The Decision-Making Process / Recorded Divisions

Members leaving their seat during the taking of recorded divisions

March 10, 2015

Debates, p. 11890

On February 19, 2015, Royal Galipeau (Ottawa—Orléans) rose on a point of order to seek clarification on the validity of a vote recorded in the name of Pat Martin (Winnipeg Centre) on a motion to adjourn the debate on a motion to concur in a committee report. Mr. Martin admitted that he had left his seat briefly during the vote but returned in time to vote from his seat. Immediately thereafter, the Deputy Speaker (Joe Comartin) ruled that the Member’s vote would stand.^[1] Later in the sitting, John Duncan (Chief Government Whip) rose to seek further clarifications from the Chair on the appropriate procedures for the conduct of votes. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On March 10, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He explained that, in order for a vote to be recorded, Members must be in their assigned seat and have heard the Speaker read the motion. However, he reminded Members that their obligation did not end there, as they should remain in their seat from the time the motion is read until the result of the vote is announced in the Chamber. The Speaker also noted that, when there is a question as to whether these requirements have been met, it is the usual practice of the House to allow a Member to clarify the situation and for the House to accept the Member’s word. This having been the case with respect to Mr. Martin’s vote, the Speaker confirmed the ruling of the Deputy Speaker, who had found the Member’s explanation at the time to be satisfactory.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to respond to the point of order raised by the Chief Government Whip on February 19, 2015, regarding decorum during the taking of recorded divisions.

I would like to thank the hon. Chief Government Whip for having raised this matter, as well as the hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition and the Members for Winnipeg Centre and Ottawa—Orléans for their comments.

In raising this matter, the Chief Government Whip sought clarification of acceptable practices during a recorded division, further to one that had taken place earlier that day. In particular, he requested that the Chair clarify each Member’s obligation to remain in their seat for the duration of a recorded division, from the time the question is put to the House to the announcement of the results.

The requirements of Members during a recorded division are clearly laid out in Standing Order 16,^[3] which states:

When the Speaker is putting a question, no Member shall enter, walk out of or across the House, or make any noise or disturbance.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, provides further explanation when it states at page 580:

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.

Members must be in their assigned seats in the Chamber and have heard the motion read in order for their votes to be recorded.

In addition, successive rulings have provided sound guidance for the Speaker in this respect.

On the requirement for Members to be present in the Chamber to hear the question, the current Deputy Chair of Committees of the Whole stated on June 5, 2014, at page 6257 of the Debates of the House of Commons:

In terms of who is or is not eligible to vote, the issue is that the Member needs to be in the Chamber in order to hear the question. That is the test for whether they can vote or not.

However, and more directly to the point raised by the Chief Government Whip, each Member’s obligation does not end there, as they must also remain in their seat until the results of the vote are announced. As Speaker Milliken reminded the House on October 28, 2003, at page 8884 of the Debates:

I would urge hon. Members that if they want to have their vote count, they must remain in their seats from the time the vote begins until the result of the vote is announced.

Where there is a question as to whether either of these requirements has not been met, our practice typically allows the Member to clarify the situation for the House, with the House accepting the Member’s word, as it must. As Standing Order 1.1^[4] states:

The Speaker may alter the application of any Standing or special Order or practice of the House in order to permit the full participation in the proceedings of the House of any Member with a disability.

Needless to say, the explanation given by the Member for Winnipeg Centre, in which he indicated that he was temporarily disabled, self-inflicted though it may have been, was deemed satisfactory to the Deputy Speaker, and there the matter has ended. It would not be the first time that the House, in the face of a situation without known precedent, finds a way to accommodate a Member in need.

I would like to thank all Members for their attention in this matter and for their continued support in maintaining order and decorum during the voting process.