Rules of Debate / Order of Speakers

Motion that a Member be now heard: receivability; motion moved to allow Member to explain how he would have voted

November 7, 1986

Debates, pp. 1199-1200

On November 7, 1986, under the rubric "Introduction of Bills" during Routine Proceedings, a motion to introduce a bill was defeated on a recorded division. Following a point of order raised by Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis) to explain why he had abstained from the vote, the Speaker recognized Mr. Steven Langdon (Essex—Windsor). Mr. Svend Robinson (Burnaby) immediately rose on a point of order and attempted to move "That the Member for Spadina (Mr. Dan Heap) be now heard."

The Speaker asked Mr. Robinson to indicate on what Mr. Heap would be heard. Mr. Robinson replied that it would be to explain how Mr. Heap would have voted if he had been in the Chamber, just as other Members had done earlier in the sitting. After hearing from Mr. Prud'homme on the point of order, the Speaker ruled.^[1] The ruling is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: Order. The honourable Member for Burnaby has moved a motion. He argues that the motion that an honourable Member be recognized in the place of the honourable Member who has been recognized ought to be accepted by the Chair and that there should be a division, if necessary, in the House. The Chair has considered this practice very carefully. It originated because there were cases in which some Members felt that a particular Member who was recognized ought not to be heard or because a particular Member was not getting a fair chance to rise in his or her place and enter into the debate. These practices go back many years and the time frame in which these rules were made is of great interest to many Members and all historians....

In the case this afternoon there has been no suggestion that honourable Members rising to explain how they would have voted had they been in the Chamber were being precluded from doing so. In fact, it was quite clear that the Chair was recognizing, and properly so, those who wished to give some explanation. However, it is the Chair's view that this practice, historic as it is, originated to protect a Member who might be unpopular or was, for whatever reason, being precluded from speaking. In my opinion, that practice does not apply to the situation before us this afternoon. As a consequence, I rule that the motion moved by the honourable Member for Burnaby is not applicable in these circumstances.

F0701-e

33-2

1986-11-07