Rule of Debate / Order and Decorum

Taking of a vote: members entering the chamber while the question is being put; validity of the vote

April 4, 2019

Debates, pp. 26694–5

On March 20, 2019, Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby) rose on a question of privilege regarding the validity of the vote on Motion No. 126 under the opposed votes of the interim estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020. Mr. Julian noted that earlier in the same sitting, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) rose on a point of order with respect to the inability of members to hear the question put on the motion. Consequently, the Speaker began reading the question anew and the House proceeded with the vote on Motion No. 126. Mr. Julian argued that a number of members entered the chamber and voted after the Speaker began reading the motion the first time, resulting in a breach in the integrity of the vote and the rules of the House.^[1] On April 1, 2019, Candice Bergen (Portage—Lisgar) and Pat Kelly (Calgary Rocky Ridge) rose to argue that some members showed contempt for the House by falsely voting, having entered the chamber after the question was put the first time by the Speaker.^[2] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

Resolution

On April 4, 2019, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reiterated that it was his duty as Speaker to safeguard members’ right to vote and that members are permitted to vote provided they are in the chamber to hear the question when it is being put. The Speaker noted that, given the unforeseen interruptions before the vote on Motion No. 126 to resolve issues with the audio, the Chair had determined it appropriate to recommence reading the question in its entirety to ensure that members present could make an informed decision. He also reminded members that the onus for determining who can or cannot vote falls on each member. Accordingly, the Speaker ruled that the results of the vote were valid and that there was no prima facie question of privilege.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised during the sitting of March 20, 2019, by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby, concerning the validity of the vote on Motion No. 126 under the opposed votes of the interim estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020.

In considering this question of privilege, I have noted the point of view of the House Leader of the Official Opposition and the members for Chilliwack—Hope and Calgary Rocky Ridge. I also thank other members who spoke on this matter.

In his intervention, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby correctly points out that a point of order was raised with respect to the inability of members to hear the question that was put to the House. After listening to the point of order, the Chair began reading the question anew and the House proceeded with the vote on Motion No. 126.

The issue identified by the member for New Westminster— Burnaby was that many members were allegedly still entering the chamber when the Chair was reading the motion the first time. The member contended that the voting by some members who had arrived after the Chair had begun reading the question breached the rules and practices of the House. As consequence, there was some doubt about the integrity of the vote.

On April 1, 2019, the House Leader of the Official Opposition agreed, arguing that, as many members had entered the House after the question had been put the first time, without admitting as much, this amounted to interference in our proceedings and a contempt of the House.

The right to vote in a recorded decision is one of the most significant rights members have in this House. As recently as February 21, 2019, I was called upon to rule on a similar matter, where I reaffirmed this, at page 24980 of Debates, stating:

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.

To perform their parliamentary functions, such as voting, members must trust that they can carry out these functions without interference and in the manner prescribed by our rules and practices. Relevant to the matter at hand is Standing Order 16(1), 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, third edition, at page 588, also tells us that:

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. Any Member entering the Chamber while the question is being put or after it has been put cannot have his or her vote counted. Members must remain seated until the result is announced by the Clerk.

As the Chair has said on many occasions, to be allowed to vote, members must be in the chamber so that they hear the question. The Chair said as much when the vote on Motion No. 126 took place. The logic of this is inescapable. Simply put, members are expected to make an informed decision.

Recorded votes usually proceed in an orderly fashion with the Chair finishing the reading of the question without interruption once started, followed by the other steps of the voting process. However, there are situations when the Chair must adjust slightly the application of this in response to unforeseen circumstances. Interrupted by a point of order on the vote in question during the sitting of March 20, the Chair did just that after it was made aware that there had been audio difficulties. Given the importance of members hearing the question, the reading of the question was restarted and read in its entirety for the members present. With respect to the circumstances surrounding the vote on Motion No. 126, the Chair rendered a ruling that applied to that particular division.

The votes held during the sitting of March 20 were somewhat exceptional. They can justly be described as a marathon of votes. Voting continuously and successively on over 250 motions for more than 30 hours, the movement of members in and out of the House was naturally and understandably more frequent. As Speaker, I can assure the House that this did not alter the expected applicability of and respect for the rules and practices of voting.

However, it is the uncertainty of the right of some of the members who voted on Motion No. 126 that is the crux of this matter. At the suggestion of some members, I reviewed the relevant video footage. Unfortunately, it was not possible to determine from this if or when exactly each member entered or exited the Chamber and I have been informed that no other relevant video footage exists that would further the Chair’s understanding of this situation.

The member for New Westminster—Burnaby, for his part, is turning to the Chair to confirm who of the members did not hear the question, whatever the circumstances of the moment during a vote, this is not a power conferred upon the Chair. This is a reality that all members can most assuredly appreciate.

The responsibility for determining who can or cannot vote rests solely with each and every member. Bosc and Gagnon indicates at page 588:

… 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.

It falls on each member individually to know, and to make known, if their vote should be counted or not. The Chair cannot be expected to police the House or to know at all times exactly who was present or not when a motion put to the House is read. Rather, the Chair must rely on all members to ensure that, when they stand and vote in this House, they have heard the question on which they are pronouncing themselves. In fact, the member for New Westminster—Burnaby noted that, for Motion No. 126, some members abstained, while others voted or withdrew their votes which should not have counted.

As for the recorded division on Motion No. 126, the results of the vote stand and, as Speaker, I cannot conclude that this matter constitutes a prima facie case of privilege.

I thank all hon. members for their attention.