House of Commons Procedure and Practice
Edited by Robert Marleau and Camille Montpetit
2000 EditionMore information …

7. The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House

You know what we demand of you, Mr. Speaker. Perfection! We want fairness, independence, decisiveness, patience, common sense, good humour, upholding the traditions of the House, knowledge of the rules and an intuition for the changing mood and tone of the House as we move through our days.

John N. Turner, Leader of the Opposition
(Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 9)

T

he Speaker of the House of Commons holds a position which is not only one of historical significance but also one of important responsibility. The incumbent of the office performs several functions falling into three main categories. First, the Speaker presides over debate in the House and is responsible for enforcing and interpreting all rules and practices and for the preservation of order and decorum in the proceedings of the House. Second, the Speaker is the chief administrative officer of the House of Commons. Third, the Speaker is the representative or spokesperson for the House in its relations with authorities or persons outside Parliament. This chapter describes the speakership from a general point of view and enumerates the specific powers, duties and responsibilities attached to the office of Speaker.

The Speaker of the House

Historical Perspective

No other office or position is more closely linked to the history of the House of Commons than that of the Speaker. The office dates back at least 600 years, almost to the very beginnings of Parliament itself.

Great Britain

The first Speaker to be so designated was Sir Thomas Hungerford in 1377. [1]  His predecessor, Sir Peter de la Mare, was elected in 1376 and was the first Commons spokesperson known to have been selected by the House membership. [2]  Originally, the Speaker’s principal function was to act as the spokesperson of the House in its dealings with the House of Lords and the Crown. [3]  In an era when the influence and power of the King was great and that of the House still tentative and subordinate, the Speaker was as much an agent of royal interests (seen as “the King’s man”) as a servant of the House. [4]  The year 1642 marked the end of the Crown’s influence over the Speaker, when Charles I, accompanied by an armed escort, crossed the Bar of the House, sat in the Speaker’s chair and demanded the surrender of five parliamentary leaders on a charge of treason. Falling to his knees, Speaker William Lenthall replied with these now famous words which have since defined the Speaker’s role in relation to the House and the Crown:

May it please Your Majesty, I have neither eyes to see, nor tongue to speak in this place, but as the House is pleased to direct me, whose servant I am here; and I humbly beg Your Majesty’s pardon that I cannot give any other answer than this to what Your Majesty is pleased to demand of me. [5] 

While Speaker Lenthall’s words heralded the end of the Crown’s influence over the Speakership, it was the beginning of the government’s authority over the Chair. The Speakership then became an appointment much coveted by members of the party in power and used to advance its policies. The House allowed Speakers, who often held government posts, to participate routinely in debate and to set the agenda of the sitting by selecting when and what bills should be considered. However, with his advent to the Chair, Speaker Arthur Onslow (1728-61) loosened the ties to government and established the standards of independence and impartiality which have come to be associated with the office of Speaker. Believing that widespread corruption in government was destroying the dignity of Parliament, he became a strict proceduralist and impartial arbiter of the House’s proceedings. By the mid-1800s and the tenure of Speaker Shaw-Lefevre (1839-57), the principle of Speakers abstaining from all political activity became established. Throughout the nineteenth century and into the twentieth, the House altered its rules to invest the Speaker with considerable authority to curtail obstruction and disorder, thereby firmly entrenching the tradition of a non-partisan Chair.

It was also during the Speakership of Shaw-Lefevre that the principle of continuity of office began. Upon election, the Speaker renounces all party affiliation and, when seeking re-election to the House, runs as Speaker. No Speaker of the British House of Commons seeking re-election in his or her constituency has been defeated; it has happened that Speakers have faced one or more opponents nominated by other parties. [6]  Upon retirement, the Speaker is appointed to the House of Lords with a pension as compensation for the sacrifice of active partisan political life. [7] 

Canada

As in the British parliamentary system, the Speaker of the Canadian House of Commons functions as its spokesperson and as the presiding officer of its proceedings. However, the historic position and character of the British and Canadian speakerships are distinctly different.

In Canada, the relationship between the Crown, the Senate and the House of Commons was clearly established by the time of Confederation. The Canadian Speaker has not, therefore, been involved in constitutional disputes relating to the role of the Speaker, as took place in Britain over a period of several centuries. The appointment and role of the Speaker were clearly defined in the Constitution Act, 1867 and subsequently in the Parliament of Canada Act and the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. [8] In addition, political parties and party government have always been a part of the Canadian House. The British Commons, on the other hand, saw the development of the system of party government over 150 years of its history, beginning in the late seventeenth century. [9]  By the end of the nineteenth century, it had conferred on its Speaker discretionary powers to overcome determined obstruction by minorities in the House.

In contrast to the established British practice of continuity in the Speakership, the experience in Canada has seen the length of tenure limited normally to one or two Parliaments. [10] The issue of the continuity of the Speakership has often been raised in the House and its committees; [11]  only two of the more than 30 Speakers since Confederation have served more than two Parliaments (i.e., Speaker Lemieux (1922-30) and Speaker Lamoureux (1966-74) each served in three Parliaments). [12] The longest tenure, that of Speaker Lamoureux, lasted nine years.

The Speaker has almost always been elected from among the Members of the governing party, [13]  and although the Speaker eschews partisan political activity, he or she does not make a complete break. Only one Speaker has chosen to sever himself from all party affiliation and to present himself as an independent candidate in general elections. Speaker Lamoureux (1966-74) resigned from the Liberal Party and, as an independent candidate, ran and won in the general elections of 1968 and 1972. In 1968, the Liberal Party and the Progressive Conservative Party did not nominate candidates to oppose him; the New Democratic Party had already nominated a candidate prior to his decision to run as an independent. In 1972, both the New Democratic Party and the Progressive Conservative Party ran candidates against him.

Certain developments in recent years have served to strengthen and enhance the office of Speaker. In 1968, the official Order of Precedence of Canada [14]  was amended to move the Speaker of the House of Commons from tenth position to seventh, immediately after the Governor General, the Prime Minister, the Chief Justice of Canada, former Governors General, former Prime Ministers and the Speaker of the Senate. [15]  Since the mid-1970s, the salary and allowances attached to the office of Speaker have been comparable to those of a Cabinet Minister. [16]  A long-standing rule providing for appeals to the House from decisions of the Speaker was removed from the Standing Orders in 1965. [17]  Provisional rules, adopted on June 27, 1985, and made permanent in June 1987, provide for the election of the Speaker by secret ballot. [18] 

Governing Provisions

The Constitution Act, 1867 establishes the office of Speaker, the requirement for the election of the Speaker, certain of the Speaker’s duties and the right of the Speaker to vote only in case of a tie, referred to as a “casting vote”. [19] 

The Parliament of Canada Act fixes the Speaker’s salary and enumerates certain administrative responsibilities such as chairing the Board of Internal Economy, the body which is by statute responsible for all matters of financial and administrative policy affecting the House of Commons. [20]  The Act also provides for the Deputy Speaker, or any other Member called upon by the Speaker, to preside over the House during the Speaker’s absence. [21]  The Parliament of Canada Act further provides that following a dissolution of Parliament, the Speaker and the other members of the Board of Internal Economy will remain in office, for administrative purposes, until the opening of the new Parliament. [22] 

A number of other statutes have an impact on the role and responsibilities of the Speaker of the House. For example, the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act establishes the Speaker’s role in appointing two members to each provincial Electoral Boundaries Commission, [23]  in tabling the reports of these commissions and in the filing of possible objections. [24]  The Official Languages Act provides that in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Governor in Council may appoint a replacement, following consultation by the Prime Minister with the Speakers of both Houses. [25] 

Certain statutes require the Speaker to receive reports and other documents and to table them in the House. [26] Other statutes, such as the Western Grain Transportation Act, the Emergencies Act, the Energy Administration Act, the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, the Old Age Security Act, the International Development (Financial Institutions) Assistance Act and the Special Economic Measures Act, which provide for Parliament to confirm, revoke or amend instruments of delegated legislation by means of resolutions adopted after debate in the House, also require the Speaker to perform a specific role in this process. [27]

The Standing Orders provide for the Speaker’s duties as presiding officer in the House, and outline further administrative duties, most of which are carried out by the Clerk and the Sergeant-at-Arms under the direction of the Speaker. [28] 

Procedural Role of the Speaker

The House devises its own rules, develops its own practices and is master of its own proceedings. The office of the Speaker derives its authority from the House and the holder of the office can accurately be described as its representative and authoritative counsellor in all matters of form and procedure. [29]  The office of the Speaker is to be distinguished from its incumbent, who requires the support and goodwill of the House in order to carry out the duties of the office. The Speaker’s authority and responsibilities as Presiding Officer in the House of Commons flow in large part from the Constitution and from the written rules of the House.

The duties of the Speaker of the House of Commons require balancing the rights and interests of the majority and minority in the House to ensure that the public business is efficiently transacted and that the interests of all parts of the House are advocated and protected against the use of arbitrary authority. [30]  It is in this spirit that the Speaker, as the chief servant of the House, applies the rules. The Speaker is the servant, not of any part of the House or any majority in the House, but of the entire institution and the best interests of the House as distilled over many generations in its practices.

Despite the considerable authority the Speaker holds, he or she may exercise only those powers conferred by the House, within the limits established by the House itself. In ruling on matters of procedure, the Speaker adheres strictly to this principle, delineating the extent of the Speaker’s authority and in some cases offering a suggestion as to matters which the House may see fit to pursue. [31] 

Guardian of Rights and Privileges

It is the responsibility of the Speaker to act as the guardian of the rights and privileges of Members and of the House as an institution. [32]  At the opening of each Parliament, the House is summoned to the Senate Chamber and the newly elected Speaker addresses the Crown or its representative and claims for the Commons all its rights and privileges. [33]  The claim holds good for the life of the Parliament and is not repeated in the event of a new Speaker being elected during the course of a Parliament. [34]  Freedom of speech may be the most important of the privileges accorded to Members of Parliament; it has been described as:

… a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. [35] 

The right to freedom of speech is not absolute; there are restrictions, derived from practice, convention, and the rules agreed to by the House. For example, the Standing Orders provide for time limits on speeches, and according to the sub judice convention, it is accepted that Members will restrict themselves from discussion of matters which are under the consideration of a judge or court. [36] The duty of the Speaker is to ensure that the right of Members to free speech is protected and exercised to the fullest possible extent; this is accomplished in part by ensuring that the rules and practices of the House are applied and that order and decorum are maintained. [37]  Whenever a Member brings to the attention of the House a possible breach of a right or privilege, the responsibility of the Speaker is to determine whether or not prima facie a breach of privilege has occurred. [38]  In practice the Speaker, in hearing an alleged question of privilege, may intervene to remind Members of the Speaker’s role and to request that the Member’s remarks be directed to providing facts to establish the existence of a prima facie case. [39]  At the Speaker’s discretion, other Members may be permitted to participate. Only when the Speaker has ruled the matter to be a prima facie question of privilege is it before the House for its consideration. [40] 

Order and Decorum

As the arbiter of House proceedings, the Speaker’s duty is to preserve order and decorum in the House and to decide any matters of procedure that may arise. When a decision on a matter of procedure or a question of order is reached, the Standing Orders provide that the Speaker identify which Standing Order or authority is being applied to the case. [41] 

Sometimes, a ruling is given quickly and with a minimum of explanation. [42]  At other times, circumstances do not permit an immediate ruling. The Speaker may allow discussion of the point of order before he or she comes to a decision. [43]  The Speaker might also reserve on a matter, returning to the House at a later time to deliver the ruling. [44]  Once the Speaker has ruled, the matter is no longer open to debate or discussion. On some occasions, the Speaker has chosen to amend or clarify a previous ruling. [45] 

The duty to maintain order and decorum in the House [46]  confers on the Speaker a wide-ranging authority extending to such matters as Members’ attire and behaviour in the Chamber, the conduct of House proceedings, the rules of debate, and disruptions on the floor of the House and in the galleries. There are a number of ways in which the Speaker ensures that order and decorum are preserved:

  • The rules governing the conduct of debate empower the Speaker to call a Member to order if the Member persists in repeating an argument already made in the course of debate, or in addressing a subject which is not relevant to the question before the House. [47]  The Speaker may intervene directly to address an individual Member or the House in general; [48]  or, the Speaker may respond to a point of order raised by another Member. [49]  The Speaker can call to order any Member whose conduct is disruptive to the order of the House. For example, if it is a question of unparliamentary language, the Speaker requests an unequivocal withdrawal of the word or expression. [50] 
  • If the Speaker has found it necessary to intervene in order to call a Member to order, he or she may then choose to recognize another Member, thus declining to give the floor back to the offending Member. [51]  On occasion, a Member who is called to order by the Speaker may not immediately comply with the Speaker’s instructions; in such a case, the Speaker has given the Member time to reflect on his or her position and upon the duty of the Chair, exercising in the meantime the prerogative of the Chair not to “see” the Member if he or she should rise to be recognized. [52] 
  • The strongest sanction available to the Speaker for maintaining order in the House is “naming”, a disciplinary measure invoked against a Member who persistently disregards the authority of the Chair. [53]  If a Member refuses to heed the Speaker’s requests to bring his or her behaviour into line with the rules and practices of the House, the Speaker has the authority to name that Member (i.e., address the Member by name rather than by constituency or title, as is the usual practice) and, without putting the question to the House, order his or her withdrawal from the Chamber for the remainder of the sitting day. [54]  During debate in a Committee of the Whole House, if a Member persists in disorderly conduct and refuses to obey the warning of the Chair to discontinue his or her unparliamentary behaviour, the Chair of the Committee rises and reports the conduct of the Member to the Speaker. The Chair may do this on his or her own initiative without recourse to a motion from the Committee. [55]  The Speaker will then follow the procedure for naming the Member. [56] The power to name a Member extends to the Deputy Speaker and Acting Speaker. [57] 
  • Another means of preserving order in the Chamber is the Speaker’s discretionary power to order the withdrawal of strangers: [58]  that is, anyone who is not a Member or an official of the House of Commons (e.g., Senators, diplomats, government officials, journalists or members of the general public). This has been used to clear the galleries of individuals whose presence has been a cause of disruption. [59]  From time to time, the Speaker has also seen fit to remind spectators in the galleries of the expected standard of behaviour. [60]  In addition, the rules provide that, should a Member take note of the presence of strangers (or should the House wish to proceed in camera [61]), the Speaker may put the question “That strangers be ordered to withdraw”. [62]  This motion is not debatable or amendable, and if decided in the affirmative, the Speaker — with the help of the Sergeant-at-Arms, if necessary — then ensures that the galleries are cleared. [63] 

No Appeals

The present Standing Orders prohibit any debate on decisions of the Speaker and prohibit any appeal of a decision to the House. [64]  From Confederation until 1965, however, it was possible for any Member who disagreed with a Speaker’s decision on a question of order to appeal it immediately to the House (i.e., to move a non-debatable motion on the question of whether or not the House upheld the Speaker’s ruling). [65]  In the early years of Confederation, this was rarely done. [66]  After the turn of the century, however, Members began asserting their right to an appeal to the House. [67]  By the 1920s and thereafter, hardly a session passed that did not see at least one appeal. [68] The practice reached a peak in the session of 1956 when 11 appeals were made, mostly during the very contentious “Pipeline Debate”. [69]  Similar numbers of appeals were made in the Parliaments of 1962-63 and 1963-65. [70]  In 1965, as part of a series of amendments to the Standing Orders, the opportunity to appeal rulings of the Speaker was abolished. [71]  Former Speaker Lambert supported the abolition of appeals because “one of the chief difficulties with the business of Parliament over the past 10 years has been the somewhat indiscriminate use of appeals against Speaker’s rulings, not on points of jurisprudence or points of procedure but for political effect”. [72] 

Before 1965, there were several instances where the decision of the Speaker was appealed and not sustained by the House. The first of these came in 1873 when the House overruled the Speaker on the acceptability of a petition. [73]  In 1926, another ruling was rejected, and three more in 1963 were not sustained. [74]  The vote on a fourth ruling in 1963 resulted in a tie and was sustained when the Speaker declined to give a casting vote and ruled that his decision should stand “since the decision has not been negatived”. [75] 

Impartiality of the Chair

When in the Chair, the Speaker embodies the power and authority of the office, strengthened by rule and precedent. He or she must at all times show, and be seen to show, the impartiality required to sustain the trust and goodwill of the House. The actions of the Speaker are not to be criticized in debate or by any means except by way of a substantive motion. Such motions have been moved against the Speaker [76]  or other presiding officers [77]  on rare occasions. Reflections on the character or actions of the Speaker — an allegation of bias, for example — could be taken by the House as breaches of privilege and punished accordingly.

On two occasions, newspaper editorials were found to contain libellous reflections on the Speaker and were declared by the House, in one instance, to be a contempt of its privileges [78]  and, in the other, a gross breach of its privileges. [79] 

In 1981, a Minister complained that remarks directed to the Speaker by the Leader of the Opposition constituted an attack on the authority and impartiality of the Speaker. The following day, the Minister tabled a motion in the House calling for the remarks to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. However, the Leader of the Opposition withdrew his remarks and the matter was taken no further. [80] 

In another incident, occurring in 1993, a question of privilege was raised concerning disparaging remarks made by a Member about the impartiality of the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. When the Member refused to withdraw the comments, the Speaker stated that the comments “affect[ed] the dignity of [the] House” and were “an attack against the integrity” of an officer of the House. He ruled that prima facie there was a case of privilege and the matter was referred to a Committee. Two days later, the Member rose in the House and withdrew the remarks. [81] 

In 1996, a private Member’s motion on the Order Paper alleged that another Member and his party were guilty of a contempt of the House for attempting to rally public opinion with a view to influencing an upcoming decision of the Speaker. The motion was selected for debate in the House but was later withdrawn without having been considered. [82] 

In 1998, a Member raised a question of privilege, alleging that statements attributed to other Members in a newspaper article (concerning an upcoming ruling of the Chair) constituted an attempt to intimidate the Speaker and the House itself. The Speaker found a prima facie case and the matter was referred to a committee, which investigated and concluded that the statements attributed to the Members “were not intended to be contemptuous of the House of Commons or the Speaker” and that “they did not bring into question the integrity of the House of Commons and its servant, the Speaker”. [83] 

In order to protect the impartiality of the office, the Speaker abstains from all partisan political activity (for example, by not attending caucus meetings), does not participate in debate and will vote only in the case of an equality of voices, normally referred to as the “casting vote” of the Chair. [84]  Since 1979, the Speaker, unlike all other Members, has not had an assigned desk in the Chamber; this is a further indication that it has become an accepted practice that the Speaker has no role whatsoever in debate, whether in the House or in a Committee of the Whole. [85]

Although the requirement that Speakers remain mute in debate has existed since 1867, it has not always been applied when the House met in a Committee of the Whole. During the first 60 years after Confederation, there were many instances of participation by the Speaker in this forum. [86]  By 1927, however, the practice had become rare, and when Speaker Lemieux spoke in Committee, Members objected. [87]  After this, Speakers did not intervene in a Committee of the Whole except on occasion to defend their Estimates. [88]  Since 1968, these Estimates have been referred to standing committees for study and the Speaker, as a witness, continues to defend the Estimates of the House of Commons in this forum. [89] 

In the past, Speakers have appeared before, and have sometimes chaired, House committees, usually when matters of procedure and reform of the rules have been considered. [90]  In recent years, however, Speakers have limited themselves to appearing before standing committees as witnesses on matters within their jurisdiction, such as the spending Estimates of the House.

Casting Vote

The Speaker does not participate in debate and votes only in cases of an equality of voices; in such an eventuality, the Speaker is responsible for breaking the tie by casting a vote. [91] 

In theory, the Speaker has the same freedom as any other Member to vote in accordance with his or her conscience; however, the exercise of this responsibility could involve the Speaker in partisan debate, which would adversely affect the confidence of the House in the Speaker’s impartiality. Therefore, certain conventions have developed as a guide to Speakers (and Chairmen in a Committee of the Whole) in the infrequent exercise of the casting vote. [92]  Concisely put, the Speaker would normally vote to maintain the status quo. This entails voting in the following fashion:

  • whenever possible, leaving the matter open for future consideration and allowing for further discussion by the House;
  • whenever no further discussion is possible, taking into account that the matter could somehow be brought back in the future and be decided by a majority of the House;
  • leaving a bill in its existing form rather than having it amended. [93] 

In 1863, these conventions were acknowledged in the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada when the Speaker was called upon to give a casting vote, and gave as his reason “that in the case of an equal division, the practice was, that the Speaker should keep the question as long as possible before the House in order to afford a further opportunity to the House of expressing an opinion upon it”. [94]  The application of this convention has not always been consistent and there are very few examples where Speakers or Chairmen of Committees of the Whole gave reasons when casting a vote. For instance, on one occasion, the Speaker voted in favour of a hoist amendment [95]  to the motion for third reading of a bill in order “to keep the Bill before the House”; [96]  on another, the Speaker voted against a hoist amendment for the same reason (“to give the House a further opportunity for consideration”). [97] 

The manner in which the Speaker casts a deciding vote is as follows: typically, a recorded vote is demanded, taken and, when an equality of voices is discerned at the announcement of the result, the Speaker then votes and may give reasons. Any given reasons are recorded in the Journals. On one occasion, an equality of voices was announced, the Speaker cast his vote and it later came to light that no tie had occurred. The next day, the Speaker made a brief statement and declared his vote invalidated. [98]  On another occasion, prior to the abolition of appeals from Speakers’ rulings, the voices were equal on the motion to sustain the ruling of the Chair. The Speaker declined to vote, stating that “Since the decision has not been negatived, I declare my ruling sustained” and no objection was raised. [99] 

Specific Duties

Specific duties of the Speaker in the Chamber are described below; many of the procedural topics referred to are explored in greater detail in other chapters.

Opening the sitting:
It is the Speaker’s responsibility to open the sittings of the House once it has been determined that a quorum is present. [100]  When opening a sitting, the Speaker takes the Chair, calls the House to order, reads prayers, directs that the doors to the public galleries be opened, and then calls the first item of business. If, as sometimes happens, the Speaker is absent at the opening of a sitting, the House is so informed by the Clerk and the Deputy Speaker takes the Chair. [101] 
Reading motions, putting questions, announcing results of votes:
Before debate begins on a matter, the Speaker proposes the question by reading the motion on which the House is to decide. When no Member rises to be recognized in debate, the Speaker asks if the House is “ready for the question”, thus ascertaining whether or not the debate has concluded. When debate on a question is closed, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to put the question, that is, to put the matter for a decision of the House, and afterwards to announce the result to the House. [102]
Recognizing Members to speak in the House:
No Member may speak in the House until called or recognized by the Speaker; any Member so recognized may speak during debate, questions and comments periods, Question Period, and other proceedings of the House. Various conventions and informal arrangements exist to ensure the participation of all parties in debate; nevertheless, the decision as to who may speak is ultimately the Speaker’s. [103] 
Deciding questions of order and questions of privilege:
In presiding over the deliberations of the House, the Speaker is responsible for deciding questions of order and questions of privilege, and for ensuring that the rules and practices of the House are respected. [104]  The Speaker rules on questions of order and questions of privilege as they occur and not in anticipation. [105]  A question of order may be brought to the Speaker’s attention by a Member, or the Speaker may intervene when he or she observes an irregularity. [106]  In ruling on questions of order and questions of privilege, the Speaker cites the Standing Order or other applicable authority. [107]  At times, the Speaker may be called upon to deal with situations not provided for in the Standing Orders of the House; in such cases, the rules give authority to the Speaker to consider parliamentary tradition in jurisdictions outside the House of Commons of Canada. [108] 
Decisions on motions:
The Standing Orders confer on the Speaker certain responsibilities in connection with motions coming before the House for consideration. The Speaker has the responsibility to act, in the event that he or she judges a motion to be “contrary to the rules and privileges of Parliament”. [109]  In such a case, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to inform the House at the earliest opportunity, before the question is put, and to refer to the applicable rule or authority. This is to be distinguished from the Speaker’s general power to rule authoritatively on matters of procedure. While the Speaker is guardian of the rules and privileges of the House, he or she is its servant as well; the Members of the House retain control of their collective actions. Thus, if the Speaker were to inform the House that a proposed motion, though correct as to its form, runs counter to established parliamentary principles, customs or privileges, the House would then be in a position to take a decision on the matter, with the benefit of the information provided and the authorities cited by the Speaker. This rule was first adopted after Confederation [110]  and has never been invoked by the Speaker, although there have been attempts to persuade the Chair to invoke it. [111] 

Other rules of the House give the Speaker the power to select which report stage amendments will be considered by the House, and to group these for purposes of debate and division. [112]  In addition, in the event that notice of more than one opposition motion is given when a Supply day has been designated, the Speaker is responsible for selecting the one which will have precedence for consideration by the House. [113] 

Conduct of Private Members’ Business:
It is the overall responsibility of the Speaker to make all the necessary arrangements to ensure the orderly conduct of the hour of each sitting day devoted to Private Members’ Business. [114]  This includes ensuring that the House has 24 hours’ notice of the item to be considered in each sitting, [115]  seeing to the arrangement of exchanges when a sponsoring Member is unable to be present when his or her item is scheduled for consideration, [116]  and refusing a notice of an item of Private Members’ Business which is deemed to be substantially the same as another. [117] 
Private bills:
When private bills [118]  are to be brought before Parliament, those wishing to act as parliamentary agents (i.e., employed in promoting or opposing a private bill) must be granted authority to do so by the Speaker. [119]  The Speaker also has the power to issue a temporary or absolute prohibition on an individual acting as a parliamentary agent, in cases where he or she has failed to act in accordance with parliamentary rules and practice. [120] 
Tabling of documents:
Statutory provisions, as well as rules of the House, state that the Speaker receives and tables certain reports and documents in the House. When the Speaker tables a document, he or she may do so during the sitting; [121]  alternatively, the document may be deposited with the Clerk of the House. [122]  In either case, the tabling is noted in the Journals and the item tabled is deemed permanently referred to the appropriate standing committee. [123]  The specific documents tabled by the Speaker are as follows:
  • As Chair of the Board of Internal Economy (the body responsible for all financial and administrative matters affecting the House of Commons) the Speaker is responsible for tabling reports of the Board’s proceedings. [124]  The reports consist of minutes of the Board’s meetings, which are tabled as they are approved by the Board. [125]  The Speaker is also responsible for tabling the annual reports of the Board’s decisions respecting the budgets of parliamentary committees. [126]  In addition, the Parliament of Canada Act requires the Speaker to table any by-laws made by the Board within 30 days of their making; typically, these are deposited with the Clerk. [127] 
  • Statutory requirements exist whereby designated officers of Parliament [128]  and the Canadian Human Rights Commission transmit their annual reports and any special or investigatory reports to the Speaker, who then tables them in the House. [129] 
  • In the decennial process to readjust electoral boundaries, reports of the provincial and territorial electoral boundaries commissions are transmitted by the Chief Electoral Officer to the Speaker, who tables them when the House is sitting. [130] 
  • When election results are contested under the Dominion Controverted Elections Act, reports are made to the Speaker, who then informs the House; typically, this is done at or shortly after the opening of the sitting. [131]  The legislation also requires the Speaker to inform the House of amendments to the rules of the provincial Supreme Courts, which are the courts of appeal in such cases. [132]  In accordance with the Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act (which provides for investigation of alleged or suspected corrupt or illegal practices during elections), commissions of enquiry are appointed and their reports are made to Parliament — that is, to the Speakers of both Houses — and it would be the Speaker’s responsibility to inform the House of the reports. [133] 
Emergency debates:
When a Member has made a request to move the adjournment of the House in order to debate a matter requiring urgent consideration (an emergency debate), the Speaker is responsible for deciding whether or not the request will be granted. [134]  When the Speaker has granted an application for an emergency debate, the rules provide for it to take place the same day, but the Speaker may also exercise a discretionary power to defer the debate to a specific time on the next sitting day. [135]  An emergency debate ends at the times provided in the Standing Orders, but again, the Speaker has discretion to declare the motion carried and adjourn the House to the next sitting day if, in his or her opinion, debate has concluded before those times. [136]  Once it is underway, an emergency debate takes precedence over all other business; in the event of conflict or incompatibility with regard to other rules or other business of the House, the Speaker has complete discretion in reconciling the difficulty. [137] 
Recall of the House:
When the House stands adjourned during a session, the Speaker has the power to recall the House to meet prior to the date it is scheduled to reconvene. [138]  The request to recall the House is always initiated by a Minister (usually the Government House Leader), and the Speaker has no authority to consider such a request from any other Member. In these circumstances (or while Parliament stands prorogued, or prior to the first session of a new Parliament), upon receipt of a written request from the government, the Speaker will cause to be published a Special Order Paper which informs the House of any measure the government wishes the House to consider immediately. [139]  A notice for recall of the House is not usually withdrawn; but on one occasion, after receiving a request from all the recognized parties in the House, the Speaker issued a formal statement cancelling an earlier notice for recall. [140] 
Parliamentary publications:
The official publications of the House of Commons are published under the authority of the Speaker. These include, among others, the Journals, the Debates, the indexes to the Journals and Debates, the Order Paper and Notice Paper, the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, bills and the minutes and reports of parliamentary committees. [141]
Chairs of Legislative Committees:
The Speaker also has responsibilities with regard to Chairs of legislative committees. [142]  It is the Speaker’s duty at the start of each session, and thereafter as necessary, to select Members to form a Panel of Chairmen. The Speaker exercises a certain amount of discretion in the choice of Members; the rules specify only that a proportionate number of Members be appointed from the government and opposition parties and that the other Presiding Officers of the House be members of the Panel. [143]  Whenever the House agrees to proceed with the appointment of a legislative committee, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to select from the Panel of Chairmen a Member to chair that legislative committee. [144] 

Administrative Role of the Speaker

The Speaker is the head of the House of Commons administration and is responsible for its overall direction and management. [145] The House administration supports Members of Parliament, individually and collectively, in their parliamentary roles as well as the House itself as an institution.

One of the fundamental privileges of the House is to regulate its own internal affairs, holding exclusive jurisdiction over its premises and the people within. [146]  By virtue of theParliament of Canada Act, all matters of administrative and financial policy affecting the House of Commons are overseen by the Board of Internal Economy, [147]  which is composed of Members of the House from the government and opposition parties. The Speaker chairs the Board of Internal Economy.

The day-to-day management of the staff of the House of Commons rests with the Clerk [148]  and the senior officials reporting to the Clerk, subject to orders of the House or of the Speaker. [149]  The Speaker, as Chair of the Board of Internal Economy and senior authority in matters of House management, retains a major interest in issues of human resources management.

Spending Estimates [150]  for the House of Commons are prepared at the request of the Board of Internal Economy and once they have been approved by the Board, it is the Speaker’s responsibility to transmit them to the President of the Treasury Board for tabling with the government’s departmental Estimates for the fiscal year.

The Speaker also chairs the Executive Committee, which is established by the Board of Internal Economy. The Executive Committee is responsible for management policy and major decision-making affecting general administrative practices, security, and financial and human resources administration. [151] 

The right of each House of Parliament to regulate its own internal affairs also extends to the management of the premises “within the precincts and beyond thedebating Chamber …”. [152]  As guardian of the rights and privilege of the House, the Speaker ensures that they are respected within and outside the House. [153]  Within the precincts, the Speaker oversees matters of security and policing. Security within the buildings occupied by Members and staff of the House is the responsibility of the Sergeant-at-Arms, who acts under the Speaker’s authority. [154]  For this purpose, the House maintains its own security service. Arrangements are in place whereby the Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) is charged with security of the grounds outside the buildings. There are occasions when the House security staff request and receive assistance from outside police forces, whether the RCMP or the local police. It is also well established that outside police forces wishing to enter the parliamentary precincts must first have permission from the Speaker to do so, and that the authority to grant or withhold permission rests with the Speaker, who exercises sole discretion in this regard. [155] 

The Speaker as the chief administrator of the House oversees all its dealings with government departments in matters of administration. Public Works and Government Services Canada (PWGSC) is the primary provider of central and common services to the Government of Canada and to the Parliament of Canada. Officials of the House of Commons, under the Speaker’s authority, work in close co-operation with PWGSC for the delivery of professional and technical services such as translation and interpretation, printing and publishing, as well as the management of the Parliament Buildings and leased properties. The National Capital Commission (NCC) is a Crown corporation whose objective is to plan and assist in “the development, conservation and improvement of the National Capital Region in order that the nature and character of the seat of the Government of Canada may be in accordance with its national significance”. [156]  The NCC has the responsibility for maintaining the grounds on Parliament Hill [157]  and this historic site is the focal point of much other NCC-sponsored activity. The Speaker is naturally interested to ensure that all such activity takes place with due regard to the dignity and authority of the institution and the privileges of Members, such as the right to have access to the House of Commons and the parliamentary precinct at all times.

Ceremonial /Diplomatic Role of the Speaker

Certain responsibilities of the Speaker may be categorized as being of a traditional, ceremonial or diplomatic nature, highlighting the role of the Speaker as a representative of the Commons. The Speaker is the representative and spokesperson for the House of Commons in its relations with the Senate, the Crown and other bodies outside the House of Commons. Messages, correspondence and documents addressed to the House of Commons are communicated to it by the Speaker. [158] 

When entering or leaving the House, the Speaker is always preceded by the Sergeant-at-Arms, who carries the Mace. [159]  The opening of a sitting of the House is preceded by a ceremonial event known as the Speaker’s parade, in which the Speaker walks in procession through the halls of the Centre Block to the House of Commons Chamber. [160]

Whenever the House is summoned to the Senate Chamber to attend the Queen, the Governor General, or the representative of the Governor General, the Speaker leads the procession. This happens at the opening of a Parliament and of a session, [161] or whenever there is to be a ceremony to grant Royal Assent to bills. [162] When a new Parliament or new session opens and a Speech from the Throne is read in the Senate Chamber, it is then officially communicated to the House by the Speaker. When the House has debated the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, the text of the Address is engrossed, signed by the Speaker and personally presented to the Governor General. [163]

The Parliament of Canada maintains relations with the provincial and territorial legislatures as well as with most foreign parliaments. Many of these relationships are carried on by, or in the name of, the Speaker of the House of Commons and the Speaker of the Senate. Contacts between the Parliament of Canada and other parliaments and legislative assemblies may range from exchanges of correspondence, to formal visits conducted on a reciprocal basis, to training and development sessions for parliamentary officers.

The Parliament of Canada is an active participant in the international exchange of ideas, information and experiences among world parliaments, and holds membership in several inter-parliamentary associations and friendship groups. [164] The Speaker of the House is an honorary president of each of them and, with the Speaker of the Senate, authorizes the budgetary allocations for each association. [165]  Parliamentarians (as delegates, members or participants) attend national, bilateral and international meetings, conferences and seminars arranged through the parliamentary associations and friendship groups.

Outside the framework of the inter-parliamentary associations, the Parliament of Canada also participates in exchanges and programs of parliamentary co-operation with other parliaments throughout the world, authorized and overseen by both Speakers. Parliamentary exchanges offer parliamentarians the opportunity to broaden their knowledge, to discuss problems of mutual interest and issues of the day. The Speaker’s involvement may include accepting invitations from other parliaments, hosting visiting delegations of parliamentarians, and participating in the meetings of Speakers from Canada and abroad.

During a sitting, the Speaker may draw the attention of the House to the presence of distinguished visitors seated in the gallery of the House. [166]  Generally, this takes place immediately following Question Period, though the Speaker has also recognized visitors prior to Question Period and even during Question Period. [167]  In most cases, the visitors recognized are seated in the Speaker’s Gallery. [168]  No written rules or formal guidelines exist to define what type of visitors the Speaker shall recognize. The practice has been to recognize:

  • heads of state and leaders of foreign governments, and official guests of the Governor General or of the Prime Minister;
  • parliamentary delegations, presiding officers and cabinet ministers from provincial and territorial legislative assemblies, or from foreign countries;
  • Canadians who have distinguished themselves in any field of endeavour by their achievements, deeds or success of national or international scope. [169] 

From time to time, a distinguished visitor (usually a head of state or of government) has given a joint address to Members of the House of Commons and Senators in the House of Commons Chamber. The Speaker, as host, takes a pre-eminent role in such events, which are organized in accordance with an established protocol. [170]

Election of the Speaker as Presiding Officer

The election of the Speaker of the House of Commons is a constitutional requirement. [171]  An election must take place at the beginning of the first session of a Parliament, when the House is without a Speaker. Should the Speaker resign or state his or her intention to resign in mid-Parliament, election proceedings again take place; a vacancy occurring for any other reason also leads to the election of a new Speaker. [172]  This constitutional requirement is the basis of the Standing Orders which specify when and under what circumstances the election of a Speaker takes place. [173]  Although the Speaker has in most cases been elected at the opening of the first session of a Parliament, several Speakers have been elected in mid-session or at the opening of the second or later session of a Parliament. [174] In any case, the election takes precedence over all other business and is not to be considered as a question of confidence in the government. [175]  If necessary, the election continues beyond the ordinary hour of daily adjournment until a Speaker is elected. No other business can come before the House until the election has taken place and the new Speaker has taken the Chair. [176] 

Although the time at which a Speaker is to be elected is described in the Constitution, no Standing Order before 1985 ever indicated by what means this should be accomplished. From 1867 to 1985, the Clerk of the House conducted the election. The general practice was for the Prime Minister to propose the name of a Member to become Speaker. This debatable motion was usually seconded by a leading Minister, although starting in 1953, the nomination typically was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition. [177] After debate on the motion, the question was put by the Clerk and the Member was elected by a majority of the Members present; in almost all cases, the motion was carried unanimously. [178]  The Speaker-elect, showing mock reticence, was then escorted to the Chair by the mover and seconder, after which he or she accepted the nomination and the Mace was placed on the Table. It has been customary for the Speaker-elect to make a pretence of reluctance while being escorted to the Chair. This has its origin in the genuine reluctance with which early British Speakers assumed their duties. [179] 

In 1982, the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure (known after its chairman as the Lefebvre Committee) recommended a new procedure to be followed in electing a Speaker by secret ballot. [180]  The recommendation was acted upon in 1985, when the government responded favourably to a re-issue of the recommendation by the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons (known after its chairman as the McGrath Committee). [181]  In its response, the government suggested changes to the recommendation that were later reflected in proposed amendments to the Standing Orders. The amendments were adopted by the House in June 1985. [182]  The new procedure went into effect in September of that year on a provisional basis and was first invoked in 1986 when Speaker Bosley resigned the Speakership and, after 11 ballots, the House elected John Fraser as the new Speaker. [183]  The protracted election prompted calls for changes in the process; to that end, the Standing Orders were amended in 1987, to exclude from a subsequent ballot candidates receiving five percent or less of the total votes cast. At the same time, the secret ballot procedure became permanent. [184]  In 1988, Speaker Fraser was re-elected on the first ballot. In 1994, Speaker Parent was elected after six ballots, and re-elected in 1997 after four ballots.

Election of the Speaker by Secret Ballot

When the House meets at the beginning of a new Parliament, Members are summoned to the Senate Chamber through a message delivered to the House by the Usher of the Black Rod. [185]  Preceded by the Clerk of the House, the Members go to the Senate Chamber where they are informed by a Deputy of the Governor General [186]  that the causes of summoning will not be divulged (meaning that the Speech from the Throne will not be read) “until the Speaker of the House of Commons shall have been chosen according to Law …”. The Members then return to the House and proceed immediately to the election of a Speaker.

All Members of the House, except for Ministers and party leaders, are automatically considered candidates for the Speakership. [187]  The Standing Orders designate who shall preside over the election of a Speaker [188]  but are silent as to whether the Member presiding could also be a candidate. In all four elections to date, the Member presiding took the prescribed action to remove himself from the list of candidates. Any eligible Member who does not wish to be considered must so inform the Clerk in writing by 6:00 p.m., at the latest, on the day before the election is to take place. [189]  The notice of withdrawal must be signed by the Member. [190]  After the deadline has passed, the Clerk draws up an alphabetical list of the names of Members who do not wish to be considered or who are ineligible by virtue of being Ministers or party leaders. A Member who has withdrawn may, before the deadline, recall the letter of withdrawal and allow his or her name to go forward. [191]

The rules providing for the Speaker’s election by secret ballot are silent on many aspects of the election process. In 1986, when preparations began for the first secret-ballot election, matters not covered by the written rules were settled by the Clerk in consultation with the House Leaders, and have since then become part of the practice associated with an election of the Speaker. [192] 

The Chamber is set up somewhat differently from normal when a Speaker is to be elected. The Table is cleared of its usual accoutrements and, while the Clerk’s chair remains at its head, the chairs of the Table Officers are removed. A ballot box is placed on a stand at the foot of the Table and portable voting booths are placed on either side of the Table. While the election proceeds, the Mace rests under the Table as no Speaker is in the Chair.

When the election of a Speaker takes place at the beginning of a Parliament, it is presided over by the so -called “dean of the House”, the Member with the longest unbroken record of service who is neither a Minister nor a holder of any office within the House. [193]  After the return of the House from the Senate Chamber, the Clerk invites the dean of the House to take the Chair as the Member presiding. When an election is held during a Parliament to replace a Speaker who has given notice of his or her intention to resign, as was the case in 1986, the outgoing Speaker presides. [194]  In the absence of an outgoing Speaker at an election taking place in the course of a Parliament, the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole would preside. [195]  The Member presiding is vested with all the powers of the Chair and votes in the election; however, he or she may not cast an additional ballot in the event of a tie. [196] 

The Standing Orders require the Member presiding to inform the House that the list of Members who do not wish to be considered for election to the office of Speaker, or who are ineligible, is available for consultation at the Table. [197]  This is done before balloting begins; at the same time, the Member presiding reads out (in alphabetical order) the names of the Members appearing on the first ballot, and informs the House that this list is available in each voting booth. Both these lists will also have been distributed to Members at their desks. It has happened that Members not wishing to be considered have sought to remove their names before having passed the start of voting. The Member presiding has responded that, the deadline having passed (6:00 p.m. of the previous day), the list for the first ballot cannot be amended, but doubtless the House would take note of any such request. [198]  The voting begins when the Member presiding asks those who wish to cast their ballots to leave their desks, proceed along the corridors behind the curtains in the direction of the Chair, and come to the Table through the doorways at the left and right of the Chair, according to whether the Members sit on the Speaker’s left or right.

At these doorways, Members have their names recorded and are issued ballot papers by Table Officers assisting the Clerk. [199]  Members must enter through the doorway on the side of the House where they are seated. Once provided with a ballot paper, Members then proceed to the voting booth on the appropriate side of the Table. Members print the first and last names of a candidate on the ballot paper, [200]  deposit the paper in the ballot box [201]  and then leave the area around the Table in order to ensure the confidentiality of the vote for other Members.

When the Member presiding is satisfied that all Members wishing to vote have done so, the Clerk withdraws from the Chamber to count the ballots, with the assistance of other Table Officers, in a nearby room. The Sergeant-at-Arms carries the ballot box, and pauses by the Chair while the Member presiding deposits his or her ballot paper. The Member presiding then signifies that the proceedings are suspended while the counting of the ballots takes place.

The ballots are counted in secret. Once the Clerk is satisfied as to the accuracy of the count, all ballot papers and related records are destroyed. The Clerk is enjoined by the Standing Orders not to divulge in any way the number of ballots cast for any candidate. [202]  When the count is complete, the bells are rung for a few minutes to call the House to order and the Clerk re-enters he Chamber.

If any Member has received a majority of the votes cast, the Clerk gives the Member presiding the name of the successful candidate, which is then announced from the Chair. [203]  If no Member has received a majority of the votes cast, then the Clerk provides the Member presiding with a list of the candidates in alphabetical order for the next ballot. The list is drawn up as follows: from the original list of candidates, the Clerk deletes the name of the last-place candidate (or names, in the case of a tie vote for last place), as well as the name of any Member who received five percent or less of the total votes cast. [204]  The rule further provides that no names be deleted in the event that every candidate receives the same number of votes. The Member presiding announces that a second ballot will be necessary and reads out the names of the candidates. At this point, any candidates on the second ballot who do not wish to be further considered may rise and withdraw, stating their reasons. [205]  The Clerk is then instructed to remove from the list the names of Members who have thus withdrawn. When an alphabetical list of eligible Members is available in each voting booth, the Member presiding asks Members who wish to vote to proceed in the same manner as for the first ballot.

The voting procedure for the second ballot is the same as for the first, except that the ballot papers are a different colour. When the Member presiding is satisfied that all Members wishing to vote have done so, he or she instructs the Clerk to proceed with the count of the second ballot. When the count is complete, the Clerk destroys all the ballot papers and related records, again to ensure the secrecy of the count as required by the Standing Orders.

The Member presiding then calls the House to order and either announces the name of the successful candidate, or that a third ballot will be necessary, in which case the names of the candidates eligible for the third ballot will be read from the list prepared by the Clerk. Members who wish to withdraw their candidacy at this point or on any subsequent ballot may do so and are not required to give reasons. [206]  The names of those who withdraw are then removed from the list of eligible candidates and, when the list is made available, the Members proceed to vote.

Balloting continues in this fashion until one candidate has received a majority of the votes cast or until only one name remains. If necessary, the House may continue to sit beyond its usual adjournment time until a Speaker is declared elected. [207] 

After announcing the name of the successful candidate from the Chair, the Member presiding invites the Speaker-elect to take the Chair. The Member presiding steps down and escorts the Speaker-elect from his or her seat to the dais. The Speaker-elect may make a token show of resistance. [208] 

Standing at the top of the steps, the first official act of every Speaker elected since Confederation has been to thank the House for the honour it has bestowed. The opening words follow a pattern established over time: “Honourable Members, I beg to return my humble acknowledgements to the House for the great honour you have been pleased to confer upon me in choosing me to be your Speaker”.

Speakers have typically included in their remarks a pledge to carry out their duties with firmness and impartiality, an acknowledgement of the great responsibilities of the office, a request to the House for its continued support and goodwill, and acknowledgements and commendations directed to predecessors, other candidates (in the case of secret-ballot elections), constituents, family and fellow Members. [209]  The Speaker then takes the Chair. The voting booths and ballot box having been removed, the Sergeant-at-Arms takes the Mace (symbol of the authority of the House) from under the Table, where it sits during the election, and places it on the Table, signifying that now with the Speaker in the Chair, the House is properly constituted.

Since the Speaker has been elected by secret ballot, the party leaders have risen on occasion to offer congratulations and good wishes, and to pledge their support once the newly elected Speaker has taken the Chair and the Mace has been laid on the Table. [210]  Before 1986, when the Speaker was nominated on a motion moved by the Prime Minister and elected when the motion was adopted by the House, it was the custom for the individual nominated to be warmly spoken of in the nomination speeches of the Prime Minister and Leader of the Opposition, and congratulatory remarks after the election did not occur as a rule. [211] 

By the time the new Speaker has taken the Chair and heard from any Members wishing to offer congratulations, the House may have gone beyond its usual time of adjournment as set out in the Standing Orders; under these circumstances, the Speaker adjourns the House until the next sitting day. [212]  This occurred in 1986 when the House adjourned at 2:30 a.m. to reconvene later the same day for the opening of the session. [213]  In 1988, the Speaker was elected after a single ballot, and the sitting was suspended for several hours until the opening of Parliament later the same day. [214]  At other times, the Speaker was elected before the House reached its usual adjournment time, and the House then adjourned to the following day at the time fixed for the opening of Parliament. [215] 

During the election of a Speaker, debate is not permitted, no motions are accepted and the Member presiding may not entertain any question of privilege. [216]  On one occasion, a point of order was raised and settled by the Chair. [217] 

At the time fixed for the formal opening of Parliament with a Speech from the Throne, the House receives the Usher of the Black Rod and goes in procession to the Senate Chamber. At the Bar of the Senate, the newly elected Speaker stands on a small platform, removes his or her three-cornered hat and receives an acknowledgement from the Governor General, who is seated on the Throne. The Speaker addresses the Governor General by an established formula, as follows:

May it please Your Excellency,

The House of Commons has elected me their Speaker, though I am but little able to fulfil the important duties thus assigned to me. If, in the performance of those duties, I should at any time fall into error, I pray that the fault may be imputed to me, and not to the Commons, whose servant I am, and who, through me, the better to enable them to discharge their duty to their Queen and Country, humbly claim all their undoubted rights and privileges, especially that they may have freedom of speech in their debates, access to Your Excellency’s person at all seasonable times, and that their proceedings may receive from Your Excellency the most favourable construction. [218] 

The Speaker of the Senate, on behalf of the Governor General, makes the traditional reply:

Mr./Madam Speaker,

I am commanded by His/Her Excellency the Governor General to declare to you that he/she freely confides in the duty and attachment of the House of Commons to Her Majesty’s Person and Government, and not doubting that their proceedings will be conducted with wisdom, temper and prudence, he/she grants, and upon all occasions will recognize and allow, their constitutional privileges. I am commanded also to assure you that the Commons shall have ready access to His/Her Excellency upon all seasonable occasions and that their proceedings, as well as your words and actions, will constantly receive from him/her the most favourable construction. [219] 

A new Speaker always presents himself or herself to the Governor General; however, the claiming of privileges by the Speaker on behalf of the House takes place only at the opening of a Parliament and is not repeated in the event that a new Speaker is elected before the end of the Parliament. [220] 

Election of the Speaker During a Session

When a Speaker is to be elected during a session, the Members assemble in the House at the usual time for the start of the sitting. The Chair is taken either by the Speaker who has already indicated his or her intention to resign the office, [221]  or, in the absence of the Speaker, by the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. [222]  Because the office of Speaker is vacant, the Mace is not on the Table. [223]  The Prime Minister informs the Members that the Governor General has given leave to the House to elect a Speaker. The Chair occupant then presides over the usual proceedings for the election of a Speaker. Once a successful candidate is announced, the Speaker-elect is escorted from his or her place and makes some brief remarks from the upper steps before taking the Chair for the first time. The Mace is then placed on the Table and the sitting is suspended for a few minutes pending the arrival of the Usher of the Black Rod. Once summoned, the House proceeds to the Senate Chamber where the Speaker presents himself or herself and receives the Governor General’s acknowledgement, in the traditional wording. [224] On its return from the Senate, the House proceeds to the business of the sitting.

Only two of the 33 Speakers elected since Confederation were elected during a session. [225]  Both cases predate the current rules providing for the election of the Speaker by secret ballot. In 1899, Speaker Bain succeeded Speaker Edgar, the only Speaker to have died while in office, and presided over the House for the remainder of the Eighth Parliament, until 1901. Speaker Francis was elected during the Thirty-Second Parliament (1984) to succeed Speaker Sauvé, who resigned to become Governor General of Canada. Speaker Bain and Speaker Francis presided over the House for the balance of the session and the Parliament in which they were elected.

Election of the Speaker at the Opening of a Second or Later Session Within a Parliament

When the House is to proceed to the election of a Speaker immediately at the opening of the second or subsequent session within a Parliament, the House meets for the opening of the session on the date fixed by proclamation. As for the election of a Speaker during a session, the Chair is taken either by the Speaker who has already indicated his or her intention to resign the office, or by the Deputy Speaker, and the Mace is not on the Table. The Prime Minister is recognized and signifies the consent of the Governor General to proceed to the election of a new Speaker. [226]  The House then goes through the usual proceedings for the election of a Speaker. The Speaker-elect is escorted from his or her seat to the dais where he or she makes the usual remarks and acknowledgements and takes the Chair for the first time. The Mace is then placed on the Table. The sitting would normally be adjourned at this point or shortly thereafter, and the presentation of the Speaker to the Governor General and the reading of the Speech from the Throne would take place the following day. [227] 

The election of a Speaker on the opening day of the second or subsequent session of a Parliament has occurred six times since 1867. [228]  Each time, the vacancy in the Speakership arose through resignation. In 1986, the most recent example, Speaker Bosley’s resignation took effect on the opening day of the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament, and Speaker Fraser then became the first to take the Chair under the new rules for the election of the Speaker by secret ballot.

In all six cases, the House met for the opening of the session on the date fixed by proclamation. In the five cases preceding 1986, the House was immediately summoned to the Senate and advised (as at the opening of a Parliament) that a Speaker must be chosen before the Speech from the Throne could be read. [229]  On its return from the Senate, the House proceeded to the election of a Speaker; a Member was nominated by the Prime Minister, seconded by a leading Minister, and (with one exception [230] ) after a brief intervention by the Leader of the Opposition, the person nominated was unanimously elected.

Campaigning for the Speakership

The rules for the election of the Speaker by secret ballot contain no provision for a nomination process and are silent on the matter of campaigning for the office. [231]  The special procedure committee which recommended the secret-ballot process sought to give control of the choice of Speaker to the House and its Members (away from what it called the “exclusive control” of the Prime Minister), noting that the Speaker belongs not to the government or opposition but to the House. [232]  Speaker Bosley, appearing before the committee in 1985, expressed reservations about the success of a secret-ballot system should political-style campaigning be resorted to. [233] 

In each of the four secret-ballot elections held to date (1986, 1988, 1994, 1997), campaign activity occurred but took place informally, outside the Chamber, because the rules do not permit debate during the election process. [234]  In recent years, Members have noted the difficulty faced by those newly elected to the House who are called upon to choose a Speaker with little time or opportunity to become informed about all the candidates. [235]  Prior to the election for the Speaker in 1994, some of the parties in the House organized caucus meetings to which individual candidates were invited. [236]  Prior to the 1997 election, it was suggested that candidates should declare themselves and attend an all-party question-and-answer session organized by one of the four opposition parties. [237] 

Tenure

A Speaker is elected as the first item of business at the start of each Parliament, and presides over the House for the life of the Parliament. [238]  When the Parliament is dissolved, the Speaker is deemed to remain in office for administrative purposes until a new election takes place. [239]  Should a vacancy in the Speakership occur during a Parliament, another Speaker must be elected forthwith; [240]  no other business can come before the House until a new Speaker has been chosen.

A vacancy in the Speakership can arise through death or resignation of the office. Speaker Edgar (1896-99) died while in office, in July 1899, during a session. Speaker Edgar had been away from the House for some time, due to indisposition. In his absence, the Chair was taken by the Deputy Speaker. [241]  Speaker Edgar’s death was announced to the House on July 31, 1899, by the Prime Minister, who then moved a motion for the adjournment of the House. After a brief intervention by a Member of the opposition, the motion was adopted and the sitting was adjourned. [242]  The next day, the House met at its usual time and immediately proceeded to elect a new Speaker. [243] 

A vacancy in the Speakership may occur when the Speaker expresses an intent to resign the office or if the House were to take action to remove the Speaker from office. It has also happened that the office of Speaker has been vacated when the incumbent accepted a position which necessitated an automatic relinquishing of his or her seat in the House.

On three occasions, a vacancy in the Speakership arose after the Speaker gave written notice of intent to resign. The resignations were those of Speaker Black in 1935, Speaker Sauvé in 1984 and Speaker Bosley in 1986.

The resignation of Speaker Black (1930-35) as Speaker was tendered in a letter to the Prime Minister dated January 15, 1935, during a prorogation. This was announced to the House by the Prime Minister when the House met on January 17, the date set for the opening of the session. The House then proceeded to elect a new Speaker. [244] 

Speaker Sauvé (1980-84), having been designated to become Governor General of Canada, resigned as a Member and as Speaker by letter to the Clerk of the House dated January 6, 1984. The letter stated that her resignation would take effect as of midnight, January 15, 1984. The House, which had adjourned on December 21, reconvened on January 16, and the Clerk read the letter. The House then proceeded to the election of Speaker Francis. [245] 

Speaker Bosley (1984-86) resigned the Speakership in 1986. His concern about the “erosion of public respect for Parliament” was known, and it was his opinion that he could best contribute to the reform of the institution as a private Member, giving the House an “unfettered” choice of Speaker by the new secret-ballot process. [246]  He wrote to the Clerk on September 5, 1986, while Parliament was prorogued, tendering his resignation to take effect with the election of a successor on the date set by proclamation for the opening of the new session. When the House met on September 30, the Speaker tabled copies of the correspondence and expressed his acknowledgements to the House for the honour of having served as its Speaker. Then, pursuant to Standing Order, he presided over the election by secret ballot of Speaker Fraser. [247] 

In three further instances, Speakers accepted other positions, by virtue of which their seats in the House (and thus the Speakership) were relinquished. Speaker Brodeur (1901-04) and Speaker Sévigny (1916-17) were appointed to Cabinet [248]  and Speaker Sproule (1911-15) was appointed to the Senate. [249]  In each case, the appointment took effect during the interval between two sessions and, therefore, no formal indication of intent to resign was communicated to the House. On those occasions, when the House reconvened, it met without a Speaker. The letter informing the House of the Deputy Governor General’s arrival for the opening of the new session, normally read by the Speaker, was instead read by the Clerk. Later, when in accordance with usual practice, the Clerk announced the list of electoral districts for which notifications of vacancy had been received, among them were those of Speaker Brodeur in 1904, [250]  Speaker Sproule in 1916 [251]  and Speaker Sévigny in 1917. [252] 

There is also the unusual example of Speaker Anglin, who was twice elected Speaker in the course of the Third Parliament (1874-78). First elected at the opening of Parliament in 1874, he vacated his seat in the House during the intersession. [253]  A by-election was held, in which Mr. Anglin was re-elected. Thus, when the new session opened on February 7, 1878, the House was informed both of the vacancy in the riding held by the former Speaker, and of his re-election to the House. [254]  He was again nominated for the Speakership, and re-elected. [255] 

Few examples exist in Canada where the resignation of a Speaker was secured following the action of a legislative body to effect a removal. [256]  In 1875, in the House of Assembly of the province of Nova Scotia, a motion was moved which proposed that the Speaker’s resignation be requested and that a new Speaker be elected. [257]  The motion was adopted on a recorded division, and the House then adjourned to the following day when, as the first item of business, the Speaker rose, tendered his resignation and left the Chair. [258]  The House then adopted a motion, moved by a member of the cabinet, that the resignation be accepted and that a committee of Ministers be struck to inform the Lieutenant Governor that the House was without a Speaker. [259]  When the House next met, the Committee reported that it had communicated with the Lieutenant Governor; a new Speaker was then elected. [260] 

In July 1956, in the House of Commons, Speaker Beaudoin (1953-57) offered his resignation, but this offer was not taken up by the House. This occurred on the heels of the political controversy and procedural disputes of what has since become known as the Pipeline Debate. [261]  During the consideration of the pipeline bill, numerous points of order were raised and the Chair faced many challenges. There were 25 appeals from rulings of the Chair (allowed under the rules in effect at that time), all of which were sustained. [262]  A motion of censure against the Speaker was moved and defeated. [263]  This is the only instance of a motion of censure against a Speaker of the House of Commons of Canada. Three weeks after passage of the bill by the House, a question of privilege was raised which called into question the Speaker’s impartiality. [264]  On July 2, at the opening of the sitting, the Speaker made a statement and placed his resignation before the House to take effect at the pleasure of the House. [265]  However, no resolution of the House was forthcoming and no objection was registered when the Speaker continued to fulfil his official duties. Speaker Beaudoin served for the balance of the Twenty-Second Parliament.

There have been other cases where motions of censure were brought against Speakers of the Senate and other legislatures in Canada; however, none were adopted. [266] 

Other Presiding Officers

Historical Perspective

At Confederation, the constitutional responsibility of the Speaker to “preside at all meetings” of the House [267]  was fulfilled by the Speaker alone, as there were no provisions allowing another Member to take the Chair. [268]  After just a few months, the First Parliament passed an Act which allowed the Speaker to choose any Member to occupy the Chair in the Speaker’s absence during the course of a sitting. [269]  When the House formed itself into a Committee of the Whole, the Speaker had the authority to select a Member to act as Chairman. [270]  Many Members were called upon to fulfil this task. [271]  There could be no guarantee that Members selected ad hoc to preside over the House or a Committee of the Whole would be conversant with the rules or able to arrive at a satisfactory resolution of questions of order. There were no set adjournment times for the daily sittings, and the House typically sat late into the evening. All this tended to add to the burden of responsibility carried by the Speaker.

In 1885, having cited the British practice as an example to follow, the Prime Minister put forward the proposition that the House would be better served if the positions of Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole were divided into two offices so that a permanent Chairmanship of Committees of the Whole would be established. The salaried incumbent could also act as Speaker both at the beginning of and during a sitting when the Speaker was absent. [272]  The Speaker would retain the right to call any Member to take the Chair temporarily during a sitting and would still be obliged, in the absence of the Chairman, to select another Member to chair any Committee of the Whole. The House was not entirely convinced of the need; [273]  nevertheless, the Prime Minister pursued the matter. After debate, rules were adopted providing for a Chairman of Committees of the Whole to hold office for the duration of a Parliament [274]  and, later that year, a bill was passed enabling this Chairman to act as Speaker in the Speaker’s absence. [275]  The provisions of that Act are now found in the Parliament of Canada Act and were the basis for subsequent changes in the Standing Orders, which vested in the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole all the legal powers of the Speaker when he or she is absent from the House.

In the years that followed, it became accepted practice for the Deputy Speaker, on occasion, to delegate the powers of Chairman to other Members. [276]  In 1938, when it was foreseen that the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole would be absent from the House for a period of time, the House adopted an amendment to the rules to provide for the selection of a Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole who would have all the powers of the Chairman. [277]  The rule codified the power of the Chairman to open a sitting of the House in the Speaker’s absence, a power that up to then had not been shared. [278]  It was suggested that the new position would not be permanent but would be filled only as required; [279]  the rule provided for the office of Deputy Chairman to be filled on a sessional basis or as the need arose. After the initial appointment for a single session in 1938, the post was left vacant for nine years and not filled until 1947. [280]  From 1947 to 1953, subsequent appointments were made as the need arose. [281] When nominating a Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole in 1953, the Prime Minister referred to the appointment as “completing the organization of the personnel of the House” [282]  and, thereafter, the practice of selecting a Deputy Chairman for the duration of each session was established.

As the work of the House and the length of its sessions continued to increase, the House identified a need for the services of an additional Presiding Officer. The position of Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole was created in 1967, through an amendment to the rules pursuant to the recommendation of a special committee on procedure. [283]  Again, the rule enabled the incumbent to exercise all the powers of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole, including those of Deputy Speaker, during the Speaker’s absence. There was no suggestion that the position should be temporary, and since 1971 it has been routinely filled. [284]

The written rules on other Presiding Officers have undergone little change over the years. In 1906, the rule obliging the Speaker to appoint a Member to preside at any Committee of the Whole (“shall appoint”) was relaxed so as to remove the element of obligation (“may appoint”). [285]  In 1927, the term “Deputy Speaker”, which had for some time been in common use among Members in referring to the Chairman of Committees of the Whole, began to be used in the written rules. [286]  The original rules governing the selection of the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole explicitly required the selection to take place at the start of each Parliament, after the Address in Reply from the Speech from the Throne had been agreed to. However, this rule was not always adhered to [287]  and, in 1955, it was amended so that the selection could be made early in a new Parliament, regardless of whether or not the Address had yet been agreed to. [288]  In 1968, a reference to its British antecedents was dropped from the rule providing for the appointment of the Deputy Speaker. [289] 

Authority

Every action of the Deputy Speaker, when acting in the Speaker’s place, has the same effect and validity as if the Speaker had acted; or, in the terms of the Parliament of Canada Act:

Every act done and warrant, order or other document issued, signed or published by a Deputy Speaker … that relates to any proceedings of the House of Commons or that, under any statute, would be done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker, if then able to act, has the same effect and validity as if it had been done, issued, signed or published by the Speaker. [290] 

At the start of a sitting, the Parliament of Canada Act provides that when the Speaker’s unavoidable absence is announced to the House by the Clerk, [291]  the Deputy Speaker takes the Chair. If the Speaker is still absent at the start of the next sitting, the Deputy Speaker again assumes the Speaker’s role and may continue to do so from day to day until the Speaker’s return. If the House should adjourn for longer than 24 hours, the Deputy Speaker can continue to act as Speaker only for 24 hours from the time of adjournment. [292] 

From time to time, the Speaker has been absent at the beginning of a sitting; more rarely, the Speaker has been absent over several consecutive sittings. [293]  It has happened that in the absence of both the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker, the Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman, as alternates to the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole, have opened a sitting of the House. [294]  In such cases, they are entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Deputy Speaker during the Speaker’s absence. [295] 

Role

The primary roles of the Deputy Speaker and the other Presiding Officers are to support the Speaker in the Chamber as presiding officers, to take the Chair when the House sits as a Committee of the Whole and, on occasion, to chair legislative committees. In addition, the Deputy Speaker has certain administrative responsibilities.

In the House, the Speaker is generally in the Chair at specific times: at the opening of the sitting and during Members’ Statements, Oral Questions and Routine Proceedings. The remaining time in the Chair is shared by the Deputy Speaker and the other Presiding Officers. [296]  On occasion, the Speaker or one of the other Presiding Officers may choose another Member to replace them for a short period.

When the House forms itself into a Committee of the Whole, it is the duty of the Chairman of Committees of the Whole to take the Chair if present in his or her place in the House. [297]  The fact that the rules now provide for the selection of a Deputy and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Commitees of the Whole does not, in theory, affect the Speaker’s power to appoint another Member to preside as Chairman in the absence of the Deputy Speaker; [298]  however, in keeping with the practice established at the turn of the twentieth century, the task of filling the acting chairmanship typically falls to the Member presiding as Speaker. [299]  It has rarely been necessary for the Speaker to call upon another Member.

As regards administrative responsibilities, the Deputy Speaker may be asked to serve on the Board of Internal Economy [300]  and is usually a member of the Executive Committee. With the Deputy and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, the Deputy Speaker is a member of the Panel of Chairmen for legislative committees, and may thus be appointed by the Speaker to chair a legislative committee, or act in place of the Speaker to appoint Members to chair legislative committees. [301]  On one occasion, the House adopted a special order establishing a special committee to be chaired by the Deputy Speaker. [302] 

While the Standing Orders provide for the Speaker’s impartiality and independence by enjoining him or her not to participate in any debate before the House, [303]  there is no such clear statement as to whether the Deputy Speaker and other Presiding Officers should take part in debate. Until the 1930s, it was not unusual for the Deputy Speaker to participate actively in debate, [304]  and there has been controversy from time to time over the extent to which the Chair occupants (other than the Speaker) should remain aloof from partisan politics. [305] 

In 1931, when a question arose as to the propriety of the Deputy Speaker speaking in debate, it was generally felt that the actions of the Deputy Speaker must be governed by “good taste and judgement”. [306]  Since then, and in the absence of any rule or guideline governing the political activities of Presiding Officers of the House or limiting their participation in debate or voting, the degree of participation has been an individual decision. In 1993, Deputy Speaker Champagne agreed to act as co-Chair of her party’s leadership convention. A question of privilege was raised in the House by a Member who argued that this decision affected the appearance of impartiality attached to the office of Deputy Speaker and that she was therefore guilty of a contempt of the House. Speaker Fraser ruled that, given the existing practice and the absence of clear direction from the House, Deputy Speakers have used varying degrees of discretion in terms of their party involvement. He clarified that they remain members of their political parties and, unlike the Speaker, may attend caucus meetings, participate in debate and vote. The Speaker ruled that the Deputy Speaker is not “cloaked with the same exigencies that are expected of the Speaker” and that the matter did not constitute a prima facie case of privilege. [307] 

In accordance with recent practice, the Deputy Speaker and other Presiding Officers generally avoid taking part in debate, but do for the most part maintain their right to vote when not presiding over the House. [308]  In 1985, when the Assistant Deputy Chairman participated in debate on a bill before the House, an objection was raised. [309]  Presiding Officers (with the exception of the Speaker) have presented petitions [310]  and made Members’ Statements, [311]  and no objection has been made. On occasion, a Presiding Officer has taken the opportunity to offer a comment from the Chair, and again no objection was made. [312]  In general, occupants of the Chair have not sponsored or pursued private Members’ bills or motions, [313]  or placed written questions on the Order Paper[314] 

Method of Selection

The rules of the House provide for the selection of the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. [315]  The Deputy Speaker is selected at the start of every Parliament and holds office for the duration of the Parliament. The selection generally occurs after the Speaker’s report to the House on the Speech from the Throne, at the opening of the first session. [316] A Member, usually the Prime Minister, [317]  moves a motion proposing that a certain Member assume the office of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole House. With a few exceptions, the proposed Member has been from the government side of the House [318]  and the motion has been seconded by a government Member. [319]  The rules require the Deputy Speaker to be fluent in the official language which is not that of the Speaker “for the time being”. [320]  The names put forward have rarely met with opposition. [321] 

The rules provide similarly for the selection of a Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole for a session. [322]  The appointments are made at the start of each session, or from time to time as necessary, by means of a motion moved and seconded by Members from the government side of the House. [323]  In some recent cases, adoption of the motion has been preceded by debate and a recorded division. [324] 

With just one exception, the Members selected to the offices of Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole have come from the government benches. [325] 

Tenure

The selection of a Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole is effective for the life of the Parliament; in the event of a vacancy in the office “by death, resignation, or otherwise”, the House is required to proceed “forthwith” to the selection of a successor. [326] 

Vacancies in the office of Deputy Speaker have occurred between sessions as well as during a session. Vacancies have occurred four times between sessions (1889, 1914, 1959 and 1961), when Members who were occupying the Chair as Deputy Speaker were appointed to Cabinet positions. Charles Carroll Colby and Pierre-Édouard Blondin were appointed to Cabinet in 1889 and 1914 respectively. As was the law at the time, they resigned their seats as Members, thus vacating the office of Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. [327]  Each was re-elected in by-elections between sessions and in each case, on the first day of the new session, the Speaker informed the House of the vacancy in representation and then announced the certificate of election and return of the Member. [328]  On the fourth and third sitting day of the new session respectively, a new Deputy Speaker was selected; [329]  in accordance with the rules in effect at the time, the selection could not take place until after the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne had been agreed to. [330]  Pierre Sévigny and Jacques Flynn were appointed to Cabinet in 1959 and 1961 respectively. In each case, on the first day of the new session, following the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister informed the House of changes to the Cabinet and then moved a motion to appoint a Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. [331]  In none of the foregoing cases do the official publications mention a resignation or letter of resignation communicated to the House by the Speaker.

There have also been vacancies during a session (in 1935, 1952, 1970, 1984 and 1990). The death of Armand LaVergne in 1935 is the only instance of the death of a Deputy Speaker while in office. [332]  A successor was chosen four sitting days after news of his death was brought to the House. [333]  J.A. Dion was appointed a judge in 1952 and resigned as a Member, thus creating a vacancy in the Deputy Speakership. [334]  Hugh Faulkner was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary in 1970, and his resignation was communicated to the House by the Speaker. [335]  Lloyd Francis, selected as Deputy Speaker at the opening of the Thirty-Second Parliament in 1980, [336]  vacated that office by virtue of his election to the Speakership following the resignation of Speaker Sauvé in the Second Session of the Parliament. [337]  In the latter three cases, the new Deputy Speaker was selected on the day on which the House was informed of the change in status of the Members. A less typical case is that of Deputy Speaker Marcel Danis, who was appointed to the Cabinet on February 23, 1990. Following his Cabinet appointment, he did not preside over the House, but remained in office as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole until May 15, 1990, when his official resignation was communicated to the House and a new Deputy Speaker was elected. [338] 

The offices of Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole may be filled “at the commencement of every session, or from time to time as necessity may arise”. [339]  Thus, a vacancy during a session would not necessarily be filled immediately, or at all. For example, after the initial appointment of a Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole for a single session in 1938, the post was left vacant until 1947. [340]  In December 1967, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, Maurice Rinfret, died, and the position remained vacant for the balance of the session. However, since 1974 (First Session, Thirtieth Parliament), the House has operated with the full complement of Presiding Officers as the statutes and rules provide, and current practice has been that when such vacancies arise they are filled without undue delay. [341]

Vacancies during a session in the offices of Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman have occurred for various reasons. In more than one case, a Member serving as Deputy Chairman or Assistant Deputy Chairman was appointed to fill a vacancy among the other Presiding Officers, [342]  or accepted an appointment of another kind. [343]  In 1961, the Prime Minister informed the House that the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole wished to be replaced, due to illness, and immediately moved a motion naming a successor. [344]  In 1996, the Deputy Chairman was appointed to the Senate and resigned as a Member, thus vacating the Deputy Chairmanship. [345]  On other occasions, vacancies have occurred as the result of resignations. [346]  In some cases where the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole stepped down, the fact of the resignation was announced to the House by the Speaker. [347] 

The selection of a particular individual as Chairman, Deputy Chairman or Assistant Deputy Chairman has been renewed from Parliament to Parliament or from session to session as the case may be. [348] It has also happened that individuals have moved from one presiding officer position to another, either through filling vacancies during a session or through selection to other positions in a new session of Parliament; however, there is little evidence to suggest that this experience has created a path to the Speakership. Of the 33 Speakers who have occupied the Chair since Confederation, eight had prior experience as a Presiding Officer in the House of Commons. [349] 

[1] 
Earlier presiding officers were called “parlour”, “prolocutor” and “procurator” (Wilding and Laundy, p. 707).
[2] 
May, 22nd ed., p. 9.
[3] 
The task of communicating the resolutions of the Commons to the King was not an enviable one. At least nine Speakers are known to have died violently — four during the stormy period of the Wars of the Roses (mid-fifteenth century) (Philip Laundy, The Office of Speaker in the Parliaments of the Commonwealth, London: Quiller Press, 1984, pp. 19-20).
[4] 
This is exemplified by the remark of Speaker Finch, in 1629, to an angry House which did not wish to comply with a royal command to adjourn: “I am not less the King’s servant for being yours!” (Laundy, p. 31).
[5] 
Laundy, p. 34.
[6] 
Laundy, pp. 68-71.
[7] 
In Canadian practice, a retiring Speaker is not guaranteed a position or posting. In recent years, Speakers Lamoureux (1966-74) and Francis (1984) were appointed Ambassadors; Speaker Michener (1957-62) was appointed High Commissioner to India and, in 1967, was named Governor General; Speaker Macnaughton (1963-66) was appointed to the Senate; Speaker Sauvé (1980-84) was named Governor General; Speaker Jerome (1974-80) was appointed a Judge to the Federal Court; Speaker Bosley (1984-86) continued as a private Member; Speaker Fraser (1986-94) was appointed Canada’s Ambassador for the Environment.
[8]
See next section, “Governing Provisions”.
[9] 
For a description of this process, see Redlich, Vol. I, pp. 52-72.
[10]
See Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House of Commons Since 1867”.
[11] 
An example is the recurring proposal for the establishment of a special constituency for the Speaker, designated as Parliament Hill, with the electorate being the Members of the House of Commons. A private Members’ bill with this objective was introduced on October 20, 1970 (Journals, p. 40) and debated on October 29, 1971 (Debates, pp. 9186-92). See also the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on December 3, 1982 (Journals, p. 5420) and paragraph 11 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211).
[12]
Seven Speakers have served in two Parliaments: Cockburn (1867-74), Anglin (1874-79), Rhodes (1917-22), Michener (1957-62), Jerome (1974-80), Fraser (1986-94) and Parent, who was first elected in 1994 (see Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House of Commons Since 1867”).
[13] 
Speaker Jerome (1974-80), elected to a second term to serve as Speaker during the minority government of Prime Minister Clark in 1979, was the first and only Speaker to be elected from an opposition party. Prior to 1986, Speakers were elected on a motion proposed by the Prime Minister and the practice of alternating between anglophone and francophone Speakers was well entrenched (see Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House of Commons Since 1867”). Following rule changes adopted in 1985 (see Journals, June 27, 1985, pp. 910-9), the election has been conducted as a secret ballot. See the section of this chapter entitled “Election of the Speaker as Presiding Officer”.
[14] 
Precedence (the right to precede others) in ceremonies and matters of protocol is governed by the Table of Precedence for Canada. See “Official Precedence” in successive editions of the Canadian Parliamentary Guide.
[15] 
Order in Council approved on December 19, 1968.
[16] 
See the Salaries Act for salaries of Cabinet Ministers and the Parliament of Canada Act for the Speaker’s salary.
[17] 
Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 224.
[18] 
See Standing Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
[19] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, ss. 44-47, 49.
[20] 
SeeParliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, ss. 13(1), 23(2), 25(1), 28, 42-4, 50-3, 60, 70(2) and (3), 74.
[21] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, ss. 42, 43.
[22] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1 as amended by S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 2 (s. 53).
[23] 
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, s. 6.
[24] 
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, 2nd Supp., c. 6, ss. 5, 6.
[25] 
Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, 4th Supp., c. 31, s. 49(4).
[26]
For further details, see the section of this chapter entitled “Tabling of Documents”.
[27]
For further information and examples, see the section on statutory debates in Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[28] 
See, for example, Standing Orders 9 to 14 and 19. For examples of administrative responsibilities set out in the Standing Orders, see Standing Orders 22, 107, 121 and 148 to 159.
[29] 
Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 143-4.
[30] 
Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 149-50. See also Speaker Fraser’s ruling, Debates, April 14, 1987, pp. 5119-24.
[31] 
See, for example, Debates, January 26, 1967, pp. 12271-2; October 11, 1979, p. 69; May 3, 1990, pp. 10941-2; October 25, 1995, pp. 15812-3.
[32] 
Parliamentary privilege is the “sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals” (May, 22nd ed., p. 65). See also Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[33] 
See, for example, Debates of the Senate, September 23, 1997, p. 3.
[34] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 49-50. See later sections of this chapter for information on the election of the Speaker during the course of a Parliament.
[35] 
See paragraph 3 of the First Report of the Special Committee on the Rights and Immunities of Members, presented on April 29, 1977 (Journals, pp. 720-9).
[36]
For further information, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[37] 
Speaker Fraser has observed that there can be no freedom of speech without order in the House (Debates, March 24, 1993, pp. 17486-8).
[38] 
Prima facie means “at first sight” or “on the face of it”. Maingot offers the following definition: “A prima facie case of privilege in the parliamentary sense is one where the evidence on its face as outlined by the Member is sufficiently strong for the House to be asked to debate the matter and to send it to a committee to investigate whether the privileges of the House have been breached or a contempt has occurred and report to the House” (2nd ed., p. 221).
[39] 
Maingot, 2nd ed., p. 220.
[40] 
Standing Order 48(1). The wording of the rule is unchanged since Confederation. For further information on the role of the Speaker in deciding on a question of privilege, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[41] 
Standing Order 10.
[42] 
See, for example, Debates, March 9, 1992, pp. 7840-1.
[43] 
Standing Order 19. See, for example, Debates, October 16, 1986, pp. 402-6.
[44] 
See, for example, Debates, October 27, 1986, pp. 767-8; October 29, 1986, p. 864.
[45] 
See, for example, Journals, March 28, 1916, pp. 201-2; June 1, 1956, pp. 678-9; Debates, May 13, 1999, pp. 15108-9.
[46] 
Standing Order 10. Matters of order and decorum are addressed in greater detail in Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[47] 
Standing Order 11(2).
[48] 
See, for example, Debates, September 25, 1989, p. 3818; September 26, 1996, p. 4715.
[49] 
See, for example, Debates, August 11, 1988, p. 18232; April 22, 1997, pp. 10103, 10106.
[50] 
See, for example, Debates, March 22, 1971, pp. 4467-9; October 26, 1998, p. 9396.
[51] 
See, for example, Debates, December 4, 1998, pp. 10914-5, 10922.
[52] 
See, for example, Debates, November 18, 1987, pp. 10927-8.
[53] 
Standing Order 11(1).
[54] 
Standing Order 11(1)(a). For further information on naming, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[55] 
Standing Order 11(2). See, for example, Debates, March 16, 1962, pp. 1888-90.
[56]
For further information on naming in a Committee of the Whole, see Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[57] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 44. For instances of Members being named by the Deputy Speaker, see Debates, February 23, 1981, pp. 7586-8; May 20, 1983, pp. 25628-31. For examples of Members being named by the Acting Speaker, see Debates, March 24, 1983, pp. 24109-10; May 25, 1984, pp. 4078-9.
[58] 
Standing Order 14.
[59] 
See, for example, Debates, May 11, 1970, p. 6796. On this occasion, the Speaker ordered the galleries cleared and then obtained the agreement of the House to suspend the sitting, which resumed 34 minutes later. On another occasion, by order of the Speaker, the galleries were entirely cleared and reopened to the public within 10 minutes (Debates, November 28, 1989, pp. 6339, 6342-3). In other cases when a disturbance arises, the security staff on duty in the galleries proceed to remove the individual responsible and there is little or no disruption of the sitting (see, for example, Debates, May 7, 1974, p. 2114; April 14, 1986, p. 12188; November 26, 1992, p. 14108).
[60] 
See, for example, Debates, May 10, 1899, col. 2897; September 12, 1983, p. 26987; November 17, 1992, p. 13501.
[61]
See the section on secret sittings of the House in Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[62] 
Standing Order 14. In 1990, Nelson Riis (Kamloops) attempted to move the motion but was ruled out of order on the grounds that the motion cannot be moved by a Member who has been given the floor on a point of order (Debates, April 4, 1990, pp. 10186-7). For further information on this rule, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[63] 
Traditionally, and in accordance with Standing Orders 157(2) and 158, the Sergeant-at-Arms is responsible for preserving order and decorum in the galleries and other parts of the House and for removing strangers who “misconduct” themselves. For further information on the role of the Sergeant-at-Arms, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[64] 
Standing Order 10.
[65] 
See 1867 rule 8, and 1962 rule 12(1).
[66] 
See, for example, Debates, May 20, 1868, p. 750; Journals, March 24, 1873, pp. 58-9. Although Members were sometimes openly critical of a ruling, few formal challenges were made (see the comments of Sir John A. Macdonald, Debates, March 5, 1877, p. 485).
[67] 
Between 1907 and 1917, for example, six appeals took place (Journals, April 3, 1907, p. 381; April 6, 1910, pp. 418-20; May 12, 1913, pp. 576-7; March 25, 1914, pp. 301-2; May 10, 1916, pp. 353-5; September 8, 1917, pp. 639-40, 641).
[68]
See entries in the Journals indexes under the heading “Speaker’s Rulings and Statements”.
[69] 
For text of the rulings and votes on the appeals, see Journals for 1956 as follows: March 21, pp. 323-8; May 10, pp. 517-23; May 14, pp. 536-43; May 15, pp. 554-7; May 17, pp. 568-70; May 23, pp. 602-4, 604-9; May 25, pp. 628-32; May 31, pp. 662-9; June 1, pp. 675-7; June 5, pp. 705-10.
[70] 
See Journals indexes for this period.
[71] 
Journals, June 11, 1965, p. 224.
[72] 
Debates, June 8, 1965, p. 2140.
[73] 
Journals, March 24, 1873, pp. 58-9.
[74] 
Journals, June 25, 1926, p. 477; January 31, 1963, pp. 462-3 (two rulings); October 28, 1963, p. 493.
[75] 
Journals, December 4, 1963, pp. 621-2.
[76] 
In June 1956, during the “Pipeline Debate”, Speaker Beaudoin ruled to revert the House to a position it had been in 24 hours earlier. On June 4, the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of censure against the Speaker for his actions and rulings of June 1. The motion was defeated on June 8, 1956. See Debates, June 1, 1956, pp. 4537-40; Journals, June 4, 1956, pp. 692-3; June 8, 1956, pp. 725-6.
[77] 
On March 13, 1964, the Prime Minister moved, without notice, a motion calling for Canadian peacekeeping forces to be sent to Cyprus. Even though the motion appeared to have the generalsupport of the House, some opposition Members objected to the fact that no notice of motion had been given. Stating that the Prime Minister had in fact obtained the proper “permission”, Deputy Speaker Lamoureux dismissed the objections and directed the House to consider the motion in question. On March 18, 1964, a Member introduced a motion of non-confidence in the Deputy Speaker, alleging that he had violated the Standing Orders and deprived certain Members of their rights and privileges. The motion was put to a vote on March 19, 1964, and was rejected (Debates, March 13, 1964, pp. 910-26; Journals, March 18, 1964, pp. 103-4; March 19, 1964, pp. 106-7).
On May 4, 1992, a Member tabled a motion of non-confidence (under the heading “Motions” and printed in the Order Paper and Notice Paper of May 4, 1992) in the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole and Acting Speaker (Steve Paproski) for not allowing, on April 30, 1992, full time for debate on a bill. The debate gave rise to a question of privilege on May 1, 1992. The Speaker found that there was “no prima facie case of privilege in this matter” (Debates, April 30, 1992, p. 9945; May 1, 1992, pp. 9963-72, 9990-1). On February 12, 1993, at the request of the Member who had sponsored it, the motion of non-confidence was withdrawn (Debates, February 12, 1993, p. 15851).
[78] 
Journals, April 25, 1894, pp. 108-9.
[79] 
Journals, December 22, 1976, p. 270.
[80] 
Debates, January 21, 1981, p. 6410; January 22, 1981, pp. 6455-7.
[81] 
See Debates, March 16, 1993, p. 17027; March 23, 1993, pp. 17403-5; and March 25, 1993, p. 17537.
[82] 
Order Paper and Notice Paper, March 5, 1996, p. 15; Journals, October 23, 1996, p. 768.
[83] 
Debates, March 9, 1998, pp. 4560-75; March 10, 1998, pp. 4592-8, 4666-8. See also the Twenty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented on April 27, 1998 (Journals, p. 706), and adopted by the House on May 5, 1998 (Journals, pp. 744-5).
[84] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49; Standing Order 9.
[85]
See Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[86] 
Speaker Anglin (1874-78), for example, was an active participant during proceedings in a Committee of the Whole. See, for example, Debates, April 26, 1878, p. 2216; May 3, 1878, pp. 2402-3.
[87] 
Debates, April 7, 1927, pp. 2034-8.
[88] 
The last to do so was Speaker Macnaughton on November 27, 1964 (Debates, pp. 10623-9).
[89] 
See, for example, the appearances of Speaker Parent before the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs in connection with the Estimates of the House of Commons, on April 12, 1994; April 4, 1995; May 30, 1996; April 8, 1997; April 30, 1998.
[90] 
For example, Speaker Bosley (1984-86) appeared before the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons on January 22, 1985; Speaker Fraser (1986-94) appeared before the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges, Procedure and Private Members’ Business on November 29, 1989, before the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act on September 25, 1990, and before the Standing Committee on Environment on November 5, 1991. The latter appearance was in connection with “Greening the Hill”, the program of environmental conservation launched by the Speaker. In 1977-78, Speaker Jerome (1974-80) chaired the Special Committee on TV and Radio Broadcasting of Proceedings of the House and Its Committees.
[91] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 49; Standing Order 9.
[92] 
An equality of voices is a rarity, having occurred on just five occasions in the House: May 6, 1870 (Journals, p. 311; Debates, cols. 1401-2); February 28, 1889 (Journals, pp. 113-4; Debates, p. 368); March 31, 1925 (Journals, pp. 180-2; Debates, pp. 1714-5); March 11, 1930 (Debates, pp. 502-3, 527); December 4, 1963 (Journals, pp. 621-2; Debates, pp. 5405-6); and on four occasions in a Committee of the Whole: Debates, June 20, 1904, col. 5164; April 15, 1920, p. 1265; June 23, 1922, p. 3473; March 26, 1928, p. 1681.
[93] 
For an elaboration of these conventions in the British context, see May, 22nd ed., pp. 357-61.
[94] 
Journals of the Legislative Assembly, August 19, 1863, p. 33. See also Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 384.
[95] 
If adopted, the hoist amendment has for effect the rejection of the bill. See Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[96] 
Debates, May 6, 1870, col. 1401; in this case, no reasons were entered in the Journals.
[97] 
Debates, February 28, 1899, p. 368.
[98] 
Debates, March 11, 1930, pp. 502-3; March 12, 1930, p. 527. The casting vote was not noted in the Journals (see Journals, March 11, 1930, pp. 83-4). The disposition of the motion was not changed as it had in fact been defeated by one vote before the Speaker cast his vote with the “nays”. In New Zealand, the converse has occurred; a question thought to have been carried by one vote was discovered to have been a tie; the Speaker gave a casting vote at that time and declared the motion defeated (McGee, 2nd ed., pp. 71, 180-2).
[99] 
Journals, December 4, 1963, pp. 621-2.
[100] 
A quorum of 20 Members, including the Speaker, is required for the House to conduct business (Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 48; Standing Order 29(1)). For further information on quorum, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[101] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 43(1). See, for example, Journals, December 7, 1998, p. 1401.
[102]
For further information, see Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[103] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 334. See also Debates, May 20, 1986, p. 13443; May 5, 1994, p. 3925. For further information, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
[104] 
Standing Order 10. See the section above entitled “Order and Decorum” and see also Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[105] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 178.
[106] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 178.
[107] 
Standing Order 10.
[108] 
Standing Order 1. For further information on the rule and practice pertaining to unprovided cases, see Chapter 5, “Parliamentary Procedure”.
[109] 
Standing Order 13.
[110] 
Journals, December 20, 1867, pp. 115-25.
[111] 
See, for example, point of order raised in Debates, December 9, 1968, pp. 3639-43, and Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling in Journals, December 10, 1968, pp. 511-3; point of order raised in Debates, July 24, 1969, pp. 11551-68, and Speaker Lamoureux’s ruling in Journals, July 24, 1969, pp. 1398-9.
[112] 
Standing Order 76(5) and 76.1(5). The text of these rules includes guidelines for the Speaker on the selection of amendments. See also Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[113] 
Standing Order 81(14)(b). See Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[114] 
Standing Order 94(1)(a). For further information, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
[115] 
Standing Order 94(1)(a).
[116] 
Standing Order 94(2)(a).
[117] 
Standing Order 86(5).
[118] 
For further information, see Chapter 23, “Private Bills Practice”.
[119] 
Standing Order 146(1).
[120] 
Standing Order 146(4).
[121] 
Typically, this is done during Routine Proceedings under the rubric “Tabling of documents” (see, for example, Debates, April 15, 1986, p. 12221; Journals, April 5, 1989, p. 26; March 12, 1990, p. 1323). The Speaker has also tabled documents immediately prior to Statements by Members (see, for example, Debates, December 11, 1984, p. 1102; September 26, 1996, p. 4740).
[122] 
See, for example, Journals, September 21, 1998, p. 1056.
[123] 
Standing Order 32(5). For further information on the tabling of documents, see Chapter 10, “The Daily Program”.
[124] 
Standing Order 148(1). See, for example, Journals, January 27, 1994, p. 71.
[125] 
The rule requires the Speaker to table, within 10 days of the opening of a session, a report of the Board’s proceedings for the previous session; the practice of more frequent tablings throughout the session began in the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (see Debates, February 17, 1994, p. 1507).
[126] 
Standing Order 148(2). See, for example, Journals, September 30, 1994, p. 758.
[127] 
Parliament of Canada Act, S.C. 1991, c. 20, s. 52.5(2), (3). See, for example, Journals, December 4, 1998, p. 1399.
[128] 
They are the Auditor General, the Chief Electoral Officer, the Commissioner of Official Languages, the Information Commissioner and the Privacy Commissioner.
[129] 
Auditor General Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-17, ss. 7(3), 8(2), 19(2); Canada Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-2, s. 195(3); Official Languages Act, R.S.C. 1985, 4th Supp., c. 31, ss. 65(3), 66, 67(1), 69(1); Access to Information Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. A-1, ss. 38, 39(1), 40; Privacy Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-21, ss. 38, 39(1), 40(1); Canadian Human Rights Act, S.C. 1998, c. 9, s. 32.
[130] 
Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. E-3, s. 21; An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. 6 (2nd Supp.), s. 5. See, for example, Journals, June 22, 1995, p. 1867. The legislation provides an alternative course for the Speaker, should a report arrive during an intersession. For further information on the role of the House of Commons in the redistribution process, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[131] 
Dominion Controverted Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-39, ss. 58(1), 60, 61, 71. For examples of the Speaker informing the House, see Debates, March 6, 1950, p. 468; February 23, 1976, p. 11139; October 14, 1981, p. 11731. For further information on contested or controverted elections, see Chapter 4, “The House of Commons and Its Members”.
[132] 
Dominion Controverted Elections Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-39, s. 84(3). This is a rare occurrence; in 1950, for example, the Speaker tabled such an amendment (Journals, June 5, 1950, p. 471).
[133] 
Corrupt Practices Inquiries Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. C-45, s. 30. No commissions of enquiry have been struck; nor have any reports been made under the terms of the Act.
[134] 
Standing Order 52(4). For further information on emergency debates, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[135] 
Standing Order 52(9). For example, an application was made on Friday, November 27, 1998. The Speaker granted it and ruled that the debate would take place on Monday, November 30 at 8:00 p.m. (Journals, November 27, 1998, p. 1323).
[136] 
Standing Order 52(12).
[137] 
Standing Order 52(15).
[138] 
Standing Order 28(3).
[139] 
Standing Order 55(1). For further information on recall of the House and publication of a Special Order Paper, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”, and Chapter 12, “The Process of Debate”.
[140] 
The original notice was given on June 26, 1992, for the House to meet on July 15, 1992; the notice of cancellation was issued on July 11 and tabled when the House met on September 8, at which time the Speaker made a statement to the House (see Journals, September 8, 1992, p. 1924; Debates, September 8, 1992, p. 12709).
[141]
For further information on parliamentary publications, see Chapter 24, “The Parliamentary Record”.
[142] 
See Standing Orders 112 and 113. For further information about legislative committees, see Chapter 20, “Committees”.
[143] 
Standing Order 112.
[144] 
Standing Order 113(2).
[145]
See Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[146] 
Maingot, 2nd ed., pp. 183-5.
[147] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 52.3.
[148] 
The Clerk of the House serves as Secretary to the Board of Internal Economy, as provided in the Parliament of Canada Act.
[149] 
Standing Order 151.
[150] 
See Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
[151] 
The Executive Committee exists by virtue of By-Law 201 of the Board of Internal Economy. The Board’s power to make by-laws is conferred by section 52.5(1) of the Parliament of Canada Act.
[152] 
Maingot, 2nd ed., p.183.
[153] 
An incident in 1998 illustrates the authority of the Speaker over access to the precinct. On February 26, 1998, a Member’s employee, carrying a large flag, accosted a Member in the House of Commons foyer, and security staff intervened. The Speaker investigated the incident and the employee in question was required, for a minimum period of one year, to confine his activity in the Centre Block to the public entrance and the party offices on one floor of the building.
[154] 
See Standing Orders 157 and 158.
[155] 
See, for example, the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, presented on September 21, 1973 (Journals, p. 567). See also the Speaker’s comments in Debates, November 30, 1979, pp. 1890-2; May 19, 1989, pp. 1951-3. For further information, see Chapter 3, “Privileges and Immunities”.
[156] 
National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-4, s. 10(1).
[157] 
National Capital Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. N-4, s. 10(2)(d).
[158] 
An example would be messages to the House from the Senate, which are read by the Speaker in the course of the sitting (see, for example, Debates, December 3, 1998, p. 10888).
[159] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 176. For further information about the Mace, see Chapter 6, “The Physical and Administrative Setting”.
[160]
In the absence of the Speaker, the Presiding Officer for the sitting takes the Speaker’s place in the parade. For further information on the Speaker’s parade, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[161]
For further information on the opening of a Parliament or a session, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[162]
For further information on the Royal Assent ceremony, see Chapter 16, “The Legislative Process”.
[163]
For further information on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
[164]
The associations are: Canada-China Legislative Association; Canada-France Inter-parliamentary Association; Canada-Japan Inter-parliamentary Group; Canada-United Kingdom Inter-parliamentary Association; Canada-United States Inter-parliamentary Group; L’Assemblée parlementaire de la Francophonie; Canada-Europe Parliamentary Association; Commonwealth Parliamentary Association; Inter-parliamentary Union; and the North Atlantic Assembly (Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association).
The friendship groups are the Canada-Germany Friendship Group, the Canada-Israel Friendship Group and the Canada-Italy Friendship Group.
[165] 
The Speakers of the Senate and the House of Commons are members of the Joint Inter-parliamentary Council, which is responsible for budget allocation among the associations.
[166] 
Other Members who have attempted to direct the attention of the House to the presence of visitors have been ruled out of order (see, for example, Debates, February 6, 1992, p. 6550). See also Speaker Fraser’s remarks in Debates, October 5, 1990, pp. 13867-8. It has also happened that the practice has been departed from (see, for example, Debates, November 28, 1989, p. 6359).
[167] 
See, for example, Debates, December 13, 1994, p. 9003 (recognition following Question Period); March 23, 1994, p. 2666 (recognition prior to Question Period); June 3, 1992, p. 11294 (recognition during Question Period).
[168] 
On one occasion, however, a group of World War II veterans seated in the Diplomatic Gallery was recognized by the Speaker (Debates, June 6, 1994, p. 4858).
[169] 
In 1996 and 1998, the House sat as a Committee of the Whole for ceremonies recognizing the national Olympic and Paralympic Teams of the 1996 Summer Games and the 1998 Winter Games, for which the athletes were brought onto the floor of the House (Journals, October 1, 1996, p. 699; Debates, October 1, 1996, pp. 4944-6; Journals, April 22, 1998, p. 691; Debates, April 22, 1998, pp. 5959-60).
[170]
For further information on joint addresses to Parliament, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
[171] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 44.
[172] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 45.
[173] 
Standing Order 2(1), (2).
[174]
Of the 33 Speakers who have served the House since Confederation, 26 were elected at the opening of a Parliament; another two were re-elected at the opening of a Parliament, having first been elected in the course of the previous Parliament. See Appendix 2, “Speakers of the House of Commons Since 1867”.
[175] 
Standing Orders 2 and 6.
[176] 
Standing Order 2(3).
[177]
Of the Speakers elected at the beginning of a Parliament (as opposed to those elected in the course of a session), the nominations of eight have been seconded by the Leader of the Opposition, starting in 1953.
[178] 
For a typical example, see the election of Speaker Michener on October 14, 1957 (Journals, pp. 7-8; Debates, pp. 1-4). No more than one name was ever proposed at any election. Occasionally, there was opposition to the name put forward. For example, Speaker Anglin was elected on a recorded division in 1878 (Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 9-10). In 1936, Speaker Casgrain was elected “on division”—meaning it was not unanimous (Journals, February 6, 1936, p. 8). The House “divided” on the question, but no recorded vote was requested.
[179] 
Wilding and Laundy, pp. 706-7. Laundy (pp. 14, 64) identifies Sir Richard Waldegrave as the founder of this tradition in 1381: “In all probability he anticipated a dispute between the King and the Commons which could result in embarrassment for himself. Little could he have known that in expressing his own genuine reluctance to serve as Speaker he was founding a tradition which was to endure for centuries, long after it had become completely meaningless”.
[180] 
See the Fourth Report of the Special Committee on Standing Orders and Procedure, presented on December 3, 1982 (Journals, p. 5420).
[181] 
See the First Report of the Special Committee on the Reform of the House of Commons, presented on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211); and the Government Response to the First Report, tabled on April 18, 1985 (Journals, p. 486).
[182] 
The proposed amendments to the Standing Orders were tabled on June 27, 1985, and adopted the same day (Journals, pp. 910-9).
[183] 
Journals, September 30, 1986, pp. 2-8; see also Debates, September 30, 1986, pp. 1-10.
[184] 
Journals, June 3, 1987, p. 1016. After the Standing Orders were reorganized and renumbered in 1988, the original Standing Order on the election of the Speaker was divided into the present Standing Orders 2, 3, 4, 5 and 6.
[185] 
The Usher of the Black Rod is an officer of the Senate whose responsibilities include delivering messages to the House of Commons when its Members’ attendance is required in the Senate Chamber by the Governor General or a Deputy of the Governor General. (In November 1997, the title of the office was changed to Usher of the Black Rod from Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod. See Senate Debates, November 6, 1997, pp. 333-43.)
[186] 
A Deputy to the Governor General is a person, usually a Justice of the Supreme Court, who exercises the powers of the Governor General on certain occasions.
[187] 
Standing Order 5.
[188] 
Standing Order 3.
[189] 
Standing Order 4(1).
[190] 
See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 2. In practice, the Clerk sends a written reminder of these provisions to all Members.
[191] 
This occurred in 1986; the Member who did so, John A. Fraser, was eventually elected Speaker.
[192] 
See Philip Laundy, “Electing a Speaker — Canadian Style”, The Table, Vol. LV for 1987, pp. 42-50. The author was a Clerk Assistant at the House of Commons at the time of the first secret-ballot election of a Speaker.
[193] 
Standing Order 3(1)(a). Length of service is determined by reference to the Canada Gazette, which publishes the names of Members elected in the order in which the returns are received by the Chief Electoral Officer.
[194] 
Standing Order 3(1)(b).
[195] 
Standing Order 3(1)(c).
[196] 
Standing Order 3(2).
[197] 
Standing Order 4(3).
[198] 
See, for example, Debates, December 12, 1988, pp. 1-2; January 17, 1994, p. 1.
[199] 
Standing Order 4(2).
[200] 
Standing Order 4(4).
[201] 
Standing Order 4(5).
[202] 
Standing Order 4(6). Those assisting the Clerk in the ballot-counting will have taken an oath of secrecy.
[203] 
Standing Order 4(7).
[204] 
Standing Order 4(8)(a).
[205] 
Standing Order 4(8)(b). In 1986 (the only election in which Members withdrew after the first ballot), three Members withdrew their names (Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 3).
[206] 
Standing Order 4(9). See, for example, Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 4. To date, this is the only instance of a withdrawal following the second or a later ballot.
[207] 
Standing Order 2(3). This occurred once: in 1986, the House met at 3:00 p.m., the election process concluded after 11 ballots, and the House adjourned at 2:30 a.m.
[208] 
For the historical background to this practice, see Laundy, pp. 14, 64.
[209] 
See, for example, the remarks of Speaker Sutherland, the first to make his remarks in both official languages (Debates, January 11, 1905, cols. 3-4); Speaker Lamoureux (Debates, January 18, 1966, pp. 5-6); and Speaker Fraser (Debates, September 30, 1986, pp. 7-8). This is a convention of the British Parliament as well, where in addition the Speaker-elect must seek Royal approbation (May, 22nd ed., p. 239). Redlich describes the ancient custom of the Speaker-elect making repeated and exaggerated declarations of unworthiness, which prevailed long before the modern, non-partisan Speakership, when the office of Speaker was political and dependent on the Crown, and the attitude of its incumbent was characterized as “subservient” (Redlich, Vol. II, pp. 156-8).
[210] 
This occurred in 1986, 1988 and 1994; in 1994, congratulatory remarks were also made by a private Member on behalf of the independent Members, by the Member who presided over the election, and by one other private Member (Debates, September 30, 1986, pp. 8-10; December 12, 1988, pp. 5-7; January 17, 1994, pp. 6-7). In 1997, a Member sought the unanimous consent of the House to deem the Speaker unanimously elected, and it was granted (Journals, September 22, 1997, p. 9; Debates, September 22, 1997, p. 4).
[211] 
In 1963 and 1966, the Prime Minister briefly congratulated the newly elected Speaker (Macnaughton and Lamoureux, respectively) prior to making the usual suggestion for the suspension of the sitting (Debates, May 16, 1963, p. 5; January 18, 1966, p. 6). In 1874, after the election of Speaker Anglin, the Leader of the Opposition offered congratulations but went on to express misgivings about the government’s choice. In 1878, in speaking to the motion to elect Speaker Anglin (who had served as Speaker earlier in the same Parliament, resigned his seat and then was re-elected), the Leader of the Opposition questioned the choice of the government and raised a lengthy argument—in which the Prime Minister and another Member intervened—as to the right of Mr. Anglin to take his seat in the House prior to the election of the Speaker (Debates, February 7, 1878, pp. 2-11).
[212] 
Standing Order 2(3). For daily meeting and adjournment times, see Standing Order 24.
[213] 
Journals, September 30, 1986, pp. 8-9.
[214] 
Journals, December 12, 1988, p. 3.
[215] 
See Journals, January 17, 1994, p. 11; September 22, 1997, p. 9.
[216] 
Standing Order 4(10).
[217] 
Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 2.
[218] 
See, for example, Debates of the Senate, September 23, 1997, p. 3.
[219] 
See, for example, Debates of the Senate, September 23, 1997, p. 4.
[220] 
Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 49-50. See, for example, the presentation of Speaker Francis, elected during the Second Session of the Thirty-Second Parliament, and of Speaker Fraser, elected at the opening of the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament (Journals, January 16, 1984, pp. 72-3; October 1, 1986, p. 12).
[221] 
Standing Order 3(1)(b).
[222] 
Standing Order 3(1)(c).
[223] 
In 1984, the Mace was on the Table and was moved beneath it after the Speaker’s letter of resignation had been read by the Clerk.
[224]
No claim of privileges is made; this is done only at the beginning of a Parliament.
[225] 
For the election of Speaker Bain, see Journals, August 1, 1899, pp. 488-9, and Debates, August 1, 1899, cols. 9062-4. For the election of Speaker Francis, see Journals, January 16, 1984, pp. 72-3; Debates, January 16, 1984, pp. 421-4.
[226] 
In 1986, when the Speaker was elected at the opening of the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament, the House met, prayers were read and, after some remarks by the outgoing Speaker who was to preside over the election of a successor, the Prime Minister was recognized (Debates, September 30, 1986, pp. 1-10).
[227] 
In 1904, the Leader of the Opposition asked a question of the Prime Minister, and the sitting was then adjourned (Debates, March 10, 1904, cols. 1-5). In 1916, a new Member took his seat after the Mace had been placed on the Table (Debates, January 12, 1916, pp. 1-4); in other instances, this had occurred prior to the election of the Speaker (Debates, February 7, 1878, pp. 1-2; March 10, 1904, cols. 1-3). In 1917, the Speaker announced the appointment of a Deputy Sergeant-at-Arms, there were tributes to deceased Members, Orders in Council were tabled by the Prime Minister and a question asked of the Prime Minister before the sitting adjourned (Debates, January 18, 1917, pp. 1-5). In 1935, the only instance in which the Speech from the Throne was read later the same day, the Mace was placed on the Table and, immediately thereafter, the Speaker read the letter informing the House of the arrival of the Governor General in the Senate Chamber (Debates, January 17, 1935, pp. 1-2).
[228] 
Speaker Anglin, who had earlier resigned his seat and the Speakership, was re-elected in a by-election and re-elected Speaker at the opening of the Fifth Session of the Third Parliament (Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 9-10). Speaker Belcourt was elected at the opening of the Fourth Session of the Ninth Parliament (Journals, March 10, 1904, p. 10). Speaker Sévigny was elected at the opening of the Sixth Session of the Twelfth Parliament (Journals, January 12, 1916, p. 6). Speaker Rhodes was elected at the opening of the Seventh Session of the Twelfth Parliament (Journals, January 18, 1917, pp. 6-7). Speaker Bowman was elected at the opening of the Sixth Session of the Seventeenth Parliament (Journals, January 17, 1935, p. 2). Speaker Fraser was elected at the opening of the Second Session of the Thirty-Third Parliament (Journals, September 30, 1986, pp. 2-8).
[229] 
In 1878, the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod arrived with a message from the Deputy Governor General for the immediate attendance of the House in the Senate Chamber. In 1904, 1916, 1917 and 1935, the arrival of Black Rod was preceded by the Clerk reading a letter informing the House of the date and time of the Deputy Governor General’s arrival at the Senate for the opening of the session. For pre-Confederation examples and British precedents, see Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 172-3.
[230] 
In 1878, Speaker Anglin’s nomination was not supported by the opposition. He is the only Speaker whose election was the subject of a recorded vote (Debates, February 7, 1878, pp. 2-12).
[231] 
All Members apart from party leaders and Cabinet Ministers are considered candidates, unless they take the prescribed action to remove themselves from consideration (Standing Orders 4(1) and 5).
[232] 
See paragraphs 8-16 of the First Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons,presented on December 20, 1984 (Journals, p. 211).
[233] 
TheSpecial Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, January 22, 1985, pp. 3:14-7.
[234] 
Standing Order 4(10). For further information on campaigning, see Marcel Danis, “The Speakership and Independence: A Tradition in the Making” in Canadian Parliamentary Review, Vol. 10, No. 2, Summer 1987; John Holtby, “Secret Ballot in the Canadian Commons Elects New Speaker” in The Parliamentarian, Vol. XVIII, No. 1. It has also been noted that because the 1986 election took place in the course of a Parliament, there was prior opportunity for the House membership to become acquainted with the individuals on the ballot.
[235] 
See references in Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5867-8, 5876. Following the general election of 1993, an unprecedented degree of turnover occurred, such that 205 of the 295 Members sent to the House of Commons were first-time Members called upon to elect a Speaker. (See Report on the Administration of the House of Commons for the 35th Parliament, p. 7, tabled on October 23, 1997 (Journals, p. 139).)
[236] 
Press reports indicate that some candidates attended these sessions, and some did not; see, for example, Times-Colonist, January 15, 1994.
[237] 
See reference in Debates, April 21, 1998, pp. 5867-8.
[238] 
Constitution Act, 1867, ss. 44, 46.
[239] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 53.
[240] 
Constitution Act, 1867, s. 45.
[241] 
See, for example, Journals, July 13, 1899, p. 426.
[242] 
Debates, July 31, 1899, cols. 9060-1.
[243] 
Journals, August 1, 1899, pp. 488-9. See also the account in Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 171-2.
[244] 
Journals, January 17, 1935, pp. 1-2; Debates, January 17, 1935, p. 1. It was reported that ill health had forced the Speaker’s resignation. Mr. Black continued to sit as a private Member, but was later hospitalized and did not contest the general election of October 1935; he recovered and, in 1940, was elected to his old seat in the House of Commons, where he remained until 1949 (Gary Levy, Speakers of the House of Commons, Ottawa: Library of Parliament, 1996, pp. 56-7). See also “Vacancy in the Office of Presiding Officer”, The Table, Vol. XXIV for 1955, in particular pp. 31-3.
[245] 
Journals, January 16, 1984, p. 72; Debates, January 16, 1984, p. 421.
[246] 
These views were expressed in letters written by the Speaker on September 5, 1986, to the leaders of the three recognized parties in the House.
[247] 
Debates, September 30, 1986, p. 1; Journals, September 30, 1986, p. 2. Former Speaker Bosley sat as a private Member until the end of the Thirty-Fourth Parliament (1988-93).
[248] 
Until 1931, Members who accepted certain positions in Cabinet were required, pursuant to sections of the Senate and House of Commons Act, to resign their seats and seek re-election (Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 147, ss. 13, 14). The Act (now called the Parliament of Canada Act) was amended to remove this requirement (R.S.C. 1930, c. 52, s. 1).
[249] 
The Speaker of the House is an elected Member, and Section 39 of the Constitution Act, 1867 provides that “A Senator shall not be capable of being elected or of sitting or voting as a Member of the House of Commons”.
[250] 
Journals, March 10, 1904, pp. 1-2, 5. The notification of vacancy was dated January 19, 1904; Mr. Brodeur was then re-elected in a by-election and took his seat in the House as a Cabinet Minister on March 10, 1904 (Journals, p. 10).
[251] 
Journals, January 12, 1916, pp. 1-2, 4. The notification of vacancy was dated December 3, 1915, the date of his appointment to the Senate (Journals of the Senate, January 12, 1916, pp. 1-2).
[252] 
Journals, January 18, 1917, pp. 2, 6. The notification of vacancy was dated January 8, 1917. Mr. Sévigny was re-elected in a by-election and took his seat in the House as a Cabinet Minister on April 19, 1917 (Journals, p. 90).
[253] 
A notification of vacancy was submitted, dated June 5, 1877. Speaker Anglin was known to have had business dealings with the government of the day, and this became the subject of study by a privilege committee. On April 28, 1877, the last day of the session, the committee presented a report stating that, in its view, the Speaker was in violation of the Independence of Parliament Act and thus his election was void. (The Actprovidedthat individuals could not be Members of the House of Commons if they held offices of emolument under the Government of Canada, or were contractors with the Government of Canada (31 Vict., c. 25, amended in 1871 by 34 Vict, c. 19). For background, see Bourinot, 4th ed., pp. 140-8.) The report was not considered by the House (Journals, April 28, 1877, p. 357; for the text of the report, see item No. 8 in the Appendix to the Journals for the Fourth Session of the Third Parliament).
[254] 
Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 2, 5.
[255] 
This occurred over the objections of the opposition, who forced a recorded vote on the question (see Journals, February 7, 1878, pp. 9-10).
[256] 
On two occasions in the seventeenth century, the British House pronounced itself on the question of the continuance of its Speaker in the Chair. In 1673, a motion for the removal of Speaker Seymour was defeated (Hatsell, Vol. II, pp. 214-5). In 1694, a parliamentary committee found that Speaker Trevor had accepted a bribe, and he resigned after the House resolved that he was guilty of a high crime and misdemeanor (Laundy, pp. 39-40).
[257] 
Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, April 30, 1875, p. 109. There was a preamble to the motion which stated, first, that past Speakers had been selected on the basis of their parliamentary experience; second, that the incumbent had no parliamentary experience or previous training indicating fitness for the “onerous and sometimes technical” duties of Speaker; and third, that the “present state of things is not calculated to elevate the dignity and preserve the decorum of this Legislature”. See also the account in Bourinot, 4th ed., p. 177.
[258] 
Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, April 30, 1875, pp. 109-10; May 1, 1875, p. 110.
[259] 
Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, May 1, 1875, pp. 110-1.
[260] 
Journal and Proceedings of the House of Assembly of the Province of Nova Scotia, May 3, 1875, pp. 111-2.
[261] 
In May and June of that year, the government (having concluded an agreement to provide assistance on or before June 7 for the building of a pipeline) was seeking to obtain passage of Bill No. 298, An Act to establish the Northern Ontario Pipe Line Crown Corporation. The opposition did not favour the bill and, for the first time in 24 years, closure was invoked; moreover, it was applied to each stage in the passage of the bill. Debate was acrimonious and punctuated by procedural argument (for background and details, see J. Gordon Dubroy, “Canada: House of Commons: Relations between Chair and Opposition in 1956,” The Table, Vol. XXV for 1956, pp. 39-53).
[262] 
Of the 25 appeals, 11 were from rulings of the Speaker and the remainder were from rulings of the Chair in a Committee of the Whole. Appeals from rulings of the Speaker were abolished in 1965.
[263] 
On June 1, 1956, which later became known as “Black Friday”, the Speaker ruled to revert the House to its position of the day before (with respect to its deliberations on the pipeline bill); the ruling was sustained on appeal (Journals, June 1, 1956, pp. 678-80). On Monday, June 4, the Leader of the Opposition moved a motion of censure against the Speaker (Journals, pp. 692-3). The motion was defeated on June 8 (Journals, pp. 725-6). See also Debates, June 4, 1956, pp. 4643-60; June 6, 1956, pp. 4783-6; June 7, 1956, pp. 4794-831; June 8, 1956, pp. 4845-70.
[264] 
On June 29, 1956, the Leader of the Opposition rose on a question of privilege to allege that the Speaker had improperly impugned the motives of certain Members; the allegation was based on extracts of private correspondence of the Speaker, which were published in a newspaper (Debates, pp. 5509-15).
[265] 
Journals, July 2, 1956, p. 838. For the full text of the Speaker’s remarks, see pp. 835-8.
[266] 
For examples of motions of censure brought against Speakers of the Senate and other legislatures in Canada, see: in the Senate, against Speaker Charbonneau (Journals of the Senate, December 30, 1990, p. 1997); in British Columia, against Speaker Smith (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of British Columbia, July 21, 1977, pp. 213-4; July 22, 1977, p. 214); in Manitoba, against Speaker Walding (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, December 13, 1982, pp. 27-8) and six against Speaker Dacquay (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Manitoba, November 2, 1995, pp. 379-80; June 3, 1996, p. 339; November 21, 1996, pp. 874-7; March 3, 1997, pp. 16-7; December 1, 1997, pp. 19-20; December 3, 1997, p. 33); in Nova Scotia, against Speaker MacLean (Nova Scotia Assembly Debates, March 14, 1975, p. 1270; March 18, 1975, pp. 1350-6), and against Speaker Donahoe (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Nova Scotia, March 9, 1981, pp. 77-80); in Ontario, against Speaker Turner (November 16, 1981, Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, pp. 187-8; Debates of the Legislative Assembly of Ontario, pp. 3531-46); in Quebec, two against Speaker Lavoie (Debates, March 20, 1974, pp. 69-84; December 21, 1974, pp. 3935-73), and one against Speaker Bertrand (Debates of the National Assembly of Quebec, February 3, 1995, pp. 1353-73; March 14, 1995, pp. 1381-5); in Saskatchewan, against Speaker Agar (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, March 15, 1944, pp. 125-7), against Speaker Brockelbank (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, April 29, 1980, p. 421), and against Speaker Rolfes (Journals of the Legislative Assembly of Saskatchewan, July 21, 1992, p. 160); and in the Yukon Territory, against Speaker Bruce (April 1, 1998, Votes and Proceedings of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, pp. 215-6; Debates of the Yukon Legislative Assembly, pp. 2657-60).
[267] 
Constitution Act, 1867, R.S.C. 1985, Appendix II, No. 5, s. 46.
[268] 
Section 47 of the Constitution Act, 1867 called for the election of an interim Speaker only if the Speaker was absent for more than 48 hours. This section had been included in the Constitution because, on one occasion, the Legislative Assembly of the Province of Canada was not able to meet over a period of days because the Speaker was ill and unable to attend (Journals, March 22, 1858, p. 161); in another case, after Confederation, the House began its sitting late because the Speaker missed his train and was not present at the hour of meeting (Debates, April 19, 1870, p. 1065).
[269] 
An Act respecting the Office of Speaker of the House of Commons of the Dominion of Canada, S.C. 1867, c. 2. These provisions are now found in the Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 42. The Speaker used this new power for the first time on March 30, 1868 (see Journals, p. 167). Substitutions of this nature were not recorded in the Journals after 1870, although they continued to take place.
[270] 
See 1867 Rule 76.
[271] 
See, for example, Journals, May 14, 1868, pp. 353-64.
[272] 
Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 67-8. In the British Parliament, the office of Deputy Speaker came into existence in 1855 (see May, 22nd ed., pp. 194-5).
[273] 
The Opposition objected, claiming there were no provisions for such a position in the Constitution and alleging it was intended to create a salaried office for political patronage; the question of language requirements was also raised (Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 68-70).
[274] 
Journals, February 10, 1885, pp. 53-5; see also Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 67-72. An amendment, later to become a Standing Order (the current Standing Order 7(2)), concerned the language requirement for the position. Malachy B. Daly, selected Chairman of Committees of the Whole on February 10, 1885, became the first incumbent of the newly created office (Journals, p. 55).
[275] 
The Opposition had argued that the office of Speaker was governed by legislation (the Constitution) and that, while Parliament might alter its provisions, this had to be done by way of legislation rather than a resolution of the House. The Prime Minister accepted this argument and the bill, An Act to provide for the Appointment of a Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons, S.C. 1885, c. 1, received Royal Assent on May 1, 1885. (See Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 73-4.) Malachy B. Daly took the Chair as Deputy Speaker for the first time on May 2, 1885 (Journals, p. 357). See also Appendix 3, “Deputy Speakers and Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1885”.
[276] 
The practice was at first controversial (see, for example, Debates, April 26, 1888, pp. 1005-6, and April 8, 1896, cols. 5732-7, when objections were raised about a Member taking the Chair in the absence of the Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole; Debates, June 6, 1899, cols. 4445-57, and June 7, 1899, cols. 4553-4, when, in reporting from a Committee of the Whole, the Chairman replaced the absent Speaker and named another Member to make the report; and Debates, July 15, 1903, cols. 6630-8, when the Member acting as Chairman of the Committee took the Chair to receive its report and later went on to adjourn the House); however, no such objections appear to have been raised after 1903, and it seems the practice was accepted.
[277] 
Journals, February 11, 1938, p. 60.
[278] 
The Opposition Leader expressed doubts that the statute allowed for this particular delegated power, but did not object further when the Minister of Justice responded that it was a satisfactory way of providing for the case at hand (Debates, February 11, 1938, pp. 370-1).
[279] 
Debates, February 11, 1938, pp. 370-1.
[280] 
Debates, March 28, 1947, pp. 1826-7.
[281]
See Appendix 4, “Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1938”.
[282] 
Debates, December 16, 1953, p. 963.
[283] 
The special committee’s mandate included reporting to the House on possible rule changes which it might “deem suitable to promote the more expeditious dispatch of the business of the House”. The committee’s first report, presented on March 20, 1967 (Journals, p. 1549), and adopted without debate on April 26, 1967 (Journals, p. 1769; Debates, p. 15489), stated that the appointment of an Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole would be “desirable”, and went on to recommend the necessary amendment to the Standing Orders.
[284]
See Appendix 5, “Assistant Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1967”.
[285] 
See 1906 Rule 13(4).
[286] 
Journals, March 22, 1927, pp. 324-5.
[287] 
In 1887, for example, the Deputy Speaker was not selected until almost a month after the Address had been agreed to (Journals, May 11, 1887, pp. 370-1); in 1891, the Address was agreed to on May 4 (Journals, p. 17), and the Deputy Speaker was chosen on May 22 (Journals, p. 159). In 1949 and 1953, the House agreed to waive the rule and the Deputy Speaker was selected before the Address was agreed to (Journals, September 15, 1949, p. 17; November 12, 1953, p. 16).
[288] 
Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1.
[289] 
Journals, December 20, 1968, p. 572. Until then, the duties of the office holder had been described in the Standing Order as “in accordance with the usages which regulate the duties of a similar officer, generally designated the Chairman of the Committee of Ways and Means, in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland”.
[290] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 44(2). See also Debates, June 4, 1985, p. 5387.
[291] 
Typically, the House is informed of the unavoidable absence of the Speaker by the Clerk of the House before prayers are read; but exceptions have taken place. For example, on one occasion after the sitting was underway, the announcement was made by the Assistant Deputy Chairman (Journals, March 3, 1995, p. 1999; Debates, March 3, 1995, p. 10313).
[292] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 43.
[293] 
For example, in 1885, the Speaker was replaced over three sittings due to illness in the family (Journals, May 2, 4 and 5, pp. 357-9); in 1899, Speaker Edgar fell ill and was replaced at the start of 16 sittings (Journals Index for 1899 under “Deputy Speaker”). In two more recent cases (Speaker Sauvé in 1983 and Speaker Fraser in 1993), the Speaker was absent from the House for a period of time due to illness and was replaced over several consecutive sittings.
[294] 
In 1983, for example, the Deputy Chairman and the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, acting as Speaker, each opened sittings of the House (Journals, June 28, 1983, p. 6098 (Assistant Deputy Chairman); December 20, 1983, p. 60 (Deputy Chairman)). When the Speaker became ill that year, the Deputy Speaker and Assistant Deputy Chairman alternated days on which they took responsibility for opening the sitting. For more recent examples, see Journals, October 24, 1997, p. 145 (Assistant Deputy Chairman); October 26, 1998, p. 1183 (Deputy Chairman).
[295] 
Standing Order 8.
[296] 
Parliament of Canada Act, R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 42.
[297] 
Standing Order 7(1). See also Chapter 19, “Committees of the Whole House”.
[298] 
Standing Order 7(4).
[299] 
See, for example, Debates, March 11, 1971, pp. 4177-8, when the Deputy Speaker appointed another Member (Mr. Richard) to act as Chairman of a Committee of the Whole.
[300] 
Formerly, the Parliament of Canada Act explicitly included the Deputy Speaker in the membership of the Board of Internal Economy (R.S.C. 1985, c. P-1, s. 50(2)). When the Act was amended in 1997 (S.C. 1997, c. 32) to give additional representation on the Board to opposition parties, the Deputy Speaker was removed; but the government then appointed the Deputy Speaker as one of its representatives on the Board (Journals, December 11, 1997, p. 391).
[301] 
Standing Order 112. See, for example, Journals, March 11, 1988, p. 2280; November 23, 1989, p. 78 (appointments of the Deputy Speaker to chair legislative committees); March 24, 1988, p. 2416 (appointment of the Deputy Chairman to chair a legislative committee); February 23, 1990, p. 1278 (appointment of the Assistant Deputy Chairman to chair a legislative committee); May 25, 1993, p. 2999 (Deputy Speaker appointing Members to act as chairmen of legislative committees).
[302] 
Journals, December 14, 1989, p. 1011. When the Deputy Speaker (Marcel Danis) was later appointed to the Cabinet, the House agreed that he should continue to chair the special committee (Journals, March 6, 1990, p. 1290).
[303] 
Standing Order 9.
[304] 
When reproached for indulging in politics, Deputy Speaker LaVergne declared, “A deputy speaker is not supposed to be impartial when he is not in the chair. Truth holds a greater place in the house than the opinion of the hon. friend” (Debates, June 19, 1931, p. 2840).
[305] 
In 1914, for example, the involvement of Pierre-Édouard Blondin (Deputy Speaker) in a by-election campaign gave rise to a motion moved in the House by Sir Wilfrid Laurier (Leader of the Opposition) “That in the opinion of this House, in the discharge of the duties and responsibilities of the Deputy Speaker toward this House, he is bound by and subject to the same rules as apply to Mr. Speaker, and that, therefore, he is disbarred from taking part in electoral contests” (Debates, March 5, 1914, p. 1362). Prime Minister Borden opposed the motion, arguing that the status of both the Speaker and Deputy Speaker was based on custom and should the House find it necessary to set rules for the Deputy Speaker, it would surely be necessary to do likewise for the Speaker. No decision was taken and the motion was withdrawn (Debates, March 5, 1914, pp. 1362-70).
[306] 
Debates, March 20, 1931, pp. 173-80.
[307] 
Debates, March 8, 1993, pp. 16577-81; March 9, 1993, p. 16685.
[308] 
See, for example, Debates, October 12, 1979, p. 134. Some recent occupants of the Chair have taken the decision to abstain entirely from voting (David Kilgour, Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole in the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97); Ian McClelland, Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole in the First Session (1997-99) of the Thirty-Sixth Parliament).
[309] 
Debates, November 25, 1985, pp. 8777-81. Assistant Deputy Chairman Jean Charest took part in debate and a question of privilege was raised the next day. The Speaker ruled that there is no rule that would prevent a Presiding Officer (other than the Speaker) from speaking; “whether one should or should not do so,” he said, “is a question of judgment that various deputy Speakers have exercised in various ways” (Debates, November 26, 1985, pp. 8821-4).
[310] 
See, for example, Journals, October 26, 1994, p. 829 (petition presented by the Assistant Deputy Chairman); June 19, 1995, p. 1784 (petition presented by the Deputy Chairman).
[311] 
See, for example, Debates, February 27, 1985, p. 2542 (Assistant Deputy Chairman); February 25, 1993, p. 16461 (Deputy Speaker); April 21, 1997, p. 9986 (Deputy Chairman).
[312] 
On one occasion, following the passage of a bill, the Deputy Speaker spoke briefly on it from the Chair (Debates, June 11, 1992, pp. 11870-1).
[313] 
There have been exceptions. In the 1976-77 session, a private Members’ bill was sponsored by Gérald Laniel, then Deputy Speaker. The bill dealt with readjustment of electoral boundaries and (with several other such bills) passed through the legislative process in the House without debate, which could be taken as an indication that its contents were of a non-partisan nature (Journals, June 29, 1977, p. 1267; June 30, 1997, pp. 1279-80; Debates, June 30, 1977, p. 7236).
Peter Milliken was selected during a session to be Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole (Journals, October 29, 1996, p. 785-9); on November 28, a private Members’ bill, sponsored by him prior to his becoming a Chair occupant, came before the House for consideration at report stage.  The bill, an amendment to the Financial Administration Act, was concurred in, read a third time and passed without debate (Journals, November 28, 1996, p. 935; Debates, November 28, 1996, pp. 6889-90).  The sponsorship of another of Mr. Milliken’s bills was, by leave of the House, transferred to another Member after his appointment as a Presiding Officer (Journals, February 19, 1997, p. 1151).
[314] 
On February 6, 1997, Peter Milliken, Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, placed a question on the Order Paper and it was answered on April 15, 1997 (Debates, p. 9702).
[315] 
Standing Order 7.
[316]
For further information on the opening of a Parliament, see Chapter 8, “The Parliamentary Cycle”.
[317] 
In 1891, 1896, 1901 and 1935, the motion was moved by another leading Minister instead of the Prime Minister. See Journals, May 22, 1891, p. 159; August 27, 1896, p. 15; February 11, 1901, p. 20; March 11, 1935, p. 209.
[318] 
Three Deputy Speakers have been opposition Members: George Henry Boivin (Debates, March 21, 1918, pp. 73-4), Robert McCleave (Debates, January 4, 1973, pp. 11-2) and Gérald Laniel (who served in two Parliaments, over a change of government—1974-79 and 1979; see Debates, October 9, 1979, p. 15).
[319] 
The nominations of Robert McCleave (an opposition Member) and Gérald Laniel (an opposition Member going into his second term as Deputy Speaker) were seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Journals, January 4, 1973, p. 13; October 9, 1979, p. 20). The nomination of Andrée Champagne (a government Member) was seconded by the Opposition House Leader (Journals, May 15, 1990, p. 1705).
[320] 
Standing Order 7(2). The language requirement has been met in each Parliament since 1885. In 1918, Prime Minister Borden nominated an opposition Member (George Henry Boivin) for the position, citing in his remarks the paucity of experienced francophone Members on the government benches (see Debates, March 21, 1918, pp. 73-4). Since the late 1950s, a similar linguistic balance has also been met with regard to the Deputy Chairman and Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, although no such requirement exists.
[321] 
The motion to select Malachy Daly in 1885 was adopted on division (Debates, February 10, 1885, pp. 72-3). In 1911, the motion nominating Pierre Blondin was debated and then adopted without division (Debates, November 29, 1911, cols. 519-25). In 1918, a Member objected to the nomination of George Henry Boivin; but again, the motion was adopted without division (Debates, March 21, 1918, pp. 73-5). Only once has a recorded division been taken on the motion to select a Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole; this was in 1962, on the motion to select Paul Martineau (Journals, January 18, 1962, pp. 6-7; Debates, January 18, 1962, pp. 5-6).
[322] 
Standing Order 8.
[323] 
With few exceptions, the motion has been moved by the Prime Minister; exceptions in this practice occurred in the selection of Deputy Chairman William Henry Golding in 1947 (Journals, March 28, 1947, p. 258) and Peter Milliken in 1996 (Journals, October 28, 1996, p. 778); and in the selection of Assistant Deputy Chairman Charles DeBlois in 1990 (Journals, October 2, 1990, p. 2050). In most cases, the motion is also seconded by a government Member; instances of seconding by opposition Members occurred in the nominations of Gérald Laniel as Deputy Chairman in 1973 (his fourth of five sessional appointments — Journals, January 4, 1973, p. 13), Ian McClelland as Deputy Chairman in 1997 (Mr. McClelland was himself an opposition Member — Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 13); the nomination of Charles DeBlois as Assistant Deputy Chairman was jointly seconded by two opposition Members (Journals, October 2, 1990, p. 2050).
[324] 
The motion for the selection of the Assistant Deputy Chairman has twice been the object of a recorded division. In 1990, an objection was raised on the grounds that the opposition Bloc Québécois party had not been consulted (Debates, October 2, 1990, pp. 13657-8; Journals, October 2, 1990, p. 2050). In 1996, the opposition parties contended that the office should be held by an opposition Member; the motion nominating Pierrette Ringuette-Maltais was debated and adopted on a recorded division (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 4; February 28, 1996, pp. 9-10; Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 9-16; February 28, 1996, pp. 70-1). Also in 1996, the motion nominating a Deputy Chairman was decided on a recorded division, after opposition Members argued that at least one Chair occupant should be selected from the opposition; a government Member, Robert Kilger, was selected (Journals, February 27, 1996, p. 3; Debates, February 27, 1996, pp. 6-9). Later in the session, the nomination of Peter Milliken as Deputy Chairman was debated at length, closured and agreed to following a recorded division; in addition, the opposition moved an amendment (which was defeated) in order to have one of its members appointed to the position (Journals, October 28, 1996, pp. 778-9; October 29, 1996, pp. 785-9).
[325] 
In 1997, Ian McClelland became the first opposition Member to assume the office of Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole (Journals, September 23, 1997, p. 13).
[326] 
Standing Order 7(3).
[327] 
Until 1931, Members who accepted certain positions in Cabinet were required, pursuant to the Senate and House of Commons Act, to resign their seats and seek re-election (Senate and House of Commons Act, R.S.C. 1927, c. 147, ss. 13, 14). The Act (now called the Parliament of Canada Act) was amended in 1931 to remove this requirement (see R.S.C. 1930, c. 52, s. 1).
[328] 
Journals, January 16, 1890, pp. 2-4; February 4, 1915, pp. 2, 4.
[329] 
Journals, January 21, 1890, p. 15; February 9, 1915, p. 20.
[330] 
This part of the rule was amended in July 1955 to remove the reference to the Address in Reply (Journals, July 12, 1955, pp. 920-1).
[331] 
Debates, January 14, 1960, pp. 3-5; January 18, 1962, pp. 4-6.
[332] 
The House was informed of the death on March 5, 1935 (Debates, pp. 1415-7).
[333] 
Journals, March 11, 1935, p. 209.
[334] 
Journals, April 9, 1952, pp. 197-8.
[335] 
Journals, October 5, 1970, p. 1192.
[336] 
Journals, April 14, 1980, p. 22.
[337] 
Journals, January 16, 1984, p. 72.
[338] 
Journals, May 15, 1990, pp. 1704-5. In his capacity as Deputy Speaker, Mr. Danis had been appointed Chairman of the Special Committee on the Review of the Parliament of Canada Act (Journals, December 14, 1989, p. 1011). After his appointment to Cabinet, he continued, by leave of the House, to chair the Committee which continued meeting until November 1990 (Journals, March 6, 1990, p. 1290).
[339] 
Standing Order 8.
[340] 
Debates, March 28, 1947, pp. 1826-7.
[341]
See Appendix 4, “Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1938”, and Appendix 5, “Assistant Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1967”.
[342] 
In 1952, Louis-René Beaudoin, then Deputy Chairman, became Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole. In 1980, Rod Blaker, then Assistant Deputy Chairman, became Deputy Chairman. In 1990, Andrée Champagne, then Assistant Deputy Chairman, was selected to be Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole, as had Eymard Corbin in 1984.
[343] 
In 1970, Albert Béchard was appointed a Parliamentary Secretary, and the Speaker announced to the House that Mr. Béchard had submitted his resignation as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole; the Prime Minister then moved a motion appointing another Member to fill the position (Debates, October 5, 1970, p. 8705; Journals, October 5, 1970, p. 1192). On June 30, 1986, Jean Charest, the Assistant Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, was appointed Minister of State (Youth); no formal resignation was communicated to the House and a replacement was selected in the next session. In 1996, the Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole, Robert Kilger, was appointed Chief Government Whip and was replaced on October 29; no formal resignation was communicated to the House.
[344] 
The Prime Minister indicated to the House that the Deputy Chairman (Charles Edward Rea) was seriously ill and that his wife, speaking for him, had requested that he be replaced (Debates, June 8, 1961, p. 6015). The motion proposed the appointment of Gordon Campbell Chown, “in the place of Charles Edward Rea… who is unable to carry on this duty because of illness” (Journals, June 8, 1961, p. 640).
[345] 
Shirley Maheu was appointed to the Senate on February 1, 1996, during the intersession.
[346] 
In 1982, the Deputy Chairman, Denis Ethier, resigned in protest against procedural tactics employed by the Official Opposition (Debates, July 8, 1982, pp. 19164-5; July 14, 1982, pp. 19321-6; July 21, 1982, p. 19555), and in 1990, the Assistant Deputy Chairman, Denis Pronovost, resigned following controversial remarks he had made (see Debates, May 31, 1990, pp. 12110, 12123-4; June 1, 1990, p. 12163).
[347] 
Keith Penner and Rod Blaker were appointed Parliamentary Secretaries on October 10, 1975, and January 13, 1984, respectively. The Speaker informed the House of their resignations on October 14, 1975 (Debates, p. 8091; Journals, p. 754), and January 16, 1984 (Debates, p. 443; Journals, p. 74).
[348]
See Appendix 3, “Deputy Speakers and Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1885”; Appendix 4, “Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1938”; and Appendix 5, “Assistant Deputy Chairmen of Committees of the Whole House Since 1967”.
[349] 
Speakers Brodeur, Marcil, Sévigny, Rhodes, Macdonald, Beaudoin, Lamoureux and Francis had all served as Deputy Speaker and Chairman of Committees of the Whole prior to becoming Speaker. Speaker Beaudoin had, in addition, served as Deputy Chairman of Committees of the Whole. In 1942, Thomas Vien was serving as Deputy Speaker when he was appointed to the Senate, and became Speaker of the Senate shortly thereafter.

Please note —

As the rules and practices of the House of Commons are subject to change, users should remember that this edition of Procedure and Practice was published in January 2000. Standing Order changes adopted since then, as well as other changes in practice, are not reflected in the text. The Appendices to the book, however, have been updated and now include information up to the end of the 38th Parliament in November 2005.

To confirm current rules and practice, please consult the latest version of the Standing Orders on the Parliament of Canada Web site.

For further information about the procedures of the House of Commons, please contact the Table Research Branch at (613) 996-3611 or by e-mail at trbdrb@parl.gc.ca.