Speaker. This decision could be deferred until later in the sitting, and the Speaker was not obliged to give any justification for the ruling given. Some precedent-based conditions were incorporated into the rule, [27] and now the matter raised was to be “specific and important” rather than simply “definite”. [28]

In addition, the procedural conditions were amended. A new and pivotal provision requiring the matter raised for debate to relate to “a genuine emergency, calling for immediate and urgent consideration” was included, while another condition was eliminated. [29]

Immediately after these changes, applications initially increased dramatically and so, as a result, did the number of conditions being attached to them for acceptance by the Chair. [30] Yet while many more reasons were offered in rejecting the flood of requests, more debates were allowed to proceed. [31] After a few years, the number of requests fell off somewhat as the growing rigidity of precedent-based conditions once again made it increasingly difficult for Members to have their applications accepted. Circumstances today are little changed, although amendments to other parts of the Standing Order (particularly Standing Order 52(12)) have relieved the pressure on the Chair to follow precedent. [32] In addition, the Speaker is now less and less inclined to state reasons for accepting or rejecting applications.

Since 1968, no changes have been made to the conditions under which the Chair accepts a request, though Members have on occasion complained that the criteria are applied too strictly. [33] The procedure by which the House granted leave remained unchanged until 1987, when it was eliminated altogether. [34]

Commentary — Standing Order 52(9), (10), (11), (12) and (13)

Once the application for an emergency debate has been accepted, the actual debate is deferred until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment that same day, except on Fridays when it is held immediately. In all cases, however, the Speaker is free to defer debate until a specific time the next sitting day. [1]

When a debate on the same day is scheduled for a Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, normal Adjournment Proceedings (see Standing Order 38) are not held. Instead, the House proceeds with the emergency debate at the ordinary hour of adjournment. On a Friday, the debate takes away approximately two hours of House time that would otherwise be used for other business. However, the emergency debate can continue past the ordinary adjournment time of 2:30 p.m. until 4:00 p.m..

If an emergency debate concludes before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the motion to adjourn is withdrawn and the House may then resume the business previously before it. When debate continues after the time of adjournment, the motion is not withdrawn. Instead, it is deemed carried, either when debate is concluded, or at 12:00 midnight (4:00 p.m. on Fridays). The rule also provides that debate can be extended past midnight (or 4:00 p.m. on Fridays) according to the provisions of Standing Order 26.

Speeches are limited to 20 minutes per Member followed by a ten-minute question-and-comment period. Members may divide their time with another Member if they so desire.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 52(9), (10), (11), (12) and (13)

From 1906 to 1968, motions under the emergency adjournment rule were considered immediately after they had been accepted for debate. This meant that other business was put aside, often to the disadvantage of the government. Indirect attempts were made to control the disruptions through changes aimed at reducing the number and frequency of emergency debates, but the question of deferring them until later in the day was not discussed until 1947. Late that year, Speaker Fauteux tabled a “Report on Procedure” in which he observed in relation to emergency debates: “I am inclined to think that the practice of holding over discussion until eight o’clock is a good one.” [2] A House committee studied this proposal but did not consider it when it reported to the House. [3]

The issue was not formally revived until March 1968, when a special committee again suggested that emergency debates be held over until 8:00 p.m. if proceeded with the same day. [4] However, Parliament was dissolved before the report could be implemented. The proposal had to wait until December of the same year to be adopted in the new Parliament, this time in a slightly modified form which saw debate, if proceeded with the same day, start at 8:00 p.m. except on Fridays, when it began at 3:00 p.m. [5] When regular evening sittings of the House were abolished in 1982, virtually all conflict between those emergency debates held at 8:00 p.m. and the regular business of the House was eliminated. [6] The Standing Order was amended again in 1986 to provide that the motion to adjourn for any emergency debate begun at 8:00 p.m. is deemed to be carried at 12:00 midnight; in 1987, rule changes provided that Friday emergency debates would be held immediately after a request was accepted by the Chair, and could continue until 4:00 p.m. [7] In the 1990s, the House increasingly agreed by unanimous consent to begin emergency debates earlier than 8:00 p.m. [8] This led to a change in the rule, adopted in 2001, whereby emergency debates begin at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. [9] The rules for a Friday remained unchanged.

The way such motions have been disposed of has varied widely since 1906. For the first decade, motions were generally negatived so the House could continue with other business (debates were generally short). [10] In 1917, a motion was for the first time withdrawn rather than voted upon, after which the House resumed its appointed business. [11] Although a few more divisions still took place in 1917, by 1918 motions of this kind were being withdrawn regardless of when debate ended (debates had by then lengthened). When in 1927 the House agreed to adjourn evening sittings at no later than 11:00 p.m., emergency debates were similarly limited. [12] From then on, adjournment motions for emergencies were withdrawn if debate ended before 11:00 p.m., or deemed carried if debate lasted until that time. [13] In one unusual case an emergency debate went the limit and was interrupted (the motion to adjourn was therefore deemed carried), only to be followed by the Adjournment Proceedings. [14] Procedures to dispose of these motions have not always adhered to this historical pattern. Motions have been negatived by recorded vote on three occasions:  in 1916, 1942 and 1957. [15] A motion was agreed to in 1943 (rather than deemed carried), [16] and, despite the abandonment in 1917 of the “negatived on division” practice, two motions have since been disposed of in that way:  in 1961 and 1967. [17]

In 1968, the automatic interruptions begun in 1927 were abolished and no alternative time constraint was imposed. [18] As a result, motions to adjourn for emergency debates now were withdrawn if debate ended before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, but were deemed carried if debate ended at or after that hour. [19] Members quickly seized the opportunity of extended debate, and emergency debates soon began to last far longer than was intended. On one occasion debate went on for more than 30 hours. [20] This pattern continued until 1986 when the House agreed that unless debate was concluded beforehand, the motion would be deemed carried at 12:00 midnight or, since 1987, 4:00 p.m. on Fridays, although an extension was (and is) still possible via Standing Order 26. [21]

Speeches during these debates were not limited in length from 1906 (the introduction of the emergency debate rule) to 1927. Thereafter, the time was reduced to 40 minutes and remained so until 1968, when the present 20-minute limit was adopted. An imminent Easter recess in 1974 resulted in a House Leader’s agreement for 10-minute speeches during a debate. [22] A recommendation in 1985 to reduce the length to 10 minutes (20 for the mover) was never taken up by the House. [23] In 2001, a provision was added to allow Members to divide their 20-minute speaking time with another Member. [24]

Also in 2001, the House experimented by holding emergency debates in Committee of the Whole. It was felt that this format was more informal and allowed for an easier exchange of ideas. While this occurred only on two occasions, [25] an amendment to the Standing Orders made that year provided that Members no longer needed to speak from their assigned seats during emergency debates (see Standing Order 17).

Commentary — Standing Order 52(14) and (15)

Once underway, an emergency debate takes precedence over all other business. From Monday to Thursday, there is no business with which a debate, if proceeded with the same day, might conflict. On a Friday, however, the debate displaces approximately two hours of business, one of which is normally reserved for Private Members’ Business. To avoid any doubt, the Standing Order specifically prohibits interruptions for this or any other business. All other possibilities, including cases of conflict with other Standing Orders, are covered in section (15), which gives the Speaker absolute discretion in reconciling any incompatible rules.

The established rules of debate, such as those of sub judice and anticipation, apply to motions proposed under this Standing Order. [1]

Historical Summary — Standing Order 52(14) and (15)

Until the late 1950s, Private Members’ Business was not suspended for an emergency debate. However, in February 1957, one of eight private Members’ days was displaced by just such a debate. [2] A similarly missed day in 1959 prompted a Member to complain to the Speaker, who replied that “the rules do not provide the machinery for compensatory time in such cases.” [3] It was not until 1961, when the six Mondays and two Thursdays allotted to Private Members’ Business were provisionally replaced by 40 one-hour periods, that this allotted time was protected. From then on, Private Members’ Business could not be interrupted or cancelled by an emergency debate. [4] When Standing Order 26 (now 52) was amended in 1968, this principle was reversed when a section guarding against Private Members’ Business interruptions was inserted to protect emergency debates. At the same time, a section protecting them against other interruptions was adopted. [5] Thereafter, debates on urgent matters were not suspended for any business except with unanimous consent.

Suspension of Certain Standing Orders — Matter of Urgent Nature

Commentary — Standing Order 53

When a situation the government considers urgent arises, the House may suspend certain Standing Orders in connection with the matter, but only under well-defined conditions. Specifically, a motion may be moved by a Minister (with the Speaker in the Chair) to suspend Standing Orders respecting notice requirements and the times of sitting. In moving the motion, the Minister gives reasons for the urgency of the situation. After the motion is seconded, the Speaker immediately proposes the question. In doing so, the Speaker may allow up to one hour of uninterrupted debate (speeches are limited to 10 minutes each) where no amendment is allowed except by another Minister. In putting the question, the Speaker is bound to ask those Members opposed to rise. If fewer than 10 do so, the motion is automatically adopted; otherwise it is deemed to have been withdrawn. The resulting order, if the motion is adopted, can, of course, apply only to the proceedings specified in the order.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 53

On the evening of March 13, 1964, Prime Minister Pearson moved a motion, without notice, to send a Canadian peace-keeping force to Cyprus. Although the motion appeared to have the overall support of the House, some Members of the Ralliement des créditistes objected to the lack of notice. They argued that 48 hours’ advance warning was required before such an important matter could be discussed. Stating that the Prime Minister had obtained “leave”, the Deputy Speaker dismissed the objections and allowed the House to proceed with the motion. [1]

These procedural objections were possibly considered in December of 1966 when the House was dealing with a strike by air traffic controllers. The emergency prompted the Minister of Public Works to propose a remedy by way of a change to the Standing Orders. [2] He explained his purpose this way:  “Under Standing Order 26 a private Member has a right to move the adjournment of the House to consider a matter of urgent public importance… It is a curious anomaly that there is no corresponding provision enabling the government to bring any proceedings relating to the same matter before the House without notice.” [3] Although opposition Members felt action was required, they did not think it desirable to “alter the rules for all time to come”, at least not in this way. [4] In the end, the proposal was withdrawn. When the present rule was agreed to in 1968, it was evident from its wording that the events of 1966 had been taken into account. Indeed, the new rule was similar to the one proposed in 1966. [5] In suggesting the addition of the rule, the Special Committee on Procedure said, “It seems intolerable… that a single dissenting voice should be permitted to frustrate the otherwise unanimous will of the House…”. [6]

This Standing Order has been invoked only rarely since its adoption. No record of its use was found until, in 1977, the government invoked it during another air traffic controllers’ strike. [7] It was not used again until 1991, when the government attempted to use it to extend sittings to deal with back-to-work legislation for the public sector. On this occasion, the motion was withdrawn when more than 10 Members rose to object. [8] In 1992, a motion was adopted to waive the notice requirement for report stage of a bill concerning referendums on the Constitution. [9] The Standing Order was used on two separate occasions in March 1995 to waive the notice requirement for introduction of a bill to end a work stoppage and to set the hours of sitting for considering the bill. On the first occasion, the motion was adopted, [10] while on the second, it was deemed withdrawn. [11] The most recent attempt to use the rule was in June 1999, when the government proposed to extend the sitting in order to consider Senate amendments to a bill dealing with First Nations land management. The motion was deemed withdrawn when more than 10 Members rose to object. [12]

Except in the 1977 case, Ministers always have stated the reasons for the urgency. The Chair has upheld this requirement strictly. In fact, on one occasion, the mover of the motion failed to state why the matter was urgent and the motion was ruled out of order on those grounds. [13]

Take-Note Debates

Commentary — Standing Order 53.1

This rule allows a Minister, after consultation with other recognized parties, to propose at any time a motion setting out the terms of a take-note debate. Such a debate usually seeks to solicit the views of Members on some aspect of government policy. The debate must be scheduled at least 48 hours in advance. A take-note debate commences at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment and continues until no Member rises to speak or until four hours have passed, whichever is earlier. No adjournment proceedings are taken up on that day. The debate takes place in a Committee of the Whole, though there are some variations on the rules usually applied in such a committee. For instance, the Speaker may preside, speeches are limited to ten minutes followed by a ten-minute question-and-comment period, and the only motion receivable is a motion that the Committee rise.

Historical Summary — Standing Order 53.1

Although the text of this Standing Order was adopted only in 2001, the House had been experimenting with take-note debates since the early 1990s. Committees that studied the idea of these “special debates” in 1993 and 1994 saw them as an alternative to emergency debates, which could be granted only by the Speaker after meeting a series of strict criteria. As most of the House’s time was spent considering legislation or supply, these special debates were viewed as an opportunity for Members to address pressing national issues in a detailed manner. However, early proposals to establish a procedure for such debates were not adopted by the House. [1]

Take-note debates were thus held on an ad hoc basis. In some cases, the government simply gave notice of a motion to take note of some matter and called it for debate during government orders. [2] Other times, the House adopted a special order scheduling a take-note debate, often outside of regular sitting hours. [3] The House frequently set limits on the length of speeches and the length of the debate. [4] The motion itself only rarely came to a vote; it either remained on the Order Paper until the end of the session or was withdrawn by unanimous consent. [5]

Take-note debates became common beginning in 1994, though there was at least held one prior to that. [6] Soon after the opening of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament, the government stated that it would be holding these debates frequently, as they allowed Members to participate in the development of government policy. [7] The topics of take-note debates have included cruise missile testing, the reform of Canada’s social security programs, violence against women, peacekeeping missions, budgetary policy, the war in Kosovo and the state of natural resource industries. [8]

In June 2001, a special committee recommended the adoption of this Standing Order to govern take-note debates. [9] It suggested that the debates be held in a Committee of the Whole format. The House had experimented with this format beginning in April 2001 and had found it more intimate and more conducive to a free exchange of ideas. [10] The new Standing Order encompassed many of the provisions usually adopted by special order prior to a take-note debate, such as limits on the length of speeches and of the debate, not allowing dilatory motions and allowing the Speaker to preside over the Committee. [11] As the Committee is not allowed to report progress (the only motion allowable is that the Committee rise), the item disappears from the Order Paper at the conclusion of the debate. [12] Though the Committee format provided for in Standing Order 53.1 is used most frequently, the House can still hold take-note debates during government orders by considering a government motion. [13]

The House occasionally has agreed to set aside the 48 hours’ notice required before a debate begins, as well as the provision that a Minister propose the motion setting out the terms of the debate. [14] Though most take-note debates are held with the support of all parties, in one recent case the Official Opposition requested a recorded division on the motion to schedule the debate. [15]

Content Disclaimer