![]() ![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Parliament, |
Opening day of the session |
Last sitting day of the House |
Number of sitting days |
Specific purpose |
12,4 |
1914‑08‑18 |
1914‑08‑22 |
5 |
Outbreak of World War I |
17,1 |
1930‑09‑08 |
1930‑09‑22 |
12 |
Exceptional economic conditions |
18,5 |
1939‑09‑07 |
1939‑09‑13 |
6 |
Outbreak of World War II |
21,3 |
1950‑08‑29 |
1951‑01‑29 |
17 |
Disruption
of railway transportation |
22,4 |
1956‑11‑26 |
1957‑01‑18 |
5 |
Hostilities in Middle East and events in Hungary |
It will readily be noted that the special sessions were short‑lived. They also shared certain characteristics:
Parliament was called to meet for a specific
purpose, which was the principal focus of what was in each case a comparatively
short Speech from the Throne;[63]
The five sessions specifically designated as
“special” took place during a period when sessions were generally shorter, with
a fairly predictable annual rhythm of sitting and non‑sitting periods;
the special sessions were called in late summer or autumn, times of the year
when the House did not usually sit; and
The House in each of the special sessions
approved a temporary suspension of certain Standing Orders, with the aim of
expediting the business before it.[64]
Other sessions of short duration, though not officially termed “special” in the Debates or Journals of the House of Commons, have tended to share the same characteristics.[65]
[16] See Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, P.C. 3374, October 25, 1935, “Memorandum regarding certain of the functions of the Prime Minister”, which stated that recommendations (to the Crown) concerning the convocation and dissolution of Parliament are the “special prerogatives” of the Prime Minister.
[17] See, for example, Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 142, Extra, September 8, 2008, p. 4.
[18] For example, prior to the opening of the First Session of the Thirty‑Ninth Parliament, a proclamation was initially issued summoning Parliament to meet on February 20, 2006. A second proclamation was later issued summoning Parliament to meet on April 3, 2006, and finally a third was issued summoning Parliament for the “Dispatch of Business” on April 3, 2006 at 11:00 a.m. See Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 139, Extra, December 1, 2005; Part II, Vol. 140, Extra, February 9, 2006; Part II, Vol. 140, Extra, March 17, 2006. See also the proclamation issued when the Second Session of the Thirty‑Seventh Parliament was prorogued on November 14, 2003, with Parliament summoned to reconvene on January 12, 2004. A second proclamation was issued summoning Parliament to meet on February 2, 2004. See Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 137, Extra, November 14, 2003; Part II, Vol. 138, Extra, January 9, 2004.
The usual practice has been for Parliament to meet for the Speech from the Throne in the afternoon. In 2007, Parliament was summoned to meet at 6:35 p.m. See Canada Gazette, Part II, Vol. 141, No. 3, Extra, October 6, 2007.
[19] When the House meets for the dispatch of business, the Clerk lays a final certificate with the names of all duly‑elected Members upon the Table; the certificate and list of names are published in the Journals. See, for example, Journals, November 18, 2008, pp. 1‑7. On one occasion, because Parliament was summoned to meet only three weeks after the general election, the list of elected Members was not tabled by the Clerk until the fourth sitting day (Journals, December 15, 1988, pp. 26‑33).
[20] R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 128. The requirement stems from British practice dating back to the sixteenth century. Amid the political and religious conflicts of the time, the Act of Supremacy was adopted, requiring all Members to declare their belief in the Sovereign as supreme governor in matters both temporal and ecclesiastical (Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form, Vol. II, translated by A.E. Steinthal, New York: AMS Press, 1969 (reprint of 1908 ed.), pp. 62‑4). For further information on the oath, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[21] Affirmation is not mentioned in the Constitution. Instructions issued by the Crown in 1905 allowed Members to take the oath or make an affirmation (Beauchesne, A., Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 4th ed., Toronto: The Carswell Company Limited, 1958, p. 13). For further information on the affirmation, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[22] Section 128 of the Constitution Act, 1867, states that the oath is to be taken before “the Governor General or some person authorized by him”. For the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, the Clerk of the House of Commons, the Deputy Clerk, the Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel and a Clerk Assistant were commissioned (Journals, April 3, 2006, p. 1). In the Fortieth Parliament, the Clerk and the Deputy Clerk of the House were commissioned (Journals, November 18, 2008, p. 1).
[23] Some of the parties have opted, on occasion, to organize group swearing‑in ceremonies. In 1985, the McGrath Committee recommended, in the interest of increasing awareness of parliamentary institutions, a televised collective swearing‑in of all Members, in addition to the customary private swearing‑in for individual Members (Third Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839), pp. 57‑8). No subsequent action was taken.
[24] Standing Orders 2 to 6. For further information on the election of the Speaker, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[25] The Usher of the Black Rod is an officer of the Senate whose responsibilities include delivering messages to the House of Commons when its Members’ attendance is required in the Senate Chamber by the Governor General or a Deputy of the Governor General. On November 6, 1997, the title of the Office was changed from the “Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod” to the “Usher of the Black Rod”. See Journals of the Senate, pp. 165‑7, Debates of the Senate, pp. 333‑43.
[26] A Deputy to the Governor General is a person, usually a Justice of the Supreme Court, who exercises the powers of the Governor General on certain occasions (Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 14; see also Part VII of Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada (1947), R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31). Since the opening of the Fifth Session of the Third Parliament in 1878, a Deputy of the Governor General rather than the Governor General has received the House in the Senate prior to the election of a Speaker.
[27] See, for example, Journals of the Senate, November 18, 2008, p. 4.
[28] The Speaker, elected by secret ballot, is usually a government Member. There have been three occasions, occurring in minority Parliaments, when opposition Members have become Speaker: James Jerome in 1979 and Peter Milliken in 2006 and 2008. Both Mr. Jerome and Mr. Milliken were the incumbent Speakers.
[29] The House is officially informed by the Speaker of the Senate of the time fixed for the Speech from the Throne when the Members are summoned to the Senate on the first day of the new Parliament. See, for example, Journals of the Senate, November 18, 2006, p. 4.
[30] This message can be delivered on the same day as the election of the Speaker (see, for example, Journals, December 12, 1988, pp. 3‑4), or on another day (see, for example, Journals, April 4, 2006, p. 11). Since 1994, the practice has been for the House to adjourn following the election of the Speaker and for the message to be delivered the following day.
[31] The tradition of meeting in the Senate accords with the practice established in the United Kingdom whereby the rightful place of the Sovereign in Parliament is in the Upper House—no monarch, or monarch’s representative, having entered the British House of Commons since King Charles I in 1642 (Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 89‑90). During the rebuilding of the Centre Block following the great fire of 1916, the first session in the new building opened on February 26, 1920. Because the Senate Chamber was not ready, the Senate occupied the House of Commons Chamber on opening day, thereafter moving to the Railway Committee Room elsewhere in the building (Debates of the Senate, February 26, 1920, p. 1; February 27, 1920, p. 2).
[32] See, for example, Debates of the Senate, November 19, 2008, p. 3.
[33] There is not now any question of the choice of Speaker by the House being subject to approbation, confirmation or ratification by the Crown. In the pre‑1841 legislatures of Upper and Lower Canada, however, it was customary for the new Speaker to seek the approval of the governor. In 1827, Lord Dalhousie, then Governor General of Lower Canada, refused to accept Louis‑Joseph Papineau as Speaker of the Legislative Assembly. The Assembly passed resolutions declaring this action unconstitutional, and expunged the proceedings from their Journals. The Governor General prorogued Parliament and in a subsequent session Mr. Papineau received the approval of Sir James Kempt, Lord Dalhousie’s successor. The practice of ratifying the Assembly’s choice of Speaker was discontinued in the first session following union in 1841, the Act of Union being silent on the matter (Bourinot, Sir J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, 4th ed., edited by T.B. Flint, Toronto: Canada Law Book Company, 1916, pp. 92‑3).
[34] See, for example, Debates of the Senate, November 19, 2008, p. 3.
[35] Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 49‑50. On such an occasion, a newly-elected Speaker attends the Senate and states only that he or she has been elected Speaker, and that any faults be attributed to the Speaker, and not to the Commons. See, for example, Journals, October 1, 1986, p. 12.
[36] In 1986, Speaker John Bosley announced his intention to step down as Speaker as soon as a successor was elected. The election took place prior to the official opening of the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament (1984‑88) (Journals, September 30, 1986, pp. 2‑9).
[37] Journals, October 14, 1957, p. 8; October 18, 1977, p. 2.
[38] On two occasions, the wife of the Governor General shared in the reading of the Speech from the Throne. Jules Léger took office as Governor General in January 1974; in June of that year, he suffered a debilitating stroke which affected his speech. During his tenure, four sessions of Parliament were opened: on September 30, 1974, the Speech from the Throne was read by the Administrator of the Government of Canada; on October 18, 1977, it was read by the Sovereign; and on October 12, 1976, and October 11, 1978, the Governor General and Madame Léger shared the reading of the Speech from the Throne.
[39] See, for example, Journals, November 19, 2008, p. 11.
[40] Letters Patent Constituting the Office of Governor General of Canada (1947), R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 31, Part VIII.
[41] Journals, March 12, 1931, p. 3; May 16, 1940, p. 9; May 16, 1963, p. 9; September 30, 1974, p. 8.
[42] See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1974, p. 8.
[43] See Speaker Cockburn’s ruling respecting the first day of a session, Journals, March 24, 1873, p. 58. In this ruling, the Speaker referred to the procedural authorities Hatsell, Dwarris, May and Todd. An exception to this established procedure occurred in October 1995, when the First Session of the Fifty‑Third Legislative Assembly of New Brunswick was called, pursuant to proclamation, and the Administrator made a short statement after the election of the Speaker. The Assembly then proceeded to consider a resolution concerning the distinct society status of Quebec. When this was disposed of, a message was read calling the Assembly to the formal opening of the session on February 6, 1996. At that time the Speech from the Throne was read by the Lieutenant‑Governor (Province of New Brunswick, Legislative Assembly, Journals of the Legislative Assembly, October 25, 1995, pp. 1‑6; February 6, 1996, pp. 7‑27).
[44] See, for example, Journals, November 19, 2008, p. 11.
[45] The Order Paper and Notice Paper is not produced for the first day of the session. Should the government have one or more items of business requiring the immediate consideration of the House, a Special Order Paper and Notice Paper is published pursuant to Standing Order 55(1). Before proceeding with the routine items of business, the Speaker informs the House that a Special Order Paper has been published and tables correspondence from the Government House Leader with respect to the bill(s) or motion(s) placed on notice. See, for example, Journals, October 5, 2004, p. 11; April 4, 2006, p. 11; October 16, 2007, p. 4. For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”, and Chapter 24, “The Parliamentary Record”.
[46] See, for example, Journals, November 19, 2008, p. 11. For an example of an occasion on which the practice was not adhered to, see Journals, August 29, 1950, p. 4, Debates, pp. 1‑2. The House had been recalled to a special session that day to deal with a labour dispute, among other matters. Instead of the usual pro forma bill, the government introduced back‑to‑work legislation which was read the first time and ordered for a second reading later that day.
[47] The introduction of a pro forma bill, a ritual act of independence, has existed as a practice of the House since before Confederation. It originated in the British House of Commons in 1558, being confirmed in the following resolution adopted on March 22, 1603: “That the first day of sitting, in every Parliament, some one Bill, and no more, receiveth a first reading for form’s sake” (Hatsell, J., Precedents of Proceedings in the House of Commons, Vol. II, South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 4th ed., 1818), p. 81). See also British History Online at www.british‑history.ac.uk. By custom, Bill C‑1 is introduced but not printed. Exceptionally, in 2008, Prime Minister Stephen Harper tabled a document entitled “An Act respecting the administration of oaths of office” (Journals, November 19, 2008, p. 12, Debates, pp. 13‑4). The custom is observed in other Parliaments where, in most cases, the bill is read a first time and not heard of again until the start of the next session. The Australian House of Representatives refers to its “formal” or “privilege” bill (House of Representatives Practice, 5th ed., edited by I.C. Harris, Canberra: Department of the House of Representatives, 2005, p. 218). In the British House, it is called the Outlawries Bill (May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 23rd ed., edited by Sir W. McKay, London: LexisNexis UK, 2004, p. 289). In the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, the pro forma bill is Bill 1, An Act to ensure the Supremacy of Parliament. See, for example, Province of British Columbia, Legislative Assembly, Debates of the Legislative Assembly (Hansard), February 14, 2006, pp. 2231-2. In Ontario, the bill is Bill 1, An Act to perpetuate an ancient parliamentary right. See Ontario, Legislative Assembly, Official Report of Debates (Hansard), November 29, 2007, p. 8.
[48] The text of the Speech from the Throne used to be printed in the Journals as well as the Debates. However, since 1996, the text has been published only in the Debates.
[49] The motion is debatable and amendable. In 1988, for example, the motion was debated and adopted on a recorded division (Journals, December 12, 1988, pp. 6‑7). In 1926, an amendment was moved, debated at length and eventually negatived on a recorded division (Journals, January 8, 1926, pp. 12‑3; January 15, 1926, pp. 28‑9). For further information on the Address in Reply, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[50] See, for example, Journals, November 19, 2008, p. 12. The announcement is made pursuant to the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, s. 50(4). For further information on the role and functions of the Board of Internal Economy, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[51] Standing Order 104(1). In 1962, however, such a motion was moved and adopted by unanimous consent on the eleventh sitting day (Journals, October 12, 1962, p. 63). Formerly, this Standing Order provided for the appointment of a seven‑member striking committee at the commencement of the first session of each Parliament. In 1991, the rule was amended (Journals, April 11, 1991, pp. 2904‑5, 2922) and the task of selecting committee membership became one of the duties of a new standing committee, since renamed Procedure and House Affairs.
[52] See, for example, Journals, November 19, 2008, p. 13. The practice of moving a formal resolution for the appointment of committees without notice is described in the first edition of Bourinot (Bourinot, J.G., Parliamentary Procedure and Practice in the Dominion of Canada, South Hackensack, New Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 1st ed., 1884), pp. 231‑2).
[53] Standing Order 7. See, for example, Journals, April 5, 2006, pp. 21‑2; November 21, 2008, p. 21. Standing Order 7(3) provides for the selection of a successor should a vacancy arise during the course of the Parliament.
[54] While the usual practice is for the Deputy Speaker to be a member of the governing party, in 1973, 1979, and 2004 the Deputy Speakers were members of the Official Opposition. The Deputy Speaker for the Thirty-Ninth Parliament (2006‑08), Bill Blaikie (Elmwood–Transcona), was from neither the government side nor the Official Opposition, but from one of the other opposition parties. See Appendix 3, “Deputy Speakers and Chairs of Committees of the Whole House Since 1885”.
[55] Standing Order 8. They are usually from the government side; however, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole in 1997 (Ian McClelland) and the Assistant Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole in 2004 (Betty Hinton) were chosen from among the Members of the Official Opposition. In 2008, the Assistant Deputy Chair of the Committees of the Whole was appointed from one of the other opposition parties. See Appendix 4, “Deputy Chairs of Committees of the Whole House Since 1938” and Appendix 5, “Assistant Deputy Chairs of Committees of the Whole House Since 1967”. The timing of these appointments has varied. For example, the appointments have been made on the first sitting day of the session (Journals, February 2, 2004, p. 4), on the third sitting day (Journals, April 5, 2006, pp. 21‑2; October 18, 2007, p. 25) and on the fourth sitting day (Journals, October 7, 2004, p. 31; November 21, 2008, p. 21).
[56] Prior to the adoption of amendments to Standing Orders 7 and 8 in 2004 (Journals, October 5, 2004, p. 14; October 22, 2004, p. 136), debate was permitted on such motions. On rare occasions, these motions provoked some dissent. In 1962, the motion to select the Deputy Speaker was adopted after a recorded division (Journals, January 18, 1962, pp. 6‑7). In 1990, the motion to select the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was adopted on a recorded division (Journals, October 2, 1990, p. 2050). In 1996, the motion to select the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was adopted on a recorded division (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 3) and the motion to select the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was also adopted on a recorded division (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 4; February 28, 1996, pp. 9‑10). Later in the session, the post of Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was vacated and a motion was moved selecting a successor. It was debated, an amendment was moved and negatived on a recorded division; the motion was closured and later adopted on a recorded division (Journals, October 28, 1996, pp. 778‑9; October 29, 1996, pp. 784‑9). On September 30, 2002, the motion to appoint the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was debated and adopted on division (Journals, p. 2). For further information on the election, roles and functions of these Presiding Officers, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
[57] Standing Order 81(1). An Order of the Day is an item of business on the House agenda (the Order Paper). “Continuing” means that the order for the business of supply will remain on the Order Paper for every sitting of the session thereafter.
[58] See, for example, Debates, September 30, 2002, p. 6; April 4, 2006, p. 10. For further information on the supply process, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”. On occasion, the statement has not been made in the Speech from the Throne (Journals, September 8, 1930, p. 9; January 25, 1940, p. 8; October 9, 1951, pp. 2‑4; December 12, 1988, pp. 5‑6; April 3, 1989, pp. 3‑12; Debates, October 16, 2007, pp. 3‑7; November 19, 2008, pp. 14‑9). The Speaker ruled on May 2, 1989, that the Standing Orders do not specify that a request for funds must appear in the Speech from the Throne (Debates, pp. 1175‑7).
[59] The normal supply cycle may be disrupted by a prorogation or dissolution of Parliament and in these cases, the number of allotted days in each supply period may be increased or decreased. The Speaker must determine and announce to the House the reduction or increase in the number of allotted days for the current supply period. See Standing Order 81(10)(b) and (c). See, for example, Debates, February 2, 2004, p. 10; October 5, 2004, p. 15; October 16, 2007, p. 5; November 19, 2008, p. 19. For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[60] In 1996, Speaker Parent responded to a point of order raised in the previous session on the first day of the new session after all the usual business items had been dealt with. The point of order concerned the designation of the Official Opposition, when events had resulted in an equality of seats between the two main opposition parties. Although prorogation normally puts to an end any outstanding business, the Speaker determined that the recent equality of seats had created a new context and required an immediate statement on the issue (Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 16‑20). In 2004, Speaker Milliken made a statement regarding the seating arrangements for the former Canadian Alliance and Progressive Conservative Members (Debates, February 2, 2004, p. 1).
[61] See, for example, Journals, September 15, 1949, pp. 10‑3; January 14, 1960, pp. 2‑3; October 9, 1979, pp. 17‑8; October 1, 1986, pp. 24‑5; December 12, 1988, pp. 7‑8; February 27, 1996, p. 2; October 12, 1999, p. 6; October 16, 2007, pp. 1‑2. For further information, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[62] See, for example, Journals, August 29, 1950, p. 4; January 14, 1960, pp. 3‑4; April 3, 1989, p. 3; October 16, 2007, p. 2. For further information on a new Member’s entrance in and introduction to the House, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[63] Journals, August 18, 1914, pp. 2‑3; September 8, 1930, p. 9; September 7, 1939, p. 2; August 29, 1950, pp. 4‑5; November 26, 1956, p. 2.
[64] Journals, August 18, 1914, p. 3; September 8, 1930, p. 10; September 7, 1939, p. 5; August 29, 1950, p. 5; November 26, 1956, p. 3.
[65] See, for example, the short‑lived First Session of the Thirty‑Fourth Parliament (1988‑93), which is not specifically designated as “special” in the Debates or Journals of the House of Commons. Parliament met on December 12, 1988, three weeks after the general election of November 21, 1988, to deal with a bill to implement a free trade agreement between Canada and the United States. This was also the date set for the return of the writs. The list of Members elected and the accompanying certificate of the Chief Electoral Officer, usually tabled by the Clerk immediately when the House meets for the dispatch of business, was not tabled until December 15, 1988, the fourth sitting day of the session (Journals, pp. 26‑33). On December 23, the House passed the bill and pursuant to Special Order, adjourned, reconvened for Royal Assent on December 30 and adjourned until March 6, 1989 (Journals, December 23, 1988, pp. 80‑2, 84; December 30, 1988, pp. 86‑8). Parliament was prorogued by proclamation dated February 28, 1989.
Standing Orders may be suspended in sessions of short duration not designated as “special” just as they may be in “special” sessions. In 1945 (Sixth Session of the Nineteenth Parliament (1940‑45)), the House agreed to give precedence to Government Orders for the balance of the session and to treat Wednesdays (then a day of early adjournment) as other sitting days (Journals, March 19, 1945, p. 3). In 1988 (First Session of the Thirty‑Fourth Parliament (1988‑93)), a motion was adopted (and deemed rescinded on completion of the business at hand) to extend the hours of sitting and suspend the operation of certain Standing Orders (Journals, December 16, 1988, pp. 46‑9; December 30, 1988, p. 87).
![Previous Section](Images/PreviousSection-e.gif)
![Top of Page Top of Page](Images/MoveToTop-e.gif)
![Next Section](Images/NextSection-e.gif)