No other office or position is more closely
linked to the history of the House of Commons than that of the Speaker. The
office dates back at least 600 years, almost to the very beginnings of
Parliament itself.
The first Speaker to be so designated was
Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1377.[1] His predecessor, Sir Peter de la Mare, was elected in 1376 and was the first Commons spokesperson known to have been selected by the House
membership.[2] Originally, the Speaker’s principal function was to act as the
spokesperson of the House in its dealings with the House of Lords and the
Crown.[3] In an era in which the influence and power of the King was great
and that of the House still tentative and subordinate, the Speaker was as much
an agent of royal interests (seen as “the King’s man”) as a servant of the
House.[4] The Crown’s influence over the Speaker came to an end in 1642, when
King Charles I, accompanied by an armed escort, crossed the Bar of the House,
sat in the Speaker’s chair and demanded the surrender of five parliamentary
leaders on a charge of treason. Falling to his knees, Speaker
William Lenthall replied with these now famous words which have since
defined the Speaker’s role in relation to the House and the Crown:
May it please Your Majesty, I have neither
eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to
direct me, whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg Your Majesty’s pardon that
I cannot give any other answer than this to what Your Majesty is pleased to
demand of me.[5]
While Speaker Lenthall’s words heralded the
end of the Crown’s influence over the Speakership, they marked the beginning of
the government’s authority over the Chair. The Speakership became an
appointment much coveted by members of the party in power and used to advance
its policies. The House allowed Speakers, who often held government posts, to
participate routinely in debate and to set the agenda of the sitting by
determining when and which bills should be considered. With his accession to
the Chair, however, Speaker Arthur Onslow (1728‑61) loosened the ties to
government and established the standards of independence and impartiality which
have come to be associated with the office of Speaker. Believing that
widespread corruption in government was destroying the dignity of Parliament,
he became a strict proceduralist and an impartial arbiter of the House’s
proceedings. By the mid‑1800s and the tenure of Speaker Shaw‑Lefevre
(1839‑57), the principle of Speakers abstaining from all political
activity had become established. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the
twentieth, the House modified its rules to invest the Speaker with considerable
authority to curtail obstruction and disorder, thereby firmly entrenching the
tradition of a non‑partisan Chair.
The tenure of Speaker Shaw‑Lefevre
saw the tentative appearance of the principle of continuity in office.
According to this principle, the Speaker renounces all party affiliation and,
when seeking re‑election to the House, runs as Speaker. This principle
failed to take root in Canada as it has done in the United Kingdom. To date, no
Speaker of the British House of Commons seeking re‑election in his or her
constituency has been defeated; it has, however, happened that incumbent
Speakers have faced one or more opponents nominated by other parties.[6] Upon retirement, the Speaker is appointed to the House of Lords
with a pension as compensation for the sacrifice of active partisan political
life.[7]
As in the British parliamentary system, the
Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons functions as its spokesperson and as
the Presiding Officer of its proceedings. The historic position and character
of the British and Canadian Speakerships are, however, distinctly different.
In Canada, the relationship between the
Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons was clearly established by the time
of Confederation. The Canadian Speaker has not, therefore, been involved in
constitutional disputes relating to the role of the Speaker, as took place in Britain over a period of several centuries. The appointment and role of the Speaker were
clearly defined in the Constitution Act, 1867 and subsequently in the Parliament
of Canada Act and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.[8] In addition, political parties and party government have always
been a part of the Canadian House. The British Commons, on the other hand, saw
the development of the system of party government over 150 years of its
history, beginning in the late seventeenth century.[9] By
the end of the nineteenth century, it had conferred upon its Speaker
discretionary powers sufficient to overcome determined obstruction by
minorities in the House.
In contrast to the established British
practice of continuity in the Speakership, the experience in Canada has seen the length of tenure limited normally to one or two Parliaments.[10] The issue of continuity has often been raised in the House and in
its committees;[11] only three of the more than 30 Speakers since Confederation have served
more than two Parliaments (Speaker Lemieux (1922‑30), Speaker Lamoureux
(1966‑74), and Speaker Milliken, who was first elected in 2001, each
served in three or more Parliaments).[12] The longest tenure, that of Speaker Lamoureux, lasted nine years.
The Speaker has almost always been elected
from among the Members of the governing party,[13]
and although the Speaker eschews partisan political activity, he or she does
not make a complete break. When running for re-election, incumbent Speakers are
usually careful to avoid partisan statements that might prejudice their
perceived impartiality in the future. Only one Speaker has chosen to sever
himself from all party affiliations and to present himself as an independent
candidate in general elections. Speaker Lamoureux (1966‑74) resigned from
the Liberal Party and, as an independent candidate, ran and won in the general
elections of 1968 and 1972. In 1968, the Liberal Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party refrained from nominating candidates to oppose him; the New
Democratic Party had already nominated a candidate prior to his decision to run
as an independent. In 1972, both the New Democratic Party and the Progressive
Conservative Party ran candidates against him.
Certain developments in recent years have
served to strengthen and enhance the office of Speaker. In 1968, the official
Order of Precedence of Canada[14] was amended to move the Speaker of the House of Commons from eighth
position to fifth, immediately after the Governor General (or the Administrator
of the Government of Canada), the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of Canada
and the Speaker of the Senate.[15] Since the mid‑1970s, the salary and allowances attached to
the office of Speaker have been comparable to those of a Cabinet Minister.[16] Moreover, a long‑standing rule providing for appeals to the
House from decisions of the Speaker was removed from the Standing Orders in
1965.[17] In addition, provisional rules, adopted on June 27, 1985, and
made permanent in June 1987, provide for the election of the Speaker by
secret ballot.[18] Changes to the Standing Orders adopted in 2004 conferred upon the
Speaker the responsibility of selecting the three other Presiding Officers,
after consultations with the leaders of all recognized parties.[19]
The Constitution Act, 1867
establishes the office of Speaker, the requirement for the election of the
Speaker, certain of the Speaker’s duties and the right of the Speaker to vote
only in case of a tie, referred to as a “casting vote”.[20]
The Parliament of Canada Act fixes
the Speaker’s salary and enumerates certain administrative responsibilities
such as chairing the Board of Internal Economy, the body which is by statute
responsible for all matters of financial and administrative policy affecting
the House of Commons.[21] The Act also provides for the Deputy Speaker, or any other Member
called upon by the Speaker, to preside over the House during the Speaker’s
absence.[22] The Parliament of Canada Act further provides that following
a dissolution of Parliament, the Speaker and the other members of the Board of
Internal Economy shall remain in office, for administrative purposes, until the
opening of the new Parliament.[23]
A number of other statutes have an impact
on the role and responsibilities of the Speaker of the House. For example, the Electoral
Boundaries Readjustment Act establishes the Speaker’s role in appointing
two members to each provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission,[24] in tabling the reports of these Commissions and in the filing of
possible objections.[25] The Official Languages Act provides that in the event of the
absence or incapacity of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Governor
in Council may appoint a replacement, following consultation by the Prime
Minister with the Speakers of both Houses.[26]
Certain statutes require the Speaker to
receive reports and other documents and to table them in the House.[27] Other statutes, such as the Emergencies Act, the Energy
Administration Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, the Old
Age Security Act, the International Development (Financial Institutions)
Assistance Act and the Special Economic Measures Act, which provide
for Parliament to confirm, revoke or amend instruments of delegated legislation
by means of resolutions adopted after debate in the House, also require the
Speaker to perform a specific role in this process.[28]
The Standing Orders provide for the
Speaker’s duties as Presiding Officer in the House, and outline further
administrative duties, most of which are carried out by the Clerk, as head of
the House administration, under the direction of the Speaker.[29]
The House devises its own rules, develops
its own practices and is master of its own proceedings. The office of the
Speaker derives its authority from the House and the holder of the office may
accurately be described as its representative and authoritative counsellor in
all matters of form and procedure.[30] The office of the Speaker must be distinguished from its incumbent,
who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the
duties of the office. The Speaker’s authority and responsibilities as Presiding
Officer in the House of Commons flow in large part from the Constitution and
from the written rules of the House.
The duties of the Speaker of the House of
Commons require the balancing of the rights and interests of the majority and
minority in the House to ensure that public business is transacted efficiently
and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected
against the use of arbitrary authority.[31] It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the
House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, neither of any part of
the House nor of any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and
serves the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in
its practices.
Despite the considerable authority of the
office, the Speaker may exercise only those powers conferred upon him or her by
the House, within the limits established by the House itself. In ruling on
matters of procedure, the Speaker is expected to adhere strictly to this
principle, delineating the extent of the Speaker’s authority and in some cases
offering suggestions as to matters which the House may see fit to pursue.[32]
It is the responsibility of the Speaker to
act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as
an institution.[33] At the opening of each Parliament, the House is summoned to the
Senate Chamber where the newly‑elected Speaker addresses the Crown or its
representative and claims for the Commons all of its accustomed rights and
privileges.[34] The claim holds good for the life of the Parliament and is not
repeated in the event of the election of a new Speaker during the course of a
Parliament.[35] Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges
accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as:
… a fundamental right without which they would
be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the
House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they
see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the
national interest and the aspirations of their constituents.[36]
The right to freedom of speech is not,
however, absolute; there are restrictions imposed by the House on its Members,
derived from practice, convention, and the rules agreed to by the House. For
example, the Standing Orders provide for time limits on speeches, and according
to the sub judice convention, Members refrain from discussion of many
matters which are currently under consideration by a court.[37] The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of Members to
free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent; this is
accomplished in part by ensuring that the rules and practices of the House are
applied and that order and decorum are maintained.[38]
Whenever a Member brings to the attention of the House a possible breach of a
right or privilege, the responsibility of the Speaker is to determine whether
or not prima facie a breach of privilege has occurred.[39] In practice the Speaker, in hearing an alleged question of
privilege, may intervene to remind Members of the Speaker’s role and to request
that the Member’s remarks be directed to providing facts to establish the
existence of a prima facie case.[40] At the Speaker’s discretion, other Members may be permitted to
participate. Only when the Speaker has ruled the matter to be a prima facie
question of privilege can a motion be brought formally before the House for its
consideration.[41]
As the arbiter of House proceedings, the
Speaker’s duty is to preserve order and decorum in the House and to decide any
matters of procedure that may arise. This duty carries with it a wide‑ranging
authority extending to matters as diverse as the behaviour and attire of
Members, the conduct of proceedings, the rules of debate and disruptions on the
floor of the Chamber and in its galleries.[42] When a decision on a matter of procedure or a question of order is
reached, the Standing Orders require that the Speaker identify which Standing
Order or other authority is being applied to the case.[43]
Sometimes, a ruling is delivered quickly
and with a minimum of explanation.[44] At other times, circumstances do not permit an immediate ruling.
The Speaker may allow discussion of the point of order before he or she comes
to a decision.[45] The Speaker might also reserve his or her decision on a matter,
returning to the House at a later time to deliver the ruling.[46] Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate
or discussion. On some occasions, the Speaker has, however, chosen to amend or
clarify a previous ruling.[47]
In addition to ruling on procedural issues,
Speakers may make statements with a view to providing information,
clarification or direction to the House.[48]
There are a number of ways in which the
Speaker may act to ensure that order and decorum are preserved:
The rules governing the conduct of debate
empower the Speaker to call a Member to order if the Member persists in
repeating an argument already made in the course of debate, or in addressing a
subject which is not relevant to the question before the House.[49] The Speaker may intervene directly to address an individual Member
or the House in general;[50] or, the Speaker may respond to a point of order raised by another
Member.[51] The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is
disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of
unparliamentary language, the Speaker usually requests an unequivocal
withdrawal of the word or expression.[52]
If the Speaker has found it necessary to
intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to
recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the
offending Member.[53] On occasion, a Member who is called to order by the Speaker may not
immediately comply with the Speaker’s instructions; in such a case, the Speaker
has given the Member time to reflect on his or her position, declining in the
meantime to “see” the Member should the latter rise to be recognized.[54] A warning at the time the Member is called to order that the Chair
may elect to do this has sometimes been sufficient to secure compliance.[55]
The most severe sanction available to the
Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure
reserved for Members who persistently disregard the authority of the Chair.[56] If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or
her behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the House, the Speaker
has the authority to name that Member (i.e., to address the Member by name
rather than by constituency or title, as is the usual practice) and, without
putting the question to the House, to order his or her withdrawal from the
Chamber for the remainder of the sitting day.[57]
During debate in a Committee of the Whole House, if a Member persists in
disorderly conduct and refuses to obey the injunction of the Chair to desist,
the Chair of the Committee rises and reports the conduct of the Member to the
Speaker. The Chair may do this on his or her own initiative without recourse to
a motion from the Committee.[58] The Speaker will then ordinarily follow the procedure for naming
the Member.[59] The power to name a Member extends as well to the Deputy Speaker
and Acting Speaker.[60]
Another means of preserving order in the Chamber
is the Speaker’s discretionary power to order the withdrawal of strangers:[61] that is, anyone who is not a Member or an official of the
House of Commons (e.g., Senators, diplomats, government officials, journalists
or members of the general public). This measure has been used to clear the
galleries of individuals whose presence has been a cause of disruption.[62] From time to time, the Speaker has also seen fit to remind
spectators in the galleries of the standard of behaviour expected of them.[63] In addition, the rules provide that, should a Member take note of
the presence of strangers (or should the House wish to proceed in camera[64]), the Speaker may put the question “That strangers be ordered to
withdraw”.[65] This motion is neither debatable nor amendable; if it is decided in
the affirmative, the Speaker―with the help of the Sergeant‑at‑Arms―then
ensures that the galleries are vacated.[66]
The Standing Orders
prohibit any debate on decisions of the Speaker and prohibit any appeal of a
Speaker’s decision to the House.[67] From Confederation until 1965, however, it was possible for any
Member who disagreed with a Speaker’s decision on a question of order to appeal
it immediately to the House (i.e., to move a non‑debatable motion on the
question of whether or not the House upheld the Speaker’s ruling).[68] In the early years of Confederation, this was rarely done.[69] After the turn of the twentieth century, however, Members began
asserting their rightto an
appeal to the House.[70] By the 1920s and thereafter, hardly a session passed that did not
see at least one such appeal.[71] The practice reached a peak in the session of 1956 when
11 appeals were made, mostly during the very contentious “Pipeline
Debate”.[72] Similar numbers of appeals were made in the Twenty‑Fifth
(1962‑63) and Twenty‑Sixth (1963‑65) Parliaments.[73] In 1965, as part of a series of amendments to the Standing Orders,
the ability of Members to appeal rulings of the Speaker was abolished.[74] Former Speaker Lambert supported the abolition of such 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”.[75]
Before 1965, there were a few instances in
which decisions of the Speaker were appealed and not sustained by the House.
The first of these occurred in 1873 when the House overruled the Speaker on the
acceptability of a petition.[76] In 1926, another ruling was rejected, and three more in 1963 were
not sustained.[77] The vote on a fourth ruling in 1963 resulted in a tie and was
sustained only when the Speaker declined to give a casting vote and ruled that
his decision should stand “since the decision has not been negatived”.[78]
Since 1965, Members have occasionally
attempted to circumvent the prohibition against appeals by rising on points of
order to “seek clarification” of a Speaker’s ruling or statement. In these
circumstances, the Chair typically advises the Member to review the written
transcript of his ruling and/or to consult the procedural authorities cited
therein.[79]
When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the
power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or
she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to
sustain the trust and goodwill of the House.[80] The actions of the Speaker may not be criticized in debate or by
any means except by way of a substantive motion. Such motions have been moved
against the Speaker[81] or other Presiding Officers[82] on rare occasions. Reflections on the character or actions of the
Speaker―an allegation of bias, for example―could be taken by the
House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.
On two occasions, newspaper editorials were
found to contain libelous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the
House, in one instance, to be a contempt of its privileges[83] and, in the other, a gross breach of its privileges.[84]
In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to Speaker Sauvé by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack
on the former’s authority and impartiality. The following day, the Minister
tabled a motion in the House calling for the matter to be referred to the
Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the
Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further.[85]
In another incident occurring in 1993, a question of privilege was raised concerning disparaging remarks made by a Member about the
impartiality of the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. When
the Member refused to withdraw the comments, the Speaker declared that they
“affect[ed] the dignity of [the] House” and were “an attack against the
integrity” of an officer of the House. He ruled that prima facie there
was a case of privilege and the matter was referred forthwith to a committee.
Two days later, the Member rose in the House and withdrew the remarks.[86]
In 1996, a private Member’s motion on the Order Paper alleged that another Member and his party were guilty of a
contempt of the House for attempting to rally public opinion with a view to
influencing an upcoming decision of the Speaker. The motion was selected for
debate in the House but was later withdrawn without having been considered.[87]
In 1998, a Member raised a question of privilege, alleging that statements attributed to other Members in a newspaper
article (concerning an upcoming ruling of the Chair) constituted an attempt to
intimidate the Speaker and the House itself. The Speaker found a prima facie
case and the matter was referred to a committee, which investigated and
concluded that the statements attributed to the Members “were not intended to
be contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker” and that “they did not
bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the
Speaker”.[88]
In order to protect the impartiality of the
office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example,
by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate[89] and votes only in the event of an equality of voices, normally
referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair.[90]
Since 1979, the Speaker, unlike all other Members, has not been assigned a desk
in the Chamber; this is a further indication that it has become an established
practice that the Speaker has no role whatsoever in debate, whether in the
House or in a Committee of the Whole.[91]
Although the requirement that Speakers remain
mute in debate has existed since 1867, it has not always been applied when the
House met in a Committee of the Whole. During the first 60 years after
Confederation, there were many instances of participation by the Speaker in
this forum.[92] By 1927, however, the practice had become rare, and when Speaker
Lemieux spoke in Committee, Members objected.[93]
After this, Speakers did not intervene in a Committee of the Whole except on
occasion to defend their Estimates.[94] Since 1968, these Estimates have been referred to standing
committees for study and the Speaker, as a witness, continues to defend the
Estimates of the House of Commons in this forum.[95]
In the past, Speakers have appeared before,
and have sometimes chaired, House committees, usually when matters of procedure
and proposed reform of the rules have been considered.[96]
There has, however, been a growing tendency during the last few Parliaments,
for Speakers to limit themselves to appearing as witnesses only on matters
within their jurisdiction.
The Speaker does not participate in debate
and votes only in cases of an equality of voices; in such an eventuality, the
Speaker is responsible for breaking the tie by casting a vote.[97]
In theory, the Speaker has the same freedom
as any other Member to vote in accordance with his or her conscience; however,
the exercise of this responsibility could involve the Speaker in partisan
debate, which would adversely affect the confidence of the House in his or her
impartiality. Therefore, certain conventions have developed as a guide to
Speakers (and Chairs in a Committee of the Whole) in the infrequent exercise of
the casting vote.[98] Concisely put, the Speaker normally votes to maintain the status
quo. This entails voting in the following fashion:
whenever possible, leaving the matter open for
future consideration and allowing for further discussion by the House;
whenever no further discussion is possible,
preserving the possibility that the matter might somehow be brought back in the
future and be decided by a majority of the House; and
leaving a bill in its existing form rather than
causing it to be amended.[99]
In 1863, these conventions were
acknowledged in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada when the
Speaker was called upon to give a casting vote, and gave as his reason “that in
the case of an equal division, the practice was, that the Speaker should keep
the question as long as possible before the House in order to afford a further
opportunity to the House of expressing an opinion upon it”.[100] The application of this convention has not always been entirely
consistent. For instance, on one occasion, the Speaker voted in favour of a
hoist amendment[101] to the motion for third reading of a bill in order “to keep the
Bill before the House”;[102] on another, the Speaker voted against a hoist amendment for the
same reason (“to give the House a further opportunity for consideration”).[103]
The manner in which the Speaker casts a
deciding vote is as follows: typically, a recorded vote is demanded, taken
and, when an equality of voices is discerned at the announcement of the result,
the Speaker then votes and may state reasons. Any reasons given are recorded in
the Journals.[104] On two occasions, an equality of voices was announced, the Speaker
cast his vote and it later came to light that no tie had occurred. In both
instances, the Speaker made a brief statement the next day in which he declared
his vote invalidated.[105] On another occasion, prior to the abolition of appeals from
Speakers’ rulings, the voices were equal on a motion to sustain the ruling of
the Chair. The Speaker declined to vote, stating that “Since the decision has
not been negatived, I declare my ruling sustained” and no objection was raised.[106]
Specific duties of the Speaker in the
Chamber are described below; many of the procedural topics referred to are
explored in greater detail in other chapters.
Opening the sitting: It is the Speaker’s
responsibility to open the sittings of the House once it has been determined
that a quorum is present.[107] When opening a sitting, the Speaker takes the Chair, calls the
House to order, reads prayers, directs that the doors to the public galleries
be opened, and then calls the first item of business. If, as sometimes happens,
the Speaker is absent at the opening of a sitting, the House is so informed by
the Clerk and the Deputy Speaker (or one of the other Chair Occupants) takes
the Chair.[108]
Reading motions, putting questions,
announcing results of votes: Before debate begins on a matter, the Speaker proposes the
question by reading the motion on which the House is to decide. When no Member
rises to be recognized in debate, the Speaker asks if the House is “ready for
the question”, thus ascertaining whether or not the debate has concluded. When debate
on a question is closed, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to put the
question, that is, to put the matter to the House for a decision, and
afterwards to announce the result to the House.[109]
Recognizing Members to speak in the
House: No
Member may speak in the House until called upon or recognized by the Speaker;
any Member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments
periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various
conventions and informal arrangements exist to encourage the participation of
all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is
ultimately the Speaker’s.[110]
Deciding questions of order and questions of privilege: In
presiding over the deliberations of the House, the Speaker is responsible for
deciding questions of order and questions of privilege, and for ensuring that
the rules and practices of the House are respected.[111]
The Speaker rules on questions of order and questions of privilege as they
occur and not inanticipation.[112] A
question of order may be brought to the Speaker’s attention by a Member, or the
Speaker may intervene when he or she observes an irregularity. In ruling on
questions of order and questions of privilege, the Speaker cites the Standing
Order or other applicable authority.[113] At times, the Speaker may be called upon to deal with situations
not provided for in the Standing Orders of the House; in such cases, the rules
give authority to the Speaker to consider parliamentary tradition in
jurisdictions outside the House of Commons of Canada “so far as they may be
applicable”.[114]
Decisions on motions: The Standing Orders confer on the
Speaker certain responsibilities in connection with motions coming before the
House for consideration. The Speaker has the responsibility to act, in the
event that he or she judges a motion to be “contrary to the rules and
privileges of Parliament”.[115] In such a case, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to inform the
House at the earliest opportunity, before the question is put, and to refer to
the applicable rule or authority. This is to be distinguished from the
Speaker’s general power to rule authoritatively on matters of procedure. While
the Speaker is guardian of the rules and privileges of the House, he or she is
its servant as well; the Members of the House retain collective control of
their actions. Thus, if the Speaker were to inform the House that a proposed
motion, though correct as to its form, runs counter to established
parliamentary principles, customs or privileges, the House would then be in a
position to take a decision on the matter, with the benefit of the information
provided and the authorities cited by the Speaker. This rule wasfirst adopted
after Confederation[116] and has never been invoked by the Speaker, although there have been
attempts to persuade the Chair to invoke it.[117]
Other rules of
the House give the Speaker the power to select which report stage amendments
will be considered by the House, and to group these for purposes of debate and
division.[118] In addition, in the event that notice of more than one opposition
motion is given when a Supply day has been designated, the Speaker is
responsible for selecting the one which will have precedence for consideration
by the House.[119]
Private
bills: When
private bills[124] are to be brought before Parliament, persons wishing to act as
parliamentary agents (i.e., employed in promoting or opposing a private bill)
must be grantedauthority to do so by the Speaker.[125] The Speaker also has the power to issue a temporary or absolute
prohibition on an individual acting as a parliamentary agent, in cases where he
or she has failed to act in accordance with parliamentary rules and practice.[126]
Tabling of
documents: Statutory
provisions, as well as rules of the House, require the Speaker to receive and
table certain reports and documents in the House. When the Speaker tables a
document, he or she may do so during the sitting;[127]
alternatively, the document may be deposited with the Clerk of the House.[128] In either case, the tabling is noted in the Journals and the
item tabled is deemed permanently referred to the appropriate standing
committee.[129] The specific documents tabled by the Speaker are as follows:
As Chair of the Board of Internal Economy (the body responsible
for all financial and administrative matters affecting the House of Commons)
the Speaker is responsible for tabling reports of the Board’s proceedings.[130] The reports
consist of minutes of the Board’s meetings, which are tabled as they are
approved by the Board.[131]
The Speaker is also responsible for tabling the annual reports of the Board’s
decisions respecting the budgets of parliamentary committees.[132] In addition, the Parliament
of Canada Act requires the Speaker to table any by‑laws made by the
Board within 30 days of their making; typically, these are deposited with
the Clerk.[133]
The Speaker is required after consultation with the House Leaders
to table annually, before September 30, a calendar of sitting and non‑sitting
weeks for the following year.[134]
Statutory requirements exist whereby designated officers of
Parliament[135]
and the Canadian Human Rights Commission transmit their annual reports and any
special or investigatory reports to the Speaker, who then tables them in the
House.[136]
In the decennial process to readjust electoral boundaries,
reports of the provincial and territorial electoral boundaries commissions are
transmitted by the Chief Electoral Officer to the Speaker, who tables them when
the House is sitting.[137]
When election results are contested or appealed under the Canada
Elections Act, reports of court decisions are made to the Speaker, who then
informs the House.[138]
Emergency debates: When a Member has made a request to move the adjournment of
the House in order to debate a matter requiring urgent consideration (an
emergency debate), the Speaker is responsible for deciding whether or not the
request will be granted.[139] When the Speaker has granted an application for an emergency
debate, the rules provide for it to take place the same day, but the Speaker
may also exercise a discretionary power to defer the debate to a specific time
on the next sitting day.[140] An emergency debate ends at the times specified in the Standing
Orders, but again, the Speaker has discretion to declare the motion carried and
to adjourn the House to the next sitting day if, in hisor her opinion, debate has
concluded before those times.[141] Once it is underway, an emergency debate takes precedence over all
other business; in the event of conflict or incompatibility with regard to
other rules or other business of the House, the Speaker has complete discretion
in reconciling the difficulty.[142]
Recall of the House: When the House stands adjourned during a session, the Speaker
has the power to recall the House to meet prior to the date on which it is
scheduled to reconvene.[143] The request to recall the House is always initiated by a Minister
(usually the Government House Leader), and the Speaker has no authority to
consider such a request from any other Member. In these circumstances (or while
Parliament stands prorogued, or prior to the first session of a new
Parliament), upon receipt of a written request from the government, the Speaker
will cause to be published a Special Order Paper which informs the House
of any measure the government wishesthe House to consider
immediately.[144] A notice for recall of the House is not usually withdrawn; but on
one occasion, after receiving a request from all the recognized parties in the
House, the Speaker issued a formal statement cancelling an earlier notice for
recall.[145]
Parliamentary publications: The official publications of the House of Commons are
published under the authority of the Speaker. These include, among others, the Journals,
the Debates, the Order Paper and Notice Paper, the Standing
Orders of the House of Commons, bills and the minutes and reports of House of
Commons committees.[146]
Chairs of legislative committees: The Speaker also has responsibilities with regard to Chairs of
legislative committees.[147] It is the Speaker’s duty at the start of each session, and
thereafter as necessary, to select Members to form a Panel of Chairs. The
Speaker exercises a certain amount of discretion in the choice of Members; the
rules specify only that a proportionate number of Members be appointed from the
government and opposition parties and that the other Presiding Officers of the
House be on the Panel ex officio.[148]
Whenever the House decides to proceed with the appointment of a legislative
committee, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to select from the Panel of
Chairs a Member to chair that committee.[149]
Take-note debates: The Speaker may, further to the adoption of a motion proposed
by a Minister of the Crown, preside over a take-note debate conducted in a
Committee of the Whole.[150]
The Speaker is the head of the House of
Commons administration and is responsible for its overall direction and
management.[151] The House administration supports Members of Parliament,
individually and collectively, in their parliamentary roles and the House
itself as an institution.
One of the fundamental privileges of the
House is the right to regulate its own internal affairs, exercising exclusive
jurisdiction over its premises and the people within.[152]
By virtue of the Parliament of Canada Act, all matters of administrative
and financial policy affecting the House of Commons are overseen by the Board
of Internal Economy,[153] which is composed of Members of the House from the government and
opposition parties. The Speaker presides over the Board of Internal Economy.
The day‑to‑day management of
the staff of the House of Commons rests with the Clerk[154]
and the senior officials reporting to the Clerk, subject to orders of the House
or of the Speaker.[155]
Spending estimates for the House of Commons
are prepared at the request of the Board of Internal Economy and once they have
been approved by the Board, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to transmit them
to the President of the Treasury Board for tabling with the government’s
departmental estimates for the fiscal year.[156]
The right of each House of Parliament to
regulate its own internal affairs also extends to the management of the
premises “within the precinct and beyond the debating Chamber …”.[157] As guardian of the rights and privileges of the House, the Speaker
ensures that they are respected within and outside the House.[158] Within the precinct, the Speaker oversees matters of security and
policing. Security within the buildings occupied by Members and staff of the
House is the responsibility of the Sergeant‑at‑Arms, who acts under
the Speaker’s authority (The Senate maintains its own security force in
buildings occupied by Senators and Senate staff.).[159] For this purpose, the House maintains its own security service.
Arrangements are in place whereby the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is
charged with security of the grounds outside the buildings. There are occasions
when the House security staff request and receive assistance from outside
police forces, whether the RCMP or the local police. It is also well
established that outside police forces wishing to enter the parliamentary
buildings must first obtain permission from the Speaker to do so, and that the
authority to grant or withhold such permission rests with the Speaker, who
exercises sole discretion in this regard.[160]
The Speaker, acting in accordance with an
Order of the House, may also oblige the civil authorities to hand over any
individual in their custody whose presence is required in the exercise of the
constitutional rights and powers of the House of Commons. In 2007, Speaker
Milliken did so, issuing a rare “Speaker’s warrant” requiring the attendance of
an incarcerated individual before a standing committee of the House.[161]
As the chief administrator of the House,
the Speaker oversees all of its dealings with government departments in matters
of administration. Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is the
primary provider of central and common services to the Government of Canada and
to the Parliament of Canada. Officials of the House of Commons, under the
Speaker’s authority, work in close cooperation with PWGSC for the delivery of
professional and technical services such as translation and interpretation,
printing and publishing, as well as the management of the Parliament Buildings and leased properties.[162] The National Capital Commission (NCC) is a Crown corporation whose
objective is to plan and assist in “the development, conservation and
improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and
character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its
national significance”.[163] The NCC is responsible for maintaining the grounds on Parliament
Hill[164] and this historic site is the focal point of much other NCC‑sponsored
activity. The Speaker is naturally interested in ensuring that all such
activity takes place with due regard to the dignity and authority of the
institution and the privileges of Members, such as the right to unimpeded
access to the House of Commons and the parliamentary precinct at all times.[165]
Certain responsibilities of the Speaker are
of a traditional, ceremonial or diplomatic nature, highlighting the role of the
Speaker as a representative of the Commons. The Speaker is the representative
and spokesperson of the House of Commons in its relations with the Senate, the
Crown and other bodies. Messages, correspondence and documents addressed to the
House of Commons are communicated to it by the Speaker.[166]
When entering or leaving the House at the
beginning or end of a sitting, the Speaker is always preceded by the Sergeant‑at‑Arms
bearing the Mace. The opening of a sitting of the House is preceded by a
ceremonial event known as the Speaker’s Parade, in which the Speaker walks in
procession through the halls of the Centre Block to the Chamber of the House of
Commons.[167]
Whenever the House is summoned to the
Senate Chamber to attend the Queen, the Governor General, or the representative
of the Governor General, the Speaker leads the procession. This happens at the
opening of a Parliament and of a session,[168]
or whenever there is to be a traditional ceremony to grant Royal Assent to
bills.[169] When a new Parliament or new session opens and a Speech from the
Throne is read in the Senate Chamber, it is then officially communicated to the
House by the Speaker. When the House has debated the Address in Reply to the
Speech from the Throne, the text of the Address is engrossed, signed by the
Speaker and personally presented to the Governor General.[170]
The Parliament of Canada maintains
relations with the provincial and territorial legislatures as well as with most
foreign parliaments. Many of these relationships are carried on by, or in the
name of, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate.
Contacts between the Parliament of Canada and other parliaments and legislative
assemblies may range from exchanges of correspondence, to formal visits
conducted on a reciprocal basis, to training and development sessions for
parliamentary officers.
The Parliament of Canada is an active
participant in the international exchange of ideas, information and experiences
among world parliaments, and holds membership in several interparliamentary
associations and groups.[171] The Speaker of the House is an honourary president of each of them.
Under his or her authority (and that of the Senate
Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration) a “Joint
Interparliamentary Council” distributes funds to the
various associations and oversees their administration.[172]
Parliamentarians (as delegates, members or participants) attend national,
bilateral and international meetings, conferences and seminars arranged through
the parliamentary associations and interparliamentary groups.
Outside the framework of the
interparliamentary associations, the Parliament of Canada also participates in
exchanges and programs of parliamentary cooperation with other parliaments
throughout the world, authorized and overseen by both Speakers. Parliamentary
exchanges offer parliamentarians opportunities to broaden their knowledge, to
discuss problems of mutual interest and issues of the day. The Speaker’s
involvement may include accepting invitations from other parliaments, hosting
visiting delegations of parliamentarians, and participating in meetings of
Speakers from Canada and abroad.
During a sitting, the Speaker may draw the
attention of the House to the presence of distinguished visitors seated in the
gallery of the House.[173] Generally, this takes place immediately following Question Period,
though the Speaker has also recognized visitors prior to Question Period and
even during Question Period.[174] In most cases, the visitors recognized are seated in the Speaker’s
Gallery.[175] No Standing Orders exist to define what types of visitors the
Speaker shall recognize. Current practice is to recognize:
heads of state, heads of provincial, territorial
and foreign governments, and official guests of the Governor General or of the
Prime Minister;
presidents or secretaries general of important
international organizations (e.g., the United Nations);
official parliamentary delegations, Presiding
Officers and cabinet ministers from provincial and territorial legislative
assemblies, or from foreign countries; and
Canadians who have distinguished themselves in
any field of endeavour by their achievements, deeds or success of national or
international scope.[176]
From time to time, a distinguished visitor
(usually a head of state or of government) has given a joint address to Members
of the House of Commons and Senators in the House of Commons Chamber. The
Speaker, as host, takes a pre‑eminent role in such events, which are
organized in accordance with an established protocol.[177]
The election of the Speaker of the House of
Commons is a constitutional requirement.[178]
An election must take place at the beginning of the first session of a
Parliament, when the House is without a Speaker. Should the Speaker resign or
state his or her intention to resign in mid‑Parliament, election
proceedings again take place; a vacancy occurring for any other reason also
leads to the election of a new Speaker.[179]
This constitutional requirement is the basis of the Standing Orders which
specify when and under what circumstances the election of a Speaker takes
place.[180] Although the Speaker has in most cases been elected at the opening
of the first session of a Parliament, several Speakers have been elected in mid‑session
or at the opening of the second or later session of a Parliament.[181] In any case, the election takes precedence over all other business
and is not to be considered as a question of confidence in the government.[182] If necessary, the election continues beyond the ordinary hour of
daily adjournment until a Speaker is elected. No other business can come before
the House until the election has taken place and the new Speaker has taken the
Chair.[183]
Although the time at which a Speaker is to
be elected is indicated in the Constitution, no Standing Order before 1985 ever
prescribed the means by which this should be accomplished. From 1867 to 1985,
the Clerk of the House conducted the election. The general practice was for the
Prime Minister to propose the name of a Member to become Speaker. This
debatable motion was usually seconded by a leading Minister, although, starting
in 1953, the nomination typically was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition.[184] After debate on the motion, the question was put by the Clerk and
the nominee was elected by a majority of the Members present; in almost all
cases, the motion was carried unanimously.[185]
The Speaker‑elect, showing mock reticence, was then escorted to the Chair
by the mover and seconder, after which he or she accepted the nomination and
the Mace was placed on the Table. It has been customary for the Speaker‑elect
to make a pretence of reluctance while being escorted to the Chair. This has
its origin in the genuine reluctance with which early British Speakers assumed
their duties.[186]
In 1985, the House adopted a new procedure
to be followed in electing a Speaker by secret ballot.[187]
The new procedure went into effect in September of that year on a provisional
basis and was first invoked in 1986 when Speaker Bosley resigned the
Speakership and, after 11 ballots, the House elected John Fraser as the new
Speaker.[188] The protracted election prompted calls for changes in the process;
to that end, the Standing Orders were amended in 1987, to exclude from
subsequent ballots, candidates receiving five percent or less of the total
votes cast. At the same time, the secret ballot procedure became permanent.[189] In 1988, Speaker Fraser was re‑elected on the first ballot.
In 1994, Speaker Parent was elected after six ballots, and re‑elected in
1997 after four ballots. Speaker Milliken was
elected after five ballots in 2001, acclaimed in 2004, elected after a single
ballot in 2006, and elected after five ballots in 2008.
In 2001, the Standing Orders were further
amended to afford each candidate for the Office of Speaker an opportunity to
address the House for not more than five minutes prior to the first ballot.[190]This change had been recommended to allow
all Members to hear from the candidates in an open forum.[191]
When the House meets at the beginning of a
new Parliament, Members are summoned to the Senate Chamber by means of a
message delivered to the House by the Usher of the Black Rod.[192] Preceded by the Clerk of the House, the Members make their way to
the Senate Chamber where they are informed by a Deputy of the Governor General[193] that the causes of summoning will not be divulged (meaning that the
Speech from the Throne will not be read) “until the Speaker of the House of
Commons shall have been chosen according to Law …”. The Members then return to
the House and proceed immediately to the election of a Speaker.
All Members of the House, except Ministers
and party leaders, are automatically candidates for the Speakership.[194] The Standing Orders designate who shall preside over the election
of a Speaker[195] but are silent as to whether the Member presiding may also be a
candidate. In all elections to date, the Member presiding took the prescribed
action of removing himself from the list of candidates. Any eligible Member who
does not wish to be considered must so inform the Clerk in writing by 6:00
p.m., at the latest, on the day before the election is to take place.[196] The notice of withdrawal must be signed by the Member.[197] After the deadline has passed, the Clerk draws up an alphabetical
list of the names of Members who do not wish to be considered or who are
ineligible by virtue of being Ministers or party leaders. A Member who has
withdrawn may, before the deadline, recall the letter of withdrawal and allow
his or her name to go forward.[198]
The rules providing for the Speaker’s
election by secret ballot are silent on many aspects of the election process.
They do not, for example, indicate whether the Clerk may be assisted in the
counting and destruction of ballots or whether the sitting should be suspended
while this process is underway. In 1986, when preparations began for the first
secret‑ballot election, matters not covered by the written rules were
settled by the Clerk in consultation with the House Leaders; these have since
then become part of the practice associated with an election of the Speaker.[199]
The Chamber is set up somewhat differently
when a Speaker is to be elected. The Table is cleared of its usual
accoutrements and, while the Clerk’s chair remains at its head, the chairs of
the Table Officers are removed. A ballot box is placed on a stand at the foot
of the Table and portable voting booths are placed on either side of the Table.
While the election proceeds, the Mace rests under the Table as no Speaker is in
the Chair.
When the election of a Speaker takes place
at the beginning of a Parliament, it is presided over by the so‑called “Dean
of the House”, the Member with the longest unbroken record of service who is
neither a Minister nor the holder of any office within the House.[200] After the return of the House from the Senate Chamber, the Clerk
invites the Dean of the House to take the Chair as the Member presiding. When
an election is held during a Parliament to replace a Speaker who has given
notice of his or her intention to resign, as was the case in 1986, the outgoing
Speaker presides.[201] In the absence of an outgoing Speaker at an election taking place
during the course of a Parliament, the Deputy Speaker and Chair of Committees
of the Whole would preside.[202] The Member presiding is vested with all the powers of the Chair and
votes in the election; however, he or she may not cast an additional ballot in
the event of a tie.[203]
The Standing Orders require the Member
presiding to inform the House that the list of Members who do not wish to be
considered for election to the office of Speaker, or who are ineligible, is
available for consultation at the Table.[204]
This is done before balloting begins; at the same time, the Member presiding
reads out (in alphabetical order) the names of the Members appearing on the
first ballot and informs the House that this list is available in each voting
booth. Both these lists will also have been distributed to Members at their
desks. It has happened that Members not wishing to be considered have sought to
have their names removed before the start of voting. The Member presiding has
responded that, the deadline having passed (6:00 p.m. of the previous day), the
list for the first ballot cannot be amended, but doubtless the House would take
note of any such request.[205] Members appearing on the first ballot are permitted to make brief
introductory speeches of no more than five minutes to the House.[206] Following the speeches, the House suspends its proceedings for one
hour before the election is held. The voting begins
with an invitation from the Member presiding to those who wish to cast their
ballots to leave their desks, proceed along the corridors behind the curtains
in the direction of the Chair, and come to the Table through the doorways at
the left and right of the Chair according to whether the Members sit on the
Speaker’s left or right.
At these doorways, Members have their names
recorded and are issued ballot papers by Table Officers assisting the Clerk.[207] Members must enter through the doorway on the side of the House on
which they are seated. Once provided with a ballot paper, each then proceeds to
the voting booth on the appropriate side of the Table. Each Member prints the
first and last names of a candidate on the ballot paper,[208] deposits the paper in the ballot box[209]
and then leaves the area around the Table in order to ensure the
confidentiality of the vote for other Members.
When the Member presiding is satisfied that
all Members wishing to vote have done so, the Clerk withdraws from the Chamber
to count the ballots, with the assistance of other Table Officers, in a nearby
room. The Sergeant‑at‑Arms carries the ballot box, and pauses by
the Chair while the Member presiding deposits his or her ballot. The Member
presiding then signifies that the proceedings are suspended while the counting
of the ballots takes place.
The ballots are counted in secret. Once the
Clerk is satisfied as to the accuracy of the count, all ballot papers and
related records are destroyed. The Clerk is enjoined by the Standing Orders not
to divulge in any way the number of ballots cast for any candidate.[210] When the count is complete, the bells are rung for a few minutes to
call the House to order and the Clerk re‑enters the Chamber.
If any Member has received a majority of
the votes cast, the Clerk passes the name of the successful candidate to the
Member presiding, who then announces it from the Chair.[211]
If no Member has received a majority of the votes cast, then the Clerk provides
the Member presiding with a list of the candidates in alphabetical order for
the next ballot. The list is drawn up as follows: from the original list
of candidates, the Clerk deletes the name of the last‑place candidate (or
names, in the case of a tied vote for last place), as well as the name of any
Member who received five percent or fewer of the total votes cast.[212] The rule further provides that no names be deleted in the event
that every candidate receives the same number of votes. The Member presiding
announces that a second ballot will be necessary and reads out the names of the
candidates. At this point, any candidates on the second ballot who do not wish
to be further considered may rise and withdraw, stating their reasons.[213] The Clerk is then instructed to remove from the list the names of
any Members who have thus withdrawn. When an alphabetical list of eligible
Members has been placed in each voting booth, the Member presiding asks Members
who wish to vote to proceed in the same manner as in the first ballot.
The voting procedure for the second ballot
is the same as for the first, except that the ballot papers are a different
colour. When the Member presiding is satisfied that all Members wishing to vote
have done so, he or she instructs the Clerk to proceed with the count of the second
ballot. When the count is complete, the Clerk destroys all of the ballot papers
and related records, again to ensure the secrecy of the count as required by
the Standing Orders.
The Member presiding then calls the House
to order and announces either the name of the successful candidate, or that a
third ballot will be necessary; in the latter case, the names of the candidates
eligible for the third ballot are read from the list prepared by the Clerk.
Members who wish to withdraw their candidacy at this point or on any subsequent
ballot may do so and are not required to give reasons.[214]
The names of those who withdraw are then removed from the list of eligible
candidates and, when the list has been made available, the Members proceed to
vote.
Balloting continues in this fashion until
one candidate has received a majority of the votes cast or until only one name
remains. If necessary, the House may continue to sit beyond its usual
adjournment time until a Speaker is declared elected.[215]
After announcing the name of the successful
candidate from the Chair, the Member presiding invites the Speaker‑elect
to take the Chair. The Member presiding steps down and the Speaker‑elect
is escorted from his or her seat to the dais by the Prime Minister and the
Leader of the Opposition. It is customary for the Speaker‑elect to offer
a token show of resistance.[216]
Standing at the top of the steps, the first
official act of every Speaker elected since Confederation has been to thank the
House for the honour it has bestowed. The opening words follow a pattern
established over time: “Honourable Members, I beg to return my humble
acknowledgements to the House for the great honour you have been pleased to
confer upon me in choosing me to be your Speaker”.
Speakers have typically included in their
remarks a pledge to carry out their duties with firmness and impartiality, an
acknowledgement of the great responsibilities of the office, a request to the
House for its continued support and goodwill, and acknowledgements and
commendations directed to predecessors, other candidates (in the case of secret‑ballot
elections), constituents, family and fellow Members.[217]
The Speaker then takes the Chair. The voting booths and ballot box having been
removed, the Sergeant‑at‑Arms takes the Mace (symbol of the
authority of the House) from under the Table, where it sits during the
election, and places it on the Table, signifying that now with the Speaker in
the Chair, the House is properly constituted.
Since the Speaker has been elected by
secret ballot, the party leaders have risen on occasion to offer
congratulations and good wishes, and to pledge their support once the newly‑elected
Speaker has taken the Chair and the Mace has been laid on the Table.[218] Before 1986, when the Speaker was nominated on a motion moved by
the Prime Minister and elected when the motion was adopted by the House, it was
the custom for the individual nominated to be spoken of warmly in the
nomination speeches of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and
congratulatory remarks after the election did not occur as a rule.[219]
By the time the new Speaker has taken the
Chair and heard from any Members wishing to offer congratulations, the House
may have gone beyond its usual time of adjournment as set out in the Standing
Orders; under these circumstances, the Speaker adjourns the House until the
next sitting day.[220] This occurred in 1986 when the House adjourned at 2:30 a.m. to
reconvene later the same day for the opening of the session.[221] In 1988, the Speaker was elected after a single ballot, and the
sitting was suspended for several hours until the opening of Parliament later
the same day.[222] Since then, the Speaker has been elected before the usual
adjournment time, and the House has then adjourned to the following day at the
time fixed for the opening of Parliament.[223]
During the election of a Speaker, debate is
not permitted, motions are not accepted and the Member presiding may not
entertain any question of privilege.[224] On one occasion, a point of order was raised and settled by the
Chair.[225]
At the time fixed for the formal opening of
Parliament with a Speech from the Throne, the House receives the Usher of the
Black Rod and goes in procession to the Senate Chamber. At the Bar of the
Senate, the newly‑elected Speaker stands on a small platform, removes his
or her three‑cornered hat and receives an acknowledgement from the
Governor General, who is seated on the Throne. The Speaker addresses the
Governor General by an established formula, as follows:
May it please Your Excellency,
The House of Commons has elected me their
Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus
assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time
fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the
Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to
discharge their duty to their Queen and Country, humbly claim all their
undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of
speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency’s person at all seasonable
times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency the most
favourable construction.[226]
The Speaker of the Senate, on behalf of the
Governor General, makes the traditional reply:
Mr./Madam Speaker,
I am commanded by His/Her Excellency the
Governor General to declare to you that he/she freely confides in the duty and
attachment of the House of Commons to Her Majesty’s Person and Government, and
not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and
prudence, he/she grants, and upon all occasions will recognize and allow, their
constitutional privileges. I am commanded also to assure you that the Commons
shall have ready access to His/Her Excellency upon all seasonable occasions and
that their proceedings, as well as your words and actions, will constantly
receive from him/her the most favourable construction.[227]
A new Speaker always presents himself or
herself to the Governor General; however, the claiming of privileges by the
Speaker on behalf of the House takes place only at the opening of a Parliament
and is not repeated in the event a new Speaker is elected before the end of the
Parliament.[228]
When a Speaker is to be elected during a
session, the Members assemble in the House at the usual time for the start of
the sitting. The Chair is taken either by the Speaker who has already indicated
his or her intention to resign the office,[229]
or, in the absence of the Speaker, by the Deputy Speaker and Chair of
Committees of the Whole.[230] Because the office of Speaker is vacant, the Mace is not on the
Table.[231] The Prime Minister informs the Members that the Governor General
has given the House leave to elect a Speaker. The Chair Occupant then presides
over the usual proceedings for the election of a Speaker. Once a successful
candidate has been announced, the Speaker‑elect is escorted from his or
her place and makes some brief remarks from the upper steps before taking the
Chair for the first time. The Mace is then placed on the Table and the sitting
is suspended for a few minutes pending the arrival of the Usher of the Black
Rod. Once summoned, the House proceeds to the Senate Chamber where the Speaker
presents himself or herself and receives the Governor General’s
acknowledgement, in the traditional wording.[232]
Upon its return from the Senate, the House proceeds to the business of the
sitting.
Only 2 of the 34 Speakers elected since
Confederation were elected during a session.[233]
Both cases predate the current rules providing for the election of the Speaker
by secret ballot. In 1899, Speaker Bain succeeded Speaker Edgar, the only
Speaker to have died while in office, and presided over the House for the
remainder of the Eighth Parliament, until 1901. Speaker Francis was elected
during the Second Session of the Thirty‑Second Parliament (1984) to
succeed Speaker Sauvé, who resigned to become Governor General. Speaker Bain
and Speaker Francis presided over the House for the balance of the session and the
Parliament in which they were elected.
When the House is to proceed to the
election of a Speaker immediately at the opening of the second or subsequent
session within a Parliament, the House meets for the opening of the session on
the date fixed by proclamation. As for the election of a Speaker during a
session, the Chair is taken either by the Speaker who has already indicated his
or her intention to resign the office, or by the Deputy Speaker and Chair of
Committees of the Whole, and the Mace is not on the Table. The Prime Minister
is recognized and signifies the consent of the Governor General to proceed to
the election of a new Speaker.[234] The House then goes through the usual proceedings for the election
of a Speaker. The Speaker‑elect is escorted from his or her seat to the
dais where he or she makes the usual remarks and acknowledgements and takes the
Chair for the first time. The Mace is then placed on the Table. The sitting is
normally adjourned at this point or shortly thereafter, and the presentation of
the Speaker to the Governor General and the reading of the Speech from the
Throne takes place the following day.[235]
The election of a Speaker on the opening
day of the second or subsequent session of a Parliament has occurred six times
since 1867.[236] Each time, the vacancy in the Speakership arose through
resignation. In 1986, the most recent example, Speaker Bosley’s resignation
took effect on the opening day of the Second Session of the Thirty‑Third
Parliament, and Speaker Fraser then became the first to take the Chair under
the new rules for the election of the Speaker by secret ballot.
In all six cases, the House met for the
opening of the session on the date fixed by proclamation. In the five cases
preceding 1986, the House was immediately summoned to the Senate and advised
(as at the opening of a Parliament) that a Speaker must be chosen before the
Speech from the Throne could be read.[237] On its return from the Senate, the House proceeded to the election
of a Speaker; a Member was nominated by the Prime Minister, seconded by a
leading Minister, and (with one exception[238])
after a brief intervention by the Leader of the Opposition, the person
nominated was unanimously elected.
The rules for the election of the Speaker
by secret ballot contain no provision for a nomination process and are silent
on the matter of campaigning for the office.[239]
The special procedure committee which recommended the secret‑ballot
process sought to give control of the choice of Speaker to the House and its
Members (away from what it called the “exclusive control” of the Prime
Minister), noting that the Speaker belongs neither to the government nor to the
opposition, but to the House.[240] Speaker Bosley, appearing before the committee in 1985, expressed
reservations about the success of a secret‑ballot system should political‑style
campaigning be resorted to.[241]
In each of the eight secret‑ballot
elections held to date (1986, 1988, 1994, 1997, 2001, 2004, 2006, 2008),
campaign activity occurred but took place informally, outside the Chamber.
Except for the brief introductory statements to the House for which provision
was made in 2001, the rules do not permit debate during the election process.[242] In recent years, Members have noted the difficulty faced by those
newly‑elected to the House who are called upon to choose a Speaker with
little time or opportunity to become informed about all the candidates.[243] Prior to the election of the Speaker in 1994, some of the parties
in the House organized caucus meetings to which individual candidates were
invited.[244] Prior to the 1997 election, it was suggested that candidates should
declare themselves and attend an all‑party question‑and‑answer
session organized by one of the four opposition parties.[245] Similarly, all candidates’ meetings were held prior to the election
of the Speaker in 2001.[246]
A Speaker is elected as the first item of
business at the start of each Parliament, and presides over the House for the
life of the Parliament.[247]
When the Parliament is dissolved, the Speaker is deemed to remain in office for
administrative purposes until a new election takes place.[248] Should a vacancy
in the Speakership occur during a Parliament, another Speaker must be elected
forthwith;[249]
no other business can come before the House until a new Speaker has been
chosen.
A vacancy in the Speakership can arise
through death or resignation of the office. Speaker Edgar (1896‑99) died
while in office, in July 1899, during a session. Speaker Edgar had been
away from the House for some time, due to indisposition. In his absence, the
Chair was taken by the Deputy Speaker.[250]
Speaker Edgar’s death was announced to the House on July 31, 1899, by the
Prime Minister, who then moved a motion for the adjournment of the House. After
a brief intervention by a Member of the opposition, the motion was adopted and
the sitting was adjourned.[251]
The next day, the House met at its usual time and immediately proceeded to
elect a new Speaker.[252]
A vacancy in the Speakership may occur when
the Speaker declares his or her intention to resign the office or if the House
were to take action to remove a Speaker from office. It has also happened that
the office of Speaker has been vacated when the incumbent accepted a position
which necessitated the automatic relinquishing of his or her seat in the House.
On three occasions, vacancies in the
Speakership arose after the Speaker gave written notice of his or her intention
to resign. The resignations were those of Speaker Black in 1935, Speaker Sauvé
in 1984 and Speaker Bosley in 1986.
The resignation of Speaker Black (1930‑35)
as Speaker was tendered in a letter to the Prime Minister dated
January 15, 1935, during a prorogation. This was announced to the House by
the Prime Minister when the House reconvened on January 17, the date set
for the opening of the session. The House then proceeded to elect a new
Speaker.[253]
Speaker Sauvé (1980‑84), having been
designated to become Governor General of Canada, resigned as a Member and as
Speaker by letter to the Clerk of the House dated January 6, 1984. The
letter stated that her resignation would take effect as of midnight,
January 15, 1984. The House, which had adjourned on December 21,
reconvened on January 16, and the Clerk read the letter. The House then
proceeded to the election of Speaker Francis.[254]
Speaker Bosley (1984‑86) resigned the
Speakership in 1986. His concern about the “erosion of public respect for
Parliament” was known, and it was his opinion that he could best contribute to
the reform of the institution as a private Member, giving the House an
“unfettered” choice of Speaker by the new secret‑ballot process.[255]
He wrote to the Clerk on September 5, 1986, while Parliament was
prorogued, tendering his resignation to take effect upon the election of a
successor on the date set by proclamation for the opening of the new session.
When the House met on September 30, the Speaker tabled copies of the
correspondence and expressed his acknowledgements to the House for the honour
of having served as its Speaker. Then, pursuant to the Standing Orders, he
presided over the election by secret ballot of Speaker Fraser.[256]
In three instances, Speakers accepted other
positions, by virtue of which their seats in the House (and thus the
Speakership) were relinquished. Speaker Brodeur (1901‑04) and Speaker
Sévigny (1916‑17) were appointed to Cabinet[257] and Speaker
Sproule (1911‑15) was appointed to the Senate.[258] In each case, the
appointment took effect during the interval between two sessions and,
therefore, no formal indication of intent to resign was communicated to the
House. On those occasions, when the House reconvened, it met without a Speaker.
The letter informing the House of the Deputy Governor General’s arrival for the
opening of the new session, normally read by the Speaker, was instead read by
the Clerk. Later, when in accordance with usual practice, the Clerk announced
the list of electoral districts for which notifications of vacancy had been
received, among them were those of Speaker Brodeur in 1904,[259] Speaker Sproule in
1916,[260]
and Speaker Sévigny in 1917.[261]
There is also the unusual example of
Speaker Anglin, who was twice elected Speaker in the course of the Third
Parliament (1874‑78). First elected at the opening of Parliament in 1874,
he vacated his seat in the House during the intersession.[262] A by‑election
was held, in which Mr. Anglin was re‑elected. Thus, when the new session
opened on February 7, 1878, the House was informed both of the vacancy in
the riding held by the former Speaker, and of his re‑election to the
House.[263]
He was again nominated for the Speakership, and re‑elected.[264]
Few examples exist in Canada of the resignation of a Speaker following directly from the action of a legislative body to
effect his or her removal.[265]
In 1875, in the House of Assembly of the province of Nova Scotia, a motion was
moved which proposed that the Speaker’s resignation be requested and that a new
Speaker be elected.[266]
The motion was adopted on a recorded division, and the House then adjourned to
the following day when, as the first item of business, the Speaker rose,
tendered his resignation and left the Chair.[267]
The House then adopted a motion, moved by a member of the Cabinet, that the
resignation be accepted and that a committee of Ministers be struck to inform
the Lieutenant Governor that the House was without a Speaker.[268] When the House
next met, the Committee reported that it had communicated with the Lieutenant
Governor; a new Speaker was elected forthwith.[269]
In July 1956, in the House of Commons,
Speaker Beaudoin (1953‑57) offered his resignation, but this offer was
not taken up by the House. This occurred on the heels of the political
controversy and procedural disputes of what has since become known as the
Pipeline Debate.[270]
During the consideration of the pipeline Bill, numerous points of order were
raised and the Chair faced many challenges. There were 25 appeals from rulings
of the Chair (allowed under the rules in effect at that time), all of which
were sustained.[271]
A motion of censure against the Speaker (a rare
occurrence) was moved and defeated.[272] Three weeks after
passage of the Bill by the House, a question of privilege was raised which
called into question the Speaker’s impartiality.[273] On July 2, at
the opening of the sitting, the Speaker made a statement and placed his
resignation before the House to take effect at the pleasure of the House.[274]
However, no resolution of the House was forthcoming and no objection was
registered when the Speaker continued to fulfil his official duties. Speaker
Beaudoin served for the balance of the Twenty‑Second Parliament.
In March 2000, a motion of censure imputing bias to the Speaker in respect of a ruling on a question of
privilege was introduced in the House.[275] The ruling had been in response to allegations that privileged
communications between Members and the Office of the Legislative Counsel had
been inappropriately disclosed. Debate on the motion was twice circumvented by
means of government motions to proceed immediately to Orders of the Day.
Consultations among the House Leaders led ultimately to the withdrawal of the
motion of censure and to the adoption, after debate, of a motion referring the
issue of confidentiality to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House
Affairs.[276]
[1] Earlier Presiding Officers were called “parlour”, “prolocutor” and
“procurator” (Wilding, N. and Laundy, P., An Encyclopaedia of Parliament,
4th ed., London: Cassell & Company Ltd., 1972, p. 707).
[2] May, T.E., Erskine May’s Treatise on The Law, Privileges,
Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, 23rd ed., edited by Sir W. McKay,
London: LexisNexis UK, 2004, p. 13.
[3] The task of communicating the resolutions of the Commons to the
King was not an enviable one. At least nine Speakers are known to have died
violently―four during the stormy period of the Wars of the Roses (mid‑fifteenth
century) (Laundy, P., The Office of Speaker in the Parliaments of the
Commonwealth, London: Quiller Press, 1984, pp. 19‑20).
[4] This is exemplified by the remark of Speaker Finch, in 1629, to an
angry House which did not wish to comply with a royal command to
adjourn: “I am not less the King’s servant for being yours!” (Laundy,
p. 31).
[7] In Canadian practice, a retiring Speaker is not guaranteed a
position or posting. In recent years, Speakers Lamoureux (1966‑74) and
Francis (1984) were appointed Ambassadors; Speaker Michener (1957‑62) was
appointed High Commissioner to India and, in 1967, was named Governor General;
Speaker Macnaughton (1963‑66) was appointed to the Senate; Speaker Sauvé
(1980‑84) was named Governor General; Speaker Jerome (1974‑80) was
appointed a Judge to the Federal Court; Speaker Bosley (1984‑86)
continued as a private Member; Speaker Fraser (1986‑94) was appointed
Ambassador at Large with Special Responsibility for the Environment; and
Speaker Parent (1994‑2001) was appointed Canada’s Ambassador for the
Environment and Sustainable Development.
[9] For a description of this process, see Redlich, J., The
Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form,
Vol. I, translated by A.E. Steinthal, New York: AMS Press, 1969 (reprint
of 1908 ed.), pp. 52‑72.
[10]See Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House
of Commons Since 1867”.
[11] An example is the recurring proposal for the establishment of a
special constituency for the Speaker, designated as Parliament Hill, with the
electorate being the Members of the House of Commons. A private Member’s bill
with this objective was introduced on October 20, 1970 (Journals,
p. 40) and debated on October 29, 1971 (Debates, pp. 9186‑92).
See also the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and
Procedure, presented to the House on December 3, 1982 (Journals,
p. 5420) and paragraph 11 of the First Report of the Special
Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on
December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211).
[12] Seven Speakers have served in two Parliaments: Cockburn (1867‑74),
Anglin (1874‑79), Rhodes (1917‑22), Michener (1957‑62),
Jerome (1974‑80), Fraser (1986‑94) and Parent (1994‑2001). See
Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House of Commons Since 1867”.
[13] Speaker Jerome (1974‑80), a Liberal, elected to a second term
to serve as Speaker during the Progressive Conservative minority government of
Prime Minister Clark in 1979, was the first of only two Speakers to be elected
from opposition parties. The second was Speaker Milliken, also a Liberal,
elected to a third term in 2006, during the first Conservative minority
government of Prime Minister Harper and to a fourth term in 2008 during the
second Harper minority government.
[14] Precedence (the right to precede others) in ceremonies and matters
of protocol is governed by the Table of Precedence for Canada, which is maintained by the Department of Canadian Heritage. It is published in the Canadian
Parliamentary Guide and is posted on the Department’s Web site.
[15] Order in Council approved on December 19, 1968.
[16] See the Salaries Act (R.S. 1985, c. S‑3, s. 4.1) for
salaries of Cabinet Ministers and the Parliament of Canada Act (R.S. 1985,
c. P‑1, s. 62.1) for the Speaker’s salary.
[27] For further information, see the section in this chapter entitled
“Tabling of Documents”.
[28] For further information and examples, see the section on statutory
debates in Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[29] See, for example, Standing Orders 9 to 14 and 19. For examples of
administrative responsibilities set out in the Standing Orders, see Standing
Orders 107, 121 and 148 to 159.
[31]Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 149‑50. See also
Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5119‑24.
[32] See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1990,
pp. 10941‑2; October 25, 1995, pp. 15812‑3;
February 25, 2003, pp. 3986‑7; October 16, 2006,
p. 3815.
[33] Parliamentary privilege is the “sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed
by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of
Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could
not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies
or individuals” (May, 23rd ed., p. 75). See also Chapter 3,
“Privileges and Immunities”.
[34] See, for example, Debates of the Senate, April 4, 2006,
p. 3.
[35] 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. 49‑50. See later sections in this
chapter for information on the election of the Speaker during the course of a
Parliament.
[36] See paragraph 3 of the First Report of the Special Committee
on the Rights and Immunities of Members, presented to the House on
April 29, 1977 (Journals, pp. 720‑9).
[37] For further information, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and
Decorum”.
[38] Speaker Fraser observed that there can be no freedom of speech
without order in the House (Debates, March 24, 1993, pp. 17486‑8).
[39]Prima facie means “at first sight” or “on the face of it”. Maingot
offers the following definition: “A prima facie case of privilege
in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by
the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the
matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of
the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the
House” (Maingot, J.P.J., Parliamentary Privilege in Canada,
2nd ed., Montreal: House of Commons and McGill‑Queen’s
University Press, 1997, p. 221).
[41] Standing Order 48(1). The wording of the rule is unchanged since
Confederation. For further information on the role of the Speaker in deciding
on a question of privilege, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[42]Standing
Order 10. For further information on matters of order and decorum, see Chapter
13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[50] See, for example, Debates, September 26, 1996,
p. 4715; June 22, 2006, p. 2817.
[51] See, for example, Debates, April 22, 1997,
pp. 10103, 10106; September 25, 2006, pp. 3195‑6.
[52] See, for example, Debates, October 26, 1998,
p. 9396; June 9, 2006, p. 2196.
[53] See, for example, Debates, October 19, 2006,
p. 4009.
[54]See, for example, Debates, November 27, 2002,
p. 1949.
[55] On one occasion, a Deputy Speaker responded to disruptive behaviour
during a recorded division by warning that he was quite prepared to strike the
votes of any offending Member from the record (Debates,
March 30, 2000, p. 5443).
[57] Standing Order 11(1)(a). See, for example, Journals, April 5, 2000,
p. 1551; December 6, 2002, p. 272. For further information
on naming, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[58] Standing Order 11(2). See, for example, Debates,
March 16, 1962, pp. 1888‑90.
[59] For further information on naming in a Committee of the Whole, see
Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[60]Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑1,
s. 44. For instances of Members being named by the Deputy Speaker, see Debates,
May 20, 1983, pp. 25628‑31; December 6, 2002,
pp. 2379‑80. For examples of Members being named by the Acting
Speaker, see Debates, March 24, 1983, pp. 24109‑10;
May 25, 1984, pp. 4078‑9.
[62] 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.
[63] See, for example, Debates, May 10, 1899,
col. 2897; September 12, 1983, p. 26987; November 17, 1992,
p. 13501.
[64] See the section on secret sittings of the House in Chapter 9,
“Sittings of the House”.
[65] 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”.
[66] 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”.
[69] 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.
[70] 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).
[71] See entries in the Journals indexes under the heading
“Speaker’s Rulings and Statements”.
[72] During the spring months of 1956, the government 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 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.
[79]See,
for example, Debates, February 2, 1999, p. 11292; March 27, 2001,
pp. 2311‑2.
[80] Speakers will, on occasion, intervene to clarify statements made on
the floor of the House which might be interpreted as impugning the impartiality
of the Chair. See, for example,Debates, April 28, 2003,
p. 5483.
[81] 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.
On March 13, 2000, the leader of
the Bloc Québécois gave notice of a motion of non‑confidence in Speaker
Gilbert Parent for a ruling on a question of privilege raised by another
Member and for rejecting a point of order raised by a third Member, both in connection with alleged breaches of the confidentiality of
the work of the office of the Legislative Counsel. The motion was subsequently
withdrawn pursuant to an agreement to refer the matter to the Standing
Committee on Procedure and House Affairs (Debates, March 13, 2000, p. 4397).
[82] 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 general support 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 gave notice of 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).
[85]Debates, January 21, 1981, p. 6410;
January 22, 1981, pp. 6455‑7.
[86]Debates, March 16, 1993, p. 17027; March 23,
1993, pp. 17403‑5; March 25, 1993, p. 17537.
[87]Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 5, 1996,
p. 15; Journals, October 23, 1996, p. 768.
[88]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 to the House on April 27, 1998 (Journals,
p. 706) and adopted on May 5, 1998 (Journals, pp. 744‑5).
[89] Speakers have occasionally brought constituency‑related
business before the House by arranging to have other Members act as their
agents. See, for example, Debates, February 16, 2005,
p. 3573.
[90]Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II,
No. 5, s. 49; Standing Order 9. For further information, see the
section in this chapter entitled “Casting Vote”.
[91] Standing Order 53.1 permits the Speaker to preside over take‑note
debates which are conducted in accordance with rules similar to those governing
proceedings in a Committee of the Whole.
[92] 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.
[94] The last to do so was Speaker Macnaughton on November 27, 1964
(Debates, pp. 10623‑9).
[95] See, for example, the appearances of Speaker Milliken before
the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in connection with the
Estimates of the House of Commons, on April 30, 2002;
April 1, 2004; May 11, 2006; April 17, 2007;
April 24, 2007.
[96] 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, and before the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament
of Canada Act on September 25, 1990. Speaker Jerome (1974‑80)
chaired the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members (1976‑77)
and the Special Committee on TV and Radio Broadcasting of Proceedings of the
House and Its Committees (1977‑78).
[97]Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5,
s. 49; Standing Order 9. In contrast to this, the Rules of the Senate
provide that “when the voices are equal the decision
shall be deemed to be in the negative” (Rule 65(5)). In
this regard, it should be noted that the Speaker of the Senate may participate
in any vote taken in the Senate and customarily does so before the other
Senators. Similarly, in some Commonwealth Parliaments (e.g., that of New
Zealand), there is no longer a casting vote vested in the Speaker, and in the
event of an equality of voices, the motion simply fails to carry (McGee, D., Parliamentary
Practice in New Zealand, 3rd ed., Wellington: Dunmore Publishing Ltd.,
2005, p. 212).
[98] An equality of voices is a rarity, having occurred on just seven
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); December 4,
1963 (Journals, pp. 621‑2, Debates, pp. 5405‑6);
September 16, 2003 (Journals, pp. 972‑3, Debates,
pp.7436‑7); May 4, 2005 (Journals, pp. 701‑2,
Debates, pp. 5674‑5); May 19, 2005 (Journals,
pp. 783‑4, Debates, pp. 6259‑60) 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.
[99] For an elaboration of these conventions in the British context, see
May, 23rd ed., pp. 413‑7.
[100] Province of Canada, Legislative Assembly, Journals of the
Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada, August 19, 1863,
p. 33. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 384.
[101] If adopted, the hoist amendment has for effect the rejection of the
bill. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[102]Debates, May 6, 1870, col. 1401; in this case, no
reasons were entered in the Journals.
[104]See,
for example, Journals, September 16, 2003, p. 973; May 4, 2005, p. 702;
May 19, 2005, p. 784.
[105]Debates, March 11, 1930, pp. 502‑3;
March 12, 1930, p. 527; June 22, 2005, pp. 7645‑6; June 23,
2005, pp. 7694‑6. In 1930, 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 2005, the disposition of
the motion was reversed and the correction duly noted in the Journals.
See Journals, June 23, 2005, p. 976.
[107] A quorum of 20 Members, including the Speaker, is required for the
House to conduct business (Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985,
Appendix II, No. 5, s. 48; Standing Order 29(1)). For further
information on quorum, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[108]Parliament of Canada Act, R.S. 1985, c. P‑1,
s. 43(1); Standing Order 8. See, for example, Journals, November
19, 2004, p. 235; June 9, 2006, p. 255.
[109] For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of
Debate”.
[110]Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 334. See also Debates,
May 20, 1986, p. 13443; May 5, 1994, p. 3925. For further
information, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[111] Standing Order 10. See the section above entitled “Order and
Decorum” and also Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[117] See, for example, Debates, December 9, 1968,
pp. 3639‑43; Journals, December 10, 1968, pp. 511‑3;
July 24, 1969, pp. 1398‑9; Debates, March 3, 2000,
pp. 4327‑35, 4349; June 12, 2001, pp. 5027‑31.
[118] Standing Orders 76(5) and 76.1(5). The text of these rules includes
guidelines for the Speaker on the selection of amendments. See also
Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[119] Standing Order 81(14)(b). See also Chapter 18,
“Financial Procedures”.
[120] Standing Order 94(1)(a). For further information, see
Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[127] Typically, this is done during Routine Proceedings under the rubric
“Tabling of Documents”. See, for example, Journals, June 22, 2006,
p. 343; September 28, 2006, p. 469. The Speaker has also
tabled documents immediately prior to Statements by Members. See, for example, Debates,
September 26, 1996, p. 4740; May 16, 2006, p. 1439.
[128] See, for example, Journals, September 18, 2006, pp. 369‑70.
[129] Standing Order 32(5). For further information on the tabling of
documents, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[130] Standing Order 148(1). See, for example, Journals, May 5, 2006,
p. 136.
[131] The rule requires the Speaker to table, within 10 days of the
opening of a session, a report of the Board’s proceedings for the previous
session; the practice of more frequent tablings throughout the session began in
the Thirty‑Fifth Parliament (Debates, February 17, 1994,
p. 1507).
[132] Standing Order 148(2). See, for example, Journals, May 5, 2006,
p. 136.
[133] R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, s. 52.5(2) and (3). See,
for example, Journals, June 21, 2006, p. 341.
[134]Standing
Order 28(2)(b). See, for example, Journals, September 28, 2006,
p. 469.
[135] They are the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the
Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner, the Privacy
Commissioner and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner.
[136]Auditor General Act, R.S. 1985, c. A‑17,
ss. 7(3), 8(2) and 19(2); Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c.
9, s. 534; Official Languages Act, R.S. 1985, 4th Supp.,
c. 31, ss. 65(3), 66, 67(1) and 69(1); Access to Information Act,
R.S. 1985, c. A‑1, ss. 38, 39(1) and 40; Privacy Act,
R.S. 1985, c. P‑21, ss. 38, 39(1) and 40(1); Canadian
Human Rights Act, R.S. 1985, c. H‑6, s. 61.
[137]Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S. 1985, c. E‑3,
s. 21; R.S. 1985, c. 6 (2nd Supp.), s. 5. See, for example, Journals,
February 24, 2003, p. 451; March 26, 2003, p. 569.
The legislation provides an alternative course for the Speaker, should a report
arrive during an intersession. For further information on the role of the House
of Commons in the redistribution process, see Chapter 4, “The House of
Commons and Its Members”.
[138]Canada Elections Act, S.C. 2000, c. 9, ss. 531(3)
and (4), 532(3) and (4). For further information on contested elections, see
Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[139] Standing Order 52(4). For further information on emergency debates,
see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[140] Standing Order 52(9). For example, an application was made on
Friday, November 27, 1998. The Speaker granted it and ruled that the
debate would take place on Monday, November 30 at 8:00 p.m. (Journals,
November 27, 1998, p. 1323).
[144] Standing Order 55(1). For further information on recall of the
House and publication of a Special Order Paper,see
Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”, and Chapter 12, “The Process of
Debate”.
[145] The original notice for recall was given on June 26, 1992, for
the House to meet on July 15, 1992; the notice of cancellation was
issued on July 11 and tabled when the House met on September 8, at
which time the Speaker made a statement to the House (Journals,
September 8, 1992, p. 1924, Debates, p. 12709).
[146] For further information on parliamentary publications, see
Chapter 24, “The Parliamentary Record”.
[147] Standing Orders 112 and 113. It should be noted that due to
fluctuations in the use of legislative committees since 1994, Panels of Chairs
have not always been selected. For further information about legislative
committees, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[149] Standing Order 113(2). On one occasion, the Speaker was relieved of
this duty when the Chair of a legislative committee was designated in the
motion to appoint the committee (Debates, October 26, 2007,
p. 459).
[153] R.S. 1985, c. P‑1, s. 52.3. For further
information on the Board of Internal Economy, see Chapter 6, “The Physical
and Administrative Setting”.
[154] The Clerk of the House serves as Secretary to the Board of Internal
Economy, as provided for in the Parliament of Canada Act. For further
information on the role of the Clerk, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and
Administrative Setting”.
[158] An incident in 1998 illustrates the authority of the Speaker over
access to the precinct. On February 26, 1998, a Member’s employee, carrying a large flag, accosted a Member in the House of Commons foyer,
and security staff intervened. The Speaker investigated the incident and the
employee in question was required, for a minimum period of one year, to confine
his activity in the Centre Block to the public entrance and the party offices
on one floor of the building.
[159] Standing Orders 157 and 158. For further information on the role of
the Sergeant-at-Arms, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative
Setting”.
[160] See, for example, the Second Report of the Standing Committee on
Privileges and Elections, presented to the House on September 21, 1973 (Journals,
p. 567). See also the Speaker’s comments in Debates,
November 30, 1979, pp. 1890‑2; May 19, 1989, pp. 1951‑3.
For further information, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[161]Journals, November 27, 2007, p. 219, Debates,
p. 1420.
[162]A
question of privilege arose in 2006 with regard to control over the
lowering of flags to half‑mast within the parliamentary precinct. The Speaker noted in his
ruling that title to the buildings and land within the parliamentary precinct
is in the name of Her Majesty in Right of Canada, and that the authority of the
Speaker applies to the internal affairs of the House and is exercised only as
necessary to enable Members to perform their parliamentary work without
obstruction or interference. He concluded that the position of the flag is an
external matter under the jurisdiction of the owner of the building (Debates,
May 10, 2006, pp. 1188‑9).
[163] National Capital Act, R.S. 1985,
c. N‑4, s. 10(1).
[164] National Capital Act, R.S 1985,
c. N‑4, s. 10(2)(d).
[165]In
2004, the Speaker ruled that a prima facie breach of privilege had
occurred when RCMP officers had interfered with the free movement of Members of
the House of Commons within the Parliamentary Precinct during a visit by the
President of the United States (Debates, December 1, 2004,
pp. 2134‑7).
[166] An example would be messages to the House from the Senate. See, for
example, Debates, November 6, 2001, p. 7043. For examples
of the Speaker conveying resolutions from other legislatures, see Debates,
May 9, 1980, p. 884; December 17, 1986, p. 2205.
[167] In the absence of the Speaker, the Presiding Officer for the
sitting takes the Speaker’s place in the Parade. For further information on the
Speaker’s Parade, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[168] For further information on the opening of a Parliament or a
session, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[169] For further information on the Royal Assent ceremony, see
Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[170] For further information on the Address in Reply to the Speech from
the Throne, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[171] The associations are: Canada‑China Legislative
Association; Canada‑France Interparliamentary Association; Canada‑Japan
Interparliamentary Group; Canada‑United Kingdom Interparliamentary
Association; Canada‑United States Interparliamentary Group; L’Assemblée
parlementaire de la Francophonie; Canada‑Africa Parliamentary
Association; Canada‑Europe Parliamentary Association; Canadian‑NATO
Parliamentary Association; Commonwealth Parliamentary Association (CPA);
Interparliamentary Forum of the Americas (FIPA); and the Interparliamentary
Union (IPU). The interparliamentary groups are the Canada‑Germany Interparliamentary
Group, the Canada‑Ireland Interparliamentary Group, the Canada‑Israel
Interparliamentary Group, and the Canada‑Italy Interparliamentary
Group.
[172] The Joint Interparliamentary Council, which is responsible for
budget allocation among the associations, is presided over by Co‑Chairs
from the two Houses and operates under the authority of
the Senate Standing Committee on Internal Economy, Budgets and Administration
and the Speaker of the House of Commons. In addition to the Chairs,
the membership currently includes two Senators and five Members of the House of
Commons.
[173] Other Members who have attempted to direct the attention of the
House to the presence of visitors have been ruled out of order. See, for
example, Debates, February 6, 1992, p. 6550;
March 15, 2001, pp. 1725‑6; March 21, 2001,
p. 1985; November 21, 2007, pp. 1153, 1156. See also Speaker Milliken’s
remarks in Debates, October 30, 2002, p. 1081.
[174] See, for example, Debates, October 5, 2006, p. 3718
(recognition following Question Period); April 25, 2006, p. 489
(recognition prior to Question Period); June 3, 1992, p. 11294
(recognition during Question Period).
[175] On one occasion, however, a group of World War II veterans seated
in the Diplomatic Gallery was recognized by the Speaker (Debates,
June 6, 1994, p. 4858).
[176] In 1996, 1998, 2002 and 2004, the House sat as a Committee of the
Whole for ceremonies recognizing the national Olympic and Paralympic Teams of
the 1996 Summer Games, the 1998 Winter Games, the 2002 Winter Games and the
2004 Summer Games, for which the athletes were brought onto the floor of the
House (Journals, October 1, 1996, p. 699, Debates,
pp. 4944‑6; Journals, April 22, 1998, p. 691, Debates,
pp. 5959‑60; Journals, April 15, 2002,
p. 1288, Debates, pp. 10393‑4; Journals, November 1, 2004,
p. 173, Debates, pp. 1011‑2).
[177] For further information on joint addresses to Parliament, see
Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[178]Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II,
No. 5, s. 44.
[179]Constitution Act, 1867, R.S. 1985, Appendix II,
No. 5, s. 45.
[181] Of the 34 Speakers who have served the House since Confederation,
26 were first elected at the opening of a Parliament; another 2 (Edgar Nelson
Rhodes and John Fraser) were each re‑elected at the opening of a subsequent
Parliament, having first been elected in the course of the previous Parliament.
See Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House of Commons Since 1867”.
[184] Of the Speakers elected at the beginning of a Parliament (as opposed
to those elected in the course of a session), the nominations of eight were
seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, starting in 1953.
[185] For a typical example, see the election of Speaker Michener on
October 14, 1957 (Journals, pp. 7‑8, Debates,
pp. 1‑4). No more than one name was ever proposed at any election.
Occasionally, there was opposition to the name put forward. For example,
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”—meaning it was not unanimous (Journals,
February 6, 1936, p. 8). The House “divided” on the question, but no
recorded vote was requested.
[186]Wildingand Laundy,pp. 706‑7. Laundy
(pp. 14, 64) identifies Sir Richard Waldegrave as the founder of this
tradition in 1381: “In all probability he anticipated a dispute between
the King and the Commons which could result in embarrassment for himself.
Little could he have known that in expressing his own genuine reluctance to
serve as Speaker he was founding a tradition which was to endure for centuries,
long after it had become completely meaningless”.
[187] This decision was in accordance with the Fourth Report of the
Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure (the Lefebvre Committee),
presented to the House on December 3, 1982 (Journals, p. 5420);
and with the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House
of Commons (the McGrath Committee), presented to the House on December 20,
1984 (Journals, p. 211). The proposed amendments to the Standing Orders
were tabled in the House on June 27, 1985, and adopted the same day (Journals,
pp. 910‑9).
[188]Journals, September 30, 1986, pp. 2‑8, Debates,
pp. 1‑10.
[189]Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1016. After the
Standing Orders were reorganized and renumbered in 1988, the original Standing
Order on the election of the Speaker was divided into the present Standing
Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
[191]See the
Report of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the
Procedures of the House of Commons presented to the House on June 1, 2001
(Journals, p. 465) and concurred in on October 4, 2001 (Journals,pp. 691‑3). Since there was only one candidate for election as
Speaker in October 2004, speeches by candidates were first heard at the
commencement of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament on April 3, 2006 (Debates, pp.
1-3).
[192] The Usher of the Black Rod is an officer of the Senate whose
responsibilities include delivering messages to the House of Commons when its
Members’ attendance is required in the Senate Chamber by the Governor General
or a Deputy of the Governor General (In November 1997, the title of the
office was changed to “Usher of the Black Rod” from “Gentleman Usher of the
Black Rod”. Debates of the Senate, November 6, 1997, pp. 333‑43).
[193] A Deputy to the Governor General is a person, usually a Justice of
the Supreme Court, who exercises the powers of the Governor General on certain
occasions.
[197]Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 2. In practice,
the Clerk sends a written reminder of these provisions to all Members.
[198] This occurred in 1986; the Member who did so, John A. Fraser, was
eventually elected Speaker.
[199] See Laundy, P., “Electing a Speaker―Canadian Style”, The
Table, Vol. LV, 1987, pp. 42‑50. The author was a Clerk
Assistant at the House of Commons at the time of the first secret‑ballot
election of a Speaker.
[200] Standing Order 3(1)(a). Length of service is determined by
reference to the Canada Gazette, which publishes the names of Members
elected in the order in which the returns are received by the Chief Electoral
Officer.
[204] Standing Order 4(3). See, for example, Debates, April 3,
2006, p. 1.
[205] See, for example, Debates, December 12, 1988,
pp. 1‑2; January 17, 1994, p. 1. In
2004, the Member presiding invited all candidates “whose names are on the
ballot and who do not wish to be considered for election to kindly rise and
inform the Chair accordingly”. This resulted in the acclamation of Speaker
Milliken (Debates, October 4, 2004,
pp. 1‑2).
[206]Standing
Order 3.1. See, for example, Debates, April 3, 2006, pp. 1‑3.
[213] Standing Order 4(8)(b). In 1986 (the only election in which
Members withdrew after the first ballot), three Members withdrew their names (Debates,
September 30, 1986, p. 3).
[214] Standing Order 4(9). See, for example, Debates,
September 30, 1986, p. 4. To date, this is the only instance of a
withdrawal following the second or a later ballot.
[215] Standing Order 2(3). This occurred once: in 1986, the House
met at 3:00 p.m., the election process concluded after 11 ballots and the House
adjourned at 2:30 a.m.
[216] For the historical background to this practice, see Laundy, The
Office of Speaker in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, pp. 14, 64. In 2004 (following the election of Speaker Milliken by acclamation) the Speaker was escorted to
the Chair by the Dean of the House (Debates, October 4, 2004, p. 2).
[217] See, for example, the remarks of Speaker Sutherland, the first to
make his remarks in both official languages (Debates, January 11,
1905, cols. 3‑4); Speaker Lamoureux (Debates,
January 18, 1966, pp. 5‑6); Speaker Fraser (Debates,
September 30, 1986, pp. 7‑8); and Speaker Milliken (Debates,
January 29, 2001, p. 4). This is a convention of the British Parliament as
well, where in addition the Speaker‑elect must seek Royal approbation (May,
23rd ed., p. 281). Redlich describes the ancient custom of the
Speaker‑elect making repeated and exaggerated declarations of unworthiness,
which prevailed long before the modern, non‑partisan Speakership, when
the office of Speaker was political and dependent on the Crown, and the
attitude of its incumbent was characterized as “subservient” (Redlich,
Vol. II, pp. 156‑8).
[218] This occurred in 1986, 1988, 1994, 2001, 2004, 2006 and 2008; in
1994, congratulatory remarks were also made by a private Member on behalf of
the independent Members, by the Member who presided over the election, and by
one other private Member (Debates, September 30, 1986, pp. 8‑10;
December 12, 1988, pp. 5‑7; January 17, 1994, pp. 6‑7;
January 29, 2001, pp. 5‑7; October 4, 2004,
pp. 3‑5; April 3, 2006, pp. 5‑6;
November 18, 2008, pp. 10‑1). In 1997, a Member sought the unanimous consent of the House to deem the Speaker unanimously elected, and
it was granted (Journals, September 22, 1997, p. 9, Debates,
p. 4).
[219] In 1963 and 1966, the Prime Minister briefly congratulated the
newly‑elected Speaker (Macnaughton and Lamoureux, respectively) prior to
making the usual suggestion for the suspension of the sitting (Debates,
May 16, 1963, p. 5; January 18, 1966, p. 6). In 1874, after
the election of Speaker Anglin, the Leader of the Opposition offered
congratulations but went on to express misgivings about the government’s
choice. In 1878, in speaking to the motion to elect Speaker Anglin (who had
served as Speaker earlier in the same Parliament, resigned his seat and then
was re‑elected), the Leader of the Opposition questioned the choice of
the government and raised a lengthy argument―in which the Prime Minister
and another Member intervened―as to the right of Mr. Anglin to take his
seat in the House prior to the election of the Speaker (Debates,
February 7, 1878, pp. 2‑11).
[220] Standing Order 2(3). For daily meeting and adjournment times, see
Standing Order 24.
[223]Journals, January 17, 1994, p. 11;
September 22, 1997, p. 9; January 29, 2001, p. 9;
October 4, 2004, p. 9; April 3, 2006, p. 9; November 18, 2008,
p. 10. In 2001, before the House adjourned, the Speaker recognized the
presence in the gallery of Speakers of the provincial legislatures (Debates,
January 29, 2001, p. 7).
[226] See, for example, Debates of the Senate, April 4, 2006,
p. 3.
[227] See, for example, Debates of the Senate, April 4, 2006,
p. 3.
[228]Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 49‑50. See, for
example, the presentation of Speaker Francis, elected during the Second Session
of the Thirty‑Second Parliament, and of Speaker Fraser, elected at the
opening of the Second Session of the Thirty‑Third Parliament (Journals,
January 16, 1984, pp. 72‑3; October 1, 1986, p. 12).
[231] In 1984, the Mace was on the Table and was moved beneath it after
the Speaker’s letter of resignation had been read by the Clerk.
[232]No
claim of privileges is made; this is done only at the beginning of a
Parliament.
[233] For the election of Speaker Bain, see Journals, August 1,
1899, pp. 488‑9, Debates, cols. 9062‑4. For the
election of Speaker Francis, see Journals, January 16, 1984,
pp. 72‑3, Debates, pp. 421‑4.
[234] In 1986, when the Speaker was elected at the opening of the Second
Session of the Thirty‑Third Parliament, the House met, prayers were read
and, after some remarks by the outgoing Speaker who was to preside over the
election of a successor, the Prime Minister was recognized (Debates,
September 30, 1986, pp. 1‑10).
[235] In 1904, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Prime
Minister, and the sitting was then adjourned (Debates, March 10,
1904, cols. 1‑5). In 1916, a new Member took his seat after the Mace
had been placed on the Table (Debates, January 12, 1916, pp. 1‑4);
in other instances, this had occurred prior to the election of the Speaker (Debates,
February 7, 1878, pp. 1‑2; March 10, 1904, cols. 1‑3).
In 1917, the Speaker announced the appointment of a Deputy Sergeant‑at‑Arms,
there were tributes to deceased Members, Orders in Council were tabled by the
Prime Minister and a question asked of the Prime Minister before the sitting
adjourned (Debates, January 18, 1917, pp. 1‑5). In 1935,
when the Speech from the Throne was read later the same day, the Mace was
placed on the Table and, immediately thereafter, the Speaker read the letter
informing the House of the arrival of the Governor General in the Senate
Chamber (Debates, January 17, 1935, pp. 1‑2).
[236] Speaker Anglin, who had earlier resigned his seat and the
Speakership, was re‑elected in a by‑election
and re‑elected Speaker at the opening of the Fifth Session of the Third
Parliament (Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 9‑10).
Speaker Belcourt was elected at the opening of the Fourth Session of the Ninth
Parliament (Journals, March 10, 1904, p. 10). Speaker Sévigny
was elected at the opening of the Sixth Session of the Twelfth Parliament (Journals,
January 12, 1916, p. 6). Speaker Rhodes was elected at the opening of
the Seventh Session of the Twelfth Parliament (Journals,
January 18, 1917, pp. 6‑7). Speaker Bowman was elected at the
opening of the Sixth Session of the Seventeenth Parliament (Journals,
January 17, 1935, p. 2). Speaker Fraser was elected at the opening of
the Second Session of the Thirty‑Third Parliament (Journals,
September 30, 1986, pp. 2‑8).
[237] In 1878, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrived with a
message from the Deputy Governor General for the immediate attendance of the
House in the Senate Chamber. In 1904, 1916, 1917 and 1935, the arrival of the Black
Rod was preceded by the Clerk reading a letter informing the House of the date
and time of the Deputy Governor General’s arrival at the Senate for the opening
of the session. For pre‑Confederation examples and British precedents,
see Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 172‑3.
[238] In 1878, Speaker Anglin’s nomination was not supported by the
opposition. He is the only Speaker whose election was the subject of a recorded
vote (Debates, February 7, 1878, pp. 2‑12).
[239] All Members apart from party leaders and Cabinet Ministers are
considered candidates, unless they take the prescribed action to remove
themselves from consideration (Standing Orders 4(1) and 5).
[240] First Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of
Commons,par. 8-16,presented to the House on December 20,
1984 (Journals, p. 211).
[241] TheSpecial Committee on Reform of the House of Commons,
Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, January 22, 1985, pp. 3, 14‑7.
[242] Standing Orders 3.1 and 4(10). For further information on
campaigning, see Danis, M., “The Speakership and Independence: A Tradition
in the Making”, Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 10, No. 2,
Summer 1987, pp. 17‑9; Holtby, J., “Secret ballot in the Canadian
Commons elects new Speaker”, The Parliamentarian, Vol. LXVIII,
No. 1, January 1987, pp. 36‑8; O’Brien, A., “Election of a
Speaker by Secret Ballot: A Milestone for the House of Commons”, Canadian
Parliamentary Review, Vol. 29, No. 3, Autumn 2006, pp. 27‑8.
It has also been noted that because the 1986 election took place in the course
of a Parliament, there was prior opportunity for the House membership to become
acquainted with the individuals on the ballot.
[243]Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5867‑8, 5876.
Following the general election of 1993, an unprecedented degree of turnover
occurred, such that 205 of the 295 Members sent to the House of Commons were
first‑time Members called upon to elect a Speaker.
[244] Press reports indicate that some candidates attended these
sessions, and some did not. See, for example, Winkelaar, S., “MPs in contention
for Speaker put under Reform microscope”, Times Colonist,
January 15, 1994.
[252]Journals, August 1, 1899, pp. 488‑9. See
also the account in Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 171‑2.
[253]Journals, January 17, 1935, pp. 1‑2, Debates,
p. 1. It was reported that ill health had forced the Speaker’s
resignation. Mr. Black continued to sit as a private Member, but was later
hospitalized and did not contest the general election of October 1935; he
recovered and, in 1940, was elected to his old seat in the House of Commons,
where he remained until 1949 (Levy, G., Speakers of the House of Commons,
4th ed., Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 1996, pp. 56‑7).
See also “Vacancy in the Office of Presiding Officer”, The Table,
Vol. XXIV, 1955, in particular pp. 31‑3.
[254]Journals, January 16, 1984, p. 72, Debates,
p. 421.
[255] These views were expressed in letters written by the Speaker on
September 5, 1986, to the leaders of the three recognized parties in the
House.
[256] Journals, September 30, 1986,
p. 2, Debates, p. 1. Former Speaker Bosley sat as a private
Member until the end of the Thirty‑Fourth Parliament (1988‑93).
[257] Until 1931, Members who accepted certain positions in Cabinet were
required, pursuant to sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act,
to resign their seats and seek re‑election (Senate and House of
Commons Act, R.S. 1927, c. 147, ss. 13 and 14). The Act (now
called the Parliament of Canada Act) was amended to remove this
requirement (R.S. 1930, c. 52, s. 1).
[258] Section 39 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that
“A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a
Member of the House of Commons”.
[259] Journals, March 10, 1904,
pp. 1‑2, 5. The notification of vacancy was dated January 19, 1904;
Mr. Brodeur was then re‑elected in a by‑election and took his seat
in the House as a Cabinet Minister on March 10, 1904 (Journals,
p. 10).
[260]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).
[261]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).
[262] 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, 4th 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).
[264] This occurred over the objections of the opposition, who forced a
recorded vote on the question (Journals, February 7, 1878,
pp. 9‑10).
[265]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, J., Precedents
of Proceedings in the House of Commons, Vol. II, South Hackensack, New
Jersey: Rothman Reprints Inc., 1971 (reprint of 4th ed., 1818), 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, The Office of
Speaker in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, pp. 39‑40).
[266] Province of Nova Scotia, House of Assembly, 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, 4th ed.,
p. 177.
[267]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.
[268]Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province
of Nova Scotia, May 1, 1875, pp. 110‑1.
[269]Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province
of Nova Scotia, May 3, 1875, pp. 111‑2.
[270] 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 Dubroy, J.G., “Canada: House of Commons: Relations
between Chair and Opposition in 1956”, The Table, Vol. XXV, 1956,
pp. 39‑53).
[271] 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.
[272] 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.
[273] 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 had been published in a newspaper (Debates,
pp. 5509‑15).
[274]Journals, July 2, 1956, p. 838. For the full text
of the Speaker’s remarks, see pp. 835‑8.