House of Commons Procedure and Practice

Second Edition, 2009

House of Commons Procedure and Practice - 9. Sittings of the House - Quorum

Quorum

Under the Constitution Act, 1867, a quorum of 20 Members, including the Speaker, is required “to constitute a meeting of the House for the exercise of its powers”.^{^[5]} This constitutional requirement is reiterated in the Standing Orders.^{^[6]} For a quorum to exist, it is sufficient that 20 Members be in attendance, regardless of their party affiliations or whether they are in government or in opposition.^{^[7]} In this regard, the Deputy Speaker of the House stated in 1998:

The count is for the minimum number of 20 members. If 20 members are present the debate resumes. The Speaker is disinterested as to whether it is all government members, all opposition members or a mixture of members from both sides forming the quorum. As such the Speaker is not in a position to tell members from either side of the House who should be in his or her place or how many members should be available for any debate.^[8]

Although there have been several attempts to increase the size of quorum, it has remained unchanged since Confederation.^{^[9]} Modern‑day demands on Members’ time are such that attending the sittings of the House is only one of many duties. Party Whips have traditionally been responsible, through the use of roster systems, for ensuring that the required number of Members is present to maintain the quorum.

Quorum Before a Sitting Begins

At the time the House is scheduled to meet, a count of the House is taken by the Speaker. If fewer than 20 Members are present, the Speaker may adjourn the House until the next sitting day.^{^[10]} The Speaker may take such an initiative only before the House has been called to order.^{^[11]} Once the sitting has begun, “control over the competence of the House is transferred from the Speaker to the House itself. … the Speaker has no right to close a sitting at his own discretion.”^{^[12]} There are no known instances of this having happened at the beginning of a sitting and, in practice, the bells summoning Members to the House at the start of a sitting are not silenced until a quorum exists, often some minutes after the appointed meeting time.^{^[13]} On Wednesdays, the practice is to start the bells a few minutes before the stated hour of meeting so that prayers can be read and the anthem can be sung earlier without time being lost from Members’ Statements and Oral Questions.^{^[14]}

Quorum During a Sitting

During a sitting, any Member may draw the attention of the Speaker to the lack of a quorum, requesting a “count” of the Members present. Such a request may be made while another Member is speaking. If a quorum is obviously present, the Speaker may simply announce that there is a quorum and dispense with the count; the House then returns to its business. If there is some doubt as to there being a quorum, a count is made by the Speaker. If a quorum is present, business continues.^{^[15]} However, if no quorum exists after the first count, the bells are ordered to sound for no longer than 15 minutes.^{^[16]} Within that time period, if a second count determines that a quorum is present, the Speaker will order the bells silenced and the House will proceed with the business before it.^{^[17]} If at the end of the 15 minutes a second count reveals that there is still no quorum, the Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting day, and the names of the Members present are recorded in the Journals.^{^[18]}

As in the House, the quorum in a Committee of the Whole is 20 Members. If notice is taken by a Member that there is not a quorum present in a Committee of the Whole, the Chair counts the Members. If there is not a quorum, the Committee rises and the House resumes its sitting.^{^[19]} On a report from the Chair of the Committee, the Speaker counts the House. If there is no quorum, the bells are rung for a maximum of 15 minutes.

Usually, quorum is quickly restored so that the House may proceed with the business before it.^{^[20]} Should the House be required to adjourn for lack of quorum, any Order of the Day under consideration at the time, with the exception of non-votable items of Private Members’ Business, retains its precedence on the Order Paper for the next sitting.^{^[21]} The lack of quorum means only that the House adjourns for the day.

A number of practices govern quorum calls. A Member who calls quorum need not remain in the House.^{^[22]} Furthermore, a Member who calls quorum while speaking and who subsequently leaves the House may, upon returning after a count that confirmed a quorum, resume speaking.^{^[23]} As well, Members need not be in their seat in order to be counted.^{^[24]} While the count is taking place, no point of order or question of privilege will be considered by the Chair.^{^[25]} Conversely, the Chair will not consider a quorum call once a question has been put.^[26]

When the Speaker adjourns the House for want of a quorum, either at the start of a sitting or during a sitting, Members present are asked to come to the Table and sign the scroll in order that their names may be recorded in the Journals. Logically, only the names of those Members counted ought to appear in the scroll, although in practice this has not always been the case, given that Members are free to enter or leave the Chamber during and after a count. As such, the list of Members entered in the Journals may exceed 20 names.^{^[27]} Thus, to adjourn the House, it is the count which is decisive, not the list of names.^{^[28]}

Lack of Quorum During Divisions

During a recorded division, if the Speaker’s attention is drawn to the fact that the sum of the votes and the number of Members present who did not vote (including the Speaker) is less than 20, then the question remains undecided and the usual quorum procedure is triggered. If no objection is raised at the time the result of the vote is read to the House, the Speaker simply confirms the result and business proceeds as though there were a quorum.^{^[29]}

Quorum when the Attendance of the House Is Requested in the Senate

A quorum is deemed to exist, regardless of the number of Members in attendance, whenever a message is received for the attendance of the House in the Senate.^{^[30]} The constitutional requirement for a quorum of 20 Members does not apply when the House is summoned to the Senate, since the House is not, in fact, exercising any of its powers in responding to the message; it is simply acting as a witness to the proceedings about to take place in the Upper Chamber.

Most messages requiring the attendance of the House in the Senate Chamber are, by prior, informal arrangements between the two chambers, delivered by the Usher of the Black Rod at times when the House is sitting and thus when a quorum is likely to be present. In those instances, the message is received by the Speaker as soon as it arrives and the House, led by the Speaker, proceeds to the Senate.^{^[31]} However, there are occasions when the House stands adjourned and its attendance is required for Royal Assent ceremonies. In such cases, the Speaker may, at the request of the government, cause the House to meet during a period of adjournment for the sole purpose of attending the Royal Assent ceremony.^{^[32]} In such circumstances, when it is known that the attendance of the House in the Senate will be desired, the Speaker causes the House to meet at an appointed hour. When the Usher of the Black Rod arrives, the Speaker receives the message and, with the Members then present (often less than a quorum), proceeds to the Senate. After returning from the Royal Assent ceremony in the Upper Chamber, the House stands further adjourned.

^{^[5]} R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 48. A quorum of 20 Members had previously been established for the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada (Union Act, 1840, R.S. 1985, Appendix II, No. 4, s. XXXIV).

^{^[6]} Standing Order 29.

^[7] In 1990, Nelson Riis (Kamloops) argued, among other things, that it was the responsibility of the government to maintain quorum when dealing with government supply (Debates, April 2, 1990, p. 10083). In the subsequent ruling, Speaker Fraser stated that it was difficult for the Chair to conclude that the government must bear sole responsibility for the House adjourning for want of quorum (Debates, April 3, 1990, p. 10119). See also Debates, May 17, 2000, p. 6970.

[8] Debates, May 7, 1998, p. 6644.

[9] There have been attempts in the past to change the quorum from 20 to 30 and even 50 Members. See, for example, Journals, May 29, 1925, p. 348. Between 1952 and 1980, Stanley Knowles, Member of Parliament for Winnipeg North Centre from 1942-58 and 1962-84, repeatedly introduced bills under Private Members’ Business to increase the quorum to 30 and to 50 Members. None of these bills was passed.

^{^[10]} Standing Order 29(2).

^{^[11]} On November 16, 1982, when the House resumed sitting following the evening meal interruption, the Presiding Officer, not seeing a quorum, took the initiative to order the bells to be rung. When the ringing of the bells failed to produce a quorum, he adjourned the House (Journals, p. 5353, Debates, p. 20729).

^{^[12]} Redlich, J., The Procedure of the House of Commons: A Study of its History and Present Form, Vol. II, translated by A.E. Steinthal, New York: AMS Press, 1969 (reprint of 1908 ed.), p. 74.

^{^[13]} In practice, the bells summoning Members to the House at the start of a sitting continue until a quorum exists, usually five to ten minutes after the stated time of meeting. However, it is for the Chair to determine a reasonable waiting time before adjourning the sitting. On occasion, the bells have rung for several minutes, even for 20 or 25 minutes, before a quorum was found. Such events are not always recorded in the Journals and the Debates. See, for example, Journals, May 3, 2002, p. 1377, Debates, p. 11161.

[14] Debates, March 27, 1991, p. 19068; December 4, 1991, p. 5762.

^{^[15]} See, for example, Debates, June 28, 2005, p. 7903; May 9, 2006, p. 1118.

[16] On one occasion, a Member withdrew his quorum call when he was informed by the Chair that the bells were not working that day (Debates, March 13, 2001, p. 1566).

^{^[17]} Standing Order 29(3). See, for example, Journals, March 24, 2005, pp. 566-7; June 21, 2005, p. 942.

^{^[18]} Standing Order 29(3) and (4). Since 1982, when Standing Order 29(3) was adopted, the House has been adjourned only twice for want of a quorum (Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; October 19, 1995, p. 2032).

^{^[19]} See, for example, Journals, June 6, 1899, p. 239. For further information, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.

^{^[20]} Prior to December 1982, if the first count requested during a sitting confirmed the lack of a quorum, the Speaker was compelled to adjourn the House. On November 29, 1982, the House adopted the current text of Standing Order 29(3) in accordance with a recommendation made by the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, which provided for the ringing of the bells for not more than 15 minutes. The Standing Order came into effect at the end of Government Orders on December 22, 1982 (Journals, November 29, 1982, p. 5400). Before the adoption of this Standing Order, the House had been adjourned nine times for want of a quorum (Journals, June 14, 1869, p. 244; June 29, 1917, p. 402; March 11, 1919, pp. 49‑50; June 9, 1938, p. 434 (Committee of Supply); July 10, 1969, pp. 1329‑31; December 17, 1974, pp. 217‑8; March 23, 1979, pp. 588, 590; May 5, 1982, p. 4797; November 16, 1982, p. 5353).

^{^[21]} Standing Order 41(2). Prior to the adoption of this Standing Order on May 13, 1991, any item under consideration at the time of a lack of quorum would drop from the Order Paper. The House could, however, be asked at a subsequent sitting to revive any item that may have lapsed because of the lack of quorum. See, for example, Journals, March 30, 1990, p. 1477; April 3, 1990, p. 1486. See also Debates, April 2, 1990, pp. 10076‑89; April 3, 1990, pp. 10119‑21. Since the adoption of Standing Order 41(2) in 1991, there has only been one instance of the House being adjourned during a sitting for want of a quorum: October 19, 1995. The business before the House at that time was a votable item of Private Members’ Business in its second hour of debate. This item was dropped to the bottom of the Order of Precedence on the Order Paper (Order Paper, October 20, 1995, pp. 22‑3).

^{^[22]} See, for example, Debates, December 13, 1990, p. 16724.

^{^[23]} See, for example, Debates, April 19, 1982, pp. 16368‑70.

^{^[24]} See, for example, Debates, October 27, 1999, p. 770; September 27, 2001, p. 5653.

^{^[25]} See, for example, Debates, May 5, 1982, p. 17067.

[26] See, for example, Debates, April 2, 1993, p. 18021.

^{^[27]} See, for example, Journals, May 5, 1982, p. 4797; November 16, 1982, p. 5353.

^{^[28]} Journals, July 10, 1969, pp. 1329‑30.

^{^[29]} See, for example, Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2893; May 26, 1989, p. 274. See also Speaker Sauvé’s ruling of July 12, 1982, where it was stated that since no one, according to the record of proceedings, had asked for a quorum call, “a quorum did exist” (Debates, July 9, 1982, p. 19201; July 12, 1982, pp. 19214‑5).

^{^[30]} Standing Order 29(5).

^{^[31]} See, for example, Journals, May 11, 2006, pp. 165-6, Debates, pp. 1266, 1280.

^{^[32]} Standing Order 28(4). See, for example, Debates, June 22, 2007, pp. 10943-4. On occasion, points of order have been raised concerning the proceedings in the House when Members have assembled in anticipation of being summoned to the Senate Chamber for Royal Assent during an adjournment of the House. On December 30, 1988, and on June 29, 1989, Marcel Prud’homme (Saint‑Denis) rose to suggest that as the House was being convened for the sole purpose of awaiting the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod who would summon the House to the Senate, the House should not have proceeded with Prayers nor should the Speaker have taken the Chair prior to the announcement of the arrival of the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod by the Sergeant‑at‑Arms (Debates, December 30, 1988, pp. 851‑2; June 29, 1989, pp. 3803‑6).