House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page
[1] 
Redlich, Vol. II, p. 239.
[2] 
This may be attributed in part to the fact that the rules permit Members to initiate petitions, solicit signatures and make an oral presentation in the House; and in part to Members’ awareness that presenting large numbers of petitions serve not only to raise issues of public concern, but also to use time and so delay the business of the House (see note 7). Recently, the British House of Commons and the Australian House of Representatives experienced similar renewals of interest in petitioning. See House of Representatives Practice, 3rd ed., pp. 734, 812-3; May, 21st ed., p. 761, note 3; 22nd ed., p. 816, note 2.
[3] 
See, for example, Speakers’ rulings, Journals, June 7, 1972, pp. 361-2; Debates, June 30, 1987, pp. 7821-2. All six editions of Beauchesne describe petitioning as a fundamental principle of the Constitution.
[4] 
May, 10th ed., pp. 493-5; Wilding and Laundy, pp. 561-3, 620-1; May, 22nd ed., p. 809; Redlich, Vol. I, pp. 6-25.
[5] 
Certain constituent parts of what is now Standing Order 36 can be traced to Rules 85-7, 80 and 73 used in the United Province in 1860, 1853 and 1841 respectively; and to the 1825 Rule 43 of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada (O’Brien, p. 442).
[6] 
Journals, December 20, 1867, pp. 116-7, 122; April 29, 1910, pp. 535-6; March 22, 1927, p. 339. See also Standing Order 73 in the Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, September 9, 1985, pp. 67-8.
[7] 
On May 19, 1983, for example, because of the number of petitions presented, the daily routine of business occupied the balance of time available for that day’s proceedings (Journals, pp. 5910-1; Debates, pp. 25591-612). On December 19, 1985, 365 petitions were presented (including 7 filed with the Clerk); this is thought to be the largest number of petitions presented during a single sitting of the House. The daily routine of business was not completed and again the House was not able to return to Orders of the Day (Journals, pp. 1444-8; Debates, pp. 9631-7). See also, for October 27 and 28, 1983, Journals, pp. 6356-59, 6362-67, and Debates, pp. 28393-415, 28456-85.
[8] 
See, for example, Debates, April 6, 1982, p. 16198; Journals, October 5, 1983, pp. 6264-5.
[9] 
See pp. 44-5 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, June 1985, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[10] 
The motion encompassing the proposals was tabled on February 6, 1986 (Journals, p. 1665) and adopted as amended on February 13, 1986 (Journals, p. 1710).
[11] 
On February 26, 1986, the Speaker wrote to all Members, drawing their attention to the changes in the Standing Orders concerning petitions and explaining the process by which petitions would henceforth be certified. The coming into force of the new rules left some Members holding uncertifiable petitions which would have been acceptable under the old rules (Debates, March 5, 1986, p. 11208). This difficulty was circumvented by the adoption of a special order allowing Members a limited period of time in which to file these petitions with the Clerk of the House (Journals, April 22, 1986, pp. 2048-9).
[12] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1026.
[13] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016-8.
[14] 
Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2905, 2908-9. This was one of an extensive package of amendments to the Standing Orders put forward by the government with a view to “modernizing” the rules and improving Parliament as a forum for debate (Debates, April 8, 1991, p. 19133). No particular reason was given for this change; however, it is worth noting that the presentation of quantities of petitions had in the past resulted in disruption to the agenda of the House (see note 7); the institution of a time limit eliminated the risk of any recurrence of this.
[15] 
Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563. (See the Twenty-Seventh Report of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee, presented June 8, 1994.)
[16] 
Debates, April 29, 1910, cols. 8365-6; Journals, April 29, 1910, pp. 535-6. See also Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, Rule 75.
[17] 
Standing Order 36(1).
[18] 
On rare occasions, petitions failing to satisfy form and content requirements (and thus not certified) were presented with the unanimous consent of the House (Journals, February 18, 1987, p. 503; Debates, February 18, 1987, p. 3568). In an unusual proceeding in 1992, unanimous consent was given for an uncertified petition to be “received” by the House— although the Standing Orders no longer provide for petitions to be received— and referred to a standing committee for consideration (Journals, November 18, 1992, p. 2070).
[19] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 237. While doubts have been expressed from time to time concerning the authenticity of signatures (see, for example, Debates, May 21, 1885, pp. 2023-9; October 28, 1983, pp. 28475-9), no breach of privilege alleging fraud or forgery in the preparation of petitions has yet been found.
[20] 
Standing Order 36(2)(a).
[21] 
Journals, March 22, 1876, p. 180; Debates, April 23, 1879, pp. 1453-4.
[22] 
Standing Order 36(2)(b).
[23] 
On one occasion pre-dating the requirement for certification, a Member presented a petition concerning safety at a certain street intersection in her constituency. The Speaker suggested that such petitions be directed to the competent municipal authority. The Clerk of Petitions later reported that this petition had failed to meet the requirements as to form (Debates, June 11, 1985, p. 5648; Journals, June 12, 1985, p. 796).
[24] 
Standing Order 36(2)(c).
[25] 
Rule 86, adopted December 20, 1867 (Journals, p. 122).
[26] 
Prior to the adoption of this rule, petitions of unusual style were presented from time to time and judged by the Clerk of Petitions to be in accordance with the prevailing requirements as to form. See, for example, Debates, December 10, 1974, p. 2099; Journals, December 11, 1974, p. 187; Debates, April 6, 1982, p. 16196; Journals, April 7, 1982, p. 4698-A.
[27] 
Standing Order 36(2)(d).
[28] 
Debates, March 28, 1876, pp. 867-8; February 23, 1978, p. 3200.
[29] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 811.
[30] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 235.
[31] 
Standing Order 36(2)(e).
[32] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 235; see also the Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 31 (4th Supp.), s. 22.
[33] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 231. See, for example, Journals, March 30, 1905, p. 234; April 5, 1909, p. 234.
[34] 
See p. 45 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, presented on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[35] 
Standing Order 36(2)(b).
[36] 
Journals, February 16, 1956, p. 163; June 7, 1972, pp. 361-2.
[37] 
For example, petitions questioning the return of a Member were not received because the House had vested in the courts the responsibility for matters relating to the election of Members (Journals, April 20, 1874, p. 82; February 15, 1881, pp. 199-200). On the other hand, petitions concerning the CRTC (Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the independent agency regulating the broadcasting system) have at different times been rejected (Journals, June 7, 1972, pp. 361-2; October 24, 1973, pp. 591-2) and accepted (Debates, April 30, 1984, p. 3235; Journals, May 1, 1984, p. 400).
[38] 
Journals, May 7, 1868, p. 297. For historical background on the principles underlying this long-standing convention, see Redlich, Vol. III, pp. 119-24.
[39] 
See Section 54 of the Constitution Act, 1867 (R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5),which states that the House shall not adopt or pass any vote, resolution, address or bill for the appropriation of any part of the public revenue that has not been first recommended to the House by a message from the Governor General, that is, by a Royal Recommendation.
[40] 
For example, see Journals, February 5, 1912, p. 181; August 24, 1946, p. 767. A petition praying for an increase to the old age pension was allowed because the Royal Recommendation had been granted to a bill having the same purpose (Journals, May 19, 1947, p. 423).
[41] 
Journals, April 20, 1869, pp. 22-3.
[42] 
Debates, June 30, 1987, p. 7821.
[43] 
Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710.
[44] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1026.
[45] 
Standing Order 36(2)(f).
[46] 
Journals, May 3, 1872, p. 80.
[47] 
Debates, January 24, 1986, p. 10143.
[48] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 815.
[49] 
Standing Order 36(2)(g).
[50] 
See, for example, Journals, October 5, 1983, pp. 6264-5.

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page