Chapter 12The Process of Debate

Decisions of the House

The will of the House is ascertained by means of a vote. Once debate on a motion has concluded, the Speaker puts the question and the House pronounces itself on the motion.²⁶⁵ A simple majority of the Members present and voting is required to adopt or defeat a question. The Constitution Act, 1867 provides that:

Questions arising in the House of Commons shall be decided by a Majority of Voices other than that of the Speaker, and when the Voices are equal, but not otherwise, the Speaker shall have a Vote.²⁶⁶

A decision on a motion before the House can be made with no dissenting voices, in which case the motion is adopted and no division is taken.²⁶⁷ When there are dissenting voices, a vote (or division) is taken. This can be either a voice vote or a recorded vote²⁶⁸ where the House is called upon to divide into the “yeas” and the “nays”.

Termination of Debate

When debate on a motion appears to be finished (i.e., when no Member rises to be recognized for debate), the Speaker asks if the House is ready for the question; that is, if the House is ready to come to a decision. If no Member rises to speak, the Speaker puts the question to the House for a decision.

Some Standing Orders provide for deadlines within which the Speaker can or must proceed with the putting of the question on specific matters, unless debate on the motion has already collapsed or unless there is no provision for debate. For instance:

motions to extend the sitting hours during the last 10 sitting days in June;²⁶⁹
subamendments, amendments and the main motion for an Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne;²⁷⁰
motions for closure and closured motions;²⁷¹
when the motion for the previous question is adopted, the question on the main motion must be put immediately without debate or amendment;²⁷²
motions for time allocation in the absence of agreement among the parties;²⁷³
votable opposition motions;²⁷⁴
opposition motions and supply motions on the last allotted day of each supply period;²⁷⁵
the main budget motion and any amendment or subamendment;²⁷⁶
votable items of Private Members’ Business;²⁷⁷ and
motions for the production of papers.²⁷⁸

In addition, special orders may also contain provisions for the Speaker to put a question at a specific time.

Putting the Question

When the House appears ready to proceed to a decision, the Speaker will ask, “Is the House ready for the question?”. If no Member rises to speak, the Speaker is then satisfied that the debate has concluded and puts the question to dispose of the motion. If debate terminates pursuant to a predetermined deadline, the Speaker interrupts the proceedings to put the question, in accordance with the terms of the Standing Order or the special order.

“Putting the question” means that the Speaker reads the main motion, followed by any proposed amendment or subamendment in order.²⁷⁹ The Speaker then asks, “Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?”. In the absence of any dissenting voice, he or she will declare the motion carried; in this way, a question can be decided without resorting to a vote. If the Speaker hears a dissenting voice, he or she may first verify whether the House wishes to have the motion declared carried or negatived simply “on division”. Alternatively, the Speaker will proceed to conduct a voice vote and then, if it is demanded, a recorded vote (see Figure 12.3, “Putting the Question”).

When a motion, an amendment, and a subamendment have been proposed, the question is put first on the subamendment:

If the subamendment is negatived, debate may then resume on the amendment, another subamendment may be moved and debated, or the question is put on the amendment.
If the subamendment is adopted, debate may then resume on the amendment as amended, another subamendment may be moved and debated, or the question is put on the amendment as amended.

The question is then put on the amendment (or the amendment as amended):

If the amendment (or the amendment as amended) is negatived, debate may then resume on the main motion and a new amendment and subamendment may be moved and debated, or the question is put on the main motion.
If the amendment (or the amendment as amended) is adopted, debate may then resume on the main motion as amended, and a new amendment and subamendment may be moved and debated, or the question is put on the main motion as amended.

When all subamendments and amendments are disposed of and debate on the main motion (or the main motion as amended) concludes, the question is put on the main motion.

Image depicting, in a series of boxes linked by lines, the steps required for the House to make a decision on a question. It begins with debate concluding, followed by the Speaker putting the question, then listing options for voice votes or recorded divisions. If necessary, the Speaker casts a deciding vote. At the end, the Speaker declares that the motion has been adopted or rejected. — Figure 12.3 Putting the Question

On Division

Members who do not wish a motion to be carried or lost unanimously, but who do not want a voice vote or a recorded division, may indicate their position by simply stating “on division” after the Speaker has asked if it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion. The Speaker will then declare the motion carried or negatived on division.

Voice Vote

When it is obvious that the House wishes to divide on the question (i.e., dissent is expressed when the Speaker asks if it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion), the Speaker will take a voice vote. He or she will ask for the decision of the House by saying, “All those in favour of the motion will please say ‘yea’ ” and then, “All those opposed will please say ‘nay’ ”. The Speaker listens to both responses, judges the voices and the sense of the House, and states his or her opinion as to the result: “In my opinion, the yeas (nays) have it”. If there is no objection, the Speaker then declares the motion carried or negatived, as the case may be; however, if five or more Members (including any Members already on their feet) rise to signal a demand for a recorded vote, the Speaker will say, “Call in the Members” (or, if the vote is automatically deferred pursuant to a Standing Order or special order of the House, the Speaker will announce the date and time at which the deferred recorded division will take place).²⁸⁰ If fewer than five Members rise, the Speaker concludes that the initial assessment is correct and declares the motion carried or negatived on division. It sometimes happens that, after the yeas and nays have been called, Members have said “on division” to indicate that the question was not decided unanimously, without resorting to a recorded vote.²⁸¹

Requirement to Vote

There is no rule requiring a Member to vote.²⁸² A Member may abstain from voting simply by remaining seated during the vote. Such abstentions are of an unofficial nature and are not recorded although, on occasion, Members have risen following a vote to offer an explanation as to why they had abstained,²⁸³ or how they would have voted had they been present when the question was put.²⁸⁴

Private Interest

No Member is entitled to take part in debate or to vote on any question in which he or she has a private interest (formerly referred to as a “direct pecuniary interest”), and any vote subsequently determined to have been cast in these circumstances would be disallowed.²⁸⁵ For a Member to be disqualified from voting, the monetary interest in question must be direct and personal. A Member’s personal interests would not be challenged on questions of public policy, which have a broad application. Even voting a pay increase to Members themselves does not amount to a case of direct monetary interest because it applies to all Members, rather than just one, or to certain Members but not to others.²⁸⁶

When a Member has a private interest in a question, he or she must disclose the general nature of the interest to the Clerk of the House and then abstain from voting.²⁸⁷ If the Member becomes aware of the conflict of interest after the vote, the disclosure is recorded in the Journals and the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner is notified.²⁸⁸ If a Member’s vote is questioned after the fact, it is the practice to accept his or her word.²⁸⁹ If the House wishes to pursue the issue, notice must first be given of a substantive motion to disallow a Member’s vote.²⁹⁰ While several Members have voluntarily abstained from voting or have had their votes questioned, no Member’s vote has ever been disallowed on grounds of direct monetary interest.

In a question of privilege raised in 2008, objections were raised to a finding of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner that the naming of a Member as a defendant in a libel suit was tantamount to that Member’s having a private interest.²⁹¹ The Commissioner had understood the term “liability” as used in the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons (Appendix I to the Standing Orders) to include the sort of contingent liability to which the defendant in a libel suit is exposed. To remove any ambiguity which might lend itself to this interpretation, the House amended the relevant section of the Code and referred the Inquiry Report back to the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for reconsideration in light of the amendment.²⁹² This led to a further report of the Commissioner which reversed the finding of private interest.²⁹³

Recorded Divisions

Once the Speaker has ordered that the Members be called in for a recorded vote, the division bells are rung and the party Whips assemble their Members.²⁹⁴ While the division bells ring, a Presiding Officer remains in the chair waiting for the Members to assemble for the vote. During this period, the proceedings of the House are effectively suspended; debate has ceased, and no Member can be recognized by the Chair for any reason. A point of order raised in 2007 led to a decision by the House to modify the Standing Orders to require committees to suspend their meetings to enable Members to participate in recorded divisions when summoned by the division bells, unless the Members of a particular committee unanimously agree that it continue to sit.²⁹⁵

Length of Bells

Depending on the type of motion being voted upon and the conditions surrounding the taking of the vote, division bells can ring for a maximum of either 15 or 30 minutes:²⁹⁶

15-minute bells—Whenever the Speaker is required by the rules or pursuant to a special order to interrupt the proceedings in order to put a question or questions at a specific time and a recorded division has been requested, the division bells are rung for not more than 15 minutes;²⁹⁷
30-minute bells—The bells calling in the Members for a vote on a non-debatable motion or for an unscheduled vote on a debatable motion are rung for not more than 30 minutes.²⁹⁸

For example, the bells ring for 15 minutes for votes scheduled to be taken during the debate on the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne and during the budget debate and at the conclusion of debate on a motion subject to a time allocation order. The bells also ring for up to 15 minutes for recorded divisions demanded on opposition motions on supply days. If two or more recorded divisions are to be held successively without intervening debate, the division bells are sounded only once to call in the Members.²⁹⁹

Appearance of the Whips

When they conclude that their respective Members are ready to vote, the Whips of the government and of the Official Opposition make a ceremonial return to the House, and the ringing of the bells ceases. The Whips enter the Chamber together, proceed up the aisle toward the Chair, bow to the Speaker and to each other and resume their seats. This convention provides a signal to the Speaker that the House is ready to proceed with the vote. Once the Whips have taken their seats, the Speaker calls the House to order and immediately puts the question.³⁰⁰

The party Whips may return to the Chamber before the bells are due to stop ringing. On occasion, this has occurred with the prior knowledge and consent of the House;³⁰¹ at other times, the vote has been taken before the bells have rung for the maximum period of time and Members have voiced their objection by raising points of order.³⁰² The Speaker has ruled that the Standing Orders stipulate only that the bells ring for “not more than” 15 or 30 minutes, as the case may be, and that it is therefore possible for the division bells to ring for a shorter period of time.³⁰³ In one case, a 15-minute bell lasted 30 minutes pending the arrival of the Whips and this became the subject of a point of order. On that occasion, the Chair stated that the House should maintain the delicate balance which respects the spirit of the Standing Orders with regard to the designated time of division bells, without infringing upon the traditional role of the Whips.³⁰⁴ On occasion, a vote has been taken even though one of the Whips had not appeared after the bells rang for the maximum prescribed length of time.³⁰⁵ In most cases, the Government Whip re-entered the Chamber while the Opposition Whip, as an act of protest, remained outside the Chamber (sometimes with the entire caucus).

The Speaker has also ruled that it is within the authority of the Chair to intervene during the ringing of division bells should the terms of the motion for which a recorded division has been demanded become inoperable or moot. For example, if a motion to adjourn the House, to adjourn the debate or to proceed to Orders of the Day has been moved and a recorded division demanded but not taken by the ordinary hour of daily adjournment, then the Speaker may order the bells silenced and adjourn the House since those motions are inoperable beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment.³⁰⁶

Deferred Divisions

When the Speaker has not interrupted debate pursuant to a Standing Order or special order, a recorded division on a debatable motion, if demanded, need not be held immediately; it may be deferred to a later time pursuant to various provisions in the Standing Orders or by a special order of the House.

A recorded division on a debatable motion (usually a government motion since the rules make specific provision for the deferral of recorded divisions on most other debatable motions) may be deferred to a designated time at the request either of the Chief Government Whip or of the Chief Opposition Whip.³⁰⁷ One of the Whips may approach the Speaker after the question has been put and while the division bells are ringing to ask that the vote be deferred. The Speaker orders the ringing of the bells stopped and then informs the House that the recorded vote is deferred until the time requested by the Whip—later in the same sitting or to a specific time not later than the ordinary hour of adjournment on the next sitting day that is not a Friday.³⁰⁸ If the two Whips request the deferral of a vote to different times, the Speaker makes the final decision.³⁰⁹

Alternatively, after a recorded division has been demanded and the division bells are ringing, the Chief Government Whip may, with the agreement of the Whips of all of the recognized parties, approach the chair and ask the Speaker to defer the division to an agreed-upon date and time that may even be beyond the ordinary hour of adjournment on the next sitting day.³¹⁰ If the vote is on an item of Private Members’ Business, the item’s sponsor must also agree. Recorded divisions already deferred to a specific date and time may be further deferred to any other date and time in the same manner.

Recorded divisions on debatable motions demanded on a Friday are automatically deferred until the ordinary hour of daily adjournment on the next sitting day; similarly, when on Thursday, a recorded division is deferred to Friday, it is automatically further deferred to the next sitting day, usually the following Monday, at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.³¹¹

On supply days, a recorded division on a votable opposition motion by a Member of a recognized party other than the Official Opposition may also be deferred at the request of the Whip of that party.³¹² Recorded divisions on opposition motions are deferred from a Friday to a Monday unless Friday is the last allotted day in the supply period;³¹³ recorded divisions on votable opposition motions on the last allotted day in a supply period cannot be deferred,³¹⁴ except with the agreement of the Whips of all recognized parties.³¹⁵ On one occasion, the House made an exception and adopted a Special Order providing for the deferral of divisions on the business of supply on the last allotted day in the supply period which was a Friday.³¹⁶

During the report stage of a bill, recorded divisions on motions in amendment may be deferred, at the Speaker’s discretion, from sitting to sitting if necessary.³¹⁷ When all report stage motions have been considered, the House then proceeds to the taking of the deferred divisions; either the Chief Government Whip or Chief Opposition Whip may further defer the vote to a time no later than the ordinary hour of adjournment on the next sitting day. On Friday only, a recorded division on the motion to concur in a bill at report stage, while being a non-debatable motion, is nonetheless automatically deferred.³¹⁸

At the end of the time provided for the consideration of a votable item of Private Members’ Business, if debate is concluded prior to the time provided by the Standing Orders, or if the item under consideration is a non-debatable motion for concurrence in a bill at report stage, a recorded division, if requested, is deemed deferred to the next Wednesday, immediately before the time provided for Private Members’ Business.³¹⁹ It may be further deferred with the consent of the sponsor.³²⁰ A recorded division on a bill which is under a time allocation order may be deferred by the Chief Government Whip or the Chief Opposition Whip only if debate collapses prior to the time set out in the time allocation order.

The rules of the House restrict the further deferral of a deferred division,³²¹ except with the agreement of the Whips of all the recognized parties.³²² After the deferral of a vote, the House continues with the business before it.³²³

When the time arrives to take one or more deferred divisions, the Speaker interrupts the proceedings at the time set down in the Standing Orders or ordered by the House, informs the House that the deferred vote or votes will now be held, and orders that the Members be called in. The division bells are rung for not more than 15 minutes.³²⁴ Once the Whips have appeared, the Speaker proceeds immediately to put the question. When there are several votes to be taken, the House may first agree to the sequence in which they will be taken; otherwise, the questions are put in the order in which they came before the House and were deferred.³²⁵

In recent practice, a large percentage of recorded divisions are deferred, tending to be clustered and taken seriatim at the end of the time provided for Government Orders, immediately prior to Private Members’ Business, at the end of Oral Questions, or at the ordinary hour of daily adjournment.³²⁶

Calling the Vote and Announcing the Results

When the Whips have returned to the Chamber and the division bells have stopped ringing, the Speaker rises, calls the House to order and reads the question to the House, adding, “The question is on the main motion (or on the amendment or subamendment). All those in favour of the motion (or of the amendment or subamendment) will please rise”. The “yeas” are recorded first. As each Member rises, his or her name is called by the Table Officers recording the votes. Members resume their seats after casting their votes. When all of the “yeas” have voted, the Speaker says, “All those opposed to the motion (or to the amendment or subamendment) will please rise”. The “nay” votes are cast in the same manner as the “yea” votes.

A recorded division may be conducted in one of two ways: as a party vote or as a row-by-row vote. Generally, a recorded division on an item of government business is conducted as a party vote,³²⁷ and a recorded division on an item of Private Members’ Business is conducted as a row-by-row vote.

Conducting a Party Vote

In conducting a party vote, Members’ votes are taken by party, in order relative to each party’s strength in the House (except on opposition days when votes of the sponsoring party are taken first) and in rows according to the party seating arrangements, starting with the party leaders. If a Member wishes to vote contrary to his or her party, the Member must rise when the “yeas” or “nays”, as the case may be, are called.

Conducting a Row-by-Row Vote

The calling of a recorded division row by row does not proceed by party but rather by the seating rows in the Chamber.³²⁸ In conducting a row-by-row vote, the Speaker first calls for the “yeas”. Members in the first row to the right of the Speaker and who are in favour of a motion are requested to rise. After the Table Officers call their names, starting with the Member closest to the Chair, Members resume their seats. Members in the second row who are in favour of the motion then rise. After all Members to the right of the Chair who are in favour of the motion have risen and voted, Members to the left of the Chair who are in favour rise to vote in rows regardless of party affiliation. The same procedure is followed with respect to those who oppose the motion (the “nays”).

When a recorded division is taken on an item of Private Members’ Business, the vote of the Member sponsoring the bill or motion is recorded first, if he or she is present, followed by the votes of the other Members on the same side of the House, starting with the back row, who are in favour of the bill or motion and then the Members on the other side of the House, starting with the back row, who are in favour of the item. “Nay” votes are recorded in the same order.³²⁹ Should the sponsor of a private Member’s bill disagree with a motion moved by another Member to amend the bill at report stage or to amend the motion for third reading, the sponsor of the motion, rather than the sponsor of the bill, would vote first.³³⁰

Free Votes

There are no rules or Standing Orders defining a “free vote” in the House of Commons, nor is there any requirement that free votes be identified as such in the Journals, which record merely whether Members voted “yea” or “nay”. Simply defined, a free vote takes place when a party decides that, on a particular issue, its Members are not required to vote along party lines, or that the issue is not a matter of party policy and its Members may vote as they choose. A free vote may be allowed by one or more parties or it may be allowed by all parties.³³¹ In such circumstances, the recorded division would be held either as a row-by-row vote or in the normal manner of a party vote. The decisions taken by the parties (as to whether or not a matter should be decided by a free vote) are not issues on which the Speaker can be asked to rule.

In the Canadian system of responsible government, free votes have a special relationship to the confidence convention. The principle underlying this convention is simply that the government must enjoy the support of the majority of Members of the House of Commons and be responsible for its actions to this elected body. The confidence convention holds that where a motion does not contain an explicitly worded condemnation of the government, or where the government has not declared a particular vote to be a question of confidence, or where there is no implicit vote of non-confidence (such as in a motion to adopt the budget, the Address in Reply or the granting of supply), then the government is at liberty to interpret the result of the vote in any manner it wishes.³³² Consequently, when under such conditions the government declares that it will treat a matter as a free vote, the convention holds that the defeat of the item does not amount to a vote of non-confidence in the government.³³³

It is not clear when the first free vote was held in the House of Commons; however, since the 1946 free vote on milk subsidies,³³⁴ there have been several free votes on government business. For example, free votes have been held on the issues of the selection of a national flag,³³⁵ capital punishment,³³⁶ abortion,³³⁷ the prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation,³³⁸ constitutional amendments,³³⁹ same-sex marriage,³⁴⁰ and medical assistance in dying.³⁴¹

Announcing the Results

The Clerk of the House is responsible for taking and recording all votes. The Clerk sits at the head of the Table in preparation for a vote. A Table Officer stands to the right of the Clerk, facing the House, ready to call out the names of the Members as they rise and vote. Other Table Officers sit on either side of the Clerk recording the number of Members voting “yea” or “nay”.

Regardless of how a recorded vote is conducted, the results are always announced in the same way. Any discrepancy between the tallies must be reconciled before the result of the vote is announced to the Chair by the Clerk. When the votes have been recorded and the “yeas” and “nays” counted, the Clerk rises and reports the result of the vote to the Speaker. The Speaker then declares the motion (or amendment) carried or negatived.

During a recorded division, if the Speaker’s attention is drawn to the fact that the sum of the votes and the number of Members present who did not vote (including the Speaker) do not total at least 20, then the question remains undecided; the usual quorum procedure is then triggered.³⁴² If no objection is raised at the time the result of the vote is read to the House, the Speaker simply confirms the result and business proceeds as though there were a quorum.³⁴³

Application of Results to Votes Held Successively

Where Members are prepared to vote on more than one question, the House proceeds immediately to the next question after the taking of the first vote.³⁴⁴ This usually comes about as a consequence of deferring votes to a particular time.³⁴⁵ In recent years, a practice was revived whereby the results of one vote are applied to others.³⁴⁶ Normally, the Chief Government Whip will request the unanimous consent of the House to have the results of one vote applied directly—or on occasion in reverse—to subsequent divisions and recorded separately.³⁴⁷ The Speaker then declares the motions as being either carried or negatived. This procedure has resulted in an appreciable saving of the time of the House.

Since the beginning of the Thirty-Fifth Parliament (1994-97), another practice which has developed often occurs in concert with applied voting when there are several motions to vote on at one sitting. Following a recorded division which establishes the Members who are present and how they voted, the Chief Government Whip will rise to request that unanimous consent be given to record the names of Members who voted on the previous motion as having voted on the next motion with government Members being recorded under the “yeas” or “nays”. The Whips of the other parties then rise and declare how their parties wish to be recorded as having voted for the motion.³⁴⁸ Finally, independent Members as well as Members from non-recognized parties indicate how they wish to be recorded. Any Member wishing to vote differently from his or her party may rise on a point of order to indicate this. Once the new voting pattern has been tabulated by the Table Officers, the Clerk rises and reports the results to the Speaker who then declares the motion carried or negatived. Again, this procedure has resulted in an appreciable saving of the time of the House.

Pairing of Members

Pairing is the arranging by the party Whips for two Members, one of them from the governing party and the other from one of the opposition parties,³⁴⁹ to agree to abstain from voting on a particular occasion in order to permit one or both to be absent from the House. Their votes are thus effectively neutralized and the relative strength of their parties in the House is maintained.³⁵⁰ Until 1991, pairing enjoyed no official recognition and was considered a private arrangement between Members.³⁵¹

In 1991, these arrangements were somewhat formalized. The Standing Orders now provide for the establishment of a Register of Paired Members which is kept at the Table.³⁵² To indicate that they will not take part in any recorded divisions on a particular date, Members have their names entered together in the Register by their respective Whips. Independent Members and Members from non-recognized parties enter their own names. The names of Members so paired are published in the Debates and in the Journals immediately following the entry for any recorded division held on that day.³⁵³

The Standing Orders are silent on the question of a broken pair, which occurs when a paired Member votes. As Speaker Fraser noted in 1992, notwithstanding the newly formalized way of arranging pairs, agreements to pair remain private arrangements between Members and not matters in which the Speaker or the House can legitimately intervene.³⁵⁴ Members who inadvertently vote when paired must seek the unanimous consent of the House if they wish to rescind their votes.

The Casting Vote

The Speaker may not participate in the debates of the House but, in the event of a tied vote (“an equality of voices”), the Speaker exercises a deciding or casting vote.³⁵⁵ When doing so, the Speaker may briefly explain his or her reasons for voting in a given manner. The reasons are then entered in the Journals.³⁵⁶

Decorum During the Taking of a Vote

When Members have been called in for a division, no further debate is permitted.³⁵⁷ From the time the Speaker begins to put the question until the results of the vote are announced, Members are not to enter, leave or cross the House, nor may they make any noise or disturbance.³⁵⁸

Members must be in the Chamber to hear the motion read and be in their assigned seats during the division in order for their votes to be recorded.³⁵⁹ Any Member entering the Chamber while the question is being put or after it has been put cannot have his or her vote counted.³⁶⁰ Members must remain seated until the result is announced by the Clerk.³⁶¹ Members’ votes have been questioned because they left the Chamber immediately after voting and before the results of the vote were announced, or because they did not remain seated throughout the process.³⁶² However, if a Member’s presence is disputed and the Member in question asserts that he or she was present when the motion was read, convention prescribes that the House accept the Member’s word.³⁶³

When breaches of decorum have been drawn to the attention of the Chair, the Speaker has reminded Members of the need for order in the House while votes are being taken.³⁶⁴ When there is disorder in the galleries during a division, the Speaker may interrupt the proceedings until the galleries have been cleared and then continue with the taking of the vote.³⁶⁵

Points of Order and Questions of Privilege

Although the Standing Orders do not expressly forbid the raising of points of order and questions of privilege during divisions, the general practice has been to proceed with the vote and to hear its result before bringing forward any points of order or questions of privilege.³⁶⁶ There have been occasions in which Members have attempted to bring some matter to the attention of the Speaker in the course of a vote (after the Members have been called in and before the result is declared), and the Chair has declined to interrupt the voting process in order to hear the point of order or question of privilege.³⁶⁷ More recently, however, points of order related to the recording of the vote have been heard and addressed during the voting process.³⁶⁸ Immediately after the announcement of the result of a vote, Members who were unable to be present in the Chamber for the vote sometimes rise on a point of order to explain how they would have voted had they been present.³⁶⁹

Corrections in a Vote

A vote once taken and recorded stands as a decision of the House; a Member’s vote cannot be changed without the unanimous consent of the House. Members have risen after a vote to indicate an error or to request a change because they inadvertently voted contrary to their intentions, voted when paired or voted twice (both “yea” and “nay”). In some instances, a vote has been changed;³⁷⁰ in others, the request has been denied.³⁷¹ When the intention of a Member is unclear, the Speaker may ask the Member to clarify how he or she intended to vote.³⁷²

A Member whose name has been missed or called incorrectly may correct the error either before the result of the vote is announced, if the error is noted at the time the vote is taken, or as soon thereafter as the error is noted.³⁷³ If the correction is made after the Journals are published, a corrigendum appears in the Journals of the next sitting.

A Decision Once Made Must Stand

A decision once made cannot be questioned again but must stand as the judgment of the House.³⁷⁴ Thus, for example, if a bill or motion is rejected, it cannot be revived in the same session, although there is no bar to a motion similar in intent to one already negatived but with sufficient variance to constitute a new question.³⁷⁵ This is to prevent the time of the House being used in the discussion of motions of the same nature with the possibility of contradictory decisions being arrived at in the course of the same session. It is not in order for Members to “reflect” upon (i.e., to reconsider or comment upon) votes of the House, and when this has occurred, the Chair has been quick to call attention to it.³⁷⁶ Members have also occasionally called attention to the rule.³⁷⁷

The House may reopen discussion on an earlier decision (e.g., a resolution or an order of the House) only if its intention is to revoke it;³⁷⁸ this requires notice of a motion to rescind the resolution or discharge the order, as the case may be.³⁷⁹ This allows the House to reconsider an earlier resolution or order and, if the original resolution or order is in fact rescinded or discharged, the way is then clear for the House to make a second decision on the same question. A number of instances of orders of the House discharged have concerned arrangements made by the House for the scheduling of its sittings,³⁸⁰ or for the withdrawal of bills and motions.³⁸¹

The Issue of Electronic Voting

Proposals to install a system for electronic voting in the Chamber have been made over the years with a view to improving the management of the time of the House.³⁸² In 1985, the Second Report of the McGrath Committee recommended computerized electronic voting, but the matter was not taken up by the House.³⁸³ In 1995, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, noting that the practices of deferring several votes to the same day and time, and of applying results of votes, had “greatly speeded up the voting process”, recommended that the House not proceed at that time to a system of electronic voting.³⁸⁴ In 1997, the Committee briefly returned to consideration of the question of electronic voting, but did not report to the House.³⁸⁵ In 2003, a special committee endorsed the principle of electronic voting in the Chamber and recommended in two of its reports to the House that the necessary electronic infrastructure be installed in the Chamber during the summer of 2004.³⁸⁶ While the greater part of this infrastructure was installed as recommended, no further action has been taken in respect of electronic voting.

265.: Some types of motions do not result in a vote. Debate on these motions expires at the end of the time provided without the Speaker putting the question. For example, non-votable opposition motions on supply days (Standing Order 81(19)), and non-votable items of Private Members’ Business (Standing Order 96(1)). A take-note debate (Standing Order 53.1) consists of debate in a Committee of the Whole during which the Committee “takes note” of a particular subject. At the conclusion of four hours’ debate, or when no Member rises in debate, whichever occurs first, the Committee rises without reporting and the House adjourns.
266.: (UK), 30 & 31 Vict, c 3, s 49, reprinted in RSC 1985, Appendix II, No 5 [Constitution Act, 1867].
267.: Although no longer used, motions have been recorded as being adopted by the House nemine contradicente, that is, without dissenting voice. From 1867 to 1909 and from 1916 to 1917, the Journals routinely used the term for entries related to the election of the Speaker. See, for example, Journals, November 6, 1867, p. 2; January 12, 1916, p. 6. This term was also used in the Debates for entries relating to the Speaker beginning in 1891 until 1980. See, for example, Debates, April 29, 1891, col. 3; April 14, 1980, p. 2. See also Journals, November 21, 1979, where it is recorded that the House agreed nemine contradicente to a resolution respecting former Prime Minister P.E. Trudeau (p. 244).
268.: Standing Order 45(1).
269.: Standing Order 27(2). For further information, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
270.: Standing Order 50(5), (6) and (7). For further information, see Chapter 15, “Special Debates”.
271.: Standing Orders 57 and 67.1. See also Journals, December 14, 1964, p. 1000. For further information on the closure rule, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
272.: Standing Order 61.
273.: Standing Orders 67.1 and 78. For further information, see Chapter 14, “The Curtailment of Debate”.
274.: Standing Order 81(16)(c).
275.: Standing Order 81(17) and (18). For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
276.: Standing Order 84(4), (5) and (6). For further information, see Chapter 18, “Financial Procedures”.
277.: Standing Orders 93 and 98(4). For further information, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
278.: Standing Order 97(2). For further information, see Chapter 21, “Private Members’ Business”.
279.: The Speaker will reread the question after Members have been summoned for a recorded division.
280.: Standing Order 45(1). When a question arose as to whether or not Members rising to request a recorded division were required to do so from their assigned places in the House, the Deputy Speaker stated that the rule does not impose such a requirement (Debates, June 23, 1992, p. 12686). See also Debates, January 30, 2003, p. 2926.
281.: See, for example, Debates, November 7, 2014, p. 9347.
282.: During the first 60 years following Confederation, Members were required to vote if they were in the House during a division. See Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 4th ed., p. 381. In 1928, Speaker Lemieux ruled first that Members must vote and then later amended his decision, indicating that not voting was acceptable (Debates, March 27, 1928, p. 1755; May 26, 1928, p. 3420; February 19, 1929, pp. 266–7). In 1931, a committee was set up to consider the question of voting, but made no recommendations regarding compulsory voting (Debates, June 26, 1931, pp. 3076–7). In 1944, a procedure committee proposed that voting be made obligatory and explicit in the Standing Orders, but the House did not concur in the committee’s report (Journals, March 3, 1944, p. 149). In subsequent years, the Chair stated that there was no obligation for Members to vote. See, for example, Debates, September 28, 1945, p. 541; June 24, 1963, pp. 1522–3; March 26, 1965, p. 12857.
283.: See, for example, Debates, December 5, 1990, p. 16325 (act of protest); February 24, 1993, p. 16425 (Douglas Fee (Red Deer) as he was chairing the legislative committee to which a bill was being referred); October 1, 2009, p. 5477 (the NDP caucus abstained from voting during a recorded division on a Liberal motion of non-confidence); April 21, 2010, p. 1813 (Steven Fletcher (Charleswood—St. James—Assiniboia) abstained from voting during a recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-384, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (right to die with dignity), 2nd Sess, 40th Parl, 2009).
284.: See, for example, Debates, November 4, 1997, p. 1557; June 12, 2014, p. 6712.
285.: This principle is derived from British practice and has remained essentially unchanged since 1867. Once codified as a separate Standing Order, it is now formulated as sections 13 and 13.1 of the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons appended to the Standing Orders. See, for example, Debates, May 27, 1996, p. 3041, when the House was informed that a Member’s vote on one question would not be applied to another question in which the Member had a personal interest.
286.: Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 4th ed., pp. 387–8. For a wide-ranging discussion on this topic, see Debates, July 9, 1906, cols. 7470–3.
287.: Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix I to the Standing Orders, s 12(1). See, for example, Journals, October 21, 2011, p. 363; February 28, 2013, p. 2807.
288.: Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons, Appendix I to the Standing Orders, s 12(2).
289.: See, for example, Debates, May 3, 1886, p. 1011; June 4, 1900, cols. 6607–8.
290.: See Speaker Beaudoin’s ruling (Debates, May 22, 1956, pp. 4244–5). On this occasion, a Member’s vote was challenged but the matter was not taken up by the House.
291.: Debates, May 26, 2008, pp. 6006–10.
292.: Journals, June 5, 2008, pp. 919–20.
293.: Journals, June 17, 2008, p. 1000.
294.: Speakers have elected to proceed with votes when the bells were not functioning. See, for example, Debates, March 13, 2001, p. 1600.
295.: Standing Order 115(5). See Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, March 22, 2007, pp. 7796–7). See also Forty-Eighth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House and concurred in on May 9, 2007 (Journals, pp. 1376–8).
296.: The rules pertaining to the length of time the division bells are rung arose from the bell ringing episode of March 1982. At that time, the Standing Orders provided no time limit for bells rung for unscheduled votes. A recorded vote was demanded on a motion to adjourn. The Opposition Whip refused to accompany the Government Whip into the Chamber to indicate to the Speaker their readiness to proceed with the vote. The government and opposition parties were involved in a dispute over a controversial bill and each side demanded concessions before allowing the vote to take place. Consequently, the division bells rang continuously for over 14 days (Debates, March 2, 1982, pp. 15539–41; March 18, 1982, pp. 15555–7). As a result of this episode, the Standing Orders were amended.
297.: Standing Order 45(3). During the Forty-First and Forty-Second Parliaments, to facilitate access by Members to the Parliamentary Precinct during periods of renovations, the House ordered that the bells to call in the Members should be sounded for not more than thirty minutes when a recorded division was to be held on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, except recorded divisions deferred to the conclusion of oral questions (Journals, October 7, 2011, p. 328; January 30, 2012, p. 676; January 29, 2013, p. 2691; April 12, 2016, p. 315).
298.: Standing Order 45(4) and (5)(a)(i).
299.: Standing Order 45(8).
300.: The Chair has reminded Members that this is a practice, not a rule, and that it is not necessary for either of the Whips to enter the House for the vote to be called. The Speaker can proceed with the vote as soon as the bells have expired. See, for example, Acting Speaker’s (Mr. Barry Devolin) ruling (Debates, June 5, 2014, p. 6257).
301.: See, for example, Debates, January 22, 1991, p. 17567.
302.: See, for example, Debates, December 11, 1991, pp. 6164–6; March 13, 1997, pp. 8995–6; December 12, 2007, pp. 2101–2. On October 30, 1991, one Member rose to object and physically attempted to prevent the Mace from leaving the Chamber at the end of the sitting (Debates, pp. 4269–70).
303.: Debates, March 20, 1990, pp. 9512–3; Standing Order 45.
304.: Debates, September 15, 1987, pp. 8958–9. In his ruling, the Speaker referred to a similar incident which had occurred on November 2, 1982 (Debates, pp. 20332–3).
305.: Although this was not recorded in the Debates, votes were taken in the absence of one of the Whips on March 29, 2001 and June 15, 2015.
306.: See Speaker Fraser’s and Speaker Scheer’s rulings (Debates, April 15, 1987, pp. 5187–8; May 9, 2012, p. 7788). The Speaker will also interrupt the bells when motions become inoperable or moot, and move on to another order of business, such as Private Members’ Business. See for example, Debates, May 9, 2012, p. 7788; December 7, 2012, p. 13030.
307.: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii). However, if the vote concerns a motion to revoke a regulation or statutory instrument, it is automatically deferred to the ordinary hour of daily adjournment in that sitting (Standing Order 126(1)(c) and (2)). For further information, see Chapter 17, “Delegated Legislation”.
308.: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii) and (6)(a).
309.: In such cases, the Speaker will usually encourage the Whips to consult with a view to an agreement between them. Failing this, the Speaker will defer the vote to the later of the two times requested. On Thursday, June 15, 1995, for example, the Government Whip requested a deferral to later that day and the Opposition Whip requested a deferral to 5:30 p.m. the following day. The Speaker asked that the parties consult. When no agreement was reached, the Speaker declared that the vote would be deferred to the following Monday (Debates, June 15, 1995, pp. 13905–6, 13908, 13927). In 2005, faced with similarly conflicting requests, the Speaker gave the parties five minutes to consult, declaring that in the absence of agreement between them, he would announce his decision at that time. The result was a compromise between the parties (Debates, May 9, 2005, pp. 5837–8).
310.: Standing Order 45(7). See, for example, Debates, November 21, 2013, p. 1230.
311.: Standing Order 45(6)(a). See Speaker’s ruling (Debates, October 23, 1995, p. 15706).
312.: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(iii). See, for example, Debates, September 23, 2014, p. 7743. In current practice, unanimous consent is frequently sought early in the supply day for a motion to defer the recorded division. See, for example, Debates, October 22, 2013, p. 213.
313.: When a Friday is designated as an allotted day, the recorded division is usually further deferred by unanimous consent (see, for example, Debates, June 3, 2005, p. 6622) or pursuant to an order made earlier (see, for example, Debates, March 17, 2000, p. 4842).
314.: Standing Order 45(5)(b) and (6)(a).
315.: Standing Order 45(7).
316.: Journals, December 6, 1995, pp. 2215–6; December 8, 1995, p. 2224.
317.: Standing Orders 76(8) and 76.1(8).
318.: Standing Order 45(6)(b). See Speaker’s remarks (Debates, May 27, 2013, p. 17016).
319.: Standing Orders 93(1)(b), 97.1(2)(c)(iii) and (3)(a), and 98(4)(b).
320.: Standing Order 45(7).
321.: Standing Order 45(5)(c).
322.: Standing Order 45(7).
323.: Standing Order 45(5)(c).
324.: Standing Order 45(5)(a)(ii), (6)(a) and (7). During the Forty-First and Forty-Second Parliaments, to facilitate access by Members to the Parliamentary Precinct during periods of renovations, the House ordered that the bells be sounded for not more than thirty minutes to call in the Members for recorded divisions on a Tuesday, Wednesday or Thursday, except those deferred to the conclusion of oral questions. See, for example, Journals, October 7, 2011, p. 328; January 30, 2012, p. 676; January 29, 2013, p. 2691; April 12, 2016, p. 315.
325.: See, for example, Debates, April 21, 1998, p. 5931; April 20, 2004, p. 2107; March 16, 2010, p. 533.
326.: In 2001, pursuant to a recommendation of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, the Standing Orders were amended by the addition of Standing Order 45(7.1), which seeks to accommodate the growing trend toward the grouping of deferred recorded divisions at the end of Oral Questions by providing for a period of time equivalent to that consumed by the vote to be added to the time provided that day for Government Orders. In the Forty-Second Parliament, the number of votes deferred to this time increased markedly, with the votes taken without ringing bells, as all (or most) Members are already assembled.
327.: This is sometimes referred to as a “whipped” vote, meaning that the party Whips marshal their Members to vote as a bloc, in accordance with party policy. In British practice, Whips inform their Members about forthcoming House business, indicating when their attendance is requested (a one-line whip), when it is expected as there is to be a vote (a two-line whip), and when their attendance is required on vital business (a three-line whip). A similar arrangement was experimented with by the Liberal Party during the Government of Prime Minister Paul Martin as part of its “Action Plan for Democratic Reform” (Debates, February 4, 2004, pp. 108–9). See John Aneurin Grey Griffith and Michael Ryle, Parliament: Functions, Practice and Procedures, 2nd ed., ed. Robert Blackburn and Andrew Kennon with Sir Michael Wheeler-Booth (London: Sweet & Maxwell, 2003), p. 166; Norman Wilding, and Philip Laundy, An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed. (London: Cassell, 1972), pp. 785–6.
328.: The Speaker has explained the process of conducting a row-by-row vote. See, for example, Debates, November 23, 1967, p. 4605; June 22, 1976, pp. 14740–1; June 29, 1987, pp. 7817–8; June 23, 2011, p. 1096.
329.: Thirteenth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on November 26, 1997 (Journals, p. 270), and concurred in on November 4, 1998 (Journals, p. 1238). Prior to concurrence in this Report, votes were taken in the same manner but starting with the front row (Twenty-Fourth Report of the Standing Committee on House Management presented to the House on February 14, 1992 (Journals, p. 1025), and concurred in on April 29, 1992 (Journals, p. 1337)). See also Standing Committee on House Management, Minutes of Proceedings and Evidence, February 14, 1992, Issue No. 24, p. 17. Prior to 1992, votes were taken along party lines unless a Member sought and received unanimous consent to have the vote taken row by row.
330.: See, for example, video archive of divisions taken at report stage of Bill S-203, An Act to amend the Criminal Code (cruelty to animals), 2nd Sess, 39th Parl, 2008, on April 9, 2008, and at report stage of Bill C-525, An Act to amend the Canada Labour Code, the Parliamentary Employment and Staff Relations Act and the Public Service Labour Relations Act (certification and revocation — bargaining agent), 2nd Sess, 41st Parl, 2014, on April 9, 2014. Where a Bill’s sponsor does not support the report stage motion, the sponsor of the report stage motion is the first to rise when the division is taken. This distinction does not apply to motions or to bills at second reading, since in those cases, the sponsor must agree to the moving of the amendment (Standing Order 93(3)).
331.: In 2015, the House adopted a private Member’s motion, “That, in the opinion of the House, all Members of Parliament should be allowed to vote freely on all matters of conscience” (Journals, June 17, 2015, p. 2801). For further analysis of free votes in the House of Commons, see Peter C. Dobell and John Reid, “A Larger Role for the House of Commons, Part 2: Voting,” Parliamentary Government, no. 40 (April 1992): p. 11; C. E. S. Franks, “Free Votes in the House of Commons: A Problematic Reform,” Policy Options 18 (November 1997): p. 33.
332.: For further information on the confidence convention, see Gary O’Brien, “Origins of the Confidence Convention,” Canadian Parliamentary Review 7, no. 3 (Autumn 1984): p. 11; Philip Norton, “Government Defeats in the House of Commons: The British Experience”, Canadian Parliamentary Review 8, no. 4 (Winter 1985–86): p. 6; Donald Desserud, “The Confidence Convention under the Canadian Parliamentary System,” Canadian Study of Parliament Group: Parliamentary Perspectives, no. 7 (October 2006). For further information, see Chapter 1, “Parliamentary Institutions”, and Chapter 2, “Parliaments and Ministries”.
333.: There have also been instances where the government freed its backbenchers but demanded Cabinet solidarity. This was demanded during debate and voting on Bill C-43, An Act Respecting Abortion, 2nd Sess, 34th Parl, 1989 (Debates, November 28, 1989, pp. 6343–4). During the First (and only) Session of the Thirty-Eighth Parliament, the government’s insistence on Cabinet solidarity led Minister of State Joe Comuzzi to resign from the Cabinet in order to vote against the passage of Bill C-38, An Act Respecting certain aspects of legal capacity for marriage for civil purposes, 1st Sess, 38th Parl, 2005 (Debates, June 28, 2005, p. 7969). Similarly, during the First Session of the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, Michael Chong, President of the Queen’s Privy Council, Minister of Intergovernmental Affairs and Minister for Sport, resigned his portfolio rather than vote with the government in support of a motion calling upon the House to recognize that “the Québécois form a nation within a united Canada” (Debates, November 27, 2006, p. 5372).
334.: The issue was whether or not to continue providing milk subsidies instituted during the war years (Debates, August 27, 1946, p. 5431).
335.: Debates, August 21, 1964, pp. 7109–13.
336.: Debates, March 23, 1966, pp. 3067–9 (sponsored by four private Members representing three parties); November 9, 1967, p. 4077; January 26, 1973, pp. 687–8; February 19, 1976, pp. 11120–1; April 27, 1987, p. 5212.
337.: Debates, February 25, 1969, pp. 5912, 5919; July 26, 1988, p. 17966; November 7, 1989, pp. 5639, 5650.
338.: Debates, May 9, 1996, p. 2565.
339.: Debates, May 31, 1996, pp. 3246, 3268; Journals, November 18, 1997, pp. 229–30.
340.: Debates, December 7, 2006, p. 5805.
341.: Debates, May 2, 2016, pp. 2683, 2711.
342.: For further information on quorum, see Chapter 9, “Sittings of the House”.
343.: For examples where recorded votes did not total 20 Members and no objection was taken in the House, see Journals, June 15, 1988, p. 2893; May 26, 1989, p. 274. See also Speaker Sauvé’s ruling of July 12, 1982, where it was stated that since no one, according to the record of the proceedings, had asked for a quorum call, “a quorum did exist” (Debates, July 9, 1982, p. 19201; July 12, 1982, pp. 19214–5).
344.: For a ruling upholding this practice, see Debates, April 17, 2002, pp. 10525–6.
345.: See, for example, Standing Orders 45, 76(8) and 76.1(8).
346.: For reference to this old practice, see Dawson, Procedure in the Canadian House of Commons, p. 184.
347.: See, for example, Debates, March 28, 2007, p. 8056; June 4, 2013, p. 17651; March 24, 2014, p. 3786. On several occasions unanimous consent has been refused for applying votes on legislation resulting in lengthy division processes. See, for example, Debates, June 20, 1984, pp. 4918–83; Journals, Tuesday, December 7, 1999 to Thursday, December 9, 1999, pp. 345–766; Monday, March 13, 2000 to Wednesday, March 15, 2000, pp. 1071–394; Wednesday, June 13, 2012 to Thursday, June 14, 2012, pp. 1590–830.
348.: See, for example, Debates, April 24, 2007, p. 8648; June 10, 2015, p. 14898.
349.: Standing Order 44.1(1). This Standing Order requires the Clerk of the House to “cause to be kept at the Table a Register of Paired Members”.
350.: Redlich, The Procedure of the House of Commons, vol. II, pp. 110–1. Pairing is said to have originated in England during the time of Cromwell. See Wilding and Laundy, An Encyclopaedia of Parliament, 4th ed., p. 515.
351.: Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 4th ed., p. 382. For one vote in 1946, 124 Members were listed as paired in the Debates (May 24, 1946, pp. 1874–5).
352.: Standing Order 44.1(1).
353.: Standing Order 44.1(2).
354.: Debates, June 11, 1992, p. 11789.
355.: Constitution Act, 1867, supra note 266, s 49. See also Standing Order 9.
356.: For further information, see Chapter 7, “The Speaker and Other Presiding Officers of the House”.
357.: Standing Order 45(2).
358.: Standing Order 16(1). See, for example, Debates, November 27, 1991, p. 5458; June 5, 2003, p. 6930; December 7, 2006, p. 5813. For further information, see Chapter 13, “Rules of Order and Decorum”.
359.: See, for example, Journals, October 27, 1949, pp. 168–9; Debates, October 4, 2002, p. 324; November 23, 2005, pp. 10057–8; June 5, 2014, p. 6257; February 19, 2015, pp. 11397–8. See also, Speaker’s ruling (Debates, March 10, 2015, p. 11890). Exceptions have been made for Members unable to occupy their seats for medical reasons. Indeed, any Member with a disability may be so accommodated on an ongoing basis pursuant to Standing Order 1.1.
360.: See, for example, Debates, June 9, 1986, p. 14140; October 28, 2003, pp. 8884–5; June 5, 2014, p. 6257. Members’ votes have been disallowed when it was pointed out that a Member had left his seat immediately after voting (Debates, June 25, 1986, p. 14830) or a Member had entered the House while the division was in progress (Debates, October 28, 2003, p. 8865).
361.: See Speakers’ rulings (Journals, April 18, 1956, p. 416; Debates, October 28, 1997, p. 1258; March 10, 2015, p. 11890).
362.: Debates, January 27, 1881, p. 724; May 3, 1951, pp. 2663–4; October 6, 1971, p. 8495; June 20, 1984, pp. 4939–40. In 1959, a Member was formally granted permission to leave before the vote result was announced (Debates, April 21, 1959, p. 2919). Members’ votes have been disallowed when it was pointed out that a Member had left his seat immediately after voting (Debates, June 25, 1986, p. 14830). See also Debates, March 13, 1990, pp. 9265–6; June 9, 1998, p. 7890; December 2, 2009, p. 7498 (Members’ votes were not counted because they had entered or left the Chamber or did not remain seated while voting was in progress); February 19, 2015, pp. 11397–8.
363.: See, for example, Debates, April 28, 1988, pp. 14942–3; April 2, 1990, p. 10116; June 5, 2014, p. 6257.
364.: See, for example, Debates, April 9, 1990, p. 10390. The Speaker has interrupted the calling of a vote to request that the leader of an opposition party remove a prop on the grounds that it was creating disorder in the Chamber (Debates, June 22, 1995, pp. 14465–6) and, on another occasion, to remind Members of proper voting etiquette (Debates, May 7, 2014, p. 5056).
365.: See, for example, the proceedings during the taking of the vote on third reading of Bill C-43, An Act Respecting Abortion, 2nd Sess, 34th Parl, 1989 (Debates, May 29, 1990, pp. 12009–11).
366.: Beauchesne, Rules and Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 4th ed., p. 53.
367.: See, for example, Debates, February 19, 1929, p. 266; December 7, 1945, pp. 3133–4; April 4, 1946, p. 572; April 12, 1962, p. 2909; November 26, 1996, p. 6770. On one occasion, the right of a Member to rise on a point of order before the result of a vote was announced was immediately challenged by another Member. The Speaker delayed his ruling until after the announcement of the result (Debates, October 16, 2006, p. 3840).
368.: See, for example, Debates, November 20, 1996, p. 6502 (a question as to a Member’s eligibility to vote was raised and addressed after Members were called in and prior to the taking of the vote); January 29, 2014, p. 2311 (a question as to whether several Members’ votes had been recorded was raised and addressed after the taking of the vote and before the announcement of the result). On a number of occasions, the taking of the vote has been interrupted when points of order as to voting intentions have been raised and resolved. See, for example, Debates, June 13, 2007, p. 10556 (Member voted “yea” when his intention was to vote “nay”); October 16, 2006, pp. 3840–1; March 23, 2010, pp. 853–4 (Members voted “nay” when their intention was to vote “yea”). Nonetheless, the Speaker has reminded Members that points of order are not entertained during the taking of a recorded division. See, for example, the Speaker’s ruling (Debates, March 31, 2010, p. 1219).
369.: See, for example, Debates, October 29, 1991, p. 4176; February 23, 1994, p. 1729, June 12, 2014, p. 6712.
370.: See, for example, Debates, May 23, 1946, pp. 1793–4; February 1, 1994, p. 751; October 16, 2001, p. 6202; December 3, 2013, p. 1722. On June 1, 1954, the Speaker even took the initiative in the matter and had a Member’s vote corrected before the Clerk announced the results of the vote (Debates, p. 5348).
371.: See, for example, Debates, October 15, 1919, p. 1014; July 1, 1926, pp. 5311–2; October 16, 2006, pp. 3840–1; December 3, 2013, p. 1724. In the 1926 example, a Member inadvertently voted when paired, and the Speaker ruled that the vote must stand. The newly formed government of Prime Minister Meighen was thus defeated on an important vote and the Fifteenth Parliament was dissolved on July 2, 1926.
372.: See, for example, Debates, May 6, 2015, p. 13564.
373.: See, for example, Debates, March 19, 1992, pp. 8532, 8534. In 1993, a Member rose on a point of order immediately following the announcement of the results of a vote to clarify that the votes of some Members of the House had been misinterpreted. The following day the same Member raised a question of privilege to object to the tallying of the vote and its recording in the Debates. The Speaker subsequently ruled that a corrigendum would be issued to correct the vote (Debates, April 20, 1993, pp. 18183–4; April 21, 1993, pp. 18226–7; April 22, 1993, pp. 18323–4). In 2010, the Speaker delivered a statement with regard to a casting vote he had given on a motion for third reading of a private Members’ bill. He noted that a Member had been erroneously recorded as voting, when in fact he had remained seated throughout the vote. The error corrected, the Speaker’s casting vote was not required and the outcome of the vote remained the same. The Speaker ruled that a corrigendum would be issued to correct the vote (Debates, March 4, 2010, p. 21).
374.: Standing Order 18. See Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 4th ed., pp. 328–9. There is, however, no procedural obstacle to the introduction of a bill to amend, alter or repeal an Act passed in the same session. Ibid., p. 555.
375.: Beauchesne, Beauchesne’s Rules & Forms of the House of Commons of Canada, 6th ed., p. 179. Bourinot also notes that a motion that has been negatived cannot be proposed later as an amendment to a question, nor may an amendment that has been negatived be proposed on a future sitting day (Bourinot, Parliamentary Procedure and Practice, 4th ed., p. 330). With regard to the degree of similarity that the Chair is prepared to tolerate, see Speaker Milliken’s ruling (Debates, November 7, 2006, pp. 4785–6).
376.: See, for example, Debates, May 19, 1960, p. 4025; October 20, 1970, p. 402; May 11, 1983, pp. 25363–6; November 3, 1983, p. 28661; September 24, 1996, p. 4656; May 7, 1998, p. 6690; September 16, 2003, p. 7439; May 6, 2004, p. 2869. While this rule refers to decisions of the House rather than votes of individual Members, the Chair has also cautioned Members against commenting on how other Members voted. See, for example, Debates, May 22, 1991, p. 385; May 4, 1993, p. 18921; April 6, 1995, p. 11612; October 2, 2003, p. 8126.
377.: See, for example, Debates, March 1, 1996, pp. 187–8; May 18, 2005, p. 6127; September 25, 2006, p. 3161.
378.: Standing Order 18.
379.: In December 1988, however, the House passed a Special Order which included a provision allowing a Minister to move without notice a motion to “rescind the order” (Journals, December 16, 1988, pp. 48–9; December 23, 1988, p. 80).
380.: See, for example, Journals, May 27, 1898, p. 269; August 1, 1942, p. 708; November 22, 1944, p. 923; November 24, 1944, p. 927; November 18, 2002, p. 191.
381.: See, for example, Journals, June 6, 1988, p. 2796; March 11, 1999, p. 1594; May 5, 2005, p. 709.
382.: See, for example, Debates, February 10, 1959, p. 895; March 31, 1960, pp. 2641–2; May 25, 1965, pp. 1623–4.
383.: Second Report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, presented to the House on March 26, 1985 (Journals, p. 420), and the government response, pp. 1–2, tabled on October 9, 1985 (Journals, p. 1082).
384.: Sixty-Ninth Report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, presented to the House on March 24, 1995 (Journals, p. 1274). The Report was not taken up by the House.
385.: Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, Minutes of Proceedings, November 6, 1997, Meeting No. 5.
386.: Fourth and Fifth Reports of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons, both presented to the House on June 12, 2003 (Journals, p. 915). The Fourth Report was concurred in on September 18, 2003 (Journals, p. 995).

For questions about parliamentary procedure, contact the Table Research Branch

613-996-3611

trbdrb@parl.gc.ca