Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Matters touching upon the Chair: chairing of Progressive Conservative Party Convention by the Deputy Speaker

March 9, 1993

Debates, p. 16685

On March 8, 1993, Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton—East Richmond) (House Leader of the Official Opposition) rose on a question of privilege concerning an announcement that the Deputy Speaker (Hon. Andrée Champagne) would be the co-chair of the upcoming Progressive Conservative Leadership Convention. The Opposition House Leader (Mr. Dingwall) suggested that the office of Deputy Speaker was not compatible with such a role at a political party convention and contended that by accepting this role “the honourable Member has shown contempt for her responsibilities as an officer of the House.” Other Members also intervened on the matter.^[1] The Speaker, having clarified the fact that Members were not making a personal attack nor criticizing the manner in which the Deputy Speaker fulfilled her duties in the House, reserved on the matter. On the following day, the Speaker delivered the ruling which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: Yesterday the honourable House Leader of Her Majesty’s Loyal Opposition rose on a question of privilege claiming that the Deputy Speaker, the honourable Member for Saint-Hyacinthe-Bagot was guilty of a contempt of the House for accepting to co-chair the Progressive Conservative leadership convention in June 1993.

Normally the Chair would not allow comment on the conduct of a Chair occupant to come before the House in such a manner. There is a formal and well-established procedure whereby Chair occupants can be censored. I allowed the discussion because the honourable Member insisted on proceeding forthwith and pointed out, as subsequently also did the honourable Member for Mission—Coquitlam, that the Deputy Speaker’s performance in the House was above any reproach and was not in question.

I have had an opportunity to review the comments honourable Members have made and I wish to thank all those who sought to assist the Chair in this most delicate issue.

I have reviewed the procedural authorities and have found much comment on the role and impartiality of the Speaker but regretfully very little on the Deputy Speaker. Practice and conventions vary greatly throughout the Commonwealth. In Canada, Deputy Speakers invariably, during majority governments, are chosen from the ruling party on motion made by the Prime Minister. They remain members of their political party, may attend caucus if they choose and may even participate in debate.

They can, and often have, voted on controversial government proposals. Some Deputy Speakers have chosen not to attend caucus and/or have refrained from voting in the House. The current incumbent has done just that, voting only twice since assuming the role of Deputy Speaker, on the abortion legislation, which I point out was a free vote, and on the question for the 1992 referendum. It is no doubt such exemplary conduct that led to the generous comments made about her by all Members who participated in yesterday’s discussion.

In the context of the Canadian practice, and in the absence of specific direction of the House, Deputy Speakers have exercised their discretion to varying degrees. I have some difficulty in agreeing with the honourable Member for Cape Breton—East Richmond (Mr. David Dingwall), that the Deputy Speaker is cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker himself or herself, and I am deliberately careful in not extending such a responsibility by way of ex cathedra comments in this decision. I have no hesitation in ruling, however, that the matter as raised by the honourable Member does not constitute a prima facie case of privilege.

F0117-e

34-3

1993-03-09