Committees / Committee Proceedings

Conduct of Chair: interrupting a member of a committee to allow the previous question

November 27, 2002

Debates, pp. 1949-50

On November 21, 2002, Yvon Godin (Acadie–Bathurst) rose on a question of privilege on behalf of his colleague, Joe Comartin (Windsor–St. Clair), because of the requirement that the matter be raised at the earliest opportunity. The question of privilege concerned the conduct of the Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources, Raymond Bonin (Nickel Belt).^[1] At a meeting of the Committee earlier that day, Mr. Bonin had interrupted Mr. Comartin during debate on a motion to summon a witness to appear before the Committee in connection with its study of Bill C-4, An Act to amend the Nuclear Safety and Control Act, to allow Benoît Serré (Timiskaming–Cochrane) to move that the question be now put despite the objections of Mr. Comartin. Mr. Serré’s motion had been agreed to and the Chair had immediately called for a vote on the main motion.^[2] Mr. Godin, citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000, argued that the meeting should have been suspended or adjourned. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker stated that, although the Chair is not an appeal court for decisions by committee Chairs, he would review the transcript of the meeting in question and return to the House with a ruling in due course. Mr. Bonin and Mr. Comartin spoke to the matter on November 25, 2002,^[3] and November 26, 2002,^[4] respectively.

On November 27, 2002, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded Members of the long-standing tradition of the House that committees are masters of their own proceedings and that the Speaker is seized with a committee matter only when the committee reports to the House. However, he quoted Mr. Speaker Fraser to remind the House that in very serious and special circumstances, the Speaker might have to pronounce on a committee matter in the absence of a report from the committee. Citing Standing Order 116, he observed that the liberty accorded to committees to organize their business is not absolute; they are expected to follow the rules and practices of the House, unless specific exceptions are provided for. He acknowledged that the use of the previous question is not permitted in committee but noted that the ruling of Chair had not been challenged, as is permitted in committees. Consequently, the Speaker concluded that the issue was within the power of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources to resolve and he declined to intervene.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst on behalf of the hon. Member for Windsor–St. Clair concerning events in the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources on Thursday, November 21, 2002.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for having drawn this matter to the Chair’s attention as well as the hon. Government House Leader and the hon. Members for South Shore, Sherbrooke and Saint-Hyacinthe–Bagot for their contributions on this question. I would also like to thank the Member for Nickel Belt, Chair of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources and the hon. Member for Windsor–St. Clair for their later interventions.

It is alleged that, while the hon. Member for Windsor–St. Clair was in the process of speaking on a motion to summon a witness to appear before the Committee, the Chair intervened to suggest that the question be now put on the motion. This was done notwithstanding the fact that the hon. Member for Windsor–St. Clair had not concluded his remarks.

As Speaker, I appreciate the responsibility that I have to defend the rights of all Members and especially those of Members who represent minority views in the House. At the same time, it is a long tradition in this place that committees are masters of their own proceedings. Ordinarily the House is only seized of a committee matter when the committee reports to the House outlining the situation that must be addressed.

However, this is not an absolute requirement. As Speaker Fraser said in a ruling given on March 26, 1990 (Debates, p. 9756):

—in very serious and special circumstances, the Speaker may have to pronounce on a committee matter without the committee having reported to the House.

I listened carefully to the interventions that were made when this question was first raised and I have also examined the blues of the Committee meeting which is at issue.

There are two points I would like to draw to the attention of all Members. First of all, I would remind everyone that the liberty given to committees by the House to organize their business is not an absolute liberty. Standing Order 116 states:

In a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the election of a Speaker, seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

Committees are expected to follow the rules and practices of the House, unless specific exceptions are made, as in the rule just cited. Further, I think all Members will agree that if a committee chooses to exercise its judgment in an area where it is not bound to follow the practices of the House, it must do so in a regular and orderly fashion. By this I mean it ought to proceed by adopting motions that set out the rules that the committee will follow in governing its work.

A second important point to make in this particular circumstance is that the use of the previous question, that is “that the question be now put”, is not permitted in committee.

As House of Commons Procedure and Practice points out at page 786, the previous question is not permitted in any committee of the House, even a Committee of the Whole. This rule is found in all of our authorities dating as far back as the 1st edition of Erskine May in 1844. It is expected, not just by the Speaker, but also by the House itself that its committees will conduct business that is before them with consideration for these time-honoured practices.

That being said, it is true as well that committees are permitted a greater latitude in the conduct of their proceedings than might be allowed in the House. It may not always be clear in a particular set of circumstances how best to proceed and so the ultimate decision is left to the committee itself.

Even the rulings of the Chair of a committee may be made the subject of an appeal to the whole committee. The committee may, if it thinks appropriate, overturn such a ruling. In the case before us, I note that no formal appeal of the Chair’s ruling was made.

Where irregularities occur, or if a committee feels that there has been some disrespect of its authority, the committee may draw the matter to the attention of the House and the Speaker to the problem, by means of a report to the House.

In the present case the Speaker has been asked to reach into the proceedings of the Committee to overturn something that was done there. Such requests have occurred on many occasions in the past and previous Speakers have, without exception, resisted the temptation to intervene.

The issue raised originally by the hon. Member for Acadie–Bathurst concerning the experience of the hon. Member for Windsor–St. Clair is an issue that lies within the power of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs, Northern Development and Natural Resources to resolve. That is where it properly belongs. Although this is a serious matter, it is not one in which the Speaker feels compelled to intervene.

Once again, I would like to thank all hon. Members who intervened on this matter.