House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit

2000 Edition — More information …

7. The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[51]: See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1998, pp. 10914-5, 10922.
[52]: See, for example, Debates, November 18, 1987, pp. 10927-8.
[53]: Standing Order 11(1).
[54]: Standing Order 11(1)(a). For further information on naming, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[55]: Standing Order 11(2). See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1962, pp. 1888-90.
[56]: For further information on naming in a Committee of the Whole, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[57]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 44. For instances of Members being named by the Deputy Speaker, see Debates, February 23, 1981, pp. 7586-8; May 20, 1983, pp. 25628-31. For examples of Members being named by the Acting Speaker, see Debates, March 24, 1983, pp. 24109-10; May 25, 1984, pp. 4078-9.
[58]: Standing Order 14.
[59]: See, for example, Debates, May 11, 1970, p. 6796. On this occasion, the Speaker ordered the galleries cleared and then obtained the agreement of the House to suspend the sitting, which resumed 34 minutes later. On another occasion, by order of the Speaker, the galleries were entirely cleared and reopened to the public within 10 minutes (Debates, November 28, 1989, pp. 6339, 6342-3). In other cases when a disturbance arises, the security staff on duty in the galleries proceed to remove the individual responsible and there is little or no disruption of the sitting (see, for example, Debates, May 7, 1974, p. 2114; April 14, 1986, p. 12188; November 26, 1992, p. 14108).
[60]: See, for example, Debates, May 10, 1899, col. 2897; September 12, 1983, p. 26987; November 17, 1992, p. 13501.
[61]: See the section on secret sittings of the House in Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[62]: Standing Order 14. In 1990, Nelson Riis (Kamloops) attempted to move the motion but was ruled out of order on the grounds that the motion cannot be moved by a Member who has been given the floor on a point of order (Debates, April 4, 1990, pp. 10186-7). For further information on this rule, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[63]: Traditionally, and in accordance with Standing Orders 157(2) and 158, the Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for preserving order and decorum in the galleries and other parts of the House and for removing strangers who “misconduct” themselves. For further information on the role of the Sergeant-at-Arms, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[64]: Standing Order 10.
[65]: See 1867 rule 8, and 1962 rule 12(1).
[66]: See, for example, Debates, May 20, 1868, p. 750; Journals, March 24, 1873, pp. 58-9. Although Members were sometimes openly critical of a ruling, few formal challenges were made (see the comments of Sir John A. Macdonald, Debates, March 5, 1877, p. 485).
[67]: Between 1907 and 1917, for example, six appeals took place (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).
[68]: See entries in the Journals indexes under the heading “Speaker’s Rulings and Statements”.
[69]: For text of the rulings and votes on the appeals, see Journals for 1956 as follows: March 21, pp. 323-8; May 10, pp. 517-23; May 14, pp. 536-43; May 15, pp. 554-7; May 17, pp. 568-70; May 23, pp. 602-4, 604-9; May 25, pp. 628-32; May 31, pp. 662-9; June 1, pp. 675-7; June 5, pp. 705-10.
[70]: See Journals indexes for this period.
[71]: Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 224.
[72]: Debates, June 8, 1965, p. 2140.
[73]: Journals, March 24, 1873, pp. 58-9.
[74]: Journals, June 25, 1926, p. 477; January 31, 1963, pp. 462-3 (two rulings); October 28, 1963, p. 493.
[75]: Journals, December 4, 1963, pp. 621-2.
[76]: In June 1956, during the “Pipeline Debate”, Speaker Beaudoin ruled to revert the House to a position it had been in 24 hours earlier. On June 4, the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of censure against the Speaker for his actions and rulings of June 1. The motion was defeated on June 8, 1956. See Debates, June 1, 1956, pp. 4537-40; Journals, June 4, 1956, pp. 692-3; June 8, 1956, pp. 725-6.
[77]: On March 13, 1964, the Prime Minister moved, without notice, a motion calling for Canadian peacekeeping forces to be sent to Cyprus. Even though the motion appeared to have the generalsupport of the House, some opposition Members objected to the fact that no notice of motion had been given. Stating that the Prime Minister had in fact obtained the proper “permission”, Deputy Speaker Lamoureux dismissed the objections and directed the House to consider the motion in question. On March 18, 1964, a Member introduced a motion of non-confidence in the Deputy Speaker, alleging that he had violated the Standing Orders and deprived certain Members of their rights and privileges. The motion was put to a vote on March 19, 1964, and was rejected (Debates, March 13, 1964, pp. 910-26; Journals, March 18, 1964, pp. 103-4; March 19, 1964, pp. 106-7).; On May 4, 1992, a Member tabled a motion of non-confidence (under the heading “Motions” and printed in the Order Paper and Notice Paper of May 4, 1992) in the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and Acting Speaker (Steve Paproski) for not allowing, on April 30, 1992, full time for debate on a bill. The debate gave rise to a question of privilege on May 1, 1992. The Speaker found that there was “no prima facie case of privilege in this matter” (Debates, April 30, 1992, p. 9945; May 1, 1992, pp. 9963-72, 9990-1). On February 12, 1993, at the request of the Member who had sponsored it, the motion of non-confidence was withdrawn (Debates, February 12, 1993, p. 15851).
[78]: Journals, April 25, 1894, pp. 108-9.
[79]: Journals, December 22, 1976, p. 270.
[80]: Debates, January 21, 1981, p. 6410; January 22, 1981, pp. 6455-7.
[81]: See Debates, March 16, 1993, p. 17027; March 23, 1993, pp. 17403-5; and March 25, 1993, p. 17537.
[82]: Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 5, 1996, p. 15; Journals, October 23, 1996, p. 768.
[83]: Debates, March 9, 1998, pp. 4560-75; March 10, 1998, pp. 4592-8, 4666-8. See also the Twenty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on April 27, 1998 (Journals, p. 706), and adopted by the House on May 5, 1998 (Journals, pp. 744-5).
[84]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49; Standing Order 9.
[85]: See Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[86]: Speaker Anglin (1874-78), for example, was an active participant during proceedings in a Committee of the Whole. See, for example, Debates, April 26, 1878, p. 2216; May 3, 1878, pp. 2402-3.
[87]: Debates, April 7, 1927, pp. 2034-8.
[88]: The last to do so was Speaker Macnaughton on November 27, 1964 (Debates, pp. 10623-9).
[89]: See, for example, the appearances of Speaker Parent before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in connection with the Estimates of the House of Commons, on April 12, 1994; April 4, 1995; May 30, 1996; April 8, 1997; April 30, 1998.
[90]: For example, Speaker Bosley (1984-86) appeared before the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons on January 22, 1985; Speaker Fraser (1986-94) appeared before the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business on November 29, 1989, before the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act on September 25, 1990, and before the Standing Committee on Environment on November 5, 1991. The latter appearance was in connection with “Greening the Hill”, the program of environmental conservation launched by the Speaker. In 1977-78, Speaker Jerome (1974-80) chaired the Special Committee on TV and Radio Broadcasting of Proceedings of the House and Its Committees.
[91]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49; Standing Order 9.
[92]: An equality of voices is a rarity, having occurred on just five occasions in the House: May 6, 1870 (Journals, p. 311; Debates, cols. 1401-2); February 28, 1889 (Journals, pp. 113-4; Debates, p. 368); March 31, 1925 (Journals, pp. 180-2; Debates, pp. 1714-5); March 11, 1930 (Debates, pp. 502-3, 527); December 4, 1963 (Journals, pp. 621-2; Debates, pp. 5405-6); and on four occasions in a Committee of the Whole: Debates, June 20, 1904, col. 5164; April 15, 1920, p. 1265; June 23, 1922, p. 3473; March 26, 1928, p. 1681.
[93]: For an elaboration of these conventions in the British context, see May, 22^nd ed., pp. 357-61.
[94]: Journals of the Legislative Assembly, August 19, 1863, p. 33. See also Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 384.
[95]: If adopted, the hoist amendment has for effect the rejection of the bill. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[96]: Debates, May 6, 1870, col. 1401; in this case, no reasons were entered in the Journals.
[97]: Debates, February 28, 1899, p. 368.
[98]: Debates, March 11, 1930, pp. 502-3; March 12, 1930, p. 527. The casting vote was not noted in the Journals (see Journals, March 11, 1930, pp. 83-4). The disposition of the motion was not changed as it had in fact been defeated by one vote before the Speaker cast his vote with the “nays”. In New Zealand, the converse has occurred; a question thought to have been carried by one vote was discovered to have been a tie; the Speaker gave a casting vote at that time and declared the motion defeated (McGee, 2^nd ed., pp. 71, 180-2).
[99]: Journals, December 4, 1963, pp. 621-2.
[100]: A quorum of 20 Members, including the Speaker, is required for the House to conduct business (Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 48; Standing Order 29(1)). For further information on quorum, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.