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

[51]: See, for example, Debates, February 7, 1990, p. 7953; October 31, 1991, pp. 4277-9; March 12, 1996, pp. 651-2.
[52]: See, for example, Debates, May 23, 1985, pp. 5011-2; February 26, 1986, p. 10979; February 25, 1992, p. 7593; April 26, 1993, pp. 18464, 18470.
[53]: See, for example, Debates, May 25, 1990, p. 11910; April 6, 1992, p. 9359; March 15, 1993, p. 16964; September 29, 1994, p. 6348; April 25, 1997, p. 10218.
[54]: See, for example, Debates, March 11, 1993, p. 16893.
[55]: See, for example, Debates, July 24, 1986, pp. 15011-2, 15061.
[56]: See, for example, Debates, December 11, 1989, p. 6784.
[57]: See, for example, Debates, June 14, 1990, p. 12788.
[58]: See, for example, Debates, January 17, 1991, pp. 17268-70.
[59]: See, for example, Debates, November 20, 1989, p. 5853; Journals, November 21, 1989, p. 862.
[60]: See, for example, Debates, September 26, 1990, pp. 13452-3, 13455.
[61]: See, for example, Debates, January 24, 1994, p. 246.
[62]: See, for example, Debates, December 9, 1998, p. 11122.
[63]: Standing Order 26(1).
[64]: On one occasion, the refusal of unanimous consent to extend a sitting to complete the consideration of an item of business indirectly resulted in the holding of a sitting on Good Friday (see Journals, March 27, 1964, p. 137).
[65]: See Standing Order 6(2) inJournals, June 11, 1965, p. 224.
[66]: On November 7, 1986, a motion was adopted to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of continuing the rubric “Introduction of Bills” under Routine Proceedings (see Journals, November 7, 1986, p. 190).
[67]: Standing Order 26(1)(a) and (b). See, for example, the ruling of Acting Speaker Milliken (Debates, November 27, 1996, pp. 6813-4).
[68]: Standing Order 26(1)(c). On one occasion, a motion was amended by unanimous consent to provide a dinner hour (see Debates, August 31, 1966, pp. 7862-3).
[69]: On June 3, 1987, the House prohibited the moving of such motions during Private Members’ Business (Journals, pp. 1016-28, and in particular p. 1017). See, for example, Debates, December 14, 1990, pp. 16797-8. From 1965 to 1985, six motions to extend the sitting on Private Members’ Business were moved and two were adopted. See Journals, February 13, 1976, p. 1021; February 9, 1983, p. 5587; February 16, 1983, p. 5612; Debates, February 23, 1983, pp. 23153-4; Journals, February 7, 1984, p. 149; March 18, 1985, p. 387.
[70]: See, for example, Debates, February 14, 1969, p. 5560; November 5, 1991, pp. 4513-4; May 20, 1992, p. 10968; June 8, 1992, pp. 11596-7; March 9, 1993, p. 16747.
[71]: See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1987, p. 3541; March 26, 1991, pp. 19010-1.
[72]: Standing Order 26(2).
[73]: See, for example, Debates, June 1, 1993, pp. 20176-7, 20181-2.
[74]: Standing Order 26(1)(a). See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1969, p. 6606; November 17, 1970, p. 1270. See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[75]: Standing Order 25.
[76]: Standing Order 27.
[77]: See, for example, Journals, April 24, 1961, pp. 467-8.
[78]: In the nineteenth century, the House occasionally met earlier each day, usually at 11:00 a.m., and arranged to hold two distinct sittings each day. This allowed the House to advance certain business, such as the completion of several stages of a bill, on the same day. By 1900, however, longer hours were provided for almost entirely through earlier meeting times. See, for example, Journals, June 8, 1897, p. 222; June 22, 1900, p. 359.
[79]: See, for example, Journals, July 20, 1956, p. 911.
[80]: See, for example, Journals, June 27, 1950, p. 600.
[81]: Until 1991, the rule permitted a motion of this nature to be moved by any Member. On June 15, 1988, Nelson Riis (Kamloops–Shuswap), the House Leader for the New Democratic Party, moved a motion to extend the hours of sitting pursuant to the Standing Order, as was permitted at that time. Debate on the motion was adjourned before the maximum two hours of debate had taken place. See Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2894. See also Debates, June 15, 1988, pp. 16498-501. The rule was amended on April 11, 1991, limiting the moving of the motion to Ministers (Journals, p. 2906).
[82]: In June 1991, the motion to extend the hours of sitting omitted two sitting days: Wednesday, June 12, and Friday, June 14, 1991 (Journals, June 10, 1991, p. 157). In June 1992, the motion did not refer to the sitting day of Tuesday, June 16, 1992 (Journals, June 9, 1992, p. 1661). In June 1994, the motion omitted two sitting days: Friday, June 10, and Friday, June 17, 1994 (Journals, June 9, 1994, p. 557). In June 1996, the motion omitted four sitting days: Thursday, June 13; Friday, June 14; Thursday, June 20; and Friday, June 21, 1996 (Journals, June 5, 1996, p. 490). On these days, regular hours of sitting remained in effect.
[83]: Standing Order 27.
[84]: When sitting hours have been extended in June by special order, it has generally been before the date on which, had the rule been invoked, such motions could have been moved. See Journals, June 14, 1984, p. 566; June 13, 1985, pp. 803-4; June 11, 1986, p. 2301; June 12, 1987, p. 1089; June 13, 1989, pp. 360-1; May 31, 1990, p. 1791; June 5, 1990, p. 1821. On June 20, 1988, the House adopted a government motion to extend both the days and hours of sitting of the House into the summer (see Journals, pp. 2925-7).
[85]: Debates, March 22, 1927, pp. 318-9.
[86]: There are numerous examples of single sittings consuming many days at a time (see Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 213-4).
[87]: A notable example occurred in 1982, when division bells were rung continuously for several days resulting in a two-week sitting (see Journals, March 2-17, 1982, p. 4608). See, for example, Journals, March 19, 1984, pp. 260-3; March 28, 1984, pp. 314-6.
[88]: See, for example, Journals, October 31, 1983, p. 6383; February 3, 1987, pp. 433, 443; November 28, 1990, pp. 2312, 2316; June 18, 1991, pp. 216, 223; February 19, 1992, pp. 1043-4; May 25, 1993, pp. 2993, 3004.
[89]: Standing Order 52. See, for example, Journals, April 4, 1989, pp. 23-4; December 18, 1989, pp. 1034-5; May 5, 1992, pp. 1398-9; June 22, 1992, pp. 1825, 1829. For further information on emergency debates, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[90]: See, for example, Journals, March 23, 1999, pp. 1650-3, 1656-7.
[91]: See, for example, Journals, January 16, 1991, p. 2571.
[92]: See, for example, Journals, April 28-29, 1987, pp. 796-7.
[93]: For examples of the House adopting special orders to adjourn earlier than the regular time of daily adjournment, see Journals, February 19, 1992, p. 1042, and June 19, 1992, p. 1811. For examples of the House adopting special orders to sit later and adjourn at a time later than the regular time of daily adjournment, see Journals, January 25, 1994, p. 62; February 1, 1994, p. 89; April 21, 1994, pp. 381-2; and May 6, 1994, p. 435.
[94]: Such suggestions are usually made by the government, either the Chief Government Whip or the Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader. See, for example, Debates, February 4, 1994, p. 956; November 4, 1994, p. 7697; December 2, 1994, p. 8604; December 5, 1994, p. 8658; February 13, 1995, p. 9562. Occasionally, when an item of business has been concluded, the Chair, sensing the mood of the House, will suggest that it be called 6:30 or 2:30 (see, for example, Debates, March 11, 1994, p. 2188).
[95]: Standing Order 60. For example, the motion is prohibited during the election of a Speaker (Standing Order 2(3)). For further information on the restrictions on the use of this Standing Order, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[96]: For example, by special order or pursuant to Standing Orders 26 or 57.
[97]: Standing Order 25. Ministers have rarely moved the adjournment of the House before the completion of proceedings under this rule. See, for example, Journals, October 31 to November 1, 1983, pp. 6383, 6388-9. However, on several occasions, motions to adjourn the House have been refused on days when a special or Standing Order required completion or disposition of an item or items of business. See, for example, Debates, January 31, 1983, p. 22341; February 1, 1983, pp. 22400-1; May 23, 1985, pp. 4984, 5011-2; December 7, 1990, p. 16470.
[98]: Standing Order 24(2). See, for example, Journals, October 20, 1997, pp. 119, 122; February 17, 1998, p. 497; February 18, 1998, p. 503; June 8, 1998, pp. 947-8, 951.
[99]: See, for example, Journals, April 12, 1999, p. 1687. For further information on “take note” debates, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[100]: See, for example, Journals, December 23, 1988, p. 80; June 27, 1989, p. 463; December 20, 1989, p. 1060; December 19, 1990, pp. 2513-5; June 16, 1993, pp. 3321-2.