Rule of Debate / Process of Debate

Motions: putting the question to the House; absence of the seconder

March 22, 2018

Debates, p. 18059

On March 22, 2018, a voting marathon on opposed items extended the sitting of the House over two days as members considered motions to concur in the supplementary and interim estimates. Immediately following the vote on Motion No. 92, John Brassard (Barrie—Innisfil) rose on a point of order to question the validity of the vote seeing as the seconder, the Minister of Finance, had left the chamber before the Speaker finished putting the question on the motion. Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) insisted that it was an innocent mistake and suggested that another minister who was present in the chamber be recognized as the seconder, with the unanimous consent of the House. The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Anthony Rota) suggested that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who was present in the chamber, be recorded as the seconder for Motion No. 92, and he allowed the votes to proceed despite disagreement from some members on the ruling.^[1]

Resolution

Later that sitting, the Assistant Deputy Speaker delivered his ruling. He made reference to an event of 2012, in which a minister moving a motion was not present when the question was put on the government bill. The Speaker ruled on December 5, 2012, that a government bill standing on the Order Paper expressed the will of cabinet.^[2] The Assistant Deputy Speaker considered that this ruling would also hold true for a seconder. As government bills represent the will of cabinet, and other government ministers were present in the chamber for the duration of the question, the Assistant Deputy Speaker concluded that the motion was properly before the House and that the results of the vote were valid.

Decision of the Chair

The Assistant Deputy Speaker: I would like to return to a point of order raised earlier today by the member for Barrie—Innisfil. He questioned the validity of the vote on Motion No. 92, given that the seconder, the Minister of Finance, had left the chamber during the putting of the question by the Chair. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons suggested that the Minister of Canadian Heritage, who was present for the entirety of the putting of the question, could simply be replaced as the seconder.

The situation is similar to one in December 2012, when it was noticed the next sitting day after the taking of a vote that the minister moving the motion was not present as indicated when the Speaker put the question on a government bill to the House. The Speaker’s ruling on December 5, 2012, included, as found on page 12908 of Debates, the following:

This kind of occurrence is, in my view, a minor oversight. It is our practice to consider that this progress of government bills [represents] the will of the cabinet.

That being the case for the mover of the bill, I am satisfied that it also holds for the case of a seconder. As has been pointed out, other government ministers were present for the duration of the putting of the question and as such, I am satisfied that the motion was properly before the House and the results of the vote are valid.