The Decision-Making Process / Recorded Divisions

Right of Prime Minister and a minister to vote: allegations of personal interest; Conflict of Interest Code

February 21, 2019

Debates, pp. 25637–8

On February 20, 2019, Jody Wilson-Raybould (Vancouver Granville) rose on a point of order to explain that she had abstained from voting on the opposition motion moved by Charlie Angus (Timmins—James Bay) on allegations of political interference owing to a personal interest in the matter.^[1] Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar) then rose on a point of order, calling on the Speaker to provide guidance on whether Justin Trudeau (Prime Minister) and David Lametti (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) also should have abstained from voting for the same reason.^[2] After hearing from other members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Resolution

On February 21, 2019, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He indicated that the right of all members to vote is fundamental and that his duty as the Speaker is to protect this right, but that the Chair’s role in addressing the right of a member to vote is limited to questions of a procedural nature. The Speaker reminded members that the Conflict of Interest Code gives the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner sole authority to interpret and apply the code. In the opinion of the Chair, members must direct questions involving a contravention of the code to the commissioner, including questions involving a member’s participation in a vote.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised yesterday by the hon. opposition House leader concerning the participation of the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada in the votes on the opposition motion on political interference allegations.

I would like to thank the honourable opposition House leader for having raised the matter, as well as the members for Timmins—James Bay and Saanich—Gulf Islands for their comments.

After the member for Vancouver Granville explained why she had voluntarily abstained from voting because of personal interest, the opposition House leader asked whether the Prime Minister and the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada should also have abstained. In her opinion, they too have personal interests in the matter. She asked for guidance from the Chair.

The right of all members to vote is fundamental. This cannot be overstated. It is through voting that members participate in making the decisions of this House. As Speaker, I am entrusted with protecting this right that belongs to all members.

Yesterday’s vote was a typical and normal vote and, as usual, every member was free to vote or to abstain. On occasion, the Chair has been asked to reconcile this right with alleged conflicts of interest. At all times, however, the answer has been the same. When ruling on a similar matter back on November 30, 2017, I stated, at page 15775 of the Debates:

It is not the role of the Chair to determine if a conflict of interest exists, but instead, to ensure that the rights and privileges of members of this House are always safeguarded. By extension, as Speaker, I cannot unilaterally deprive a member of the right to vote any more than I can unilaterally order that a vote be redone.

The role of the Speaker in addressing the right of a member to vote is limited. These limitations are procedural in nature and involve ensuring that a member heard the question in order to vote.

As to the matter of an alleged conflict of interest, the House has adopted rules under the Conflict of Interest Code concerning these potential situations. Bosc and Gagnon explain at page 576:

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.

The House not only adopted the Conflict of Interest Code for itself but has also granted the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner the sole authority to interpret and apply this code, including the power to conduct investigations.

Specifically, section 13 of this code stipulates that, “A Member shall not participate in debate on or vote on a question in which he or she has a private interest.”

All questions relating to compliance with the Conflict of Interest Code and the Conflict of Interest Act must be directed towards that office.

It is the Ethics Commissioner to whom members must turn when they believe that there has been a contravention of the code, including when it involves a member’s participation in a vote.

Accordingly, the votes taken yesterday stand.

I thank all hon. members for their attention in this matter.