EXPECT THE SPEAKER TO BE BUSY TAKING SIDES
Will likely politicize the position with jumping into the political fray
On an otherwise routine day in the B.C. legislature in the spring of 1980, the Opposition New Democratic Party sprang a trap on the Social Credit government of thenpremier Bill Bennett.
A year earlier, Bennett was elected to a second term by less than two points in the popular vote and five in the seat count, one of the thinnest margins in modern times before this year.
Despite the tight balance — and the absence of Speaker Harvey Schroeder who was recovering from a heart attack — the New Democrats had noted the government was getting careless about attendance.
Quietly, all Opposition members were ordered to stay in Victoria, while some were told to avoid the chamber so the Socreds wouldn’t suspect what was up.
Finally, on the afternoon of May 6, with Bennett and two of his ministers away on business, the New Democrats made their move, forcing a division — recorded vote — on a matter involving the alleged overpayment of a salary to the tourism minister.
The division bells ran for the usual five minutes, as per house rules, and the doors to the chamber were locked. Then with all New Democrats present and the Socreds having mustered every member within reach, the vote was called.
The result: 26 New Democrats in favour, 26 Socreds against. Whereupon into the breach stepped Socred Walter Davidson, normally the deputy speaker but then acting with full powers of the speaker for the ailing Schroeder.
Most times the speaker (or stand-in) does not vote. But the rules of the house are clear that in the event of a tie, the speaker “shall give a casting vote” to break the deadlock.
Davidson, following the conventions of the office, voted with the government side, thereby sustaining his own earlier ruling in the case, which was the pretext for the NDP challenge in the first place.
Still, the New Democrats had managed to embarrass the Socreds. Though the seat count remained tight for the rest of that term, Bennett never again needed the speaker to break a tie.
Moreover, that day, 37 years ago, was the last occasion on which any speaker of the B.C. legislature has exercised a casting vote to break a tie. The previous instance was in 1922, according to the journals of the house going back 100 years.
Two cases in a century would barely warrant a footnote in any present-day discussion of the powers of the speaker, were it not for the circumstances arising from the results of the recent B.C. election.
For in the coming B.C. legislature, the 44 to 43 balance between the NDP- Green alliance and the B.C. Liberals could make ties an everyday thing and the casting vote commonplace.
By long-standing parliamentary convention the speaker exercises the casting vote to permit further debate where possible and to side with the government where the opportunities for debate are exhausted.
Not likely, then, would a B.C. Liberal agree to serve as speaker and help prop up a John Horgan-led NDP government. Why would he or she, when the Liberal object over time is to defeat the minority government, not sustain it in office?
Recent disavowals notwithstanding, a Liberal might take the helm during the brief session where the government is poised for defeat. He or she would then resign along with the premier, rather than let the NDP off the hook for having to tie up one of its members when Horgan takes office.
Nor would an NDP speaker find it easy to preside over the session set aside for the denouement of the Liberals. Granted, he or she might declare in advance an intention to break with convention and vote against the government.
But that could make history of a different kind. Speakers vote to sustain governments; it is difficult to come up with a precedent for one voting to do the reverse.
Presuming the New Democrats are able to hold off appointing one of their own until Horgan takes office, that won’t end the challenge for the first NDP speaker of the new era.
He or she will likely have to take on expanded duties on the tiebreaking front to resolve deadlocks in proceedings that do not now fall under the purview of the speaker.
Under current rules, the speaker vacates the chamber and does not participate when the house moves into committee of the whole to debate ministry spending estimates and for clause by clause examination of legislation.
Then lesser functionaries preside — the chair of the committee of the whole is the usual occupant — and the journals of the house record seven instances in modern times of the chair having to break ties during estimates and clause by clause debate.
All happened late in the life of the last NDP government, when the balance of power in the legislature was reduced to two and sometimes three seats and attendance records were fraying because of internal dissent.
Yet those occasions could be commonplace in the coming legislature as well. And with the speaker absent and not voting under the current rules, the New Democrats would be at a numerical disadvantage.
So they’ll rewrite the rules to press their speaker into service to break those ties as well. Unavoidable, given the balance of power. But also a sure way to politicize the office by forcing the speaker to regularly take sides in the partisan fray.
By long-standing parliamentary convention the speaker exercises the casting vote to permit further debate where possible and to side with the government where the opportunities for debate are exhausted.