Mr. Speaker, on the point arising out of the vote, particularly the characterization by the Minister of Foreign Affairs of his vote, I have a few remarks to make.
The first is that I agree it is a species of a more general problem, which is members taking the opportunity in the virtual Parliament to use the fact we appear on screen and are at liberty to say things to characterize their vote. That is something I know you have said is not appropriate, but I think you may need to give some thought to how you will enforce that better. When a male in the House of Commons does not wear a tie, I have seen more serious consequences than for when members continued to characterize their vote inappropriately online, so I would like to see an end to that.
Beyond that, I think what happened today goes a bit further with respect to abstentions and the point raised by the official opposition House leader just now in respect of speaking for the government on a vote.
I note that in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, on page 575, it states:
There is no rule requiring a Member to vote. A Member may abstain from voting simply by remaining seated during the vote. Such abstentions are of an unofficial nature and are not recorded although, on occasion, Members have risen following a vote to offer an explanation....
Clearly, members have the right to abstain, but I do not see anything in there that allows them to abstain on behalf of anyone else. In fact, abstentions are not normally recorded. It is only by virtue of the virtual Parliament that members have had occasion to mention an abstention, which has to do with the technical demands of the virtual Parliament, not because we have changed a principle in allowing abstentions.
As a further point from House of Commons Procedure and Practice, I note also that on pages 582 and 583, in discussing the nature of votes, it mentions two kinds of votes: one the conduct of a party vote and another the conduct of a row-by-row vote. There is no government and non-government vote, so while I object generally to people characterizing their votes and do not think any member should be speaking on behalf of other members in respect of their vote, I also note that even the characterization itself is problematic, because nowhere does the government appear as an entity for voting in the House of Commons anyway. I think that is a bad precedent and I would appreciate your speaking to that point and making it clear that the government is not an entity represented for the purpose of the votes in the House of Commons.