House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 22. Public Petitions - Historical Perspective

 

While the right of the citizen to petition Parliament for redress of grievance is frequently referred to as fundamental, or as a fundamental constitutional principle,[3] the written Constitution is in fact silent on the matter. The recognition of this right is, however, well entrenched, based as it is on centuries‑old tradition and established precedent.

Petitioning the Crown (and later Parliament) for redress of a grievance originated in the time of the thirteenth‑century monarch Edward I. Petitioners had recourse to the Crown’s prerogative power, which was above the common law. Petitions granted to individuals and communities were in the nature of private laws; those granted to the nation as a whole made public laws.

In medieval times, before Parliament had assumed its present constitution and when its judicial and legislative functions were as yet undefined, Receivers and Triers of petitions appointed by the Crown travelled the country to hear the complaints of the people. Certain matters would be referred to local courts by the Triers, but others would be found appropriate for consideration by the High Court of Parliament.

As Parliament evolved from a primarily judicial to a predominantly legislative body with its judicial functions taken over by the courts, the character of petitions changed. By the end of the fourteenth century, legislative remedy was sought by individuals and corporations who petitioned Parliament or the House of Commons. At the same time, petitions from the Commons to the Crown—these being of a general nature and expressing national grievances—became frequent. The English Parliament’s first legislative acts occurred with the Commons petitioning the King for certain amendments to the law. This was the precursor to legislation by bill, as later the Commons assumed the task of drafting the desired statute which could then be accepted or rejected—but never amended—by the Crown. The seventeenth century saw the development of what may be considered the “modern” form of petition: addressed to Parliament, drawn up in a prescribed manner, usually dealing with public grievances.[4]

In Canada, provisions for petitions (long a feature of the pre‑Confederation legislative assemblies) have always been part of the written rules of the House.[5] The rules adopted in 1867 were somewhat expanded in 1910, and operated without substantial modification for some 76 years.[6] However, starting in the immediate post‑Confederation period, an extensive body of practice began to build, resulting in a collection of form and content requirements which were not codified in the Standing Orders but which had to be met in order for a petition to be received by the House.

In the early and mid‑1980s, the resurgence in the use of petitions led to a situation in which the presentation of petitions occupied large amounts of the time of the House, sometimes to the exclusion of other business.[7] As well, the Chair was at times called upon to intervene or rule on matters relating to the admissibility of petitions and the manner of their presentation.[8] As a consequence, the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (the McGrath Committee) made several recommendations intended to clarify the rules relating to petitions, to promote increased uniformity in their presentation, to ensure their admissibility as to content and to provide guidelines as to form and the petitioners’ signatures.[9] In 1986, the House adopted amendments to the Standing Orders based on these recommendations.[10]

The most significant of the changes adopted in 1986 was the requirement for certification of petitions by the Clerk of Petitions prior to their presentation in the House.[11] Also included were a number of requirements, some previously uncodified but well established by precedent and practice, to be met in order for petitions to be certified correct as to their form and content (for example, petitions must contain a prayer requesting action, must be respectful in tone and must bear original signatures). Guidelines issued by the Speaker made reference to these and to other established practices concerning the presentation of petitions during Routine Proceedings.[12] A new rule provided for mandatory government replies to petitions.

Several changes were adopted in 1987, in particular a new requirement that signatories to petitions must include their addresses.[13] As well, the number and sequence of Routine Proceedings rubrics was revised so that “Presenting Petitions”, formerly the fifth of nine items, became the ninth of ten.[14] In 1991, a further amendment set a limit of 15 minutes on the time provided for the presentation of petitions during Routine Proceedings.[15] An amendment adopted in 1994 provided that the original petitions be transmitted to the Ministry (Privy Council Office) and that government responses to petitions may be tabled by depositing them with the Clerk of the House.[16]

In 2003, the House simplified requirements for petitions, including the prayer for relief. The House amended Standing Order 36 to ensure: 

*       that certification be granted to petitions even if they are addressed to the government or a Minister or a Member;

*       that the minimum number of 25 signatures with addresses be maintained, although wording would be added to deal with the situation of persons who do not have a fixed address;

*       that certification be granted even if the full prayer is not shown on every sheet, so long as the subject matter is indicated; and

*       that certification be granted even when petitions call for the expenditure of public funds.[17]

The most important change was that the Standing Orders would be amended, for a one‑year trial period, to stipulate that, where a government response to a petition was not tabled in the House of Commons within 45 days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond would be referred to the appropriate standing committee.[18] The House deemed it appropriate to renew this provisional order in the days leading up to the 38th general election, before making it permanent on October 29, 2004.[19]



[3] See, for example, Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling, Journals, June 7, 1972, pp. 361‑2; Speaker Fraser’s ruling, 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., edited by Sir R.F.D. Palgrave and A. Bonham‑Carter, William Clowes and Sons, Limited, 1893, pp. 493‑5; Wilding, N. and Laundy, P., An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed., London: Cassell & Company Ltd., 1972, pp. 561‑3, 620‑1; May, 23rd ed., edited by Sir W. McKay, LexisNexis UK, 2004, p. 932; Redlich, Vol. I, pp. 6‑25.

[5] Certain constituent parts of what is now Standing Order 36 can be traced to Rules 73, 80 and 85 to 87 used in the United Province in 1841, 1853 and 1860 respectively; and to the 1825 Rule 43 of the Legislative Assembly of Upper Canada (O’Brien, G., “Pre-Confederation Parliamentary Procedure: The Evolution of Legislative Practice in the Lower Houses of Central Canada, 1792‑1866”, Ph.D. thesis, Carleton University, 1988, p. 442).

[6] Journals, December 20, 1867, pp. 116‑7, 122; April 29, 1910, pp. 535‑6; March 22, 1927, p. 339. See also Permanent and Provisional Standing Orders of the House of Commons, September 9, 1985, Standing Order 73.

[7] On May 19, 1983, because of the number of petitions presented, the Routine Proceedings 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 Routine Proceedings were 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. 6356‑9, 6362‑7, 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, presented to the House 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] Formerly, petitions were presented, examined, certified, and then received by the House. Once the Clerk of Petitions reported, the Speaker ruled whether the petition could be received. See for example, Debates, June 9, 1947, p. 3912; June 18, 1947, pp. 4278-9.

[12] 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).

[13] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016, 1026.

[14] Journals, June 3, 1987, pp. 1016‑8.

[15] 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.

[16] See the Twenty‑Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on June 8, 1994 (Journals, p. 545), and concurred in on June 10, 1994 (Journals, p. 563).

[17] See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 16, presented to the House on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465), and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3), in accordance with an Order made October 3, 2001 (Journals, p. 685). See also the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 37 to 39, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995). The Committee was reconstituted early in the Second Session of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament (Journals, November 28, 2002, p. 236).

[18] See the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, par. 40, presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915), and concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).

[19] The Twenty-Third Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on April 26, 2004 (Journals, pp. 311-2), recommended that Standing Order 36(8)(b) remain in effect for the duration of the Thirty-Seventh Parliament and during the first 60 sitting days of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament. The Committee’s Eleventh Report, presented to the House and concurred in on October 29, 2004 (Journals, pp. 170-1), recommended that Standing Order 36(8)(b) be made permanent.

Top of Page