Parliament of Canada
Table of ContentsIndexPrint Format
Previous Chapter Next Chapter

Chapter I — Presiding Officers

Notes on Standing Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6:

[1]
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 44, 45.
[2]
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 42, 43, 44.
[3]
Of the Speakers elected at the beginning of a Parliament, the nominations of eight were seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, starting in 1953.
[4]
Speaker Anglin was elected on a recorded division in 1878 (Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 9-10). In 1936, Speaker Casgrain was elected “on division” (Journals, February 6, 1936, p. 8).
[5]
In the general election of 1968, neither the Liberals nor the Conservatives put forward candidates to oppose the Speaker; the New Democratic Party had already nominated a candidate when Lamoureux first announced his intention to run as an Independent. In 1972, he was opposed by Conservative and NDP candidates. In seconding Lamoureux’s nomination as Speaker following his re-election to Parliament in both 1968 and 1972, Robert Stanfield, then Leader of the Opposition, suggested that an alternative to having the Speaker run as an Independent would be to institute a permanent Speakership (see Debates, September 12, 1968, p. 3; January 4, 1973, p. 2).
[6]
Debates, October 29, 1971, pp. 9186-92. The bill was never passed. Stanley Knowles was once offered the nomination as Speaker by Prime Minister Diefenbaker.
[7]
Debates, October 9, 1979, pp. 1-4. James Jerome had been Speaker from 1974 until the change of government in 1979.
[8]
See the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, tabled on December 3, 1982 (Journals, p. 5420).
[9]
See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211); and the Government Response to the First Report, tabled on April 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 486).
[10]
See the proposed amendments to the Standing Orders, tabled on June 27, 1985, and adopted the same day (Journals, pp. 910-9).
[11]
Debates, September 30, 1986, pp. 1-7.
[12]
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1016.
[13]
Journals, May 27, 1988, pp. 2743-4.
[14]
While it clearly states that Ministers and party leaders are not eligible to preside over the election of the Speaker, it is not clear what other offices within the House are excluded. In 1988, the dean of the House, Herb Gray, did not preside over the election of the Speaker, as he was the House Leader of the Official Opposition. The role then fell to the next most senior Member, Marcel Prud’homme. In 2004, Bill Blaikie, the Deputy Leader of the New Democratic Party, presided over the election of the Speaker.
[15]
See for example, Debates, January 17, 1994, p.1; September 22, 1997, pp. 1-2; January 29, 2001, pp. 1-2; October 4, 2004, p. 1. In one instance, the Member presiding asked the House to observe a moment of silence for victims of an earthquake in Armenia (Debates, December 12, 1988, p. 1).
[16]
See for example, remarks by Members on April 21, 1998 (Debates, pp. 5867-8, 5876). Prior to the election of the Speaker in 1994, 1997 and 2001, some of the parties in the House organized caucus meetings to which candidates were invited.
[17]
See the Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, tabled on June 1, 2001 (Journals, p. 465) and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals, pp. 691-3).
[18]
Though this is not provided for in the rules, before the election, the Member presiding, Bill Blaikie, asked if any of the Members whose names were on the ballot wanted to withdraw their candidacy. Six of the seven candidates did so, leaving only one candidate, Peter Milliken, who had been Speaker in the previous Parliament. See Debates, October 4, 2004, pp. 1-2.

Notes on Standing Orders 7 and 8:

[1]
Although this language requirement stops with the Chair, there has usually been a similar linguistic balance with regard to the Deputy Chair and the Assistant Deputy Chair. In the Thirty-Eighth Parliament, the first time a candidate for Chair was proposed by the Speaker, consultations between the Speaker and the House Leaders ensured that all parties deemed the language requirement to have been met.
[2]
The appointment of each of the three substitute presiding officers can be and has been renewed in the next Parliament in the case of the Chair, and from session to session for the Deputy Chair and Assistant Deputy Chair.
[3]
Handwritten marginal note by Bourinot in his personal copy of May, 6th ed., p. 554.
[4]
A typical example can be seen in the Journals for May 14, 1868, pp. 353-64 where no less than seven Members acted as Chair of Committees.
[5]
A Minister moved the nomination of the Chair of Committees in 1891, 1896 and 1901. In the case of the Deputy Chair, this occurred in 1947 and 1996, and in the case of the Assistant Deputy Chair, in 1990. The form of the motion has changed only slightly since Confederation.
[6]
Sir John A. Macdonald’s first choice privately declined the post on the advice of his doctor, but recommended another Member, who in turn was enthusiastically accepted by the House (Debates, May 11, 1887, pp. 370-1).
[7]
In 1891, the Address was agreed to on May 4 (Journals, p. 17), while a Chair was chosen May 22 (Journals, p. 159).
[8]
Journals, September 15, 1949, p. 17.
[9]
Journals, November 12, 1953, p. 16. See also Debates for the same day, p. 9.
[10]
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1.
[11]
The provisions of section 47 of the Constitution Act, 1867 called for the election of an interim Speaker only if the Speaker was absent for more than 48 hours. This section had been included in the Constitution because on one occasion in the old Legislative Assembly of Canada, the House had to be adjourned for several days because the Speaker was ill (Journals, March 22, 1858, p. 161); in one post-Confederation case, the House began a sitting late because the Speaker missed his train and was not present at the hour of meeting (Debates, April 19, 1870, p. 1065).
[12]
S.C. 1867, c. 2.
[13]
Journals, March 30, 1868, p. 167. Substitutions of this kind continued to be recorded in the Journals only until 1870, although they continued to take place thereafter.
[14]
Debates, February 10, 1885, p. 67.
[15]
Debates, February 10, 1885, p. 68.
[16]
Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 68-70. Blake wondered whether the position was being created for a Member “in compensation for hopes deferred, if not destroyed, of a Cabinet office to which he is not to be promoted”. Blake also raised the question of language requirements in criticizing the plan.
[17]
Journals, February 10, 1885, pp. 53-5.
[18]
Debates, February 10, 1885, p. 72. In 1955, as though to guarantee Sir John A. Macdonald’s 1885 prophecy that the question of which languages were referred to in the rule could not possibly arise, the word “official” was added before the word “language”, the only material change brought to Standing Order 7 until 2004 (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1).
[19]
Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 72-3. The language requirement has been met in each Parliament since then. In 1918, Prime Minister Borden even went so far as to nominate an opposition Member for the position, given the paucity of experienced French-speaking Members on the government side of the House (Debates, March 21, 1918, pp. 73-4), and although it need not have been, beginning in the late 1950s the requirement was also met vis-à-vis other presiding officers.
[20]
Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 73-4. The bill received Royal Assent on May 1, 1885 (S.C. 1885, c. 1).
[21]
Journals, May 5, 1887, pp. 92-3.
[22]
Debates, April 26, 1888, pp. 1005-6. In 1891, Wilfrid Laurier said that “the House has settled and affirmed already its decision in favour of that office (the Chair of Committees of the Whole), and, therefore, I do not see any necessity for testing the sense of the House any longer on the policy” (Debates, May 22, 1891, cols. 388-9).
[23]
Debates, May 2, 1888, p. 1148.
[24]
Debates, April 8, 1896, cols. 5732-7; June 6, 1899, cols. 4445-57; June 7, 1899, cols. 4553-4; July 15, 1903, cols. 6630-8.
[25]
Debates, February 11, 1938, p. 370.
[26]
Debates, March 28, 1947, pp. 1826-7.
[27]
In 1948 a suggestion was made to appoint the Deputy Chair for the duration of each Parliament, but the proposal was never adopted (see page 235 of the Journal of the Society of Clerks-at-the-Table in Empire Parliaments, Volume XVII, 1948). See Journals, January 16, 1984, p. 72, for an example of a mid-Parliament vacancy in the position of Chair, caused in this case by the promotion to Speaker of Lloyd Francis. See Journals, July 27, 1982, p. 5206, for an example of a mid-session change in the positions of Deputy and Assistant Deputy Chair. Mid-parliamentary vacancies in the position of Chair and mid-session vacancies in the positions of Deputy and later the Assistant Deputy Chair occurred on numerous occasions.
[28]
Debates, February 11, 1938, pp. 370-1.
[29]
Journals, April 26, 1967, p. 1769.
[30]
Journals, May 2, 1885, p. 357. The family member subsequently died and Kirkpatrick was absent for two more days (Journals, May 4, 1885, p. 358; May 5, 1885, p. 359).
[31]
See 1899 Index to the House of Commons Journals under “Deputy Speaker”.
[32]
Journals, June 28, 1983, p. 6098.
[33]
See for example, Journals, December 7, 1990, p. 2396; October 24, 1997, p. 145; February 22, 2002, p. 1059.
[34]
On occasion, the Deputy Clerk or the Clerk Assistant makes the announcement, though this is no longer noted in the Journals, as was the practice previously. See for example, Journals, September 19, 1983, p. 6190; August 26, 1988, p. 3478.
[35]
Debates, March 11, 1971, p. 4178.
[36]
See for example, Debates, June 15, 1887, p. 1010; June 21, 1899, cols. 5491-2; March 4, 1986, p. 11179.
[37]
Debates, November 29, 1911, cols. 519-25.
[38]
Debates, March 21, 1918, pp. 74-5.
[39]
Debates, January 18, 1962, pp. 5-6. The NDP called for the vote on the grounds that the government was “using this position within this Parliament as a stepping stone to the Cabinet.”
[40]
See for example, Debates, May 16, 1963, p. 8. In recent years even this practice has fallen into disuse as the appointment is viewed more and more as a routine matter.
[41]
Debates, October 14, 1957, pp. 7-8.
[42]
Debates, October 2, 1990, pp. 13657-8.
[43]
Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 6-16; February 28, 1996, pp. 70-1; October 28, 1996, pp. 5740-66, October 29, 1996, pp. 5812-71. In this latter case, the opposition moved an amendment to the motion in order to have one of its members appointed to the position. Eventually, the motion was subject to closure, the amendment defeated and the nomination approved (Journals, October 28, 1996, pp. 778-9; October 29, 1996, pp. 784-9). The person nominated, Peter Milliken, became Deputy Speaker in the next Parliament and was elected Speaker in the Thirty-Seventh Parliament.
[44]
Debates, September 30, 2002, pp. 6-8.
[45]
Journals, October 5, 2004, pp. 14-5.
[46]
Journals, October 7, 2004, p. 31.
[47]
See the Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, tabled and concurred in October 22, 2004 (Journals, p. 136).
[48]
Debates, March 21, 1918, pp. 73-4; January 4, 1973, pp. 11-2; October 9, 1979, p. 15.
[49]
Debates, September 23, 1997, p.13; February 2, 2004, p. 11. In 1993, a committee had recommended that at least two of the presiding officers be chosen from the opposition benches. The committee also suggested adding two additional presiding officer positions. See the Eighty-First Report of the Standing Committee on House Management, presented on April 1, 1993 (Journals, p. 2774). Neither recommendation was acted upon.
[50]
“Shall appoint” became “may appoint” in the 1906 Rule 13(4).
[51]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 324-5; December 20, 1968, p. 572.

Notes on Standing Order 9:

[1]
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 49.
[2]
See The Casting Vote of the Chair, Procedural Paper No. 1, Table Research Branch, House of Commons, 1981, for a thorough discussion of the principle. See also House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 268-9.
[3]
See for example, Debates, April 26, 1878, p. 2216; May 3, 1878, pp. 2402-3.
[4]
Debates, April 7, 1927, pp. 2034-8.
[5]
The last Speaker to do so was Allan Macnaughton on November 27, 1964 (Debates, pp. 10623-9).
[6]
Speaker Jerome, for example, chaired the Special Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting of the House and its Committees (Journals, January 25, 1977, pp. 286-7). Speaker Bosley appeared before the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons. See Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence of the Standing Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, January 22, 1985, Issue No. 3.
[7]
Journals, December 5, 1947, pp. 7-30.
[8]
See for example, the comments of Deputy Speaker Lavergne (Debates, June 19, 1931, p. 2840).
[9]
Debates, March 5, 1914, pp. 1362-70.
[10]
Deputy Speakers have, for example, made Members’ Statements (see Debates, February 25, 1993, p. 16461; May 31, 2001, p. 4471). In 1993, a question of privilege was raised due to the Deputy Speaker acting as co-Chair of her party’s leadership convention. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not “cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker” (Debates, March 8, 1993, pp. 16577-81; March 9, 1993, p. 16685). The Deputy Chair and Assistant Deputy Chair have on occasion participated in debate (see Debates, November 25, 1985, pp. 8777-81; October 18, 1999, pp. 259-61).
[11]
Journals, May 6, 1870, p. 311; February 28, 1889, pp. 113-4; March 31, 1925, pp. 180-2; Debates, March 11, 1930, pp. 502-3; Journals, December 4, 1963, pp. 621-2; September 16, 2003, pp. 972-3; May 4, 2005, pp. 701-2; May 19, 2005, pp. 783-4; Debates, June 22, 2005, pp. 7645-6. In the 1930 case and the June 2005 case, it later came to light that no tie had occurred. The next day, the Speaker made a brief statement and declared the casting vote invalidated (Debates, March 12, 1930, p. 527; June 23, 2005, pp. 7694-6). The 1963 example also differs from the others in that the Speaker declined to vote because the vote was on an appeal to his ruling. In the circumstances, he merely declared that “Since the decision has not been negatived, I declare my ruling sustained” (Journals, p. 622). Appeals from rulings of the Speaker were abolished in 1965.
[12]
Debates, June 20, 1904, col. 5164; April 15, 1920, p. 1265; June 23, 1922, p. 3473; March 26, 1928, p. 1681.

Notes on Standing Order 10:

[1]
See for example, Debates, April 1, 1998, p. 5650; January 31, 2002, p. 8532; February 3, 2004, p. 33.
[2]
See for example, Journals, March 28, 1916, pp. 201-2.
[3]
See for example, Debates, May 9, 1883, p. 1086.
[4]
See for example, Debates, April 25, 1892, col. 1636.
[5]
Debates, May 13, 1882, p. 1520.
[6]
See for example, Debates, April 27, 1885, p. 1405.
[7]
See for example, Debates, April 17, 1878, pp. 2063-4.
[8]
In 1874, the House resolved to instruct the Speaker to close down the bar, but the decision was not enforced. This was attempted once more in 1881 but again to no effect. (For a discussion on the closing of the bar, see Debates, February 28, 1881, pp. 1166-71.) The saloon was finally closed when Wilfrid Laurier became Prime Minister (Debates, September 15, 1896, col. 1208).
[9]
Debates, March 15, 1913, cols. 6015-22.
[10]
See for example, Debates, September 12, 1917, pp. 5768-71.
[11]
An exception during this period was the debate on the government’s right to office, which took place in early January 1926 (Debates, January 8-14, 1926). As well, in 1945, the Speaker called attention to the growing use of displays, and discouraged the practice (Debates, September 19, 1945, p. 289).
[12]
In the late nineteenth century, expressions such as “coward” and “liar” often went unchallenged (see for example, Debates for the closing minutes of the Fifth Session of the Third Parliament), while in the 1920-55 period, expressions as mild as “lacking in intelligence” (Debates, March 8, 1934, p. 1281) were ruled unparliamentary.
[13]
See for example, Debates, May 24, 1956, pp. 4292-313.
[14]
Debates, October 23, 1980, pp. 4049-51; November 6, 1980, p. 4499.
[15]
A particularly serious incident occurred on October 16, 1985, when a Member, after asking a question about the British Columbia fishing industry, placed a dead salmon on the Prime Minister’s desk (Debates, p. 7678).
[16]
Debates, October 23, 1991; October 25, 1991; November 21, 1991. The motion never came to a vote and died on the Order Paper at the end of the session.
[17]
Debates, October 31, 1991, pp. 4271-85, 4309-10. Angry at having missed a vote, Ian Waddell attempted to take hold of the Mace as it was borne out of the Chamber at the end of a sitting. The Speaker ruled this constituted a prima facie breach of privilege and a motion was adopted to have the Member called to the Bar of the House. A similar incident occurred in 2002, when Keith Martin grabbed the Mace in protest over the result of a vote on his private Member’s bill. Mr. Martin was also called to the Bar of the House to apologize (see Debates, April 22, 2002, pp. 10654-70; April 23, 2002, pp. 10747-8; April 24, 2002, p. 10770).
[18]
This unofficial group was originally constituted to examine sexist comments and behaviour (see Debates, September 18, 1991, p. 2317). Its mandate was expanded to include racist and other discriminatory behaviour (see Debates, October 9, 1991, pp. 3515-6).
[19]
See the Report of the Special Advisory Committee to the Speaker, dated June 22, 1992. The report was not tabled in the House, but a copy was forwarded to the Standing Committee on House Management and to the House Leaders of each party.
[20]
See for example, Debates, April 24, 1996, pp. 1897-8; March 1, 2002, p. 9430.
[21]
See for example, Debates, May 20, 1868, p. 750; Journals, March 24, 1873, pp. 58-9.
[22]
See the comments of Sir John A. Macdonald, Debates, March 5, 1877, p. 485.
[23]
Journals, April 3, 1907, p. 381; April 6, 1910, pp. 418-20; May 12, 1913, pp. 576-7; March 25, 1914, pp. 301-2; May 10, 1916, pp. 353-5; September 8, 1917, pp. 639-40, 641.
[24]
Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 224. Former Speaker Lambert supported the abolition of appeals because “one of the chief difficulties with the business of Parliament over the past 10 years has been the somewhat indiscriminate use of appeals against Speaker’s rulings, not on points of jurisprudence or points of procedure but for political effect” (Debates, June 8, 1965, p. 2140).
[25]
Journals, March 24, 1873, pp. 58-9.
[26]
Journals, June 25, 1926, p. 477; January 31, 1963, pp. 462-3; October 28, 1963, p. 493.
[27]
Journals, December 4, 1963, pp. 621-2.
[28]
Members who have attempted to debate a Speaker’s ruling have invariably been called to order. See for example, Debates, June 5, 2003, pp. 6887-91.

Notes on Standing Order 11(1):

[1]
Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Canada, September 9, 1852, pp. 125-6; May 9, 1861, p. 270.
[2]
See for example, Debates, March 5, 1877, pp. 482-5; May 9, 1890, cols. 4717-8; September 28, 1903, col. 12562; January 18, 1910, col. 2084.
[3]
Handwritten endnote in Bourinot’s personal copy of May, 6th ed., p. 330d.
[4]
Debates, March 15, 1913, col. 6019.
[5]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 326-7.
[6]
Beauchesne, 2nd ed., p. 89.
[7]
Beauchesne, 2nd ed., p. 92.
[8]
Debates, March 24, 1942, pp. 1603-7.
[9]
Journals, July 4, 1944, p. 526; July 31, 1944, pp. 761-2; May 25, 1956, pp. 625-34; February 10, 1961, p. 238; March 16, 1962, pp. 241-2; Debates, October 5, 1962, p. 233; Journals, June 19, 1964, pp. 456-7. The July 4, 1944 incident is the only case of naming in which a Member was suspended for more than a day (seven days was the penalty).
[10]
The broadcasting of House proceedings began in October 1977. There was one naming in 1978 and another in 1979, while two took place in each of the years 1981 and 1982. Four incidents occurred in each of the years 1983, 1984 and 1985.
[11]
Beauchesne appeared to have anticipated this problem as early as 1927:  “The vote on the motion that a member be suspended from the service of the House after having been named by the Speaker is a mere formality, as a rejection of the motion would assuredly be followed by an immediate resignation of the Speaker, a circumstance which his complete freedom from partisanship would render unwelcome even to the parties in opposition” (Beauchesne, 2nd ed., p. 92).
[12]
Debates, October 5, 1962, p. 233; February 23, 1981, pp. 7586-8; May 20, 1983, pp. 25628-31; May 25, 1984, pp. 4078-9.
[13]
Debates, June 19, 1964, pp. 4489-94, 4521-5.
[14]
Debates, May 16, 1978, p. 5457.
[15]
Debates, March 21, 1979, pp. 4383-4.
[16]
See page 37 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[17]
See page 38 of the Third Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, tabled on June 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 839).
[18]
Journals, February 6, 1986, pp. 1645-6.
[19]
See for example, the comments of Herb Gray, Debates, February 11, 1986, p. 10668.
[20]
Journals, February 13, 1986, p. 1710. These changes were made permanent on June 3, 1987 (Journals, p. 1016).
[21]
Speaker Bosley named five Members in 1986. Under Speaker Fraser, only one Member was named (Debates, March 24, 1993, pp. 17482, 17486-8). Speaker Parent named ten Members, including two on the same day (Debates, November 2, 1995, pp. 16144-5). Speaker Milliken has not named any Members, but Deputy Speaker Kilger used this power once (Debates, December 6, 2002, pp. 2374, 2379-80). As an alternative to naming, Speakers Fraser and Milliken often preferred not to recognize the offending Member until the unparliamentary remarks were withdrawn (see for example, Debates, June 4, 1992, pp. 11413-6, 11433; November 19, 2002, pp. 1611, 1621-2; November 27, 2002, p. 1949; November 28, 2002, p. 2015).
[22]
Journals, October 11, 1985, p. 1094.

Notes on Standing Order 11(2):

[1]
Debates, March 10, 1939, p. 1782.
[2]
Debates, June 9, 1955, p. 4609.
[3]
Debates, April 19, 1922, p. 944.
[4]
Debates, November 21, 1977, p. 1063; June 27, 1978, p. 6769.
[5]
See for example, Debates, December 9, 1998, pp. 11120-1; March 16, 2000, p. 4776.
[6]
See House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 531-3.
[7]
An exception to this for another type of superseding motion is a motion for the previous question, which allows Members who have spoken to the main motion to speak again on the previous question (see Journals, 1926 during the debate on the Address in Reply). See also House of Commons Procedure and Practice, p. 531.
[8]
A notable example is the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, when the Speaker usually makes no effort to apply the rule of relevance. See House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pp. 533-4.
[9]
Debates, March 27, 1923, p. 1553. See also Debates, March 22, 1921, p. 1193; May 4, 1920, p. 1954; April 9, 1919, p. 1330.
[10]
Rules, Orders and Forms of Proceedings of the House of Commons of Canada, 1868, p. 8.
[11]
See for example, Debates, March 5, 1877, pp. 482-5.
[12]
Rules of the House of Commons of Canada, 1910, p. 10.
[13]
Debates, April 29, 1910, col. 8377.
[14]
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 326-7.
[15]
Journals, May 24, 1955, p. 616.
[16]
Debates, April 19, 1956, p. 3073; June 9, 1955, p. 4610.
[17]
Debates, February 17, 1956, p. 1290.
[18]
Debates, August 31, 1917, p. 5237.
[19]
Bourinot, 1st ed., p. 349.
[20]
Debates, March 15, 1915, p. 1049.
[21]
Debates, March 21, 1918, p. 70.
[22]
Debates, June 7, 1920, p. 3177.
[23]
Journals, May 26, 1947, p. 449; Debates, August 25, 1958, p. 4073. Occasions when the Chair warned that a Member might be directed to discontinue his or her speech include: Debates, April 22, 1948, p. 3233; March 14, 1949, pp. 1458-9; May 28, 1964, p. 3698. See also the history of “naming”, under Standing Order 11(1).
[24]
See for example, Debates, February 9, 1998, p. 3579; November 3, 2003, p. 9062.

Notes on Standing Order 12:

[1]
The three most recent appeals were in 2003, 1988 and 1971. See Journals, May 27, 2003, pp. 815-6; December 21, 1988, p. 68; April 6, 1971, pp. 475-6.
[2]
Journals, June 25, 1965, pp. 303-4. The Deputy Speaker hears the report from another Member whom he or she has designated.
[3]
See for example, Journals, July 31, 1944, pp. 761-3.
[4]
Debates, March 24, 1871, col. 638; see also Journals, March 24, 1871, pp. 142-3.
[5]
Journals, April 1, 1875, pp. 327-8; August 3, 1903, p. 467; May 8, 1908, pp. 433-4.
[6]
Journals, May 1, 1885, pp. 354-5.
[7]
Debates, May 1, 1885, pp. 1509-13.
[8]
See for example, Journals, May 18, 1885, p. 387; Debates, April 8, 1896, cols. 5732-7; Debates, June 6, 1899, cols. 4445-57; Journals, March 9, 1911, p. 238.
[9]
Bourinot, 2nd ed., p. 482, n. 3.
[10]
An extreme was reached in 1913 when in one day eight appeals were made, each of which resulted in a recorded division. In all cases that day, the vote confirmed the Chair’s ruling (see Journals, March 15, 1913, pp. 332-40). On rare occasions, rulings of the Chair of Committees have been overturned (see Journals, March 6, 1913, p. 323; March 22, 1948, pp. 275-6; December 13, 1957, p. 270).
[11]
Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 227.
[12]
See Note 1. The frequency of meetings of Committee of the Whole declined considerably after 1968, though since 2001, the format has been used for take-note debates and consideration of Main Estimates (see Standing Orders 53.1 and 81(4)).
[13]
Journals, July 31, 1944, pp. 761-3; May 25, 1956, pp. 625-34; March 16, 1962, pp. 241-2. See also Debates, March 4, 1890, cols. 1451-3.
[14]
Debates, March 15, 1913, cols. 6016-22. This incident was procedurally anomalous, in that the Speaker took the Chair on his own initiative before the Committee had reported. The Speaker subsequently named the offending Member, marking the first occasion of naming in the Canadian House. See also Hatsell, Volume II, p. 201, n. 4.
[15]
Debates, June 21, 1982, pp. 18709-10.
[16]
Journals, May 13, 1913, p. 578; see also Journals, May 28, 1956, pp. 645-7.

Notes on Standing Order 13:

[1]
The rule has undergone only minor syntax changes since 1867.
[2]
Debates, April 28, 1924, pp. 1530-1.
[3]
Journals, April 28, 1924, p. 186.
[4]
Journals, April 28, 1924, p. 189.
[5]
Debates, December 9, 1968, pp. 3639-41.
[6]
Debates, December 9, 1968, p. 3643.
[7]
Journals, December 10, 1968, pp. 511-3.
[8]
Debates, July 24, 1969, p. 11557. See pages 11551-6 for the complete argument.
[9]
Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1398-9.
[10]
See for example, Debates, March 26, 1991, pp. 19042-6; March 3, 2000, pp. 4327-35; June 12, 2001, pp. 5027-31.

Notes on Standing Order 14:

[1]
It is not clear how far the definition of “stranger” extends. Whether all those persons in the service of the House, such as the Pages, Hansard monitors, and others, would be allowed to stay would likely depend on the wishes of the House as interpreted by the Speaker.
[2]
The wording of the motion to be moved by a Member appears to be all-encompassing, although, because it has never been agreed to, it is not known whether the Speaker might order all strangers, only those strangers in a particular gallery, or even just certain persons in a gallery to withdraw.
[3]
See for example, Debates, May 11, 1970, p. 6796.
[4]
Debates, March 6, 1871, col. 296.
[5]
Debates, March 27, 1871, col. 655.
[6]
Debates, March 29, 1876, p. 905. In 1875, the British House of Commons had likewise amended its rules (see Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 194). The Speaker’s power to order the withdrawal of strangers was codified in the 1876 rule change.
[7]
Debates, June 4, 1929, p. 3228; Journals, May 22, 1951, p. 406.
[8]
Journals, September 7, 1950, p. 38.
[9]
Debates, December 12, 1968, pp. 3852-5.
[10]
Debates, February 16, 1972, pp. 10959-60.
[11]
Debates, April 4, 1990, pp. 10186-7. The motion appears to have been used as a dilatory tactic to prevent the government from moving time allocation on a contentious bill.
[12]
Journals, June 10, 1994, p. 563. No Member has attempted to move that strangers withdraw since the adoption of the amended rule.
[13]
Debates, May 10, 1879, p. 1940. The story unfolded over the next few days and was only satisfactorily resolved in the next session. See Debates, May 12, 1879, pp. 1943-4, 1980-2; Journals, February 24, 1880, pp. 58-9.
[14]
Debates, May 11, 1970, p. 6796; November 28, 1989, p. 6342.
[15]
See for example, Debates, December 19, 1867, p. 317; Journals, April 16, 1929, p. 245. See a related discussion in Debates, April 12, 1929, pp. 1508-11.
[16]
Debates, April 15, 1918, pp. 735-6; February 20, 1942, pp. 733-43; July 17, 1942, p. 4327; November 27, 1944, pp. 6632-3. Note that on two of these occasions, Senators were specifically exempted and were allowed to attend.
[17]
Debates, January 29, 1963, pp. 3229-30.

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611
trbdrb@parl.gc.ca