Precedence and Sequence of Business / Divisions

March 30, 1984

Debates, pp. 2569-71

On March 30, 1984, the Speaker made a statement in the House, offering some reflections on the Speaker's role and authority in a decision to suspend the sitting during the ringing of the division bell, when it appears that no vote will take place before the next morning. The Speaker's statement was in direct response to a point of order raised on March 20, regarding the suspension of the sitting on March 19. In the statement, the Speaker made references to several related incidents which had occurred both before and after March 19, a background to the problem now facing the Chair.

The Speaker described the situation in March 1982 when the bells rang for an unprecedented 15 days before the deadlock was broken by the parties involved; the events on May 9, 1983, on March 19, 1984 and on March 28, 1984 when the bells and the sitting were suspended by the Speaker until the next morning; and finally, the circumstance on March 29, 1984 when the Speaker declared that a dilatory motion had lapsed at the normal hour of adjournment.

Issue

What action should the Speaker take when the division bells are ringing at the normal hour of adjournment and it appears that no vote will take place before the next day?

Decision

In the case of dilatory motions, they will be deemed to have lapsed at the normal hour of adjournment if no vote has been taken. In the case of substantive motions, the sitting will be suspended at the normal hour of adjournment and resumed at 9:00 a.m. the next day if the Chair has not been notified of a specific intervening hour at which the Whips intend that the vote should take place.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The problem has been with the House since the bell-ringing incident of March 1982. The rules and practices of the House do not provide the Speaker with specific guidelines for the handling of these situations. In the absence of any guidelines, certain initiative have been taken by the Chair, founded on what appears to be sensible, given the circumstances. These recent precedents will be followed until such time as the House makes its will known to the Chair. The Chair suggest that the House has three options open to it: that the bells be controlled by the Whips, by the Speaker or by Standing Order. The Chair favour the adoption of a Standing Order to limit the length of time the bells may ring.

Sources cited

Debates, March 18, 1982, pp. 15555-7; May 9, 1983, pp. 25288-9.

References

Debates, March 19, 1984, pp. 2219-21; March 20, 1984, pp. 2245-51; March 28, 1984, pp. 2531-2; March 29, 1984, p. 2558.