House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 9. Sittings of the House - Daily Sitting

Daily Sitting

Each sitting of the House customarily occurs on a separate day. However, in the nineteenth century, the holding of two or more sittings on a single day was used in an effort to expedite the business of the House by creating a mechanism to circumvent the rule prohibiting a bill receiving more than one “reading” on a single day.^{^[33]} Generally, some time prior to the prorogation or dissolution of Parliament, the House would adopt an order specifying that there would be two sittings a day, stating the times of meeting and adjournment.^{^[34]} This practice was abandoned with the extension of sittings, the introduction of extended hours prior to the June adjournment, and time limits for debate on certain items of legislation through time allocation or agreements to suspend the rules. In the twentieth century, the holding of two sittings on one day has occurred for entirely different reasons, such as the end and opening of successive sessions of a Parliament,^{^[35]} and to allow Members to attend special ceremonies.^{^[36]} Since the beginning of the twenty-first century, the House has never held more than one sitting on a single day, although it has extended its sitting hours on many occasions, notably during the last sitting days in June,^[37] for an emergency or a take-note debate,^[38] or to continue consideration of a particular item of business.^[39]

The Standing Orders provide for the House to meet on Monday at 11:00 a.m., Tuesday, Thursday and Friday at 10:00 a.m., and Wednesday at 2:00 p.m.^{^[40]} Once the House meets and begins its proceedings, it generally does not adjourn until the scheduled adjournment time: 6:30 p.m. on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, and 2:30 p.m. on Friday.^{^[41]} At the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been made and seconded. Officially referred to as the Adjournment Proceedings and informally as the “late show”,^{^[42]}this motion is debatable for not more than 30 minutes, after which the Speaker deems the motion to adjourn to have been carried and adjourns the House until the next sitting day.^{^[43]} On Friday, no motion to adjourn the House is proposed; the Speaker adjourns the House without question put.

Altering Days and Hours of Sitting

The House may alter days or times of sittings through special orders. Through the years, special orders have been adopted for many reasons: to eliminate a sitting in order to allow some Members to attend a political convention;^{^[44]} not to sit when ceremonies are taking place to mourn the passing of public figures;^[45] to make a statement of apology to former students of Indian Residential Schools;^[46] to start a sitting earlier on given days in order to consider Government Orders;^{^[47]} for the installation of a new Governor General;^[48] to begin a sitting earlier or later in order for a visiting leader or head of state to address both Houses;^{^[49]} not to sit on days on which the House would otherwise sit;^{^[50]} and to sit on days on which the House would not otherwise sit, including Saturdays and Sundays.^{^[51]}

If the special order adopted to sit on a Saturday or Sunday does not designate the Order of Business, it will be that of a Friday sitting.^{^[52]} At one time, sittings of the House conducted on a Saturday were common towards the end of a session or prior to the summer adjournment when the government wished to expedite the passage of legislation. However, since the adoption of Standing Orders to accommodate extended hours of sitting within the regular House of Commons timetable, the House rarely sits on a Saturday or Sunday.^{^[53]}

Suspending a Sitting

Although the proceedings of the House run continuously from the beginning of a sitting through to its adjournment, the House may agree to a pause, called a “suspension”. Suspensions are common and may be initiated for any number of reasons, as they are a simple method by which the House is able to manage its time as it sees fit. When a sitting is suspended, the Speaker leaves the Chair but the Mace remains on the Table, thus indicating that the House is still constituted. Sittings of the House are routinely suspended with the intention of resuming the proceedings sometime later that day.

There are no Standing Orders which explicitly govern the suspension of a sitting. Provision for a suspended sitting may be contained within the wording of a motion or special order of the House;^{^[54]} or, the House may suspend its proceedings by unanimous consent.^{^[55]}

Sittings are most frequently suspended when the House, having terminated the consideration of an item of business, halts its proceedings to the call of the Chair or to the time when the next order of business is scheduled to begin. This is achieved either through the suggestion of a Member, who asks for the unanimous consent of the House to suspend the sitting;^{^[56]} or, through the action of the Speaker who, seeing that debate on an item has come to a conclusion, suspends the sitting.^{^[57]} In the latter case, it is generally understood that the Speaker is acting with the concurrence of the House.

In recent years, the House has suspended its sittings for a variety of reasons: to await a specified time ordered by the House for a recorded division;^{^[58]} to allow for a Royal Assent ceremony;^{^[59]} to allow the Speaker to deliberate on a ruling;^{^[60]} to await the time ordered for a budget presentation;^{^[61]} because of a fire alarm;^{^[62]} to allow certain Members to be present in the Chamber for debate;^{^[63]} in order to await a message from the Senate regarding an amendment to a bill;^{^[64]} to allow for negotiations between parties on an item of legislation;^{^[65]} to allow a Member to obtain information about the terms of a debate;^[66] to await the starting time for a take-note debate;^[67] to allow copies to be made of motions introduced without notice;^{^[68]} to await an anticipated statement by the Prime Minister;^{^[69]} to allow Members to attend the funeral of a Member^{^[70]} or an interfaith service;^{^[71]} to allow Members to attend the unveiling of a statue on Parliament Hill;^{^[72]} to rectify a technical problem with the simultaneous interpretation in the Chamber;^{^[73]} and due to a Member being taken ill in the Chamber.^{^[74]}

To resume the sitting, the Speaker takes the Chair and has the bells rung briefly. The proceedings of the House recommence without a count of the House, and pursuant to the terms of the special order adopted by the House or according to the agreement or understanding reached by the House prior to the suspension.

Continuing or Extending a Sitting Beyond the Ordinary Hour of Daily Adjournment

Under certain conditions, it is possible for any Member to move a motion, without notice, to continue or extend a sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment time in order to continue the consideration of a specific item of business at one or more stages.^{^[75]} However, to be found in order and in compliance with the Standing Orders, a motion to extend the sitting may “propose the continuation but not the completion” of the debate.^[76]

From the time the fixed adjournment rule came into effect in 1927 until 1965, a multitude of motions were agreed to, many with unanimous consent, to continue or extend sittings through mealtimes or beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. By the early 1960s, however, it had become increasingly difficult to secure agreements to extend a sitting beyond the obligatory adjournment time on any given day.^{^[77]} This kind of inflexibility undoubtedly led to the introduction of a new Standing Order in 1965 which put forward a different sitting extension mechanism.^{^[78]}

Since then, motions to extend a sitting have generally been moved, by Ministers as well as Members, during Government Orders.^[79] A motion to continue or extend a sitting of the House may be proposed, provided it is while the item to be considered is under discussion,^{^[80]} and that the mover presents it at some time during the hour preceding the time at which consideration of the item would customarily be interrupted by Private Members’ Business or the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.^{^[81]} A motion of this nature is neither debatable nor amendable^{^[82]} and may not be moved during Private Members’ Business.^{^[83]} Such a motion can be moved by a Member in the course of debate but not on a point of order,^{^[84]} nor during the period reserved for questions and comments following a Member’s speech,^{^[85]} nor when the House is bound to complete a proceeding by a specific time.^{^[86]} For example, a motion to extend the sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment may not be proposed when votes are scheduled on days allotted for the Business of Supply, during debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne or on the Budget, when time allocation or closure is applied to a bill or motion, or when any special order of the House prescribes a precise time to dispose of a proceeding.

When a motion to continue or extend the sitting is moved, the Speaker puts the question to the House and specifically requests those Members who object to rise. If 15 or more Members do so, the motion is deemed to have been withdrawn; otherwise, the motion is adopted.^{^[87]} Occasionally, the same motion has been moved more than once in the same hour.^{^[88]} If the House is in a Committee of the Whole, it is necessary for the Committee to rise briefly so the motion can properly be moved and disposed of with the Speaker in the Chair.^{^[89]}

When a motion to extend a sitting is adopted on a Tuesday, Wednesday, Thursday or Friday prior to the consideration of Private Members’ Business, the debate on the item is continued after Private Members’ Hour.

When, in accordance with any Standing Order or special order of the House, an item of business is to be continued, disposed of or concluded in any sitting, a motion to adjourn the House before the proceedings on the item are completed may only be proposed by a Minister.^[90] When the business for which the House has extended its proceedings is completed, the Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting day.^[91]

The House may continue to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment prescribed in the Standing Orders for other reasons. For instance, the House can adopt a special order for this purpose.^[92] The House may also sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment to elect a Speaker. The election of a Speaker has precedence over all other matters. No motion for adjournment is accepted until a Speaker is declared elected and installed in the Chair. Once he or she has been elected, after the customary thanks and congratulations have been expressed and after announcing the time and the date for the Speech from the Throne, the Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting.^{^[93]}

A sitting is also automatically extended when a take-note debate is held in Committee of the Whole, in accordance with the Standing Orders.^[94] The debate begins, therefore, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. When no Member seeks the floor or after four hours of debate, whichever comes first, the Committee of the Whole rises and the Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting.^{^[95]}

These are only a few of the circumstances leading the House to sit beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment. There are many others: the consideration of specific Votes in the main estimates in Committee of the Whole,^[96] completion of debate on a closured item,^[97] an emergency debate,^[98] to list a few examples.

Adjournment of a Sitting Before the Ordinary Hour of Daily Adjournment

There are times when the House may wish to set an adjournment time temporarily that is earlier than the time prescribed in the Standing Orders. The House may do this by adopting a special order to this effect.^[99] At other times, when debate on an item of business concludes shortly before the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, the House may adjourn earlier by unanimous consent: Members ask that the Speaker “call it 6:30 p.m.” (or “2:30 p.m.” on Friday). Since this request is usually met, the need for a motion to adjourn is avoided.^{^[100]}

A Member may propose a motion to adjourn the House without notice,^{^[101]} except when specifically prohibited by the Standing Orders.^[102] The motion “That this House do now adjourn” is not debatable or amendable, and its adoption immediately concludes a sitting.

On occasion, the House has decided to adjourn earlier than the time prescribed due to a lack of water representing a health and safety risk within the Parliamentary Precinct;^{^[103]} or following the notification of the death of a Member, a former Member, or a dignitary.^{^[104]}

Extending Sitting Hours in June

Since 1982, and the advent of a fixed House of Commons calendar, the Standing Orders have provided for the extension of sitting hours during the last 10 sitting days in June.^{^[105]} This rule represented a codification of a long‑standing practice whereby, prior to the prorogation of the Parliament or the start of the summer recess, the House would arrange for longer hours of sitting in order to complete or advance its business. These longer hours of sitting were generally provided for by the House sitting on Saturdays;^{^[106]} meeting earlier in the day;^{^[107]} sitting during evenings that the House was not scheduled to sit;^{^[108]} or suspending lunch and dinner breaks.^{^[109]}

In order to extend the hours of sitting in June, a motion, for which no notice is required, must be moved by a Minister during Routine Proceedings on the 10th sitting day preceding June 23.^{^[110]} The motion, which must propose to extend sittings to a specific hour, but not necessarily for every day during that period,^{^[111]} is subject to a maximum two‑hour debate before the question is put by the Speaker.^{^[112]}

Although the Standing Order providing for the extension of the hours of sitting in June has been in effect since 1982, it has not been used at every opportunity. On a number of occasions, special orders have been moved instead and adopted, usually by unanimous consent.^{^[113]}

A Sitting Which Lasts More than One Day

A sitting of the House is not necessarily confined to a single calendar day as one sitting may consume more than one day. Prior to the establishment in 1927 of fixed hours of adjournment for all days of the week,^{^[114]} sittings often extended over more than one day.^{^[115]} Since that time, these types of sittings have occurred infrequently and mainly as the result of events such as the prolonged ringing of the division bells;^{^[116]} the extension of a sitting beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment for the purpose of considering a specified item of business;^{^[117]} the continuation of an emergency or a take-note debate past the hour of adjournment stipulated in the Standing Orders;^{^[118]} the decision to complete all remaining stages of a bill,^{^[119]} or to allow all Members wishing to do so to speak on an item;^{^[120]} and to hold recorded divisions at the report stage of a bill.^[121] At the conclusion of an extended sitting, the House stands adjourned until the regular commencement time of the next sitting, which is either later the same day if that time has not yet been reached,^{^[122]} or the next day if the extended sitting has gone beyond that time.^{^[123]}

^{^[33]} Standing Order 71.

^{^[34]} See, for example, Journals, July 18, 1895, p. 300. On June 21, 1869, the House conducted three separate sittings throughout the course of one day. This is the only known example of this occurrence (Journals, pp. 292‑308).

^{^[35]} See, for example, Journals, October 9, 1951; November 20, 1952; January 8, 1957; May 8, 1967; October 12, 1976.

^{^[36]} See, for example, Journals, March 8, 1955, pp. 245‑7 (unveiling memorial to the late Agnes Macphail, the first female Member elected to the House of Commons); Debates, March 29, 1973, pp. 2726‑7; Journals, March 30, 1973, p. 229 (joint address by the President of Mexico).

[37] See, for example, Journals, June 9, 2005, p. 858; June 13, 2005, pp. 874-5; June 9, 2006, p. 259.

[38] See, for example, Journals, April 28, 2003, pp. 700-1; September 28, 2006, p. 471.

[39] See, for example, Journals, June 5, 2000, p. 1790; October 22, 2003, p. 1149.

^{^[40]} Standing Order 24(1).

^{^[41]} Standing Order 24(2). Until 1906, there was no predetermined adjournment time. That year, the House agreed to adjourn the proceedings of the House at 6:00 p.m. on Wednesday in order to provide for one night in the week when the House would not sit (Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7463‑5). It was not until 1927 that the House adopted a mandatory time of adjournment for all sitting days (Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 318‑9).

^{^[42]} Since the Adjournment Proceedings normally take place at the end of the sitting, they thus became known as the “late show” at the time of late evening sittings.

^{^[43]} Standing Order 38. For further information on the Adjournment Proceedings, see Chapter 11, “Questions”.

^{^[44]} See, for example, Debates, September 29, 2005, p. 8237.

[45] For example, the House decided not to sit when the religious service was being held for His Holiness Pope Jean-Paul II (Debates, April 6, 2005, p. 4753). See also the changes to sitting days following the death of Prime Minister Sir John A. Macdonald (Journals, June 8, 1891, p. 208) and former Governor General Georges-P. Vanier (Journals, March 6, 1967, p. 1489).

[46] Journals, June 10, 2008, p. 944.

^{^[47]} See, for example, Journals, May 30, 1977, p. 874.

[48] See, for example, Journals, September 26, 2005, p. 1015; September 27, 2005, p. 1049.

^{^[49]} See, for example, Journals, February 24, 2004, p. 119; March 9, 2004, p. 151 (sitting delayed for the speech to be given by the Secretary General of the United Nations); May 5, 2006, pp. 134‑5; Debates, May 18, 2006, p. 1549 (sitting moved ahead for the speech by the Prime Minister of Australia).

^{^[50]} See, for example, Journals, June 21, 2006, p. 340; November 9, 2006, p. 673.

^{^[51]} See, for example, Journals, December 19, 1975, p. 970; December 20, 1975, p. 971; March 23, 1995, p. 1265.

^{^[52]} An unusual situation occurred in 1961 when the House, having adopted an opposition amendment to a government motion extending the hours of sitting, agreed to Saturday sittings without providing for their order of business (Journals, April 24, 1961, p. 468). The government attempted to introduce a motion covering the omission but failed to receive the consent of the House to do so (Debates, May 5, 1961, p. 4443). As a result, the Order Paper for Saturday, May 6, included the items available for consideration, ordered as for a Friday sitting. See Speaker Michener’s ruling, Journals, May 6, 1961, pp. 511‑4. On March 23, 1995, the House adopted an order to sit at 9:00 a.m. on Saturday, March 25, 1995, and at 1:00 p.m. on Sunday, March 26, 1995, for the purpose of considering Government Orders and attending a Royal Assent ceremony. On these two days, the House considered Bill C‑77, An Act to provide for the maintenance of railway operations and subsidiary services, at the report and third reading stages. Royal Assent took place on the Sunday (Journals, March 23, 1995, p. 1265; March 25, 1995, pp. 1277‑88; March 26, 1995, pp. 1289‑91).

^{^[53]} The last occasion of a continued period of Saturday sittings was in 1961, prior to the summer adjournment of the House. The House sat on every Saturday in the months of May, June and July, prior to the adjournment of the House for the summer on July 13, 1961, pursuant to a Sessional Order to that effect adopted on April 24, 1961 (Journals, pp. 467‑8). The House has conducted a Sunday sitting only once, on March 26, 1995 (Journals, pp. 1289‑91).

^{^[54]} See, for example, Journals, September 20, 2001, p. 618; April 8, 2002, p. 1264.

^{^[55]} See, for example, Journals, October 8, 2003, p. 1114; March 21, 2005, p. 523.

^{^[56]} As in the case of motions to adjourn earlier than scheduled, suggestions to suspend the sitting are often proposed by House Officers such as the House Leaders, the Whips or their deputies. This is done either after consultation with the other parties, to facilitate negotiations on a matter, or because there has been agreement among the parties over House business. See, for example, Debates, March 20, 2003, pp. 4451, 4453; March 21, 2005, p. 4344.

^{^[57]} This is often true of Private Members’ Business. It has become the practice that when proceedings on an item of Private Members' Business have been completed before the end of the time provided in the rules, as there can be no further business before the House at that moment, the Chair will suspend the sitting until the time to proceed with Government Orders (on a Monday) or Adjournment Proceedings (on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday). Over the years, suspension of House business has been proposed both by Members and the Chair. On many occasions, the Chair has suspended the sitting with the tacit consent of the House. See, for example, Debates, January 31, 2005, pp. 2824‑5; November 28, 2005, p. 10183. It also is frequently proposed by Members and by the Chair that the House, by unanimous consent, proceed immediately without a suspension to the next scheduled order of business. See, for example, Debates, December 13, 2004, p. 2695; May 31, 2005, pp. 6430-1.

^{^[58]} See, for example, Debates, October 1, 2003, p. 8057; October 8, 2003, p. 8342.

^{^[59]} See, for example, Debates, October 10, 1991, p. 3618; October 29, 1991, pp. 4203‑4.

^{^[60]} See, for example, Debates, January 29, 2002, p. 8471; May 27, 2003, p. 6590.

^{^[61]} See, for example, Debates, April 26, 1993, pp. 18464, 18470; March 23, 2004, p. 1615.

^{^[62]} See, for example, Debates, June 4, 2003, p. 6870; October 19, 2006, p. 3973.

^{^[63]} See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1989, p. 6338 (sitting suspended in order to wait for Members who were late because of inclement weather); March 11, 1993, p. 16893; March 27, 2003, p. 4842 (sitting suspended in order to await the arrival of Members for the Adjournment Proceedings); April 3, 2003, p. 5139 (sitting suspended to await the arrival of a Member for Private Members’ Business); June 13, 2003, p. 7282 (sitting suspended to await the arrival of Members for Statements by Members).

^{^[64]} See, for example, Debates, July 24, 1986, pp. 15011‑2, 15061.

^{^[65]} See, for example, Debates, December 11, 1989, p. 6784.

[66] See, for example, Debates, February 23, 2004, p. 905.

[67] See, for example, Debates, October 7, 2004, p. 128.

^{^[68]} See, for example, Debates, June 14, 1990, p. 12788.

^{^[69]} See, for example, Debates, January 17, 1991, pp. 17268‑70.

^{^[70]} See, for example, Debates, November 20, 1989, p. 5853; Journals, November 21, 1989, p. 862.

[71] See, for example, Debates, September 20, 2001, pp. 5329, 5336. The House suspended its sitting to enable Members to attend an interfaith service to commemorate the victims of the September 11, 2001 attacks in the United States. In 2002, the House suspended its work by unanimous consent to allow Members to attend the Commemoration Service for Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth The Queen Mother (Journals, April 8, 2002, p. 1264). However, the House may proceed with its business even though it has been notified of a death.

^{^[72]} See, for example, Debates, September 26, 1990, pp. 13452‑3, 13455.

^{^[73]} See, for example, Debates, November 1, 2007, p. 660.

^{^[74]} Debates, December 9, 1998, p. 11122.

^{^[75]} Standing Order 26(1).

[76] Debates, June 5, 1987, p. 6804; August 23, 1988, p. 18779.

^{^[77]} 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 a Good Friday (Journals, March 27, 1964, p. 137).

^{^[78]} Standing Order 6(2) (Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 224).

[79] See, for example, Journals, November 3, 2004, p. 191; February 16, 2007, p. 1021.

^{^[80]} 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 (Journals, p. 190).

^{^[81]} Standing Order 26(1)(a) and (b). See the ruling of Acting Speaker Milliken (Debates, November 27, 1996, pp. 6813‑4).

^{^[82]} Standing Order 26(1)(c). On one occasion, a motion was amended by unanimous consent to provide for a dinner hour (Debates, August 31, 1966, pp. 7862‑3).

^{^[83]} On June 3, 1987, the House amended its Standing Orders to prohibit the moving of such motions during Private Members’ Business (Journals, pp. 1016‑28, in particular p. 1017). See the ruling of the Chair on December 14, 1990 (Debates, pp. 16797‑9). From 1965 to 1985, six motions to extend the sitting on Private Members’ Business were moved and two were adopted (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).

^{^[84]} See, for example, Debates, May 20, 1992, p. 10968; June 8, 1992, pp. 11596‑7; March 9, 1993, p. 16747; October 30, 2002, pp. 1106-7.

^{^[85]} See, for example, Debates, February 17, 1987, p. 3541; March 26, 1991, pp. 19010‑1; October 30, 2002, pp. 1106-7.

[86] See, for example, Debates, November 28, 1996, p. 6876.

^{^[87]} Standing Order 26(2). See, for example, Journals, February 16, 2007, p. 1021 (motion adopted); November 3, 2004, p. 191 (motion deemed withdrawn).

^{^[88]} See, for example, Debates, November 3, 2004, pp. 1178, 1183.

^{^[89]} Standing Order 26(1)(a). See, for example, Debates, March 13, 1969, p. 6606; November 17, 1970, p. 1270. For further information about Committees of the Whole, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.

[90] 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.

[91] Standing Order 24(2). See, for example, Journals, April 6, 2006, pp. 28, 30; May 3, 2006, pp. 122-3, 127.

[92] See, for example, Journals, May 16, 2006, pp. 177-8; December 5, 2006, pp. 865-6; December 11, 2007, pp. 295-6.

[93] Standing Order 2. The election of John Fraser as Speaker in September 1986 serves as an excellent example of the operation of this Standing Order. The House met at 3:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 30, and proceeded with the election process. After 11 ballots, John Fraser was elected Speaker and, after taking the Chair, adjourned the House at 2:30 a.m. on the morning of October 1 (Journals, September 30, 1986, pp. 1-9). For further information on the election of the Speaker, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.

[94] Standing Order 53.1.

[95] Unless the special order governing the take-note debate provides for a specific mechanism for adjournment. See, for example, Journals, April 6, 2006, p. 28; April 7, 2006, p. 32; May 1, 2006, p. 113. For further information on take-note debates, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.

[96] Standing Order 81(4)(a).

[97] Standing Order 57.

[98] Standing Order 52(10) and (12).

[99] See, for example, Journals, May 5, 2006, pp. 134-5; June 21, 2006, p. 340; June 22, 2006, p. 352.

[100] 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, May 6, 2005, p. 5778; May 19, 2006, p. 1617. 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 p.m. or 2:30 p.m. See, for example, Debates, December 10, 2002, p. 2548.

[101] See, for example, Journals, May 11, 2005, pp. 740-2; May 12, 2005, pp. 745-6; May 13, 2005, pp. 751-2.

[102] 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”, and Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.

[103] Debates, May 5, 2008, p. 5457.

[104] For example, the House adjourned when it was notified of the death of former Prime Minister Pierre Elliott Trudeau (Debates, September 28, 2000, pp. 8838-9). The House adjourned again the following day, but this time for several days (Journals, September 29, 2000, p. 2013).

^{^[105]} Standing Order 27.

^{^[106]} See, for example, Journals, April 24, 1961, pp. 467‑8, when the last sessional order providing for a Saturday sitting was adopted by the House.

^{^[107]} In the nineteenth century, the House 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.

^{^[108]} See, for example, Journals, July 20, 1956, p. 911.

^{^[109]} See, for example, Journals, June 27, 1950, p. 600.

^{^[110]} Until 1991, the Standing Order 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 (Journals, p. 2894, Debates, pp. 16498‑501). The Standing Order was amended on April 11, 1991, limiting the moving of the motion to Ministers (Journals, p. 2906).

^{^[111]} Since 1982, Standing Order 27 has been used successfully 10 times. In 1995 and 1998, motions to extend the hours of sitting extended the hours for the 10 days provided in the Standing Order (Journals, June 9, 1995, p. 1604; June 9, 1998, p. 954). It happens quite regularly that the motion does not apply to all 10 days. For instance, in 1983, the motion to extend the hours of sitting omitted the Friday and the days set aside for Private Members’ Business (Journals, June 15, 1983, p. 6036). In June 2007, the motion passed did not refer to Monday, June 11, Tuesday, June 12 or Friday, June 22, 2007 (Journals, June 11, 2007, p. 1503). On these omitted days, regular hours of sitting remained in effect. On one occasion, a Minister saw the motion he had moved pursuant to Standing Order 27 defeated in the House (Journals, June 9, 2008, pp. 936-7).

^{^[112]} Standing Order 27. For an example where the motion was debated, see Journals, June 11, 2007, p. 1503.

^{^[113]} When sitting hours have been extended in June by special order, it has generally been before the date on which, had Standing Order 27 been invoked, such motions could have been moved. See, for example, 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 (Journals, pp. 2925‑7).

^{^[114]} Debates, March 22, 1927, pp. 318‑9.

^{^[115]} There are numerous examples of single sittings consuming many days at a time. See 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. 213‑4.

^{^[116]} A notable example occurred in 1982, when division bells were rung continuously for several days resulting in a two‑week sitting (Journals, March 2‑17, 1982, p. 4608). See also Journals, March 19, 1984, pp. 260‑3; March 28, 1984, pp. 314‑6.

^{^[117]} Standing Order 26. 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.

^{^[118]} Standing Orders 52 and 53.1. See, for example, Journals, September 18, 2000, pp. 1910, 1926; April 9, 2002, pp. 1274-5 (emergency debates); October 7, 2004, p. 33; October 12, 2004, p. 83 (take-note debates). For further information on emergency and take-note debates, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.

^{^[119]} See, for example, Journals, March 23, 1999, pp. 1650‑3, 1656‑7.

^{^[120]} See, for example, Journals, October 7, 2004, p. 33; May 16, 2006, pp. 177-8.

[121] Journals, December 7, 1999, pp. 337, 345, 765-7; March 13, 2000, pp. 1071, 1133, 1394. In 1999 and 2000, more than 400 motions were filed for the report stages of Bill C-9, the Nisga'a Final Agreement Act, and Bill C-20, An Act to give effect to the requirement for clarity as set out in the opinion of the Supreme Court of Canada in the Quebec Secession Reference. The divisions on these report stages lasted two days. Since the adoption, in February 2001, of the motion amending Standing Orders 76 and 76.1 to limit the type of amendments admissible at report stage, there has been a marked decrease in the number of motions presented at report stage (Journals, February 27, 2001, pp. 140-3). For further information about amendments at report stage, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.

[122] See, for example Journals, June 22, 2005, p. 971; June 21, 2006, p. 342.

^{^[123]} See, for example, Journals, April 28‑29, 1987, pp. 796‑7; December 7, 1999, p. 767.