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

[251]: Journals, January 12, 1916, pp. 1-2, 4. The notification of vacancy was dated December 3, 1915, the date of his appointment to the Senate (Journals of the Senate, January 12, 1916, pp. 1-2).
[252]: Journals, January 18, 1917, pp. 2, 6. The notification of vacancy was dated January 8, 1917. Mr. Sévigny was re-elected in a by-election and took his seat in the House as a Cabinet Minister on April 19, 1917 (Journals, p. 90).
[253]: A notification of vacancy was submitted, dated June 5, 1877. Speaker Anglin was known to have had business dealings with the government of the day, and this became the subject of study by a privilege committee. On April 28, 1877, the last day of the session, the committee presented a report stating that, in its view, the Speaker was in violation of the Independence of Parliament Act and thus his election was void. (The Actprovidedthat individuals could not be Members of the House of Commons if they held offices of emolument under the Government of Canada, or were contractors with the Government of Canada (31 Vict., c. 25, amended in 1871 by 34 Vict, c. 19). For background, see Bourinot, 4^th ed., pp. 140-8.) The report was not considered by the House (Journals, April 28, 1877, p. 357; for the text of the report, see item No. 8 in the Appendix to the Journals for the Fourth Session of the Third Parliament).
[254]: Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 2, 5.
[255]: This occurred over the objections of the opposition, who forced a recorded vote on the question (see Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 9-10).
[256]: On two occasions in the seventeenth century, the British House pronounced itself on the question of the continuance of its Speaker in the Chair. In 1673, a motion for the removal of Speaker Seymour was defeated (Hatsell, Vol. II, pp. 214-5). In 1694, a parliamentary committee found that Speaker Trevor had accepted a bribe, and he resigned after the House resolved that he was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor (Laundy, pp. 39-40).
[257]: Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, April 30, 1875, p. 109. There was a preamble to the motion which stated, first, that past Speakers had been selected on the basis of their parliamentary experience; second, that the incumbent had no parliamentary experience or previous training indicating fitness for the “onerous and sometimes technical” duties of Speaker; and third, that the “present state of things is not calculated to elevate the dignity and preserve the decorum of this Legislature”. See also the account in Bourinot, 4^th ed., p. 177.
[258]: Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, April 30, 1875, pp. 109-10; May 1, 1875, p. 110.
[259]: Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, May 1, 1875, pp. 110-1.
[260]: Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, May 3, 1875, pp. 111-2.
[261]: In May and June of that year, the government (having concluded an agreement to provide assistance on or before June 7 for the building of a pipeline) was seeking to obtain passage of Bill No. 298, An Act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. The opposition did not favour the bill and, for the first time in 24 years, closure was invoked; moreover, it was applied to each stage in the passage of the bill. Debate was acrimonious and punctuated by procedural argument (for background and details, see J. Gordon Dubroy, “Canada: House of Commons: Relations between Chair and Opposition in 1956,” The Table, Vol. XXV for 1956, pp. 39-53).
[262]: Of the 25 appeals, 11 were from rulings of the Speaker and the remainder were from rulings of the Chair in a Committee of the Whole. Appeals from rulings of the Speaker were abolished in 1965.
[263]: On June 1, 1956, which later became known as “Black Friday”, the Speaker ruled to revert the House to its position of the day before (with respect to its deliberations on the pipeline bill); the ruling was sustained on appeal (Journals, June 1, 1956, pp. 678-80). On Monday, June 4, the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of censure against the Speaker (Journals, pp. 692-3). The motion was defeated on June 8 (Journals, pp. 725-6). See also Debates, June 4, 1956, pp. 4643-60; June 6, 1956, pp. 4783-6; June 7, 1956, pp. 4794-831; June 8, 1956, pp. 4845-70.
[264]: On June 29, 1956, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege to allege that the Speaker had improperly impugned the motives of certain Members; the allegation was based on extracts of private correspondence of the Speaker, which were published in a newspaper (Debates, pp. 5509-15).
[265]: Journals, July 2, 1956, p. 838. For the full text of the Speaker’s remarks, see pp. 835-8.
[266]: For examples of motions of censure brought against Speakers of the Senate and other legislatures in Canada, see: in the Senate, against Speaker Charbonneau (Journals of the Senate, December 30, 1990, p. 1997); in British Columia, against Speaker Smith (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, July 21, 1977, pp. 213-4; July 22, 1977, p. 214); in Manitoba, against Speaker Walding (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, December 13, 1982, pp. 27-8) and six against Speaker Dacquay (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, November 2, 1995, pp. 379-80; June 3, 1996, p. 339; November 21, 1996, pp. 874-7; March 3, 1997, pp. 16-7; December 1, 1997, pp. 19-20; December 3, 1997, p. 33); in Nova Scotia, against Speaker MacLean (Nova Scotia Assembly Debates, March 14, 1975, p. 1270; March 18, 1975, pp. 1350-6), and against Speaker Donahoe (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia, March 9, 1981, pp. 77-80); in Ontario, against Speaker Turner (November 16, 1981, Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, pp. 187-8; Debates of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, pp. 3531-46); in Quebec, two against Speaker Lavoie (Debates, March 20, 1974, pp. 69-84; December 21, 1974, pp. 3935-73), and one against Speaker Bertrand (Debates of the National Assembly of Quebec, February 3, 1995, pp. 1353-73; March 14, 1995, pp. 1381-5); in Saskatchewan, against Speaker Agar (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, March 15, 1944, pp. 125-7), against Speaker Brockelbank (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, April 29, 1980, p. 421), and against Speaker Rolfes (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, July 21, 1992, p. 160); and in the Yukon Territory, against Speaker Bruce (April 1, 1998, Votes and Proceedings of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, pp. 215-6; Debates of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, pp. 2657-60).
[267]: Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 46.
[268]: 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, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada was not able to meet over a period of days because the Speaker was ill and unable to attend (Journals, March 22, 1858, p. 161); in another case, after Confederation, the House began its sitting late because the Speaker missed his train and was not present at the hour of meeting (Debates, April 19, 1870, p. 1065).
[269]: An Act respecting the Office of Speaker of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, S.C. 1867, c. 2. These provisions are now found in the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 42. The Speaker used this new power for the first time on March 30, 1868 (see Journals, p. 167). Substitutions of this nature were not recorded in the Journals after 1870, although they continued to take place.
[270]: See 1867 Rule 76.
[271]: See, for example, Journals, May 14, 1868, pp. 353-64.
[272]: Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 67-8. In the British Parliament, the office of Deputy Speaker came into existence in 1855 (see May, 22^nd ed., pp. 194-5).
[273]: The Opposition objected, claiming there were no provisions for such a position in the Constitution and alleging it was intended to create a salaried office for political patronage; the question of language requirements was also raised (Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 68-70).
[274]: Journals, February 10, 1885, pp. 53-5; see also Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 67-72. An amendment, later to become a Standing Order (the current Standing Order 7(2)), concerned the language requirement for the position. Malachy B. Daly, selected Chairman of Committees of the Whole on February 10, 1885, became the first incumbent of the newly created office (Journals, p. 55).
[275]: The Opposition had argued that the office of Speaker was governed by legislation (the Constitution) and that, while Parliament might alter its provisions, this had to be done by way of legislation rather than a resolution of the House. The Prime Minister accepted this argument and the bill, An Act to provide for the Appointment of a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, S.C. 1885, c. 1, received Royal Assent on May 1, 1885. (See Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 73-4.) Malachy B. Daly took the Chair as Deputy Speaker for the first time on May 2, 1885 (Journals, p. 357). See also Appendix 3, “Deputy Speakers and Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1885”.
[276]: The practice was at first controversial (see, for example, Debates, April 26, 1888, pp. 1005-6, and April 8, 1896, cols. 5732-7, when objections were raised about a Member taking the Chair in the absence of the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole; Debates, June 6, 1899, cols. 4445-57, and June 7, 1899, cols. 4553-4, when, in reporting from a Committee of the Whole, the Chairman replaced the absent Speaker and named another Member to make the report; and Debates, July 15, 1903, cols. 6630-8, when the Member acting as Chairman of the Committee took the Chair to receive its report and later went on to adjourn the House); however, no such objections appear to have been raised after 1903, and it seems the practice was accepted.
[277]: Journals, February 11, 1938, p. 60.
[278]: The Opposition Leader expressed doubts that the statute allowed for this particular delegated power, but did not object further when the Minister of Justice responded that it was a satisfactory way of providing for the case at hand (Debates, February 11, 1938, pp. 370-1).
[279]: Debates, February 11, 1938, pp. 370-1.
[280]: Debates, March 28, 1947, pp. 1826-7.
[281]: See Appendix 4, “Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1938”.
[282]: Debates, December 16, 1953, p. 963.
[283]: The special committee’s mandate included reporting to the House on possible rule changes which it might “deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the House”. The committee’s first report, presented on March 20, 1967 (Journals, p. 1549), and adopted without debate on April 26, 1967 (Journals, p. 1769; Debates, p. 15489), stated that the appointment of an Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole would be “desirable”, and went on to recommend the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders.
[284]: See Appendix 5, “Assistant Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1967”.
[285]: See 1906 Rule 13(4).
[286]: Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 324-5.
[287]: In 1887, for example, the Deputy Speaker was not selected until almost a month after the Address had been agreed to (Journals, May 11, 1887, pp. 370-1); in 1891, the Address was agreed to on May 4 (Journals, p. 17), and the Deputy Speaker was chosen on May 22 (Journals, p. 159). In 1949 and 1953, the House agreed to waive the rule and the Deputy Speaker was selected before the Address was agreed to (Journals, September 15, 1949, p. 17; November 12, 1953, p. 16).
[288]: Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1.
[289]: Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 572. Until then, the duties of the office holder had been described in the Standing Order as “in accordance with the usages which regulate the duties of a similar officer, generally designated the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
[290]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 44(2). See also Debates, June 4, 1985, p. 5387.
[291]: Typically, the House is informed of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker by the Clerk of the House before prayers are read; but exceptions have taken place. For example, on one occasion after the sitting was underway, the announcement was made by the Assistant Deputy Chairman (Journals, March 3, 1995, p. 1999; Debates, March 3, 1995, p. 10313).
[292]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 43.
[293]: For example, in 1885, the Speaker was replaced over three sittings due to illness in the family (Journals, May 2, 4 and 5, pp. 357-9); in 1899, Speaker Edgar fell ill and was replaced at the start of 16 sittings (Journals Index for 1899 under “Deputy Speaker”). In two more recent cases (Speaker Sauvé in 1983 and Speaker Fraser in 1993), the Speaker was absent from the House for a period of time due to illness and was replaced over several consecutive sittings.
[294]: In 1983, for example, the Deputy Chairman and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, acting as Speaker, each opened sittings of the House (Journals, June 28, 1983, p. 6098 (Assistant Deputy Chairman); December 20, 1983, p. 60 (Deputy Chairman)). When the Speaker became ill that year, the Deputy Speaker and Assistant Deputy Chairman alternated days on which they took responsibility for opening the sitting. For more recent examples, see Journals, October 24, 1997, p. 145 (Assistant Deputy Chairman); October 26, 1998, p. 1183 (Deputy Chairman).
[295]: Standing Order 8.
[296]: Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 42.
[297]: Standing Order 7(1). See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[298]: Standing Order 7(4).
[299]: See, for example, Debates, March 11, 1971, pp. 4177-8, when the Deputy Speaker appointed another Member (Mr. Richard) to act as Chairman of a Committee of the Whole.
[300]: Formerly, the Parliament of Canada Act explicitly included the Deputy Speaker in the membership of the Board of Internal Economy (R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 50(2)). When the Act was amended in 1997 (S.C. 1997, c. 32) to give additional representation on the Board to opposition parties, the Deputy Speaker was removed; but the government then appointed the Deputy Speaker as one of its representatives on the Board (Journals, December 11, 1997, p. 391).