The Decision-making Process / Miscellaneous

Recorded divisions: Members rising to request a deferred recorded division not in their assigned seats

January 30, 2003

Debates, p. 2926

On January 29, 2003, Louis Plamondon (Bas-Richelieu–Nicolet–Bécancour) rose on a point of order to protest that the Members who had risen to request a deferred recorded division on a motion had not been in their assigned places. He argued therefore that the motion before the House should not be subject to a recorded division as it had been disposed of.^[1] The Acting Speaker (Réginald Bélair) responded by informing Mr. Plamondon that five Members had risen “halfway” and were accordingly recognized as having requested a deferred recorded division on the motion. After hearing from another Member, the Acting Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On January 30, 2003, the Acting Speaker delivered his ruling. Citing the Standing Orders and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000, he affirmed that Members did not have to be in their assigned places when rising to request a recorded division and that there had therefore been no procedural irregularity.

Decision of the Chair

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Bélair): Before we begin Orders of the Day I have a statement arising out of the business of yesterday.

When the House last considered the report stage of Bill C-13, An Act respecting assisted human reproduction, the Chair was in the midst of putting the question on the motions in Group No. 4. In response to points of order raised at that time, the Chair undertook to review the blues and to report back to the House when the bill was next considered. I am now in a position to do so.

I want to first deal with the point of order raised by the hon. Member for Bas-Richelieu–Nicolet–Bécancour arguing that Members must be in their seats if they are to be counted when rising to demand a recorded division on a question. I refer hon. Members first to the text of Standing Order 45(1) which reads as follows:

Upon a division, the yeas and nays shall not be entered in the Journals unless demanded by five members.

Elaborating on this rule, Marleau and Montpetit states at page 483, footnote 241:

When a question arose as to whether or not Members rising to request a recorded division were required to do so from their assigned places in the House, the Deputy Speaker stated that the rule does not impose such a requirement. (Debates, June 23, 1992, p. 12686)

Thus, there is no irregularity in Members not having been in their place when they rose to demand a recorded division on any motion.

Now, to the results of the review of the blues. As the tape and the transcript clearly indicate, the question was duly put on the amendment to Motion No. 52, Motion No. 53 and Motion No. 55.

Then, an error occurred: the question was not put on Motion No. 61. Instead, the Chair went on to put the question on Motions Nos. 64 and 71. Members will recall that there seemed to be widespread confusion as to what motion was being voted upon. This confusion may have been caused by the error made when the Chair inadvertently skipped Motion No. 61.

Accordingly, in fairness to all hon. Members and in an abundance of caution when we resume consideration of Bill C-13, we will recommence the voting at Motion No. 61 and then follow sequentially through the other motions in Group No. 4, namely Motions Nos. 64, 71, 72, 74, 75 and 77.