House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

9. Sittings of the House

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[1]: See Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[2]: When entering or leaving the Chamber, the Speaker is always preceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who carries the Mace (Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 176).
[3]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 43(1). The Presiding Officer would be either the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman or Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole.
[4]: For further information on the prayer, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[5]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 48. A quorum of 20 Members had previously been established for the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada (see Union Act, 1840, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4, Art. xxxiv).
[6]: Standing Order 29.
[7]: There have been attempts in the past to change the quorum from 20 to 30 and even 50 (see, for example, Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 348). As well, between 1952 and 1980, Stanley Knowles (Member from 1942-58 and 1962-84) repeatedly introduced private Members’ bills to increase the quorum to 30 and to 50. None of these bills was passed.
[8]: In 1990, Nelson Riis (Kamloops) argued, among other things, that it was the responsibility of the Government to maintain quorum when dealing with government supply (see Debates, April 2, 1990, p. 10083). In the subsequent ruling, Speaker Fraser stated that it was difficult for the Chair to conclude that the government must bear sole responsibility for the House adjourning for want of quorum (see Debates, April 3, 1990, p. 10119).
[9]: Standing Order 29(2).
[10]: On November 16, 1982, when the House resumed sitting following the evening meal interruption, the Acting Speaker, not seeing a quorum, took the initiative to order the bells to be rung. When the ringing of the bells failed to produce a quorum, he adjourned the House (see Debates, November 16, 1982, p. 20729; Journals, November 16, 1982, p. 5353).
[11]: Redlich, Vol. II, p. 74.
[12]: In practice, the bells summoning Members to the House at the start of a sitting are not in fact interrupted until a quorum exists, occasionally 5 to 10 minutes after the stated hour of meeting. On Wednesday, the practice is to start the bells a few minutes before the stated hour of meeting so that prayers can be said earlier without time being lost from Members’ Statements and Oral Question Period (see Debates, March 27, 1991, p. 19068, and December 4, 1991, p. 5762).
[13]: See, for example, Debates, December 6, 1984, p. 969.
[14]: Standing Order 29(3). See, for example, Journals, August 25, 1987, p. 1378; May 24, 1990, p. 1755; December 6, 1990, p. 2390; June 11, 1991, p. 163; April 2, 1993, p. 2790; April 11, 1994, p. 323; June 15, 1995, p. 1756; October 29, 1996, p. 786; April 24, 1997, p. 1537; May 26, 1998, p. 892.
[15]: Standing Order 29(3).
[16]: Standing Order 29(4). See, for example, Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; October 19, 1995, p. 2032.
[17]: See Journals, June 6, 1899, p. 239. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[18]: Prior to December 1982, if the first count requested during a sitting confirmed the lack of a quorum, the Speaker was compelled to adjourn the House. On November 29, 1982, the House adopted the current text of Standing Order 29(3) in accordance with a recommendation made by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which provided for the ringing of the bells for not more than 15 minutes. The Standing Order came into effect at the end of Government Business on December 22, 1982. See Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400. There have been instances since 1867 when the House has been adjourned during a sitting for want of a quorum: see Journals, June 14, 1869, p. 244; June 29, 1917, p. 402; March 11, 1919, pp. 49-50; June 9, 1938 (Supply Committee), p. 434; July 10, 1969, pp. 1329-31; December 17, 1974, pp. 217-8; March 23, 1979, pp. 588, 590; May 5, 1982, p. 4797; November 16, 1982, p. 5353; March 30, 1990, pp. 1477-8; October 19, 1995, p. 2032.
[19]: Standing Order 41(2). Prior to the adoption of this Standing Order on May 13, 1991, any item under consideration at the time of a lack of quorum would drop from the Order Paper, and the House could be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive any item that may have lapsed because of the lack of quorum. See, for example, Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; April 3, 1990, p. 1486. See also Debates, April 2, 1990, pp. 10076-89; April 3, 1990, pp. 10119-21. Since the adoption of Standing Order 41(2), there has only been one instance of the House being adjourned during a sitting for want of a quorum: October 19, 1995. The business before the House at that time was a votable item of Private Members’ Business in its second hour of debate. This item was dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper (see Order Paper, October 20, 1995, pp. 22-3). The lack of quorum only meant that the House adjourned for the day.
[20]: See, for example, Debates, December 13, 1990, p. 16724.
[21]: See, for example, Debates, April 19, 1982, pp. 16368-70.
[22]: See, for example,Debates, February 12, 1997, pp. 8022-3.
[23]: See, for example, Debates, May 5, 1982, p. 17067.
[24]: For examples where the list of Members in the Journals exceeded 20 names, despite the fact that the House adjourned because of the lack of quorum, see Journals, May 5, 1982, p. 4797, and November 16, 1982, p. 5353.
[25]: Journals, July 10, 1969, pp. 1329-30.
[26]: For examples where recorded votes did not total 20 Members and no objection was taken in the House, see Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2893, and May 26, 1989, p. 274. See also Speaker Sauvé’s ruling of July 12, 1982, where it was stated that since no one, according to the record of the proceedings, had asked for a quorum call, “a quorum did exist” (Debates, July 9, 1982, p. 19201; July 12, 1982, pp. 19214-5).
[27]: Standing Order 29(5).
[28]: See, for example, Journals, May 12, 1994, pp. 459-60; Debates, May 12, 1994, p. 4300.
[29]: Standing Order 28(4). On occasion, points of order have been raised concerning the proceedings in the House when Members have assembled in anticipation of being summoned to the Senate Chamber for Royal Assent during an adjournment of the House. On December 30, 1988, and on June 29, 1989, Marcel Prud’homme (Saint-Denis) rose to suggest that as the House was being convened for the sole purpose of awaiting the arrival of the Usher of the Black Rod who would summon the House to the Senate, the House should not have proceeded with Prayers nor should the Speaker have taken the Chair prior to the announcement of the arrival of Black Rod by the Sergeant-at-Arms (see Debates, December 30, 1988, pp. 851-2, and June 29, 1989, pp. 3803-6. See also Debates, July 13, 1995, p. 14499).
[30]: Standing Order 71.
[31]: See, for example, Journals, July 18, 1895, p. 300. On June 21, 1869, the House conducted three separate sittings throughout the course of one day. This is the only known example of this occurrence (Journals, pp. 292-308).
[32]: See, for example, Journals, October 9, 1951; November 20, 1952; January 8, 1957; May 8, 1967; October 12, 1976.
[33]: See, for example, Journals, March 8, 1955, pp. 245-7 (unveiling memorial to the late Agnes Macphail, the first female Member elected to the House of Commons); Debates, March 29, 1973, pp. 2726-7; and Journals, March 30, 1973, p. 229 (joint address by the President of Mexico).
[34]: Standing Order 24(1).
[35]: Standing Order 24(2). Until 1906, there was no requirement for the House to adjourn automatically on any sitting day. That year, the House agreed to adjourn the proceedings of the House at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday in order to provide for one night in the week when the House would not sit (Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7463-5). It was not until 1927 that the House adopted a mandatory time of adjournment for all sitting days (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 318-9).
[36]: Since the Adjournment Proceedings normally take place at the end of the sitting, they thus became known as the “late show” at the time of late evening sittings.
[37]: Standing Order 38. For further information on the Adjournment Proceedings, see Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[38]: See, for example, Debates, June 7, 1993, p. 20462.
[39]: See, for example, Journals, May 30, 1977, p. 874.
[40]: See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1992, p. 11622.
[41]: See, for example, Debates, June 22, 1994, p. 5767.
[42]: See, for example, Journals, December 19, 1975, p. 970; December 20, 1975, p. 971; March 23, 1995, p. 1265.
[43]: An unusual situation occurred in 1961 when the House, having adopted an opposition amendment to a government motion extending the hours of sitting, agreed to Saturday sittings without providing for their order of business (Journals, April 24, 1961, p. 468). The government attempted to introduce a motion covering the omission but failed to receive the consent of the House to do so (Debates, May 5, 1961, p. 4443). As a result, the Order Paper for Saturday, May 6, included the items available for consideration, ordered as for a Friday sitting. (See Speaker Michener’s ruling, Journals, May 6, 1961, pp. 511-4.) On March 23, 1995, the House adopted an order to sit at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 25, 1995, and at 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 26, 1995, for the purpose of considering Government Orders and attending a Royal Assent ceremony. On these two days, the House considered Bill C-77, An Act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, at the report and third reading stages. Royal Assent also took place on the Sunday (see Journals, March 23, 1995, p. 1265; March 25, 1995, pp. 1277-88; March 26, 1995, pp. 1289-91).
[44]: The last occasion of a continued period of Saturday sittings was in 1961, prior to the summer adjournment of the House. The House sat on every Saturday in the months of May, June and July, prior to the adjournment of the House for the summer on July 13, 1961, pursuant to a sessional order to that effect adopted on April 24, 1961 (Journals, April 24, 1961, pp. 467-8). The House has conducted a Sunday sitting only once, on March 26, 1995 (Journals, pp. 1289-91).
[45]: See, for example, Journals, November 7, 1990, pp. 2239-40; October 10, 1991, p. 471; and February 19, 1992, p. 1042.
[46]: See, for example, Journals, November 21, 1994, p. 905; February 9, 1995, p. 1109.
[47]: As in the case of motions to adjourn earlier than scheduled, suggestions to suspend the sitting are often proposed by House officers such as the House Leaders, the Whips or their deputies. This is done either after consultation with the other parties, to facilitate negotiations on a matter, or because there has been co-operation among the parties over House business. See, for example, Debates, December 2, 1991, p. 5627; April 21, 1994, p. 3340; June 20, 1994, p. 5597; February 7, 1995, p. 9299.
[48]: This is true particularly in the case of Private Members’ Hour. It has become the practice that when proceedings on an item of Private Members’ Business have been completed before the end of the time provided in the rules, as there can be no further business before the House at that moment, the Chair will suspend the sitting until the time for Government Orders (on a Monday) or the Adjournment Proceedings (on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday). This has been proposed both by Members and the Chair, or the Chair has suspended the sitting with the tacit consent of the House. See, for example, Debates, October 23, 1989, p. 5026; October 24, 1989, p. 5074; April 23, 1990, p. 10508; October 28, 1991, p. 4070; February 4, 1992, p. 6406; February 6, 1992, p. 6530; December 7, 1992, p. 14701; June 1, 1993, p. 20192; March 21, 1994, p. 2518; September 26, 1994, p. 6116; October 3, 1994, p. 6416; October 17, 1994, p. 6753. It also is frequently proposed by Members that the House by consent proceed immediately without a suspension to the next scheduled order of business, if the House is ready to do so. See, for example, Debates, September 27, 1991, p. 2867; October 28, 1991, p. 4121; December 4, 1991, p. 5806; November 19, 1992, p. 13676; June 3, 1993, p. 20341; April 21, 1994, p. 3340; May 24, 1994, p. 4377; March 3, 1995, p. 10346.
[49]: See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1991, pp. 2130-1.
[50]: See, for example, Debates, November 26, 1986, pp. 1551-2; October 10, 1991, p. 3618; October 29, 1991, pp. 4203-4.