Anthony Rota

[Points of Order, May 25th, 2021]

I would like to make a statement concerning an expression used recently during Oral Questions, which has become the subject of multiple points of order.

As members know, points of order cannot be raised during Oral Questions, but are instead brought up at the end of question period. While it can be challenging for the Chair to make on-the-spot decisions regarding language during the quick exchanges, the Speaker can intervene when appropriate, particularly in cases of disorder or when unparliamentary language is used.

After the point of order raised on May 12 by the opposition House leader, I undertook to review the transcripts and return to the House.

The opposition House leader argued that it was unparliamentary for the Prime Minister to use the phrase “deliberately misleading Canadians” in describing the position of the official opposition caucus. He noted that the use of words such as these has been found unparliamentary in the past. Indeed, similar language has given rise to objections before.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, states at page 624, and I quote:

In dealing with unparliamentary language, the Speaker takes into account the tone, manner and intention of the Member speaking, the person to whom the words at issue were directed, the degree of provocation, and most important, whether or not the remarks created disorder in the Chamber.... Although an expression may be found to be acceptable, the Speaker has cautioned that any language which leads to disorder in the House should not be used.

Of particular importance in this case, it also states, on the same page, and I quote:

Expressions which are considered unparliamentary when applied to an individual Member have not always been considered so when applied “in a generic sense” or to a party.

That being said, the comments made on May 12 were not directed at a particular individual. However, it is not helpful for members to make accusations using inflammatory language. It only invites a response in kind, leading to an overall lowering of the tone of our proceedings. The Chair has often reminded members of the need to be respectful in their exchanges and to maintain a certain degree of civility. It is possible to disagree, even forcefully, on matters of public policy without resorting to accusations of dishonesty or insults.

As we get closer to the summer adjournment, I would strongly encourage all members to find more judicious ways of expressing their disagreements and not resort to rhetoric.

I thank the hon. members for their co-operation in this regard.

[Privilege, May 11th, 2021]

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April 28, 2021 by the member for Portage—Lisgar concerning allegedly misleading statements made by the Prime Minister.

The member argued that the Prime Minister, by denying he knew of allegations of sexual misconduct against General Vance in 2018, intentionally misled the House during Oral Questions. In support of that allegation, she presented internal emails from the Privy Council Office and testimony given before the Standing Committee on National Defence. The member then reviewed the precedents in this matter. Following this, she intervened again to point out that, when there is some doubt on the matter, the Chair should let the House decide, while stressing the importance of clarity for the deliberations and the integrity of the information provided by the government.

The member for Esquimalt—Saanich—Sooke then argued that it would hinder members' work if they were misled in order to prevent them from holding the government accountable. In order to determine whether some officials were negligent, members must know whether the Prime Minister or staff within his office were aware of the allegations. He also urged the Chair to take note of the testimony given before the Standing Committee on National Defence.

In response, the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons stated that the Prime Minister had not misled the House and that his answers had remained consistent.

The House leader covered in detail the points raised by the member for Portage—Lisgar while citing the statements, emails and committee testimony. He argued that the facts had been twisted to raise doubt about the Prime Minister’s statements. He indicated that a simple doubt was not enough to establish a prima facie question of privilege and that, in this case, there was no possible doubt.

The member for Rivière-du-Nord added that there were differences between the Prime Minister’s statements and the testimony heard by the Standing Committee on National Defence. He also urged the Chair to take note of the testimony and asked that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for clarifications.

The question of privilege which the Chair has been asked to rule on is the following: Did the Prime Minister's responses during Oral Questions contain contradictions that would allow one to conclude that he intentionally misled the House?

To answer this question, three elements must be proven to convince the Chair that statements were deliberately misleading: First, the statement must effectively be misleading or manifestly contradictory; second, the author of the statement must know, in making the statement, that it is false; third, the member intended to mislead the House.

Before continuing, I would be remiss if I did not mention the unusual nature of the argument put forward by the members. A thorough review of precedents, including those to which the member for Portage—Lisgar referred, shows and reveals a common trait. The remarks under review were always those made by a single member. In this case, what is being proposed is a review not only of the Prime Minister’s responses, but also of the context in which they were made. The Chair is being asked, in fact, to conduct this review in light of the proceedings of a standing committee relating to a study currently under way. There is no precedent where the Chair has used testimony from a committee without there being a report on the subject.

This aspect of the matter is a concern for the Chair. It is not for the Speaker to untangle the committee evidence to determine who knew what and when. Such an initiative would trespass on the role of committee members and constitute a breach of my duty to act with impartiality. It is up to the committee to continue its own study and to inform the House of its conclusions, if it deems it appropriate, as has been the tradition.

In this respect, the scope of my mandate is thus limited. The question of privilege raised is tantamount to asking the Chair to, on the one hand, compare the responses given by the Prime Minister during question period and, on the other hand, rule on his intention when those responses were provided.

More broadly, as Speaker Milliken summed it up on April 21, 2005, at page 5412 of Debates:

In the present case, I must determine whether the minister's responses in any way impeded members in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether the remarks were intentionally misleading.

When previous questions of privilege concerning misleading statements have been deemed to be prima facie questions of privilege, the three elements to be proven to convince the Chair that the statements were deliberately misleading were clearly satisfied. In the example cited by the member for Portage—Lisgar from February 1, 2002, at pages 8,581 and 8,582 of Debates, and in a similar case from March 3, 2014, at pages 3,430 and 3,431 of Debates, the members involved admitted that they had made false declarations. In both cases, given the indisputable evidence before the House, previous Speakers ruled on February 1, 2002 and March 3, 2014, at the aforementioned pages in Debates, that a prima facie case had been established. Given the contradictory statements made by the members in each case, my predecessors determined that there was no choice but to have the situation referred to the appropriate committee for further consideration.

With respect to the question of privilege before us, I have reviewed the responses to Oral Questions offered by the Prime Minister on March 10, 11 and 24, 2021, and on April 27, 2021. The Chair did not find contradictions in them or elements that would allow one to conclude that they are misleading statements. There is thus no reason to continue this analysis.

I acknowledge that some members think that the Prime Minister's responses are contradicted by the information presented in committee, while others maintain that the same information confirms the validity of his responses. These disagreements occur frequently in the House, and it is not the Chair's role to adjudicate them. In the event that members are clearly and deliberately misled by deceptive statements, the Chair may have a role to play to ensure that members can perform their duties. Based on the information I have, that is not the case here.

Thus, the Chair cannot conclude that the Prime Minister deliberately misled the House. I find that there is no prima facie question of privilege.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, April 27th, 2021]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on April 14 by the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands, concerning the participation of independent members and members of non-recognized parties in Oral Questions.

Following up on the point of order that she raised on February 16, concerning their participation in Oral Questions on Wednesday, on which I ruled on February 23, the member focused on the number of questions allocated to them during each sitting week. Since the number of independent members and members of non-recognized parties has risen from four to eight since the beginning of this Parliament, she feels that the number of questions should also increase.

As the one responsible for keeping deliberations running smoothly, the Chair is aware of the number and distribution of questions allocated during question period. I should add that, while the member raised the question from a different angle, I am still obliged to reconcile the three fundamental elements to which I have already referred rather than to address it by limiting the matter to a simple mathematical formula.

The first element is complying with our established practice. In this case, that means the practice of allocating Oral Questions primarily on the basis of negotiations among the recognized parties in the House. I note that this practice has changed in recent years, which has made it possible to give independent members and members of non-recognized parties a larger share of the questions.

The second, and I find that this relatively recent development has certain limits, relates to the wording of Standing Order 30, since 45 minutes are reserved for question period. The Chair has to make every effort to ensure that this rule is respected as much as possible, similar to ensuring the rules of governing the management of speaking times during our deliberations are adhered to. Members have undoubtedly noticed, as I have, that for many years now, it has been difficult to respect this standing order to the letter.

The third is linked to my responsibility to protect the rights of all members and, as I stated in my ruling last February 23, to find “a balance between the rights and interests of the majority and of those of the minority. In doing so, the Chair must try to be equitable and fair, without tipping the balance too far on one side or the other.”

In keeping with my commitment as Speaker to encourage meetings to ensure that our institution has harmonious parliamentary procedures that are based on co-operation, and having always insisted on the importance of co-operation to improve the decorum, process and overall operations of the House, I encouraged the member for Saanich—Gulf Islands to continue her efforts. I continue to believe that this is the approach most likely to produce a solution. In the meantime, I cannot unilaterally alter the agreement and practices already in place, unless the groups concerned reach an agreement.

Because this question has been raised in the past, and given the parameters of the Chair's authority in the matter, I reiterate my request that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs study the question.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, April 26th, 2021]

I would like to make a statement following the point of order raised by the government House leader on April 15 regarding the inappropriate sharing of a screenshot of our proceedings the previous day and the difficult situation the member for Pontiac faced as a consequence.

Measures were taken to inquire as to how the deplorable incident occurred. On Wednesday, April 21, the member for Abitibi—Témiscamingue stood in the House to admit that it was he who had taken the screenshot and to apologize for his action.

The point of order raised by the government House leader is a serious one. All members of this House should be able to rely on their colleagues and staff to respect each other in conducting themselves in the chamber, whether in person or virtually. It is in everyone's interest that this practice continues to be observed rigorously. As such, the events of that day are a clear breach of our rules and, more important, an affront to the authority and dignity of the House and its members.

You are undoubtedly aware, and my predecessors repeated it on numerous occasions, that it is strictly forbidden for anyone, except photographers authorized by the House, to take photos during our proceedings. There is no need to remind members that the virtual nature of the proceedings of the House and its committees has brought with it many changes and required many adjustments from everyone.

However, that in no way affects the validity of the rule. Respecting the rule has never been more crucial than it is at a time when members are participating in proceedings from their office on the Hill or in their electoral district, or even from their residence. I would add that the ease with which it is possible to share and disseminate information using the tools at our disposal only increases the risk of the rule's being broken. I reminded all members of this at the beginning of the session on September 28 and 29, 2020. The staff members of each party with access to the system that facilitates the virtual deliberations were also informed.

So, the Chair wants to remind all members and everyone with this privileged access that screenshots, photos of a screen and visual recordings of the proceedings of the House or any of its committees, whether open to the public or not, are absolutely prohibited.

I am therefore counting on everyone's collaboration to respect the rules in the new operating environment. As far as the House is concerned and the procedural aspect of this issue, I consider the matter closed.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, April 15th, 2021]

In my statement of March 22, 2021, regarding Private Members' Business, I expressed my concern about Bill C-265, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act (illness, injury or quarantine), sponsored by the member for Salaberry—Suroît.

At the time, I encouraged the hon. members who wished to make arguments regarding the need for a royal recommendation for this bill to do so, which the members for Kingston and the Islands and Elmwood—Transcona did during points of order on April 12 and 14, respectively. I thank them for the precedents and the information they shared during their interventions. I am now ready to rule on the matter.

During his intervention, the member for Kingston and the Islands argued that Bill C-265 would extend sickness benefits and would thus seek to authorize a new and distinct charge on the consolidated revenue fund not authorized in statute. He added that there is no existing authorization to cover this new and distinct charge and that a royal recommendation is therefore necessary.

Here is what it says at page 838 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, and I quote:

Without a royal recommendation, a bill that either increases the amount of an appropriation, or extends its objects, purposes, conditions and qualifications is inadmissible on the grounds that it infringes on the Crown’s financial initiative.

Furthermore, a royal recommendation may only be obtained by a minister, the granting of such recommendation being a prerogative of the Crown.

In order to determine if Bill C-265 requires a royal recommendation, the Chair can rely on a number of similar precedents, including the ruling made by my predecessor on Bill C-269, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding improvement of the employment insurance system, and Bill C-308, an act to amend the Employment Insurance Act regarding improvement of the employment insurance system, both of which would have, among other things, extended the length of the benefit period.

A reading of Bill C-265 reveals that it would amend paragraphs 12(3)(c) and 152.14(1)(c) of the Employment Insurance Act to increase the maximum benefit period in the case of a prescribed illness, injury or quarantine from 15 weeks to 50 weeks.

Clearly, the bill’s goal is to permanently lengthen the period for employment insurance benefits, which would increase the expenditures made under the act’s system. It is, therefore, my opinion that Bill C-265 would increase an existing appropriation and must be accompanied by a royal recommendation before it can proceed to a final vote in the House on third reading.

When this item is next before the House, the debate will only be on the motion for second reading of the bill, and the question will be put to the House at the end of this debate.

I would like to thank the hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, March 25th, 2021]

I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on March 22, 2021, by the hon. member for Louis-Saint-Laurent concerning the presence of members of the government party in the House.

In his intervention, he mentioned that, at present, the maximum number of members who can safely be physically present during sittings is 86 and should reflect the proportions of the recognized parties. He thus argued that the number of members from the government party should not be limited to one or two, particularly since ministers participate by video conference from their office on Parliament Hill and take part in activities in the building where the House is sitting.

He also acknowledged several times that the virtual House is the extension of the physical House. The member feels that the under-representation of members of the government party and cabinet physically present in the House is unacceptable and should be corrected to guarantee the application of the principle of ministerial responsibility and accountability.

The member for La Prairie supported the position expressed by the member for Louis-Saint-Laurent.

The member for Kingston and the Islands responded that this was not a point of order because, according to the rules governing the hybrid House, there is no difference between participating in the debates in person or remotely. He added that the choice to limit physical presence was done out of respect for the health and safety of members and employees of the House administration.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent is essentially asking the Chair to decide on two questions: whether a minimum number of members from the government party must be present in the House, and whether ministers participating remotely impairs the principle of ministerial responsibility. On January 25, 2021, the House adopted an order that allows members to participate in deliberations by video conference until June 23, 2021. Since it is up to the House to establish its own rules, it occasionally decides to amend its practices on an ad hoc basis or for specified periods of time.

As a servant of the House, I am here not to judge the wisdom of its decisions, but to enforce the rules it establishes. A careful reading of the order that currently governs our work gives no indication that the role and functions of members who participate in deliberations by video conference differ from those who are physically present. In fact, there is a will to take the necessary measures to allow them to contribute fully by stipulating that those who participate remotely count for the purpose of quorum. Members can table documents and reports, present petitions and vote. I would add that there is no limit on their right to intervene under any heading of the Order of Business.

Thus, in the eyes of the Chair, there is no difference between a member who is participating in person and one who is participating by video conference with respect to attendance contributing to deliberations or quorum. For the same reason, there is no grounds to conclude that ministers participating by video conference impairs accountability or the principle of responsible government.

The member for Louis-Saint-Laurent mentioned that it was agreed to limit the number of members present in the House in order to follow public health guidelines and to allow members to participate in the deliberations of the House safely. However, at no point did the House specify in the order of January 25, 2021, a minimum number of members who must participate in person. In the absence of any indication to the contrary from the House, the choice of method of participation remains at the discretion of each member.

In closing, I want to remind the members to be judicious in their interventions and points of order to avoid mentioning the presence or absence of members or ministers in the House, which is contrary to the Standing Orders.

I thank hon. members for their attention.

[Points of Order, March 23rd, 2021]

I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on March 10, by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon concerning a discrepancy between the English and French version of Bill C-19, an act to amend the Canada Elections Act with regard to COVID-19 response.

In his intervention, the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon informed the House of the discrepancy between the two versions of a section of the bill. Indeed, at the end of subsection 239(2) on page 12 of the English version, the bill stipulates that ballots should be sent to the “special voting rules administrator in the National Capital Region no later than 6:00 p.?m. on the Tuesday”.

The French version, conversely, indicates that the ballot

“parvienne au bureau du directeur du scrutin au plus tard à 18 heures le mardi”.

According to the member, the two texts have very different meanings, which created confusion during the debate at second reading. This discrepancy, he added, suggests that the bill is incomplete. The member cited an extract of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at page 734, to the effect that when such situations occurred in the past, the order for second reading was discharged. He thus asked the Chair to review the matter and rule on the admissibility of Bill C-19 in its current form.

The member for Saint-Jean also stressed the importance of participating effectively in the deliberations of the House, while the member for Elmwood—Transcona enjoined the parties to find a solution so as not to unduly delay the study of the bill.

In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands clarified that the French wording of subsection 239(2) is, in fact, the right one. He explained that the government intended to correct the inconsistency during clause-by-clause consideration at committee. While an error did occur during the drafting, the member stressed that that in no way means that Bill C-19 is incomplete and that it was indeed in its definitive form when it was tabled in the House. Referring to a Speaker's ruling of January 1987, he added that the error did not make the bill inadmissible because it did not contain blank passages or reach the threshold required to render it incomplete set out in Standing Order 68(3).

In order to clarify the issue of a bill's form, it is important to review the existing precedents. A careful reading of the Speaker's rulings reveals that when the order for second reading of a bill was discharged, it was either because it did not comply with an order of the House or because the drafting of the bill was not done or not completed. The following passage must be added to the extract cited by the member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon at page 734 of Bosc Gagnon: “A bill in blank or in imperfect shape is a bill which has only a title, or the drafting of which has not been completed.”

In my opinion, that is not the case with Bill C-19 as submitted to the House. Furthermore, the debate at the second reading concerns the principle of the bill and not its specific provisions. In the words of Speaker Fraser in a ruling rendered on January 26, 1987, at page 2,667 of debates, I feel that this difference “did not affect 'the essence, the principles, the objects, the purpose or the conditions' of the bill.”

In this instance, the error can be corrected by the committee studying the bill. Although it does not happen often, such corrections are sometimes made during the detailed study in committee to ensure that the English and French versions of a bill say the same thing. In the meantime, the government has clarified its intent, and the debate can thus continue on the motion for second reading.

I would like to thank the hon. member for Mission—Matsqui—Fraser Canyon for his vigilance. Let me also take this opportunity to reiterate the importance of paying particular attention to both versions of bills, so that members have the same understanding of proposed texts, so they can participate fully in parliamentary business and can perform their duties as legislators.

Thank you for your attention.

[Privilege, March 11th, 2021]

I would like to come back to the question raised on March 8 by the member for Salaberry—Suroît concerning the wearing of certain masks during House proceedings.

The issue that the member raised is an important one because it affects members’ right to participate fully in sittings of the House.

Wearing masks is one of the many constraints related to the pandemic with which the House and its committees have had to deal this past year. The House is called on to reconcile everyone's efforts to follow public health guidelines with members' right to participate fully in proceedings while respecting our rules and practices.

The deliberations and recommendations of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs have provided a response to some of the concerns and eliminated obstacles that sometimes seemed unsurmountable. The same is true for the many discussions among House leaders and party whips that have allowed us to continue our work.

It is my understanding as well that discussions continued among the parties and that an agreement has been reached. In order to make the interpreters’ work easier, members who want to wear a mask during their interventions in the House and in committee will have to use procedure masks. These will be made available in the lobbies. At any other time, members may wear any mask they prefer.

We have witnessed, this past year, the importance of co-operating, negotiating and compromising. They are essential to the proper functioning of our parliamentary system.

I thank the hon. members for their attention.

I would also like to thank the hon. member for Salaberry—Suroît for having brought us to this point with the masks.

I also want to thank all members for the co-operation that has taken place. It really shows that Canadian democracy is working strongly and that people are working together. I am very proud to be a part of this chamber.

[Privilege, March 9th, 2021]

I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 19 by the member for Fundy Royal concerning the alleged premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-22, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and the Controlled Drugs and Substances Act.

During his intervention, the member said that a CBC article posted online at 8:47 a.m. on February 18 described the details of Bill C-22 although it had not yet been submitted to the House. The member referred to the contents of the article, which he said discussed a number of the measures contained in the bill and boasted about the reliability of its sources. The Chair notes that the article had already been updated by the time the issue was raised. To be clear, with regard to this ruling, the Speaker considered the initial version of the article, which was published at the time of introduction and first reading of the bill.

After reviewing a series of precedents on the issue, the member said he also believed that the Minister of Justice's actions were contemptuous and that he had ignored the will of the House.

In response, the member for Kingston and the Islands informed the House that the office of the Minister of Justice had not shared the contents of the bill with the CBC journalist before its introduction. The member explained that he believed that the ministers' mandate letters sometimes allowed journalists to deduce the contents of bills on notice. After reviewing the contents of the article in question and comparing it with Bill C-22, the member argued that the article was sometimes inaccurate and even incomplete. In his opinion, the article was written by using a government source who was not familiar with the contents of the bill or by making conjectures based on previous policy statements. Finally, the member for Kingston and the Islands, basing himself on a ruling made on June 8, 2017, said that it is a prima facie case of privilege in such cases when the government admits that the leak occurred, but not when the government does not acknowledge a leak. In this case, the member stated that if the contents of the bill were disclosed prematurely, the government was not responsible.

As the member for Fundy Royal pointed out during his intervention, it is a recognized principle that the House must be the first to learn the details of new legislative measures. That is why both government bills and private members' bills are confidential from the moment they are put on notice until they are tabled in the House. Speaker Milliken's ruling of March 19, 2001, which the member for Fundy Royal mentioned, provides a good summary of the importance of respecting this rule:

The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well informed, but also because of the pre-eminent rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation.

That being said, when the Chair is called on to determine whether there is a prima facie case of privilege, it must take into consideration the extent to which a member was hampered in performing their parliamentary functions and whether the alleged facts are an offence against the dignity of Parliament.

In the case before us, an exhaustive review of the intervention by the member for Fundy Royal does not reveal exactly which aspects of Bill C-22 were supposedly shared with CBC for the article in question, nor did the member point out any similarities in language between the article and the bill to demonstrate that precise details of the bill were apparently disclosed to the media in a deliberate and premature fashion. The member for Kingston and the Islands pointed out inaccuracies in the article and differences from the bill.

When it is determined that there is a prima facie case of privilege, the usual work of the House is immediately set aside in order to debate the question of privilege and decide on the response. Given the serious consequences for proceedings, it is not enough to say that the breach of privilege or contempt may have occurred, nor to cite precedence in the matter while implying that the government is presumably in the habit of acting in this way. The allegations must be clear and convincing for the Chair.

As well, I believe it is important to mention that the distinction that the member for Kingston and the Islands wishes to make between questions of privilege that are a prima facie case of privilege and those that are not—simply because the government admits or does not admit that a leak has occurred—is not that clear. While there is indeed a well-established practice that a member must be taken at their word, the fact remains that the government's stating that it is not responsible for the premature disclosure of a bill is not in itself sufficient to convince the Chair. I would add that the source of the information is one factor among others and that it is important first and foremost to determine whether precise details were provided before the House was made aware of them. The Chair must thus take into consideration all the information before it and reach a conclusion based on the facts presented by the members.

The two precedents most like the current situation to which the two members referred are those that my immediate predecessor and I rendered with respect to Bill C-14 and Bill C-7 on medical assistance in dying. In these two cases, in light of the facts presented, it was clear that the information had been shared with the media before the bills were tabled in the House. In the case of Bill C-14, the Government offered no competing explanation. In the case of Bill C-7, it was clear that the anonymous source had spoken with the media despite the fact they were well acquainted with our customs and practices in the matter. That is not the case this time with Bill C-22.

Thus, in this case, in light of what has been presented, the Chair is not convinced that the question of privilege raised by the member for Fundy Royal is a prima facie case of privilege.

I thank the members for their attention.

[Business of Supply, March 8th, 2021]

On Thursday, February 25, the House leaders of the recognized parties informed me that they were satisfied that the new electronic voting system is ready to be used. Accordingly, I would like to take this opportunity to share some information that members may find useful on the new process for the taking of recorded divisions.

Voting is one of the most fundamental rights of a member of Parliament. The ability of members to participate fully in this process is of the utmost importance. This first hybrid vote using the electronic voting system marks another adaptation of our normal practices and procedures in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

As per the terms of the special order, votes will continue to take place as per the usual process for those in the chamber. Members present in the House must stay in their seat for the duration of the voting period and should not vote via the electronic system.

For members participating remotely, the new process will be as follows.

Members will receive notifications informing them of the upcoming vote. Once the vote starts, they will have 10 minutes to cast a vote via the electronic system, indicating whether they are for, are against, or are abstaining from voting on the motion.

Members will then be required to take a photo to validate their identity and submit their vote.

Members may change their vote during the 10-minute period, but all attempts must be completed before the end of the voting period for the vote to be recorded.

After the in-person vote is completed, members may continue to vote via the electronic system for the remainder of the voting period. During this time, votes cast via the system will be displayed on the broadcast feed and no points of order or interventions are permitted during this period.

When the House resumes its business, I will invite any members who encountered technical difficulties to identify themselves using the “raised hand” feature to cast their vote.

In accordance with the motion adopted on February 22, 2021, I will then entertain any concerns raised by a House officer of a recognized party regarding the visual identity of a member voting remotely, where a possible issue has been indicated by the system. It is the responsibility of members to be ready to respond should concern be raised about their photo, failing which, as per the terms of the motion, the vote will not be recorded.

Once these steps are completed, the table will then compile the results of the vote and the Clerk will announce the final results to the House.

IT ambassadors are available before, during and after a vote to assist members if they encounter difficulties with the system or for any technical matter related to the virtual sitting.

It remains the responsibility of members to ensure that they have adequate connectivity to fully participate in the parliamentary proceedings and that they fully complete all steps of the voting process.

Finally, decorum remains an important part of any sitting of the House, whether members are participating in person or virtually. I would ask that members continue to demonstrate respect for the dignity of the House when participating or intervening in proceedings, including being judicious in the backgrounds they choose and their attire.

I would like to thank members for their participation in the simulations and for their feedback regarding the electronic voting system. As we continue to learn and adapt to the constraints of the COVID-19 pandemic, I am continually impressed by the innovation, creativity and resilience of members and their staff, as well as the administration employees who support us as we serve our constituents through this difficult period.

We will now proceed to the taking of the first recorded division using the new electronic voting system.