Article content continued

However, there’s one other never-used provision for secret ballots in the House.

Before an item of private members’ business —which includes both bills and motions — can move beyond pro forma first reading to the floor of the Chamber, it must be reviewed by a special all-party panel.

That panel decides whether the item should be deemed non-votable, usually on the grounds that it is clearly unconstitutional, or because it deals with matters outside federal jurisdiction or revisits questions that have already been decided by that particular parliament.

If the sponsoring MP disagrees with that assessment — which, in the relatively rare case that the committee downgrades their proposal to non-votable status, they usually do, since it pretty much moots the whole process — they can appeal the ruling to the full committee.

By holding the vote in secret, MPs are — at least in theory — free to vote as they see fit without fear of repercussion.

If that fails, they can appeal to the House as a whole, as long as they have support of at least five fellow backbenchers from a majority of the parties in the House. At that point, the speaker convenes a vote, which is conducted by secret ballot over the course of two sitting days.

By holding the vote in secret, MPs are — at least in theory — free to vote as they see fit without fear of repercussion — or even quiet, reproachful frowns — from the party whip, House leader or even caucus colleagues.

All that said, it’s a procedural mechanism that’s never been used, as we’ve not yet had an MP exercise that option.

And yet, its a mechanism that makes sense. So, why not extend secret voting to other elements of House business? It could be used on items ranging from time allocation and closure motions to proposals to split particularly complex bills into more manageable chunks.