-
For further information, see Appendix 14, “Standing Orders of the House of Commons”, of this volume.
-
The House adopted the following motion: “That until otherwise provided, the Rules, Regulations and Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of the late Province of Canada, be those of this House” (Journals, November 7, 1867, p. 5). See also Debates, November 6, 1867, p. 4. For the first written rules of the House of Commons, see Journals, December 20, 1867, pp. 115–25, Debates, p. 333.
-
United Canada, Legislative Assembly, Debates of the Legislative Assembly of United Canada, 1841–1867, vol. 1, ed. Elizabeth Nish (Montreal: Presses de l’École des hautes études commerciales, 1970), June 15, 1841, pp. 22–3; June 19, 1841, pp. 72–81. An analysis of these rules confirms their Lower Canada origin. See Gary O’Brien, “Pre-Confederation Parliamentary Procedure: The Evolution of Legislative Practice in the Lower Houses of Central Canada, 1792–1866” (Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 1988), pp. 255–6. For a description on how the customs and practices of Upper and Lower Canada were transformed into constitutional provisions, see David Hoffman and Norman Ward, Bilingualism and Biculturalism in the Canadian House of Commons (Ottawa: Queen’s Printer for Canada, 1970), pp. 2–20.
-
Province of Lower Canada, Journal of the House of Assembly (Québec: John Neilson), January 1793, pp. 86–176. See, for example, Standing Orders 14 (strangers in the House), 16 (decorum in the House), 60 (motion to adjourn), and 70 (bills printed in English and French).
-
See, for example, Standing Orders 23(1) (offer of money), 68(3) (imperfect bills), 80 (pecuniary penalties in Senate bills), and 151 (safe-keeping of records). A comparative analysis of the rules of the various assemblies may be found in O’Brien, “Pre-Confederation Parliamentary Procedure,” Table 6.1, pp. 439–45.
-
The first amendments to the written rules occurred four months after the adoption of the first Standing Orders (Journals, March 19, 1868, p. 144).
-
For example, in reply to a point of order arguing that the motion “When shall the bill be read a second time?” was a votable motion, Speaker Fraser ruled that it would not be appropriate to apply to current practices what may have been appropriate 100 years ago (Debates, May 24, 1988, pp. 15706, 15719–23).
-
For example, a long-standing practice had been for the House to arrange for longer hours of sitting prior to the start of the summer adjournment in order to complete or advance its business. In 1982, the practice of extending sitting hours during the last 10 days in June was codified by the adoption of Standing Order 27. See also changes to the French version of the Standing Orders in 2004 (Journals, May 5, 2004, p. 378). The French version was changed to replace the titles of “Orateur” and “Orateur adjoint”, which had fallen into disuse, with “Président” and “Vice-président”, the titles most frequently used by Members and in legislation when referring to the Speaker and Deputy Speaker. See also changes to Standing Order 156, which authorize the Law Clerk to make non-substantive corrections to bills.
-
To facilitate the full participation in proceedings of Members with disabilities, Standing Order 1.1 was adopted by the House in 2004 following the election of a quadriplegic Member (Special Order adopted on October 5, 2004 (Journals, p. 13); Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on October 22, 2004 (Journals, p. 136)).
-
There are three notable precedents. First, in December 1912, the government of Sir Robert Borden introduced a resolution on the Naval Aid Act, 2nd Sess, 12th Parl, 1913 which triggered one of the most bitter debates known to Parliament. After a particularly acrimonious two-week continuous sitting during a filibuster of the Bill early in 1913, the government brought forward a motion, on April 9, 1913, to amend the Standing Orders. As a result, new rules were adopted which, among other matters, introduced closure. After an uncharacteristically long debate on the motion, changes to the Standing Orders were adopted on April 23, 1913 (Journals, April 9, 1913, pp. 451–2, Debates, pp. 7388–414; Journals, April 23, 1913, pp. 507–9).
-
Standing Order 51(1). In 2015, Standing Order 51 was modified to allow the debate to take place between the sixtieth and ninetieth days of the Parliament, as opposed to the first session, so that the debate would not be superseded by a prorogation. See, for example, Debates, April 21, 1998, p. 5863; April 11, 2005, p. 4852; February 17, 2012, p. 5439; October 6, 2016, p. 5556. For further information on this proceeding, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
-
Standing Order 51(2).
-
The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, as it was first called, was created on December 20, 1968 (Journals, December 20, 1968, pp. 554–74). Up to that point, it had not been uncommon for the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition and the Speaker to sit on a special (or select) committee created to revise the rules or to chair such a committee. For example, Prime Minister Alexander Mackenzie sat on such a select committee in 1876, as did Prime Minister Sir Wilfrid Laurier in 1906 and 1909 (Journals, February 14, 1876, pp. 58–9; March 16, 1906, p. 61; December 14, 1909, p. 130). It was also common for the Prime Minister to take an active role in the process of amending the Standing Orders. See, for example, Journals, February 11, 1938, p. 60; September 18, 1945, p. 52.
-
Standing Order 108(3)(a)(iii).
-
See, for example, the Special Order adopted on June 8, 1989, which referred the subject matter of both radio and television broadcasting of proceedings of the House and its committees to the Committee (Journals, p. 340). See also Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on October 22, 2004 (Journals, p. 136), which included Standing Order amendments. These recommendations stemmed from both the Committee’s continuing mandate and from a Special Order adopted on October 5, 2004 (Journals, p. 14). The order of reference may take the form of the adoption of a private Member’s motion. See the changes to the Standing Orders recommended in the Thirty-Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on February 26, 2015 (Journals, p. 2188), and concurred in on March 11, 2015 (Journals, p. 2216). The Committee’s study followed the adoption of a private Member’s motion on January 29, 2014 (Journals, pp. 439–40).
-
See, for example, Special Committee on Procedure (Committee established September 24, 1968 (Journals, pp. 67–8), Fourth and Fifth Reports concurred in on December 20, 1968 (Journals, pp. 554–79)); Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (Committee established December 5, 1984 (Journals, pp. 153–4), amendments to Standing Orders adopted June 27, 1985 (Journals, pp. 903, 910–9)); and Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons (Committee established March 21, 2001 (Journals, pp. 208–9)). The latter Committee’s First Report was concurred in, with certain amendments, on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691–3). Further proposals suggested by the Committee were debated the following session (Journals, November 20, 2002, p. 210; November 21, 2002, p. 215; November 22, 2002, p. 217), and a nearly identical special committee was struck to continue the work that had begun in the previous session (Journals, November 28, 2002, p. 236). This Committee presented four reports which were concurred in by the House (Journals, February 20, 2003, p. 439; February 27, 2003, p. 482; March 17, 2003, p. 495; September 18, 2003, p. 995). The Fifth Report, which recommended an electronic voting system for the House, was presented to the House, but not concurred in (Journals, June 12, 2003, p. 915).
-
For government-sponsored motions, see, for example, Journals, February 7, 1994, pp. 112–20; June 12, 1998, pp. 1027–8; February 27, 2001, pp. 140–3; April 4, 2006, pp. 13–4; June 20, 2017, pp. 2010–6. Of note, such motions can at times resemble the recommendations of a procedure committee. See, for example, Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910–9, Debates, pp. 6325–7. This government motion, adopted by unanimous consent, was inspired by the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211). For motions moved by the opposition, see, for example, Journals, April 9, 1997, pp. 1366–8; November 5, 2002, pp. 162–4; June 19, 2009, pp. 686–7.
-
See, for example, Twenty-First Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on October 3, 2014 (Journals, p. 1576), and concurred in on June 17, 2015 (Journals, pp. 2810–1). Changes to the Standing Orders have also resulted from concurrence in a report of a joint committee of the Senate and House of Commons. See, for example, Journals of the Senate, June 3, 1903, p. 156; Journals, June 11, 1903, p. 270; October 10, 1903, p. 644. Occasionally, concurrence in a committee report recommending changes to the Standing Orders has not immediately resulted in the Standing Orders being modified. For example, on November 4, 1998, the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs concerning rule changes to Private Members’ Business was concurred in (Journals, p. 1238). The next day, a point of order was raised concerning the implementation of those recommendations. Speaker Parent ruled that certain recommendations contained in the report would be implemented immediately since they were matters of practice or administration, but that other recommendations required substantive amendments to the Standing Orders which involved technical interpretations. He stated that when the House pronounced itself on a specific text, the Chair would be governed accordingly (Debates, November 5, 1998, p. 9923). The House adopted such a motion to amend the Standing Orders on November 30, 1998 (Journals, pp. 1327–9). As well, motions amending the Standing Orders may specify that the amendments are to come into effect at a later date. See, for example, the provisional Standing Orders adopted on February 18, 2005 (Journals, pp. 451–5), which came into effect only on March 7, 2005, or the Standing Orders adopted on February 4, 2015 (Journals, p. 2092) which came into effect only on December 3, 2015.
-
Examples include the adoption of the closure rule in 1913 (Journals, April 23–24, 1913, pp. 507–9), the time allocation provisions in 1969 (Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1393–402), a series of Standing Order amendments in 1991 (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2898–932), and amendments to the Standing Orders respecting the report stage of bills in 2001 (Journals, February 27, 2001, pp. 139–43). In the 1969, 1991 and 2001 examples, closure was imposed to bring the debate to an end and force a decision. In 1913, the previous question was moved, thus precluding amendments and limiting debate to the main motion.
-
See, for example, Journals, October 10, 1997, p. 107; March 10, 1998, p. 549; November 30, 1998, p. 1327; February 15, 2001, p. 101; February 17, 2004, p. 86; November 27, 2008, pp. 45–7; February 4, 2015, p. 2092.
-
See, for example, Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400; October 29, 2004, pp. 170–1; February 18, 2005, pp. 451–5; January 29, 2013, p. 2691.
-
See, for example, the wide-ranging provisional Standing Orders adopted in 1982 (Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400).
-
For example, provisional changes to the Standing Orders governing Private Members’ Business were adopted by the House on March 17, 2003, extended on October 29, 2003, and then further extended on March 23, 2004. Finally, on May 11, 2005, they were made permanent (Fiftieth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on October 29, 2003 (Journals, p. 1196), Eleventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on March 23, 2004 (Journals, p. 200), and Thirty-Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on May 11, 2005 (Journals, pp. 738–9)). Wide-ranging provisional Standing Orders adopted by the House on February 18, 2005 (Journals, pp. 451–5) were extended on September 20, 2006 (Journals, p. 404) and made permanent with the adoption of the Seventeenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs on October 25, 2006 (Journals, pp. 577–9).
-
See, for example, Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, relating to committee composition for the 41st Parliament, presented to the House and concurred in on December 3, 2013 (Journals, p. 301).
-
As an example, from 1867 to 1876, current Standing Order 23 concerning bribery in elections was put forward at the beginning of each session as a sessional order, before finally becoming a permanent rule. See, for example, Debates, February 11, 1876, p. 3.
-
See, for example, Journals, February 2, 1994, p. 96; November 3, 2005, p. 1248; September 23, 2010, p. 646; January 29, 2013, p. 2691.
-
Standing Order 86.1, concerning the reinstatement of private Members’ bills, originally adopted in November 1998, was essentially the same as the Special Order adopted in March 1996. It has since been substantially modified, but maintains the intent of the original Special Order. To trace the evolution of this Standing Order, see Journals, March 4, 1996, pp. 34–5; November 30, 1998, pp. 1327–9; March 17, 2003, p. 495; May 11, 2005, p. 739. Standing Order 1.1, concerning the participation of Members with disabilities in the proceedings of the House, also has its origins in a Special Order adopted on October 5, 2004 (Journals, p. 13). The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs subsequently recommended the adoption of a nearly identical Standing Order (Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on October 22, 2004 (Journals, p. 136)).
-
Standing Order 53(1), for example, states: “In relation to any matter that the government considers to be of an urgent nature, a Minister of the Crown may, at any time when the Speaker is in the Chair, propose a motion to suspend any Standing or other Order of this House relating to the need for notice and to the hours and days of sitting”.
-
Typically, a motion seeking to circumvent the provisions of existing Standing Orders is worded thus: “That, notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House …”. See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1994, p. 657; February 2, 1999, p. 1457; March 30, 2004, p. 234; April 4, 2006, pp. 12–3; May 6, 2014, p. 896.
-
Standing Order 71. See, for example, Journals, November 23, 2005, p. 1318; February 4, 2013, p. 2727; April 28, 2014, p. 841; June 19, 2015, p. 2849.
-
See, for example, the Order adopted on April 6, 2006, which superseded the provisions of an order adopted the previous day (Journals, April 5, 2006, p. 23; April 6, 2006, pp. 28–9).
-
Standing Order 56.1. See, for example, Journals, March 27, 2014, pp. 744–5. For further information on this proceeding, see Chapter 14, “Curtailment of Debate”.
-
Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix I to the Standing Orders; Code of Conduct for Members of the House of Commons: Sexual Harassment, Appendix II to the Standing Orders. For further information, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
-
For example, Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix I to the Standing Orders, s 28(11). See, for example, a motion debated in the House to refer a Report of the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner to the Procedure and House Affairs Standing Committee (Journals, November 14, 2011, p. 447).
-
Ontario (Speaker of the Legislative Assembly) v Ontario (Human Rights Commission), (2001) 54 OR (3d) 595, in particular at para 48.
-
Supra note 13, ss 44, 48 and 49.
-
The Supreme Court has stated that the alleged failure of the House of Commons to comply with a statute is not reviewable by the courts. Justice Binnie in Vaid, supra note 21, approved of the principle in Bradlaugh v Gossett, [1884] 12 QBD 271 [Bradlaugh], at para 34, which established that “the House of Commons is not subject to the control of Her Majesty’s Courts in its administration of that part of the statute law which has relation to its own internal proceedings …”.