Mr. Speaker, it has been over one and one-half years since I was elected as a new member to this most important Chamber in the country. I came here full of hope and anticipation of what the democratic process would be. The breach of privilege of which I speak today is such a severe aberration and breach of the most fundamental premises of democracy that I am really sorry I have to raise it.
I also recognize that what I am going to say is important. I realize your position, Mr. Speaker, is of tremendous importance here. In your office and in your person lies the ability to maintain the very basic premise of democracy and the rules under which it operates. I am asking today not only for your ruling, but also for your guidance because of my deep concerns.
I want to specifically give the reasons for my complaint. I was a substitute authorized member of the Standing Committee on Human Rights and the Status of Disabled Persons on Tuesday and Wednesday. I know, Mr. Speaker, you heard one question of privilege already and you ruled on that, but my problem is a different one and much more serious. It has to do with the conducting of a vote in that committee.
Specifically, this is what happened. Our party moved an amendment. When the chairman of the committee called for the vote, we said yea. There was not a single nay heard. The chairman ruled that the motion had been defeated. Now that is so fundamental it is not even in the rule book. It is assumed in a democracy that when everybody who casts a vote says yea and the chairman says that it has been defeated that it is a flagrant and violent abuse of democracy such as we cannot tolerate if we want to maintain our system.
The chairman declared that motion defeated and of course I immediately challenged the chair. When I did that, the chairman of the committee said that his ruling would stand. I objected and the chairman then invoked the rules of order which ask for the majority of the people in the committee to decide if the ruling of the chair stands. The Liberal majority woke up and they faithfully fell into line and supported the ruling of the chair. I could not accept that.
This was such a serious aberration that I told the chairman he could not do that. He said he could. I suppose I should have apologized at that stage for becoming a little upset, but to me this was such a violent attack on the democratic process. I then moved to report this incident to the Speaker because it was my understanding that such an issue could not come to you unless it was reported by the committee. I may be wrong here and I have some reasons for considering that I may be wrong, but that was my understanding at the time.
I moved the motion that this be reported, but the chairman would not accept the motion and ruled it out of order. I told the chairman it could not be out of order. He then proceeded to ask if the ruling of the chair was sustained and the majority of the members present said yes. Now that is unbelievable. I cannot accept that.
I appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, that this be corrected. There must be some things the committee does not have 100 per cent autonomy to do. It cannot by vote alter the truth. This is a democratic tradition that has been upheld for so long that an arbitrary rule of a motion defeated when in fact it has passed cannot be accepted.
If the majority of members were not paying attention and did not vote when they should have, just wishing that they would have been awake does not give them any justification for using their majority to override the previous vote. Only a person who voted on the side that won the vote can move a motion to reconsider. That was not done in this case. The chairman arbitrarily and incorrectly declared the vote lost and the members were not paying attention and chimed into his defence.
This is so serious, Mr. Speaker, that I appeal to you that some corrective action be taken. As I said in my preamble, I do require your assistance as well as your ruling because I want to know how to handle this. This cannot be accepted by this Parliament, the highest court of the land, as such a serious aberration of the democratic process.