Debates of Dec. 7th, 2001

Points of Order

[Stéphane Bergeron, Bloc, Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC]

Madam Speaker, I would like to speak very briefly on this point of order.

I must say that when you asked for the question the first time, I heard you say “In my opinion the yeas have it”, but you pointed to the nay side.

I am told and the rebroadcasting suggests that you said indeed “In my opinion the nays have it”. At that time, we did see the Liberals stand to ask for a recorded division.

The point of order raised by our colleague from Elk Island is quite relevant, in the sense that it raises some concern, after what happened a little earlier, that is that the Speaker, as objective as she may be, may in some circumstances reverse the result of a vote properly taken earlier.

I do not know what to say in these circumstances, except to suggest that we be informed of the result of the first vote, which, I believe, was conclusive.

[Don Boudria, Liberal, Minister of State and Leader of the Government in the House of Commons]

Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I find it strange that we should be having this debate on a bill that has had the support of all members at every stage of the process so far.

I realize that this is not the issue, but it is nevertheless strange to have such a debate at this point, since we started from the premise that we were in agreement. At the beginning I understood much the same thing as what the member for Verchères—Les Patriotes just suggested.

When I heard the Chair the first time, it said that the yeas had it, but it pointed to the nays. It was not clear. To clarify the situation, the Chair put the question to the House a second time. Then, things seemed clear.

This is how I saw it, rightly or wrongly. But the first time I clearly heard “the yeas have it”, while the Chair was pointing to the nays. We were told that the yeas had it, but the Chair pointed to the nays. It was not clear. This is how I saw it.

To clarify the situation, the Chair put the question a second time. This seems normal to me.

[Loyola Hearn, Progressive Conservative, St. John's West, NL]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. The House leader may have selective hearing. I was under the impression you said when you stood that the nays have it. Then you pointed quite clearly to the nay side and said that the nays have it.

This could be a dangerous precedent. Maybe everybody agreed with the bill. I have no problems with that. However, if government is showing that “If we don't get the vote our way by a little bit of a push we can get the Speaker to change his or her mind”, that is extremely dangerous.

You made a ruling, Madam Speaker, and unless you stick to that ruling, I think we are setting here today a very dangerous precedent which puts all of us, certainly on this side, in jeopardy in relation to votes on any bills in the future.

[Jay Hill, Canadian Alliance, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order in support of my opposition colleagues in the Canadian Alliance, the Bloc and my colleague in the coalition who just spoke. Very clearly I heard you state that the nays have it. You clearly pointed to this side of the House.

As my colleague from St. John's just said, regardless of the premise of the bill that we are dealing with, what we really are dealing with on this issue is a matter of principle. If this principle is not sound and not intact, whereby if the ruling of the Speaker can be changed at the whim of the government and basically just call for another vote, then it really calls into question everything we do in this Chamber in the sense that it puts the opposition at a distinct disadvantage.

Madam Speaker, I think that if you seek perhaps some advice from the clerks at the table, they may be able to enlighten you as to exactly what transpired and what course of action would be appropriate now.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Secretary of State (Asia-Pacific)]

Madam Speaker, I was in the Chamber when no doubt what the opposition was saying, that you said nay and you pointed to that side, was correct. I have said that. I stood. However it should also be acknowledged that because there were some discussions going on both sides of the House there was not great clarity and the Speaker--

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, excuse me, perhaps the opposition would be quiet and respectful of my right to speak and not disturb me. I have always been respectful to the opposition.

May I continue, Madam Speaker. Then you sought the permission of the House--

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I apologize to the secretary of state but we are not going to make this a debate. I would like him to finish and then I will in fact rule.

[Rey D. Pagtakhan, Liberal, Winnipeg North—St. Paul, MB]

Madam Speaker, in fact I am concluding. Then at the point you wanted to create greater clarity you sought to call the vote again and there was an implied consent because in the vote taken both sides participated in the nays and the yeas. In fact they gave implied consent, Madam Speaker. The Speaker made the right ruling and the yeas in fact won the day.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

I thank all hon. members for trying to enlighten the Chair. There was no intention on the part of the Chair in any way to influence the members' vote or to influence the actual outcome of the motion.

The fact was that from the point of view of the Chair there was not clarity, maybe there was for the members sitting down, in terms of the nays and the yeas. I apologize if that has caused any problems.

On the other hand, I would like to point out for the hon. member for Elk Island that when in fact I did say shall I start again, there was no one who said no.

We can check. There are two ways the Chair can proceed. I also want to mention, and the blues can be checked if the hon. member would like, I did not rule on the first part. I asked only, shall I then take the nays and the yeas again. I did not say it is agreed. I did not say on division. So There was not a ruling actually on the vote. We can check the rules. We can check the blues, if you wish. The Speaker then has the right to rule on Monday.

I think, if I may be so bold to say, we can check them or, if you would like, I can rule right now that the decision here is--

[An hon. member]

Madam Speaker, on a point of order.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

We can be here all day, if you like.

[An hon. member]

Rule it 2.30 p.m.

[The Acting Speaker (Ms. Bakopanos)]

It is 2.30 p.m. We are running out of time, as I am told. As you well know at 2.30 p.m. we adjourn the House. I apologize again, but when I did ask if there were five members on the opposition side to rise there was only one member who indicated so.

It being 2.30 p.m., the House stands adjourned until Monday next at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 24(1).

(The House adjourned at 2.31 p.m.)