The Decision-Making Process / Divisions

Recorded divisions: length of bells; “maximum” length of time for calling Members to a vote; television digital clock; interpretation of Standing Order relating to division bells; role of Whips

January 30, 1990 and March 20, 1990

Debates, pp. 7615, 9513

On January 30, 1990, during debate on the motion for second reading of Bill C-62, respecting the Goods and Services Tax, the superseding motion “That an honourable Member be now heard” was moved. When the question was put, a recorded division was demanded and the division bells began to ring. The Government and Official Opposition Whips approached the Chair, and a recorded division took place shortly thereafter.^[1]

Later that day, immediately following Question Period, Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena) rose on a point of order to question the legitimacy of the vote taken earlier in the day. Upon first hearing the division bells, he had noted that the digital clock visible on the television broadcast of proceedings had indicated some 29 minutes remained before the vote was to take place. Shortly thereafter the bells stopped and the voting procedure began. While offering some suggestions on how the digital display could be modified to ensure Members were aware of the exact proceedings taking place with respect to divisions, Mr. Fulton contended that at present Members who were in committee or elsewhere determined when to come to the House based on the digital clock display. He thus felt his privileges and that of other Members had been infringed upon that day by the “misleading” nature of the digital clock display.^[2]

Members from all three parties commented on the matter of the length of the bells calling Members to a vote, the digital clock, and other issues involved with the taking of this division.^[3] Although the Speaker did not return to the House to rule directly on Mr. Fulton’s point of order, he addressed some preliminary remarks on January 30, 1990 on the issues raised, and addressed some additional remarks on the length of the bells and the interpretation of the relevant Standing Order as part of a ruling on a separate point of order delivered on March 20, 1990. The full text of the Speaker’s remarks on January 30 and a relevant extract from his ruling of March 20, 1990 are reproduced below.^[4]

Decision of the Chair

January 30, 1990

The Speaker: I think perhaps it might be helpful to Members and to the public to understand exactly what has taken place here.

The honourable Member for Skeena has risen and explained to the Chair that watching the television set, which is available in the offices of all honourable Members, he noticed a vote was about to take place. There is for the convenience of Members a digital clock that appears on the face of the television set. It is there for convenience only. I am prepared to certainly consider what might be done in order to make sure that no honourable Member is misled by what the television screen shows.

However, I want to explain to honourable Members and to the public, that when the bells ring, in most cases unless there has been some arrangement otherwise, they are either what is called a 15-minute bell or a 30-minute bell. There is also a long convention in this place that if the two Whips walk back in the Chamber and take their seats earlier than either 15 minutes or 30 minutes, then we are bound to proceed with the vote. Now that is a rule of the House and it is an old and long-time tradition.

The only thing that I am concerned about at the moment has nothing to do with why the bells rang. If honourable Members are interested in why the bells rang or if members of political science classes or the public want to know why the bells rang, they can look at Hansard and see that a motion was moved. Upon that motion being moved, and it has been moved many times by all parties in this place upon occasion, there is a vote called.

It is not for me in listening to this point of order to comment whatsoever on the tactics used, the whys or the wherefores of it. What I am applying my mind to is solely the question of television coverage, and once the vote is called, that is end of the coverage of the Chamber. All we have is the ticking clock. Perhaps the solution might be to have television coverage of the Chamber. Honourable Members could see Whips come in. However, that is not for me to say.

I will look at the question of the clock. I have some indication that Members other than those of the party of the honourable Member for Skeena may have also found themselves in some difficulty today. But that is the sole issue and I want it clearly understood. I will see if something can be done to convenience Members, but I point out the reason the clock is there is a matter of convenience only.

March 20, 1990

The Speaker: Another issue relating to the bells was raised by the honourable Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. John Rodriguez) on January 30, 1990. He asked whether a 15-minute bell or a 30-minute bell is not required to sound for the full time provided in the Standing Order. In other words, he maintains that a 15-minute bell must ring for a full 15 minutes and a 30-minute bell for the full 30 minutes. With respect to this point, I should bring to the House’s attention the wording of Standing Order 45. The relevant words are found in subsections (3) and (4). They are “—the bells to call in the Members shall be sounded for not more than 15 minutes” or “—for not more than 30 minutes.”

The important words appear to be, “for not more than”, which would indicate that the bells can be sounded for any period of time which does not exceed the time mentioned in the Standing Order. It implies, however, that the time for the bells to ring may be less than the total stipulated. Thus, the process followed in the circumstances complained of was proper…

F0411-e

34-2

1990-01-30

1990-03-20