Committees / Committee Proceedings

Committees sitting during a recorded division in the House

March 22, 2007

Debates, pp. 7796-7

On March 1, 2007, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology, James Rajotte (Edmonton–Leduc), rose on a point of order in relation to a decision made during a meeting of the Committee on February 28, 2007, to continue sitting despite the sounding of the division bells. Mr. Rajotte noted that, in order to allow the members of the Committee to proceed to the House, two motions to adjourn had been moved but that these had been defeated.^[1] He argued that this created a conflict between his duty as a Member to vote in the House and his responsibility as a Chair of a committee to uphold decisions of a committee. He added that the House has first claim upon the attendance and services of its Members. Mr. Rajotte concluded by requesting that the Speaker clarify the rules. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker cited a ruling by Mr. Speaker Fraser from March 20, 1990. He stated that the matter appeared to be a grievance rather than a point of order. He noted that Mr. Speaker Fraser had asked the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges to consider recommending changes to the rules in this regard. The Speaker then took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On March 22, 2007, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted that, since the ruling of Mr. Speaker Fraser that he had previously cited, no relevant changes to the rules and practices of the House regarding the powers of committees to sit while the House is sitting. Acknowledging that Mr. Rajotte’s grievance reflected a chronic and unresolved ambiguity in the practice of the House, he suggested that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider the matter and report its recommendations to the House. The Speaker also suggested that committees might wish to adopt their own rules to deal with this issue.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on March 1, 2007 by the hon. Member for Edmonton–Leduc in which he requested clarification of the rules applicable to the adjournment of meetings of standing committees of the House.

I wish to thank the hon. Member for raising this matter in a point of order and I note for the record his courtesy in stating that it was not his intention to criticize in any way the actions of the members and staff of the Committee.

In raising this matter, the hon. Member stated that during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Industry, Science and Technology on Wednesday, February 28, the bells were rung to summon Members to the Chamber for a recorded division. Shortly thereafter, in order to allow Members to proceed to the House, two motions to adjourn the meeting of the Committee were proposed and defeated, the majority on the Committee choosing to continue debate on the motion then under consideration.

The hon. Member cited pages 856 and 857 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice which states that the Chair of a committee must ensure:

… that the deliberations adhere to established practices and rules, as well as to any particular requirements which the committee may have imposed upon itself and its members.

The hon. Member for Edmonton–Leduc then called the attention of the Chair to what he perceived as a contradiction between his duty to respect the decisions of the Committee and his duty to vote in the House of Commons. Invoking the principle that “the House has first claim upon the attendance and services of its Members”, he expressed the view that in the event of a conflict with other parliamentary duties, a Member’s duty to the House should take precedence.

In closing, the hon. Member for Edmonton–Leduc sought guidance from the Speaker to assist committee Chairs and members to address similar circumstances in the future.

In responding to the arguments made by the hon. Member for Edmonton–Leduc, I said that it appeared to me at first glance that the issue was a grievance rather than a point of order.

Having now had the opportunity to consider the matter further, I must return to the comments that I made at the time. Honourable Members may recall that I made reference to a ruling delivered by Mr. Speaker Fraser on the same issue. I refer again to pages 9512 and 9513 of the Debates for March 20, 1990. Mr. Speaker Fraser had observed at the time that:

Committees sitting at the same time as bells are sounded to call members into the House for a recorded division continues to be a problem in the eyes of some hon. members.

I noted as well that Mr. Speaker Fraser had referred to previous rulings from the Chair in 1971, 1976, 1978 and 1981 on this question.

Since Mr. Speaker Fraser ruled on this question in 1990, there have been no changes to the rules and practices of the House material to this issue. The Standing Orders clearly confer upon both standing and legislative committees of the House the power “to sit while the House is sitting” and “to sit during periods when the House stands adjourned”. I refer the hon. Member to Standing Order 108(1)(a) and Standing Order 113(5). There is no provision elsewhere in the rules which might have the effect of limiting the exercise of these powers.

Furthermore, House of Commons Procedure and Practice on page 840 states:

While committees usually adjourn or suspend their proceedings when the division bells summon Members to the Chamber for a vote, committees may continue to sit while a vote is being held.

The Chair acknowledges that the grievance brought forth by the hon. Member for Edmonton–Leduc appears to reflect a chronic and still unresolved ambiguity in our practice. As Mr. Speaker Fraser did when this question was raised some years ago, I would suggest that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs consider this matter and report to the House. In its Report, the Committee could recommend appropriate directives or changes to our rules.

In addition, I would like to remind hon. Members that there is no obstacle to a committee adopting a motion setting out how it will respond to the ringing of the division bells. It might be helpful for committees to consider including such motions among their routine motions.

I regret that there is no relief the Chair can offer the hon. Member for Edmonton–Leduc at this time but I thank him for raising this important question.

On May 9, 2007, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its Forty-Eighth Report to the House recommending an amendment to Standing Order 115 requiring Chairs of committees to suspend committee meetings when the division bells are sounded, unless unanimous consent was obtained to continue the sitting. The Report was concurred in later that day.^[3]