The Decision-making Process / Miscellaneous

Recorded divisions: unanimous consent required for Members seeking to record their votes after the voting took place

October 18, 2001

Debates, pp. 6293-4

On October 18, 2001, Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg–Transcona) rose on a point of order with respect to the taking of a recorded division on the motion for second reading of Bill C-217, Blood Samples Act, on Tuesday, October 16, 2001.^[1] Mr. Blaikie reported that, during the vote, some Members from the Government side did not rise to vote when their row was called and then, when the vote was over, rose to request to record their votes. He argued that those votes should not have been counted and urged the Speaker to make a ruling or statement in this regard.

The Speaker ruled immediately. He stated that the Chair had taken due notice of what had happened and added that, sometimes in voting in the House, Members do forget to stand at the appropriate moment and might miss the vote. The Speaker declared that, in the future, for votes on Private Members’ Business, unanimous consent would be required when Members wished to record their votes outside the usual sequence, that is, if their row had already been called. He also mentioned in closing that, in this particular case, if the votes in question had been omitted, the result would have remained the same.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: The Chair had the advantage of having a brief opportunity to consider this matter because the hon. Member did give me notice of his intention to raise this point of order before the House. I appreciate his references to lost sheep and so on.

The Chair has taken due notice of what has happened here. Sometimes in voting in the House, Members do forget to stand at the appropriate moment and miss the vote. We had for example the hon. Deputy Prime Minister the other day stand up and indicate his intention to have voted for a Government motion and the House gave its unanimous consent to allow his vote to be recorded. It was sought and obtained and the hon. Member says it should be sought. Yes, in most instances I think it is, but not always.

The Chair, in anticipation of this question, last night made arrangements for words to be added to the instructions that were read out to the House before the vote was taken on Private Members’ Business last evening and I should perhaps read them for the hon. Member for Winnipeg–Transcona and for the benefit of all hon. Members. These words were added:

May I remind all hon. Members that if they intend to vote, they must stand when their row is called.

I added again:

All Members must stand when their row is called if they intend to vote.

Those words were added to those pious statements used by the Chair before a vote is called on Private Members’ Business. These are read out as instructions for all hon. Members and I am sure they will be well heeded in future. If we run into this problem and the hon. Member for Winnipeg–Transcona has to raise this kind of issue again, I feel confident that he will be able to make his point more quickly and perhaps ensure that if Members are allowed to vote after their row has been called that the consent of the House is obtained first to permit that.

I notice that in this case, even if all the persons who stood and asked that their votes be recorded after the vote had been taken had been taken out, the result in terms of yeas or nays would have remained the same. In one sense I think the point of order is somewhat academic.

I know the hon. Member is keen to stamp out this kind of wickedness. I know that effort is appreciated by all hon. Members.