Committees / Committee Proceedings

Conduct of Chair: questions to witness ruled out of order; alleged breach of Member’s freedom of speech

April 18, 2002

Debates, pp. 10539-40

On March 19, 2002, Francine Lalonde (Mercier) rose on a question of privilege arising from the decision of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, Jean Augustine (Etobicoke–Lakeshore), to rule certain questions out of order at the meeting of the Committee held earlier that day.^[1] Ms. Lalonde argued that the Committee had the right to question Order in Council appointee Alfonso Gagliano, pursuant to Standing Order 111(2), on his qualifications and competence for the position of Canadian Ambassador to Denmark. She charged that the Chair had exceeded her authority in deciding not to allow members of the Committee to pose questions concerning the appointee’s previous ministerial experience. She alleged that her privileges had been breached since the decision of the Chair, which had been unsuccessfully appealed, had infringed upon her freedom of speech. After other Members had spoken, Ralph Goodale (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians), argued that this was simply a dispute among members of the Committee as to the nature of the Committee’s work and that since committees are masters of their own proceedings, it was up to the Committee to resolve any disagreement amongst its members. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On April 18, 2002, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared that, since committees were masters of their own proceedings, they were responsible for resolving their own procedural disputes. He cited a ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser, to the effect that the conduct of a committee Chair is for the committee to judge unless and until it elects to report the matter to the House. He reminded the House that when some members of the Committee had appealed the Chair’s ruling to disallow certain questions directed at Mr. Gagliano, the ruling had been upheld. The Speaker concluded that he could not substitute his judgment for a decision taken by a committee or a committee Chair or become an additional recourse for appealing decisions taken by a committee.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member from Mercier on March 19, 2002, relating to actions of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade during the Committee’s examination of Mr. Alfonso Gagliano as Order in Council appointee to the position of ambassador to Denmark.

I thank the hon. Member for Mercier for raising this question as well as the hon. Members for Burnaby–Douglas, Portage–Lisgar, Cumberland–Colchester, Winnipeg–Transcona, the former Member for Gander–Grand Falls, the hon. Government House Leader, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works and Government Services and the hon. Member for Pictou–Antigonish–Guysborough who all spoke to the matter.

The hon. Member for Mercier, in raising the matter, argued that her parliamentary privileges were violated when the Chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade disallowed certain of her questions, thus, in the Member’s view, hindering her right to question fully the witness’s qualifications and competence as ambassador-designate.

The hon. Member explained that she and other members of the Committee had attempted to question the appointee as provided in Standing Order 111(2) that is, they wanted to “examine the qualifications and competence of the… nominee to perform the duties of the post to which he… has been appointed”.

In support of the legitimacy of her line of questioning the hon. Member also cited House of Commons Procedure and Practice, page 876, which states:

Any question may be permitted if it can be shown that it relates directly to the appointee’s or nominee’s ability to do the job.

The hon. Member argued that the Committee Chair had exceeded her authority. By excluding questions about the ambassador-designate’s previous work experience, the Chair prevented Members from asking appropriate questions regarding the candidate’s ability to fulfill his duties.

Furthermore, all hon. Members who spoke to the matter raised the issue of freedom of speech as being fundamental to the work of parliamentarians.

In reviewing the facts of the matter, I found that the arguments presented by hon. Members set out the difficulty clearly and concisely. However, as Members know from many previous rulings rendered in this place, it has been the consistent position of past Speakers—and I have shared that position—that committees are masters of their own destinies. It is with the committee itself that lies the responsibility for resolving its own procedural disputes. These are matters in which Speakers have, almost invariably, chosen—wisely in my opinion—not to interfere.

I wish to draw to the attention of hon. Members a previous ruling made in the House some years ago by Speaker Fraser, with regard to actions taken by the then Chair of the Standing Committee on Finance. In his ruling of March 26, 1990, Speaker Fraser made the following comments:

A committee chairman is elected by the committee. Like the Speaker, he is the servant of the body that elected him or her. The chairman is accountable to the committee, and that committee should be the usual venue where his or her conduct is pronounced upon, unless and until the committee chooses to report to the House, which the Committee has not yet opted to do.

Unlike those of the Speaker, the decisions of committee Chairs are subject to appeal. This represents an important indication of the independence of committees.

It is my understanding that, in the situation before us, the ruling of the committee Chair with regard to the disallowance of certain lines of questioning was appealed but that the Chair’s decision was upheld. While I understand the frustrations of the hon. Members, I cannot substitute my judgment for a decision taken either by a committee Chair or by a committee itself; the Chair cannot become an additional recourse for appealing decisions in committee. Committees must remain masters of their own procedure.

I am confident that committee Chairs continue to be mindful of their responsibilities to make fair and balanced rulings based on the democratic traditions of this place. Members of committees must also strive to resolve procedural issues in a manner which ensures that the rules are followed and that committee deliberations are balanced and productive for those committees.

Again, I thank all hon. Members for their interventions in this matter.