[ Page 2903 ]

CONTENTS

Speaker's ruling........2903

The House met at 12:01 a.m.

MR. SPEAKER: Hon. members, before we resume the business of this evening, I think it is important that I read to you, for the benefit of the members of the House, the basis of my decision earlier this evening. It was based upon a ruling by the then Speaker, the Hon. G.H. Dowding, on March 22, 1973. The circumstances involved were very similar to the ones of this evening, and I think that while it's a fairly lengthy decision, I must read it in its entirety.

The hon. member for Columbia River (Mr. Chabot) raised an important matter relating to the adjournment of the House by the interruption of business at 6 o'clock p.m. on March 20 while debate on second reading of a bill was underway and the hon. member for South Peace River (Mr. Phillips) was addressing the House. The sequence of events disclosed in the records indicates that while the hon. member was speaking after 6 o'clock the hon. member for North Peace River (Mr. Smith) rose on a point of order, drawing the attention of the Speaker to the clock.

The Speaker asked the hon. member who had been speaking to be seated, and he quite properly complied. A minister, the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat (Mr. Strachan), rose while the Speaker was in the chair and moved the adjournment of this debate until the next sitting of the House — and I think you will realize the importance of those words. When objection was heard — not formally, however — the Speaker indicated to the House that the hon. member who had seated himself at the interruption of business did not thereby lose his place in the debate which was underway.

This ruling is confirmed by May 17th edition, page 444 at the bottom of the page. An examination of the Journals has disclosed no occasion when a similar situation has arisen. Hon. members will recall that on a number of occasions the Speaker and the Chairman of the committee have left the Chair at the hour of interruption, returning at 8 p.m., but on such occasions no motion of a formal or other nature has been made prior to the Chair being vacated.

It seems significant, however, that on such occasions when the Chairman has left the Chair at the hour of interruption, and after the hour of 6 o'clock p.m., he has reported to the House and asked leave to sit again. A time therefore has been appointed and has been ordered by the House. In other words, formal business has, in fact, been transacted after the moment of interruption. Such a procedure is noted in the British Journals and referred to in May, 18th edition, at page 291.

Our standing order 3(1), recently adopted, reads:

"If at the hour of 6 p.m. on any Monday, Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday the business of the House is not concluded and no other hour has been agreed upon for the sitting, the Speaker shall leave the chair until 8 o'clock p.m. and the House will continue until 11 o'clock p.m. unless otherwise ordered."

The only difference this evening is that the hour of adjournment was 11 rather than at 6.

From this wording it seems implicit that when some conclusion of the business at hand is required, and another hour agreed upon for the sitting, it can be done. This is borne out in May, 17th edition, page 633, which reads:

"Procedure when business is not concluded at the end of a sitting.

"A Committee of the Whole House has no power either to adjourn its own sitting or to adjourn its consideration of any matter for a future sitting. If its consideration of the matter be not concluded, or if all the matters referred to have not been considered, in the Lords, the House is resumed and the Chairman moves 'that the House be again put into committee' on a future day. When the House is put into committee, it may be resumed upon a question put by the Lord in the chair. In the Commons, the Chairman is either directed (a question to that effect having been put and agreed to) to 'report progress and ask leave to sit again,' or (if proceedings in the committee are cut short by the hour of interruption) he reports progress and asks leave to sit again without such direction."

Thus after the hour of interruption certain formalities to preserve the order of business are permitted and cited in that exception. The Chairman does not leave the House but calls in the Speaker, reports to him, and a time is thereupon fixed by the House for the resumption of business interrupted. All of this occurs after the hour of interruption, and by reason of the time having been noted. Clearly May contemplates the preservation of the business of the House of the day, should the House wish to do so. Failing action by the House to agree upon the next sitting time, the Speaker returns at 8 p.m. that evening.

To resume the narrative of events at adjournment time on March 20, a motion to fix the hour of the next sitting was moved by the House Leader. At this point the question to be resolved by the Speaker was the nature and extent of business allowed to be transacted at the hour of interruption. It seemed to me in the brief time available that if it was competent for the House to act upon the report of the Chairman after the hour of interruption, as above noted, it was also competent for the House at this time to determine the hour of its next sitting.

Standing order 3 provides that an hour, other than

[ Page 2904 ]

8 p.m., may be agreed upon. Such motions in accordance with the practice indicated in May do not in the opinion of the Chair fall into the category of opposed business of the House and hours of sitting of the House. This is borne out in our standing orders by standing order 45(2) which states that "adjournment motions shall be decided without debate or amendment" and standing order 34 which declares that a motion to adjourn shall always be in order.

Thus so long as the House is assembled and properly constituted, such motions according to our standing orders appear to be in order. Were it otherwise, the proceedings of parliament could be frustrated every day by a member holding the floor until past the hour of interruption. May, 17th edition, page 466, states that in such case a member who without actually transgressing any of the rules of debate uses his right of speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House or obstructs the business of the House by misusing the forms of the House is technically not guilty of disorderly conduct. He is however guilty of contempt of the House and may be named. I emphasize that I am not thereby imputing such a motive to the member in the case herein.

Thus the House has by custom the power to prevent its proceedings from being thwarted or obstructed whether by a member refusing to adjourn the debate at the hour of interruption or by using a speech for the purpose of obstructing the business of the House. This is so implied by the fact that May indicates that another member who has not spoken at the hour of interruption may stand, move adjournment of the debate, yet the member who has occupied the floor may still resume after the adjournment.

A further matter arose to which the member has referred. Following the motion and a division which occupied some time, the Speaker left the chair at 6:13 after a division and returned without pause to the chair. The House resumed the business with which it had been occupied at adjournment, namely the speech of the member who had been speaking at the hour of interruption. Orders of the day were not called, but no formal objection to this was taken. Indeed, it was clear that it seemed the wish of the members that the debate resume with the same member retaining his place in the debate. He resumed his speech without protest and the House continued without further pause.

The physical presence of the mace on the table after the Speaker has left the Chair was also mentioned. According to Hatzell, when the mace lies upon the table the House is a House; when under, it is a committee; when out of the House, no business can be done; when from the table and upon the Sergeant's shoulder, the Speaker alone manages.

In my view, with respect to the position of the mace on the table...in no way invalidated the adjournment and resumption of the proceedings. The House was assembled and duly constituted. It adjourned and pursuant to its express will the Speaker immediately returned to the chair after having left it. The mace still being in the chamber, the business of the House could be done immediately in accordance with the motion passed.

It is worth noting that although we follow the customs and usages of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom, in all cases not provided for no mention of their standing orders is included in our standing order 1. Beauchesne, Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fourth edition, page 9 states:

"As Canadian procedure was based on British precedent insofar as circumstances permitted them to be followed in a new country, our legislatures from the day of the Constitution Act of 1791 naturally referred in all cases of doubt to the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom. But they have never considered themselves bound by the standing orders in force at Westminster which govern local practice and are not applicable to any other legislative body than the one for which they were passed."

In the British practice a motion to adjourn could be contentious business by reason of their standing order providing for debate.

Our standing order 45(2) departs from this and appears to be similar or analogous to their exempted business.

Perusal of the British Journals confirms that at the hour of interruption there may follow resolutions, motions and even the resolving of the business into committee provided there is no debate on the matter in the process of doing so, as is also true in our Legislative Assembly on the motion to adjourn the debate or to adjourn the House. An example to illustrate the British practice can be found on page 372 of the Commons Journals, 1891, volume 213.

In sum, it is my respectful opinion that the assembly by reason of standing order 31 can adjourn the debate and agree upon the next sitting at the hour of interruption, since the motions are made without the right to debate and because the assembly has the power to preserve its proceedings by its own will and purpose. In that course, the Speaker must be the servant of the House in leaving and returning to the chair. Once the two motions were disposed of, he was bound to comply therewith.

A lengthy decision, hon. members, but one which was not made in haste at that time because, as it was pointed out by Speaker Dowding, it was something of a new procedure in the House. He reserved his decision, brought it back to the House and I think it is worth noting that his ruling was not opposed.

[ Page 2905 ]

Orders of the day.

The House in Committee of Supply; Mr. Schroeder in the chair.

(continued)

On vote 130: minister's office, $80,964 — continued.

HON. G.M. McCARTHY (Provincial Secretary): Mr. Chairman, I move the committee rise, report progress and ask leave to sit again.

Motion approved.

The House resumed; Mr. Speaker in the chair.

The committee, having reported progress, was granted leave to sit again at the next sitting of the House.

Hon. Mr. Davis tables the British Columbia Ferries lease financing presentation by McLeod, Young and Weir, dated March 22, 1976, and a letter from the hon. Minister of Finance for Canada, dated June 16, 1976.

Hon. Mrs. McCarthy moves adjournment of the House.

Motion approved.

The House adjourned at 12:20 a.m.