On August 10, 2022, the Government House Leader filed notice of a substantive motion for the appointment of Presiding Officers, which is printed on today’s Orders and Notices Paper as Government Notice of Motion #3. The Official Opposition Chief Whip, Mr. Vanthof, has raised a point of order relating to this motion. After taking a few minutes to review the submissions of the Member, the Government House Leader, and the Member for Durham (Mr. McCarthy) together with prior research and consideration of the motion after it was placed on the Orders and Notices Paper a few days ago, I am now prepared to provide a ruling.

The motion, if adopted, would appoint four Members to the Presiding Officer roles of Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House; and First, Second and Third Deputy Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House.

The appointment of these positions is governed by Standing Orders 5(a), 5(c), and 6, which read as follows:

5(a)    At the commencement of the First Session of a Parliament, or from time to time as may be required, a Member shall be appointed by the House to be Deputy Speaker and Chair of the Committee of the Whole House.

5(c)    At the commencement of every Parliament, or from time to time as may be required, the House shall appoint 3 Deputy Chairs of the Committee of the Whole House, to be known respectively as the First, Second and Third Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, any of whom shall, in order of precedence, whenever the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House is absent or otherwise unable to act, be entitled to exercise all the powers vested in the Chair of the Committee of the Whole House, including those powers as Deputy Speaker.

6        On the advice of the House Leader of each of the recognized Opposition parties in the House given to the Government House Leader, up to 3 of the 5 Presiding Officers of the House shall be chosen from recognized Opposition parties.

The motion, before the House, proposes the appointment of the following Members to these positions, respectively: Donna Skelly, Member for Flamborough—Glanbrook; Bhutila Karpoche, Member for Parkdale—High Park; Patrice Barnes, Member for Ajax; and Lucille Collard, Member for Ottawa—Vanier.

In his point of order, the Official Opposition Whip flagged the party affiliation of these presiding officer candidates as a potential violation of the rules and practices of this House. Ms. Skelly and Ms. Barnes both belong to the government’s caucus, Mme Collard is an independent Member, and Ms. Karpoche is a member of the Official Opposition caucus. Mr. Vanthof noted that while the language of Standing Order 6 provides that “up to 3” of the 5 Presiding Officers (a total that includes the Speaker) shall be chosen from recognized Opposition parties, the long-standing practice of this House is that 3 of the 5 Presiding Officers are recognized Opposition party Members.

The current Standing Order 6 dates back to 1989, before which time there was no requirement for the appointment of members of recognized Opposition parties as Presiding Officers, either procedurally or in practice.

The 1989 Standing Orders provided for four Presiding Officers, “up to 2” of which would be chosen from the recognized Opposition parties. The position of Third Deputy Chair of the Committee of the Whole House was subsequently added to the Standing Orders, along with the provision that “up to 3” of the five Presiding Officers “shall be chosen from recognized Opposition parties”.

A review of the history of the appointment of Presiding Officers reveals that from 1989 to 2018, the House has appointed Members of recognized Opposition parties to the maximum allowable number of Presiding Officer positions. Between 1989 and 2008, where the Standing Orders provided that “up to 2” Opposition Members be appointed, the House appointed two; and from 2008-2018, when the Standing Orders provided for “up to 3” Opposition Members to be appointed, the House appointed three.

This motion represents the first time that less than the maximum number of Members from recognized Opposition parties has been proposed to fill Presiding Officer roles; the first time that an independent Member has been included in the motion; and the first time that the Speaker has been asked to interpret this Standing Order.

As noted, since the inception of this Standing Order, the House has always appointed the maximum number of Presiding Officers from among Members of recognized Opposition parties, indicating an established practice. But while practice and precedent are often persuasive in determining the course of parliamentary procedure, they do not override clear rules of the House when such rules are asserted in place of practice.

As noted in Parliamentary Practice in British Columbia, 5th Edition at page 32, “(w)hen a question of procedure needs to be decided, the Speaker’s first resort is to the Standing Orders. An express rule or order adopted by the Legislative Assembly, whether Standing, Special or Sessional, supersedes every mere practice or precedent.” A similar discussion along these lines is set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 3rd Edition at pages 273 and 274.

The fact that Standing Order 6 uses the term “up to 3” clearly suggests that fewer than 3 is both a contemplated scenario, and one permitted by the Standing Order; in which case, if fewer than 3 of the 5 Presiding Officers are to be drawn from the recognized Opposition party or parties, and if indeed the House is to appoint the full complement of 5 Presiding Officers, then the remaining number must come from other parts of the House. Again, it is clear that the Standing Order contemplates this scenario, because it does not say “3 of the 5 shall”, it says “up to 3 of the 5 shall”.

I therefore find that the motion is not out of order on the basis that its passage would result in fewer than 3 of 5 Presiding Officers being Members of recognized Opposition parties. With respect to the fact that the motion provides for an independent Member to be appointed as one of the Presiding Officers, I see nothing that prohibits it. The Standing Order is silent on this matter, suggesting the House is entirely at liberty to appoint from among its membership to these positions as it sees fit.

The Opposition Whip has asserted that Standing Order 6 provides the Opposition House Leader the right to designate members of the Opposition to fulfill Presiding Officer roles. With respect, the right is effectively limited to the provision of the names of recommended candidates, not the right to require their appointment. Advice can guide and inform decisions, but as such its acceptance is not mandatory.

If the House in its wisdom proceeds with Government Notice of Motion 3, it is my ruling that it will be acting within the authority of the Standing Orders. I find this motion to be in order.