The Decision-making Process / Miscellaneous

Recorded divisions: Members recorded as having voted twice on the same motion

March 31, 2010

Debates, pp. 1218-9

On March 23, 2010, Rodger Cuzner (Cape Breton–Canso) rose on a point of order during the taking of a recorded division to concur in interim supply. Before the Speaker had asked for those opposed, Mr. Cuzner stated that, in their haste, some Members of the Official Opposition had voted in favour of the motion when they had intended to vote against it and he requested that their first votes be struck from the record. The Speaker replied that he would continue with the vote before addressing any irregularities.^[1] After the vote, and before the Clerk of the House had announced the results, Yvon Godin (Acadie–Bathurst) rose on a point of order. He asked the Speaker whether the Members who had voted twice would have both their votes counted. After the result of the division had been announced, the Speaker noted that the five Members in question, having voted both for and against the motion, had thus cancelled out their votes. Mr. Godin then argued that only the first vote by the Members of the Official Opposition should be counted, since Members should not be permitted to vote twice on a motion. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On March 31, 2010, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded Members that points of order should not be allowed during the taking of a recorded division. He cautioned that, in this particular situation, he had done so due to the confusion and noise surrounding the vote but that his action should not be viewed as a precedent. He stated that this was not the first occasion on which Members had voted both yea and nay on the same vote. He noted that a review of past practice was unclear as to how such situations should be handled; changes to the voting record had been made in some cases as the result of Members clarifying their intentions, and in others when the consent of the House had been sought and granted. Since, in this instance, consent had not been granted for the first votes to be struck from the record, the Speaker ruled that the Members who had voted twice would remain on the record as having voted both yea and nay.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I would like to make a statement about the events which occurred with relation to the recorded divisions taken on March 23, 2010. I would like to thank the hon. Whip of the New Democratic Party and the hon. Whip of the Bloc Québécois for their interventions on the matter.

During the taking of recorded division No. 12 last Tuesday, several Members of the Official Opposition rose to vote on the motion when the nays had not yet been called. In response to calls from the floor to clarify what Members were voting on, I interjected in the middle of the vote to state that I had not yet asked for those opposed to the motion to rise.

Immediately thereafter, the Chief Opposition Whip rose on a point of order seeking to have the votes stricken from the record. I proposed that we conclude taking the Yeas, before proceeding to the taking of the votes on the Nays. The hon. Whip of the NDP objected that his party had found itself in a similar situation before, and had been denied consent to change their votes.

Following the taking of the division, further discussion ensued. At that time, the New Democratic Party Whip added that it should be the first vote cast that should count.

Before I address the specific issues raised concerning this vote, I would like to confirm that it is our long-standing practice that points of order are not entertained during the taking of a recorded division. Given the high level of noise and confusion surrounding this vote, I accepted to hear points of order in an effort to clarify the situation, but this should not have happened and my actions on this occasion should not be viewed as a precedent. Points of order related to the taking of divisions should continue to be raised after the results of a division are announced.

With regard to the vote taken last week, Members may be surprised to learn that it is not unheard of for Members to vote twice, that is, both yea and nay.

Members should understand that when they rise to vote, the vote caller is obliged to call their names, even if they have already voted. Furthermore, a review of our past practice has failed to provide guidance on how to address this kind of issue. For instance, in some cases, Members have simply clarified their intentions and the record was corrected.

I would invite Members to consult the Debates of May 7, 2008, at page 5571 and the Debates of December 12, 2007, at page 2118 for examples of that approach.

At other times, consent has been sought to have the votes cast in error to be corrected and recorded as the Member actually intended. See the April 9, 2008 Debates at page 4709 for such an occurrence. If consent is granted by the House, the record is corrected; if it is denied, or if the duplication goes unnoticed, the original count showing Members voting twice is left unchanged. Examples of such duplicate votes can be found recorded in the Journals of March 5, 2008, Division No. 57, and September 28, 2005, Division No. 102.

In the case referred to by the Whip of the New Democratic Party and the Whip of the Bloc Québécois—which as far as the Chair can tell took place during a division taken on October 16, 2006—the House was faced with a significantly different circumstance. Contrary to what happened last week, the votes for the NDP had been counted only once, but on the wrong side of the question. Then, when consent was sought to have their votes recorded differently, consent was denied, just as it was denied last week.

In this case, the House has been consistent in its actions. The March 23, 2010 Journals show that the names of several Members are recorded as having voted both yea and nay for Division No. 12 and consent was denied to have those duplicates recorded only as nays. Accordingly, the results of Division No. 12 as recorded in the Journals will stand.

However, there appears to have been an error in recording Divisions Nos. 13, 14 and 15. I have discussed the matter with the parties and I can now confirm that it was the intention of the House to apply the results of Division No. 8, not Division No. 12, to votes 13, 14 and 15. I therefore direct that the Journals be corrected accordingly.

I thank all hon. Members for their interventions and trust that future votes will proceed smoothly, starting with those this evening.