(The House divided on Motion No. 187, which was agreed to on the following division:)
House of Commons Hansard #393 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.
House of Commons Hansard #393 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was justice.
Interim EstimatesGovernment Orders
Peter Julian NDP New Westminster—Burnaby, BC
Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. We have now been sitting for over 36 hours, and I want to start by paying tribute to the table, the pages, the support workers and the security guards, who have been working just as hard as we have, inside and outside the House, providing support for the House of Commons and for our democracy.
I rise this evening on a question of privilege concerning what happened during the vote on Motion No. 126 of the opposed votes in the supplementary estimates.
As all my colleagues will remember, the Chair began reading the question concerning Motion No. 126 and then many Liberal members entered the chamber and took their seats. The Chair then stopped reading the question and recognized the member for Winnipeg North on a point of order.
During the long discussion that ensued, the Speaker explained that members must be in the House when he or she begins reading the question in order for their vote to count. After this explanation, some members acknowledged that they had arrived late and withdrew their vote, including the Minister of Official Languages , the Minister of National Defence and the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia. There is no point in naming them all.
However, many other members voted even though we all saw that they arrived late. The integrity of the vote on Motion No. 126 is in doubt not just because of the conventions that govern the House, but also because of precedents and rules.
This issue has come up before, Madam Speaker. On May 11, 2016, you made the following ruling on the same issue:
I thank hon. members for their interventions on this. The rule is that members have to be in their seats, and by the way, stay in their seats until they vote, when the Speaker starts reading the motion. The important thing is that members hear what they are voting on, the whole thing. Therefore, members have to be in the chamber when the Speaker starts reading the motion.
Today, the Assistant Deputy Speaker had this to say on the matter:
“I am about to answer and make a ruling. The question was to clarify who has the right to vote and who had the right to vote. When I began the question the first time, members had to be in the chamber, not necessarily at their seats but in the chamber. I will leave it to the individual members and their honour to identify themselves.”
After the Speaker began reading the question, several witnesses indicated that dozens of members may not have had the right to vote based on the criteria mentioned by the Speaker. Some members abstained from voting because of those instructions, but others voted anyway.
In his remarks as to why he was withdrawing his vote, the member for Avignon—La Mitis—Matane—Matapédia admitted that he and several other members had entered the House after the reading of the motion had already begun. He said, “If you say that you did not repeat the question, then I will be happy to withdraw my vote because I was not here the first time you asked.”
What is more, we asked the Clerk what the final count was for the vote on Motion No. 126, and he told members of the NDP, via our lobby general, that there was too much confusion to give the final count but that the government had won the vote.
On its own, the actions of the dozens of members who made the conscious decision to vote after missing the start of the question is clear contempt of the House and its rules. The Speaker rightly said that it was a question of honour, and by choosing to do the wrong thing, those members have not distinguished themselves, and they have not distinguished the House.
It is troubling that the House has been left in doubt about the integrity of the vote on Motion No. 126. First, the validity of the votes of several Liberal members was called into question by witnesses in the House. Second, we had to resume voting without knowing the final count for the vote on Motion No. 126. Third, it was impossible for us to know whether the vote on Motion No. 126 was valid.
Votes that have been subject to the errors of members have been revised after the fact. Madam Speaker, you yourself did that during the most recently completed sitting of the House, on March 19, when, in response to the chief opposition whip, who had several members vote in error, you said:
I thank the hon. member for raising what is an important point. In fact, the results were adjusted accordingly, and the motion was defeated.
I submit that the very same thing may happen for the vote being questioned today.
What happened with the vote on Motion No. 126 could create a serious precedent in terms of allowing the reading of the question to be interrupted and restarted as well as letting members come into the House and vote even though they were not here when the Speaker started reading the question. If members refuse to follow clear instructions from the Chair and to continue the work of the House without knowing the result of a vote, they are jeopardizing the integrity of our votes and our work and breaching the privilege of all parliamentarians.
We have all been here for a long time, and in order for us to continue our deliberations in an orderly fashion, I think you should find a prima facie breach of the privilege of all members of the House and refer these matters to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
All the evidence is available. The cameras caught it all on tape. It would be very easy to check who entered the House on time and who was not present when the questions were read out. It would not be the first time that such a procedure is used. On June 12, 2014, former Deputy Speaker of the House of Commons Joe Comartin checked the tape so he could rule on whether the House had adopted a motion. I will quote what he said before suspending the House.
He said the following:
I am going to suspend the House for a few minutes to look at the tape. The government House leader has raised a valid point. My observations are the same as his, and I think it is a valid point that he has raised.
The House will suspend.
Video evidence definitely helped the former deputy speaker make an informed decision, and I am sure that in the case before us today, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs would benefit from the video evidence available and could attest to the validity and integrity of the vote on Motion No. 126.
I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
Proceedings on Opposed Vote No. 126PrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope is rising on the same point of order.
Mark Strahl Conservative Chilliwack—Hope, BC
Madam Speaker, I certainly would like to associate the official opposition with the remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
We believe that there was a very serious matter that was not handled appropriately at the time, and we certainly look forward to being able to have the opportunity to come back to the House with more information on this matter.
Proceedings on Opposed Vote No. 126PrivilegeGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
I appreciate the comments from the hon. member for Chilliwack—Hope on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for New Westminster—Burnaby. Given that he said he wanted to provide other information to the House, we will await that presentation before making a decision, since that information will likely help us address this situation.
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Vancouver Quadra B.C.
Liberal
Joyce Murray LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
moved:
That Vote 35, in the amount of $150,000,000, under Treasury Board Secretariat — Capital Budget Carry Forward, in the Interim Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, be concurred in.
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The next question is on Motion No. 188. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Yea.
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The Assistant Deputy Speaker (Mrs. Carol Hughes) All those opposed will please say nay.
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
Concurrence in Vote 35—Treasury Board SecretariatInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen:
Interim SupplyGovernment Orders
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Vancouver Quadra B.C.
Liberal
Joyce Murray LiberalPresident of the Treasury Board
moved:
That Vote 1, in the amount of $2,395,507, under Veterans Review and Appeal Board — Program expenditures, in the Interim Estimates for the fiscal year ending March 31, 2020, be concurred in.
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
The question is on Motion No. 189. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Agreed.
No.
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Yea.
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
Some hon. members
Nay.
Concurrence in Vote 1—Veterans Review and Appeal BoardInterim SupplyGovernment Orders
The Assistant Deputy Speaker Carol Hughes
In my opinion the yeas have it.
And five or more members having risen: