The House and Its Members

Introduction

Speakers of the House of Commons are, from time to time, called upon to rule on matters touching on the status of individual Members of Parliament and their affiliation with parties and other less formal groupings. The Speaker’s responsibility for the administration of the House, its resources and its employees may also necessitate rulings from the Chair, with regard to, for example, the introduction and use of new technologies in the conduct of the business of the House, and to the availability and content of parliamentary publications and documents.

In addition, a number of decisions have been included in this chapter which relate to the authority of the Speaker with respect to motions and amendments, to their procedural admissibility, and to the formula for the number of allotted days. Three rulings in particular exemplify the breadth and character of the decisions included in this chapter.

First, on September 19, 2001, Peter MacKay (Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough) rose on a point of order to ask, on behalf of the 20 Members forming the Progressive Conservative Party/Democratic Representative (PC/DR) Coalition (12 Members of the Progressive Conservative Party and 8 independent Members, formerly with the Canadian Alliance), that they be granted all the privileges and rights afforded to recognized parties. On September 24, the Speaker ruled that, as the PC/DR Coalition had more than 12 Members, he did not find any procedural objection to the request that they be allowed to sit together and to represent themselves as a group for parliamentary purposes. However, he also concluded that, since the group had declined to present themselves as a party in the Chamber, they could not be awarded any of the additional privileges associated with that status.

In the spring of 2005, the Conservatives threatened to force an election on the Liberal minority Government by moving a no-confidence motion on an allotted day. Not only did the Government decide to postpone the designation of allotted days, but Tony Valeri (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) undesignated an allotted day previously announced. In turn, the Official Opposition used a motion to concur in a committee report as a means of testing the confidence of the House in the Government. The ruling on a challenge to an amendment to that concurrence motion is illustrative of the Speaker’s view that it was not up to the Chair to judge the substance of a motion, but to ensure that the proper procedures for its presentation were respected.

Last, on April 1, 2010, the Speaker ruled on a matter regarding the use of a social networking site to reference the presence or absence of Members in the House. In noting the impossibility for the Chair to monitor the use of Members’ personal digital devices, the Speaker suggested that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider issues related to new technologies and their impact on the House and its committees. The Committee undertook a study on the matter and reported back to the House recommending, in part, that the Speaker be guided by his own discretion in enforcing the Standing Orders and the accepted procedures and practices regarding the use of new technologies.