Arranging the Business of the House / Miscellaneous

April 15, 1987

Debates, pp. 5187-8

On April 9, 1987, shortly before the traditional 1:00 p.m. lunch period was scheduled to begin, Mr. Nelson Riis (Kamloops—Shuswap) moved, after having presented a petition, the motion “That the House proceed to the next item of Routine Proceedings”. The bells were rung to call Members to a recorded division on the motion. At 1:00 p.m., the Acting Speaker (Hon. Steven Paproski) declared the motion lapsed. Later that day, Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a point of order to object to the Acting Speaker’s actions.^[1]

Mr. Gauthier began his presentation by first referring to an earlier point of order he had raised on December 4, 1986,^[2] where he had objected to a motion declared lapsed by the normal hour of adjournment on the previous day.^[3] He continued his presentation by citing Section 49 of the Constitution Act, 1867, which states that questions arising in the House are to be decided by a majority of voices. Mr. Gauthier argued that in both instances the matter should have been allowed to come to a recorded vote. He asked the Speaker to rule on the issues raised. The Speaker’s decision is reproduced in full below.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: On December 4, 1986, the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier raised a point of order concerning the right of Members to ask for a recorded division, notwithstanding Standing Order 9(1). The honourable Member also asked for clarification of the Chair’s decision to declare a motion lapsed at the usual time of adjournment. On April 9 last Thursday, the honourable Member raised another point of order when the Chair declared another motion lapsed at the time of interruption for lunch.

In the course of his comments, the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier quoted Section 49 of the British North America Act which to him means that when a question is before the House, it shall be decided by a recorded division. The honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier also referred to Beauchesne Citation 217, which describes the practice of having the Party whips march up the aisle and bow to the Speaker to indicate their Members are ready to vote.

The honourable Member for Ontario (Mr. Scott Fennell) argued in support of the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier stating that he felt on December 4 the Deputy Speaker’s decision was premature and that the division ought to have taken place.

I should first like to deal with the question of the time. I have reviewed the record and have come to the conclusion that the Chair intervened at the proper time. Second, the lapsing of motions is not new to this House and, in fact, pre­dates the 1982 bell ringing incident referred to by the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier.

On July 23, 1969, Speaker Lamoureux refused to put a motion to the House after having put an amendment to it because by the lapse of time the main motion had become a nullity. Speaker Lamoureux felt that to put and divide on a motion that would in fact be inoperable was a waste of the time of the House. I refer honourable Members to page 11513 of the Debates of that day.

More recently, to quote only one of many precedents, Madam Speaker Sauvé, on May 17, 1983, as reported at page 25530 of Hansard, ruled as follows on a motion to adjourn the House when the ordinary time of adjournment had been reached:

As the House had not seen fit to vote on this motion by 6 p.m., I have decided that Standing Order 8(1) must come into force.^[4]

Standing Order 8(1) was the Standing Order then dealing with the ordinary time of adjournment.

On December 3 last year, the motion before the House was: That the House do now proceed to Introduction of Bills. At 6 p.m., the usual time of adjournment, it would have been impossible for the House to proceed to Introduction of Bills, even if it had agreed to do so.

On April 9, 1987, the motion before the House at one o’clock was similar in that, if adopted, the House would have proceeded to Introduction of Bills. However, on Thursday it is not possible to proceed to Introduction of Bills after one o’clock because of Standing Order 19(4).

Previous Speakers have ruled consistently that motions such as to adjourn the House, to adjourn the debate, to proceed to the Orders of the Day, that an honourable Member be now heard, are all inoperable beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment which is set by Standing Order 9(1). Such demanded divisions when the bells are ringing at six o’clock are therefore quite unnecessary and the application of Standing Order 9(1) supersedes their taking place.

The motion moved on April 9, 1987, was equally inoperable at the hour of interruption for lunch.

The Chair does not believe this practice infringes on our constitutional rights. The relevant sections of the Standing Orders prevail and render such motions null and void. A recorded division is, therefore, entirely useless.

Prior to the new rules, my predecessors have taken, from time to time, the initiative to suspend the sitting of the House when the bells were ringing beyond the ordinary time of adjournment on a substantive motion. This was done only after consultation with the whips.

This approach was subsequently confirmed in a Standing Order which now allows either the Opposition or Government Whip to ask the Chair for a deferral. This can only be done on motions of substance.

I want to thank the honourable Members for Ottawa—Vanier and Ontario for raising the matter and for giving me this opportunity to comment on the subject. I therefore declare that the rulings made at 6 p.m. on December 3, 1986,^[5] and at 1 p.m. on April 9, 1987,^[6] conform to the letter and the intent of the Standing Orders and also to rulings made by my predecessors. I also want to thank the honourable Member for Ottawa—Vanier for his comments.

F0206-e

33-2

1987-04-15