I am ready to make a statement regarding the question of privilege raised on January 29, 2020, by the member for Chilliwack—Hope concerning the statement that the member for Vimy made about her vote on the motion for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne held on January 27, 2020.
What troubled the member for Chilliwack—Hope was that the member for Vimy repeated on two occasions, on January 27 and January 29, that she was present in the chamber during the reading of the motion, while that was clearly not the case. He felt that the member for Vimy was in contempt of the House because she had deliberately misled it, both during the initial statement after the vote was held and during her second intervention two days later, which sought to clarify the situation and to ask that her vote be withdrawn.
While the question of the validity of her vote was settled after the second intervention, the intervention by the member for Chilliwack—Hope stressed that the substance of her words was still in doubt.
In a third intervention on January 30, the member for Vimy explained the circumstances surrounding the events decried by the member for Chilliwack—Hope. She then indicated that she had not fully understood the nature of the objections raised and apologized for the confusion that her initial remarks had created. In fact, in her final intervention, she recognized having made a mistake due to her misunderstanding of the rules and procedures that govern our work. Her apologies reveal that she had realized the gravity of the situation, although she said she had not acted deliberately. Thanks to that third intervention, as a result of the vigilance of the member for Chilliwack—Hope and the leader of the official opposition in the House, we were able to shed some light on this matter and arrive at a common understanding of the facts.
This incident demonstrates the extent to which it is incumbent on all members, new or not, to respect the practices and procedures that govern our deliberations. There is a panoply of resources to assist members in that regard: their more experienced colleagues, the table officers, the procedural authorities. and I could go on. It is also imperative that members always weigh their words so as not to inadvertently raise doubts about their sincerity or their integrity.
As for the recorded division in question, the rules should now be known to all: A member must be present in the chamber from the time a question is being put on the motion. The division bells are rung expressly to allow members to return to the chamber before the question is put by the Chair.
When a member is not present in the chamber in time to hear the start of a question being read, it is expected that they will admit it. Assistant Deputy Speaker Devolin said it well in a ruling on June 5, 2014, at page 6257 of Debates:…there is an onus on the members not only to be on time but, if they are not here on time, to own up to that and to either not participate in the vote or, if it is pointed out, to subsequently say that their vote ought not to be counted.
Moreover, members must be in their seats when voting begins and remain seated until the results are announced if their votes are to be recorded. Since the member for Vimy acknowledged that she was not in the chamber when the motion was read and that she took her seat during the vote, her vote was withdrawn and will no longer appear in the Journals of January 27. However, our procedures and practices were respected in this regard due to the interventions of vigilant members, and not owing to this explanation provided.
It was upon her third intervention on the matter that the member understood which rules were at issue. After realizing that her misunderstanding had led her to inadvertently mislead the House, she expressed her deep and sincere regret. The final intervention was complete and contrite. In light of the member for Vimy's apology and the fact that the incident seems to have arisen from a misunderstanding of parliamentary terminology rather than a deliberate act, I consider that this matter is now closed.
As a final comment, let us consider this event as an opportunity to remind the House once again that its honour depends on the integrity of each and every member.
I thank the members for their attention.