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

2000 Edition — More information …

12. The Process of Debate

Print this section | Open/print full chapter

[251]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, March 20, 1990, pp. 9512-3.
[252]: The rules pertaining to the length of time the division bells are rung arose from the bell-ringing episode of March 1982. At that time, the Standing Orders provided no time limit for bells rung for unscheduled votes. A recorded vote was demanded on a motion to adjourn. The Opposition Whip refused to accompany the Government Whip into the Chamber to indicate to the Speaker their readiness to proceed with the vote; the government and opposition parties were involved in a dispute over a controversial bill and each side demanded concessions before allowing the vote to take place. Consequently, the division bells rang continuously for over 14 days (Debates, March 2, 1982, pp. 15539-41; March 18, 1982, pp. 15555-7). As a result of this episode, the Standing Orders were amended.
[253]: Standing Order 45(3).
[254]: Standing Order 45(4) and (5)(a)(i).
[255]: Standing Order 45(8).
[256]: See, for example, Debates, January 22, 1991, p. 17567.
[257]: See, for example, Debates, December 11, 1991, pp. 6164-6; March 13, 1997, pp. 8995-6. On October 30, 1991, one Member rose to object and physically attempted to prevent the Mace from leaving the Chamber at the end of the sitting (Debates, pp. 4269-70).
[258]: Debates, March 20, 1990, pp. 9512-3; see Standing Order 45.
[259]: Debates, September 15, 1987, pp. 8958-9. In his ruling, the Speaker referred to a similar incident which had occurred on November 2, 1982 (see Debates, pp. 20332-3).
[260]: Although this was not recorded in the Debates, votes were taken in the absence of one of the Whips on June 1, 1956; February 3, 1987; October 8, 1997; March 1, 1999.
[261]: See Speaker Fraser’s ruling,Debates, April 15, 1987, pp. 5187-8.
[262]: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii). However, if the vote concerns a motion to concur in a report to revoke a regulation or statutory instrument, it is automatically deferred to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment the same day (Standing Order 126(1)(c) and (2)). See Chapter 17, “Delegated Legislation”.
[263]: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) and (6)(a).
[264]: On Thursday, June 15, 1995, the Government Whip requested a deferral to later that day and the Opposition Whip requested a deferral to 5:30 p.m. the following day. The Speaker asked that the parties consult; but when no agreement was reached, the Speaker declared that the vote would be deferred to the following Monday (Debates, June 15, 1995, pp. 13905-6, 13908, 13927). In 1996, faced with similar conflicting requests, the Speaker deferred the vote to the following day (Debates, September 24, 1996, p. 4639).
[265]: Standing Order 45(7).
[266]: Standing Order 45(6)(a). See Speaker’s ruling, Debates, October 23, 1995, p. 15706.
[267]: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(iii). See, for example, Debates, March 10, 1997, p. 8868.
[268]: Standing Order 45(5)(b) and (6)(a).
[269]: Standing Order 45(7).
[270]: See, for example, Journals, May 8, 1992, p. 1424; November 20, 1992, p. 2096.
[271]: Journals, December 6, 1995, pp. 2215-6; December 8, 1995, p. 2224.
[272]: Standing Orders 76(8) and 76.1(8).
[273]: Standing Order 45(6)(b).
[274]: Standing Order 45(7).
[275]: Standing Order 45(5)(c).
[276]: Standing Order 45(7).
[277]: Standing Order 45(5)(c).
[278]: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii), (6)(a) and (7).
[279]: See, for example, Debates, April 21, 1998, p. 5931, when the House agreed to a sequence in which to take five deferred recorded divisions.
[280]: In the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), there were 1294 recorded votes; 73 percent of these recorded votes were deferred, and over 63 percent of all recorded votes were held on Tuesday or Wednesday.
[281]: This is sometimes referred to as a “whipped” vote, meaning that the party Whips marshal their Members to vote as a bloc, in accordance with party policy. In British practice, Whips inform their Members about forthcoming House business, indicating when their attendance is requested (a one-line whip), when it is expected as there is to be a vote (a two-line whip), and when their attendance is required on vital business (a three-line whip); see Griffith and Ryle, p. 113; Wilding and Laundy, pp. 785-6. This terminology is not used in Canadian practice.
[282]: The Speaker has explained the process of conducting a row-by-row vote; see, for example, Debates, November 23, 1967, p. 4605; June 22, 1976, pp. 14740-1; June 29, 1987, pp. 7817-8.
[283]: See the Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on November 26, 1997, and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, November 4, 1998, p. 1238). Prior to the adoption of this report, votes were taken in the same manner but starting with the front row. See the Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented on February 14, 1992, and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, February 14, 1992, p. 1025; April 29, 1992, p. 1337; see also Standing Committee on House Management,Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 14, 1992, Issue No. 24, p. 17). Prior to 1992, votes were taken along party lines unless a Member sought and received unanimous consent to have the vote taken row-by-row.
[284]: For further analysis of free votes in the House of Commons, see “A Larger Role for the House of Commons, Part 2 – Voting” by Peter Dobell and John Reid in Parliamentary Government, Issue No. 40, April 1992, pp. 11-6; and “Free Votes in the House of Commons: A Problematic Reform” by C.E.S. Franks in Policy Options, November 1997, Vol. 18, pp. 33-6.
[285]: For further information on the confidence convention, see “Origins of the Confidence Convention” by Gary O’Brien in Canadian Parliamentary Review, Autumn 1984, pp. 11-4; “Government Defeats in the House of Commons: The British Experience” by Philip Norton in Canadian Parliamentary Review, Winter 1985-1986, pp. 6-9. See also Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”, and Chapter 2, “Parliaments and Ministries”.
[286]: There have also been instances where the government freed its backbenchers but demanded Cabinet solidarity. Cabinet solidarity was demanded during debate and voting on Bill C-43, An Act respecting abortion, during the Second Session of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament. See Debates, November 28, 1989, pp. 6343-4.
[287]: The issue was whether or not to continue providing milk subsidies instituted during the war years; see Debates, August 27, 1946, p. 5431.
[288]: See Debates, August 21, 1964, pp. 7109-13.
[289]: See Debates, March 23, 1966, pp. 3067-9 (sponsored by four private Members representing three parties); November 9, 1967, p. 4077; January 26, 1973, pp. 687-8; February 19, 1976, pp. 11120-1; April 27, 1987, p. 5212.
[290]: See Debates, February 25, 1969, pp. 5912, 5919; July 26, 1988, p. 17966; November 7, 1989, pp. 5639, 5650.
[291]: See references in Debates, May 9, 1996, p. 2565.
[292]: See Debates, May 31, 1996, pp. 3246, 3268; Journals, November 18, 1997, pp. 229-30.
[293]: For further information on quorum, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[294]: For examples where recorded votes did not total 20 Members and no objection was taken in the House, see Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2893, and May 26, 1989, p. 274. See also Speaker Sauvé’s ruling of July 12, 1982, where it was stated that since no one, according to the record of the proceedings, had asked for a quorum call, “a quorum did exist” (Debates, July 9, 1982, p. 19201; July 12, 1982, pp. 19214-5).
[295]: See, for example, Standing Orders 45, 76(8) and 76.1(8).
[296]: For reference to the old practice, see Dawson, p. 184.
[297]: See, for example, Debates, March 24, 1994, p. 2772. In 1984, unanimous consent was refused for applying votes on a contentious piece of legislation and the division process subsequently took more than eight hours (Debates, June 20, 1984, pp. 4918-83).
[298]: For example, during the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), 1294 questions were decided by recorded division; 70 percent of these were applied votes.
[299]: See, for example, Debates, December 15, 1994, pp. 9106-11.
[300]: Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 110-1. Pairing is said to have originated in Britain during the time of Cromwell (Wilding and Laundy, p. 515).