House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 Edition — More information …
 Search 
Previous PageNext Page

24. The Parliamentary Record

[51] 
Debates, June 6, 1986, pp. 10455-6.
[52] 
In the British House of Commons, it has been established that the authoritative version of its deliberations is the printed Debates (May, 22nd ed., p. 230).
[53] 
Standing Order 54. For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[54] 
Standing Order 40.
[55] 
Standing Order 152. The rue, which dates from Confederation, has precursors in the pre-Confederation assemblies. Redlich, tracing the evolution of British parliamentary practice, refers to the establishment in the seventeenth century of the “custom… of making the daily programme known to the House at the beginning of the sitting…” (Vol. I, p. 47). The 1854 Rules and Standing Orders of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, for example, require the Clerk “to lay on the Speaker’s table, every morning, previous to the meeting of the House, the order of the proceedings for the day”; and secondly, “that a copy of the same be hung up in the lobby, for the information of Members.” This seems to indicate that at that time, the daily distribution of the Order Paper to all Members was not possible and that it was produced by the Clerk, primarily for the Speaker.
[56]
For example, after a bill is read a first time, the Speaker asks when it shall be read a second time, and the usual reply is “At the next sitting of the House”. An order for the bill’s second reading is then placed on the Order Paper so that the bill might, in principle, be taken up at that time.
[57] 
See, for example, Standing Order 56(1).
[58] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 295-6.
[59] 
For background information, see Alexander Small, “The Use of Computers in the Bilingual Publishing and Retrieval of Parliamentary Publications,” The Table, Vol. XLII, 1974, pp. 66-72. The Standing Orders were changed in 1987 to reflect alterations to publications (Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1002-28; see in particular p. 1022).
[60] 
This practice has a long history; see Bourinot, 1st ed., pp. 308-9.
[61] 
Standing Order 86(5). For further information on the interpretation of this rule, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[62]
See Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”, and Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[63] 
Standing Order 94(2)(a).
[64] 
Standing Order 81(14)(a).
[65] 
Standing Order 76.1(2). Where report stage precedes second reading, the notice period is 48 hours (Standing Order 76(2)).
[66] 
Standing Order 94(1).
[67] 
Under the heading “Questions”, the printed Order Paper refers readers to the electronic version and to the complete list of questions on the Order Paper, which is available for consultation at the Table. At one time all questions were printed on the Order Paper. In 1983, in line with the recommendation of a special committee on procedure (see Section 9, Part II in the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328) and the special order adopted by the House on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400)), questions began to be published in a Monthly Supplement to the Order Paper. The Monthly Supplement ceased to be published in 1997 when a recommendation of the Procedure and House Affairs Committee (see Minutes, Issue No. 3, pp. 26-7) was approved by the Board of Internal Economy (see Minutes of the Board’s meeting of March 18, 1997, tabled on April 25, 1997 (Journals, p. 1557)).
[68]
See Chapter 11, “Questions”.
[69] 
See Speaker’s ruling, Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584.
[70] 
For Speakers’ rulings, see Journals, January 13, 1910, p. 154; Debates, December 7, 1989, p. 6584.
[71] 
See, for example, Debates, June 19, 1991, p. 2111.
[72] 
This is one of the options open to Members when the government is unable to accede to the request for the production of papers. See, for example, Debates, March 18, 1981, pp. 8377-8; April 19, 1989, pp. 691-2. For more information on notices of motions for the production of papers, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[73] 
For example, notices sponsored by Jean-Claude Malépart (Montréal–Sainte-Marie) (died November 16, 1989), Catherine Callbeck (Malpeque) (resigned January 25, 1993) and Stephen Harper (Calgary West) (resigned January 14, 1997) were withdrawn. They included notices of motions for Private Members’ Business (including items in the Order of Precedence), notices of written questions and notices of motions for the production of papers. Private Members’ bills awaiting introduction and notices of motions under Routine Proceedings would also be withdrawn in such circumstances.
In another instance, the House concurred in a committee report by unanimous consent, following which an earlier notice of motion to concur in the same report was removed from the Order Paper (Order Paper and Notice Paper, November 25, 1997, p. 9; Journals, Noverber 25, 1997, p. 257; Order Paper and Notice Paper, November 27, 1997, p. 10).
[74] 
Debates, September 27, 1971, p. 8173.
[75] 
In the case of Private Members’ Business, it must first be selected following the draw for the Order of Precedence (Standing Order 87(5)).
[76] 
Standing Order 64. See, for example, Journals, March 12, 1993, p. 2627; Debates, March 12, 1993, pp. 16925-6; Journals, May 11, 1994, p. 451; Debates, May 11, 1994, p. 4211.
[77] 
Standing Order 55. See also Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[78] 
See, for example, the Special Order Papers published on September 23, 1997 (before the opening of a first session), February 27, 1996 (before the opening of a subsequent session), and August 11, 1987 and September 19, 1994 (during an adjournment).
[79] 
See section 9 in Part II of the Third Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on November 5, 1982 (Journals, p. 5328). Although the report was not concurred in, a motion adopted on November 29, 1982 (Journals, p. 5400) put this and other portions of the report into effect. The new document appeared for the first time on January 17, 1983.
[80]
See Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”; for further information on the weekly business statement or “Thursday statement”, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[81] 
Standing Order 40(2). This was emphasized in a ruling by the Speaker (Debates, March 20, 1997, pp. 9281-2).
[82] 
Standing Orders 108(1)(a) and 113(5).
[83] 
For example, committee reports may be printed and distributed from time to time in accordance with guidelines established by the Board of Internal Economy (see Board’s decision of October 29, 1986). For further information on this and other powers of committees, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[84] 
Beauchesne, 6th ed., p. 233.
[85] 
See Debates, March 16, 1993, pp. 17071-3. See also Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[86] 
Standing Orders 69(1) and 70. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[87] 
For example, the address to both Houses of Parliament in the Commons Chamber by Richard Nixon, President of the United States, on April 14, 1972, was televised.
[88] 
See Debates, June 5, 1967, pp. 1157-66; March 26, 1969, pp. 7158-79; Journals, March 23, 1970, p. 633.
[89] 
See Journals, June 30, 1972, pp. 471-86.
[90] 
“Television Broadcasting of Parliament: A Feasibility Study,” Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Ottawa, May 1976. The study was done by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation for the President of the Privy Council. An earlier version, dated April 12, 1976, was tabled in the House (Journals, June 8, 1976, p. 1337). See Alistair Fraser, “Televising the Canadian House of Commons”, The Table, Vol. XLVII for 1979, pp. 66-71.
[91] 
See Journals, January 25, 1977, p. 287.
[92] 
Debates, October 17, 1977, pp. 8201-2. See also Speaker Jerome’s memoir, Mr. Speaker, Toronto: McClelland and Stewart Limited, 1985, pp. 113-22.
[93] 
The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business on June 8, 1989 (Journals, p. 340).
[94] 
The Committee’s Ninth and final report, entitled “Watching the House at Work”, was deemed presented on December 29, 1989 (Journals, January 22, 1990, p. 1078).
[95] 
In one of its recommendations, the committee suggested that the production and direction of House of Commons broadcasting should be delegated, under the supervision of a House committee, to the programming director who would exercise professional judgement in the choice of camera angles or shots, so as to “convey the full flavour of the House of Commons, and to ensure that the parliamentary broadcasts provide a dignified and accurate reflection of the House”. See “Watching the House at Work”, the Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business, pp. 3-6, 8-10. (The report was deemed presented on December 29, 1989; see Journals, January 22, 1990, p. 1078.)
[96] 
Journals, February 23, 1990, p. 1277. Later in the session, on June 19, 1990 (Debates, pp. 12930-48), a motion to concur in the committee report was debated but not disposed of.
[97] 
An example would be the production of informational videos (see the Nineteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections presented on November 23, 1990 (Journals, p. 2289), and concurred in on December 19, 1990 (Journals, p. 2510)).
[98] 
See the Twenty-Second, Forty-Third and Fifty-Seventh Reports of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented on February 12, 1992 (Journals, p. 1009), June 5, 1992 (Journals, p. 1632), and December 4, 1992 (Journals, p. 2285), respectively, and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1337), June 8, 1992 (Journals, p. 1638), and December 11, 1992 (Journals, p. 2399), respectively.
[99] 
See, for example, paragraph 74 of the Procedure and Organization Committee’s report on broadcasting, presented on June 30, 1972 (Journals, pp. 471-86). In 1979, for example, a Member crossed the floor of the House to sit with another party, but the event was not captured by the cameras because to have done so would have contravened the broadcasting guidelines established by the House (Debates, March 8, 1979, pp. 3943-4). In another instance, when a point of order was raised as to the style of coverage of a budget presentation, the Speaker ruled that the coverage had not been consistent with previous budget presentations and suggested that the guidelines then in effect be observed until such time as the House decided otherwise (Debates, May 28, 1985, pp. 5146-7). In 1995, the House agreed to the temporary installation of stationary television cameras on the floor of the House for the address of the President of the United States (Journals, February 20, 1995, p. 1151). Two cameras were placed next to the Bar of the House, one operated by Canadian television networks and one operated by the American networks.
In a 1993 case before the Supreme Court of Canada, a broadcaster had applied to film the proceedings of a provincial legislature from the public galleries, using its own cameras (New Brunswick Broadcasting Co. v. Nova Scotia (Speaker of the House of Assembly) [1993] 1 S.C.R. 319).  The Speaker of the Assembly contended that to do so would interfere with the decorum and orderly proceedings of the Assembly, and moreover that the Assembly would have no control over the production or use of the film.  The Court ruled in a mojority opinion that in excluding the cameras from the gallery, the House of Assembly was exercising its right to control its internal proceedings and its right to exclude strangers from the House and its precinct.  Five separate opinions were delivered in the Court’s 7-1 decision.  They are discussed at length in Maingot, 2nd ed.; see in particular pp. 306-18.
[100] 
Standing Order 108(3)(a)(v).

Top of documentPrevious PageNext Page