The Decision-making Process / Miscellaneous

Recorded divisions: casting vote

June 23, 2005

Debates, pp. 7694-5

On June 22, 2005, the deferred recorded division on Motion M-228, in relation to a symbol for the House of Commons, in the name of Derek Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River), resulted in an equality of voices (143 yeas and 143 nays). The Deputy Speaker (Chuck Strahl) was therefore required to decide the question with a casting vote. In keeping with the convention that the Chair votes to preserve the status quo, the Deputy Speaker voted against the motion which was accordingly defeated.^[1]

On June 23, 2005, the Speaker ruled on the vote on Motion M-228. He confirmed that the Deputy Speaker had correctly cast his vote in the negative on the procedural grounds that, since no further discussion on the Motion was possible and the House could not reach a decision, it was not for the Chair to decide that the proposal should go forward. He advised Members that, after the vote, Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères–Les Patriotes) had brought to the attention of the Table that he had been erroneously counted as having voted against the motion, when in fact he had remained seated and had not voted. This meant that in the absence of this error, M-228 would have been agreed to by a vote of 143 in favour and 142 against and that he was therefore informing the House of this corrected result. The Speaker directed the Table to correct the Journals of June 22, 2005, to reflect the true decision of the House.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I have an important statement to make to the House about the result of the vote taken yesterday evening on Motion No. 228, which was moved by the hon. Member for Scarborough–Rouge River.

As hon. Members know, the announced result was a tie, with 143 Members recorded as having voted in favour and 143 Members recorded as having voted against.

On hearing that the votes were equally divided on the Motion, the Deputy Speaker correctly gave the casting vote in the negative on the procedural grounds that, since no further discussion on the Motion was possible and the House could not reach a decision, it was not for the Chair to decide that the proposal would go forward.

Some minutes after the Deputy Speaker had cast the deciding vote, and after the House had moved on to other business, it was brought to the attention of the Table that a Member had been erroneously counted as having voted nay. Further verifications were made to confirm that an error had in fact been made and it was discovered that at one point during the vote several Members stood out of sequence and then sat down in quick succession when voting on the motion. In amongst that group of Members was one Member who had remained seated throughout and had not in fact voted, namely the Member for Verchères–Les Patriotes. However, in the confusion, his name had been called and his vote counted with the nays.

Shortly afterward I was informed by the Table Officers that this had occurred. As hon. Members will realize, if this nay vote had not been counted in error, events would have unfolded differently. No tie vote would have occurred, no casting vote would have been required and most significantly Motion No. 228 would have been agreed to by a vote of 143 to 142.

As your Speaker, I always strive to observe the highest ethical standards in the exercise of my duties. Thus, in the present circumstances I have concluded that the decision on Motion No. 228 recorded in yesterday’s Journals cannot stand, given our knowledge that it rests on a single incorrectly recorded vote.

Accordingly, I am informing the House that Motion No. 228 has been agreed to by a vote of 143 yeas to 142 nays and I have directed the Table to correct the Journals of June 22, 2005 so that the true decision of the House may be properly reflected in our official records.

I thank hon. Members for their attention during this rather unusual announcement.

Further to the changed result of the vote on Motion M-228, Michel Gauthier (Roberval–Lac-Saint-Jean) rose on a point of order to call for a new vote to be taken. After hearing from a number of Members, the Speaker, acknowledging that there was no agreement on having another vote, suggested that the House Leaders and Whips have a discussion about whether to have another vote. If they had agreed another vote was necessary, it would have taken place later that same day.^[2]

 There was no second vote on the motion.