Committees / Committee of the Whole House

Appeal of the Chair’s ruling

May 27, 2003

Debates, pp. 6592-3

On May 27, 2003, during a sitting of the Committee of the Whole to consider, pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a), the Main Estimates under Justice for 2003-04, Kevin Sorenson (Crowfoot) moved that Vote 1 for the Department of Justice be reduced.^[1] After briefly suspending the sitting, the Chair of the Committee of the Whole (Bob Kilger) allowed the motion to go forward for debate despite expressing reservations about whether or not it was in order. Dale Johnston (Wetaskiwin) rose on a point of order calling for the motion to be put to a vote immediately. The Chair allowed debate to begin, whereupon Mr. Johnston again rose to call for a vote. Geoff Regan (Parliamentary Secretary to Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) then rose on a point of order to argue that Standing Order 81(4)(a) contained no provision for the Committee of the Whole to vote, but rather was strictly for debating the estimates before it. John Cummins (Delta–South Richmond) appealed the Chair’s decision, whereupon, in accordance with the established procedure when such an appeal is made in Committee of the Whole, the Chair left the Table, and reported the incident to the Speaker who had resumed the Chair.^[2]

The Speaker ruled immediately. Citing Standing Order 101(1) which provided that the Standing Orders of the House were to be observed in Committees of the Whole with the exception of the seconding of motions, the limit on the number of times Members may speak and the length of speeches, and House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000, which specified that debate must proceed on an amendment once it has been moved, he ruled that the motion moved by Mr. Sorenson was indeed debatable. Accordingly, the Speaker sustained the decision of the Chair of the Committee of the Whole.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the appeal of the Chair’s decision taken earlier this evening in the Committee of the Whole.

The issue before us is whether the motion moved by the hon. Member for Crowfoot is subject to debate when the hon. Member for Delta–South Richmond has asked that the Committee proceed immediately to vote on that motion.

Standing Order 101(1) states:

The Standing Orders of the House shall be observed in Committees of the Whole so far as may be applicable, except the Standing Orders as to the seconding of motions, limiting the number of times of speaking and the length of speeches.

These are the only exceptions, nor can your Speaker find any provision that would suggest proceeding differently either in the Special Order adopted earlier today to govern this debate or in the terms of Standing Order 81(4) under which this debate is being held.

Similarly, Marleau and Montpetit at page 779 states clearly:

When an amendment is moved, debate must proceed on the amendment until it is disposed of.

In this case, the Committee of the Whole is meeting pursuant to Standing Order 81(4)(a) to consider the Main Estimates under Justice. The hon. Member for Crowfoot has proposed a motion to reduce Vote 1 for the Department of Justice by $100 million. That motion is indeed debatable.

Accordingly, the ruling of the Chair of the Committee of the Whole is sustained. I do now leave the Chair so the debate in Committee of the Whole may resume.

After the Speaker delivered his ruling, Mr. Cummins rose on a point of order to ask for clarification. The Speaker responded by explaining that the situation in Committees of the Whole is different from that in Standing Committees in which a vote is taken to decide an appeal to the ruling of the Chair. In contrast, in Committees of the Whole, an appeal to the ruling of the Chair is made to the Speaker. Referring to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2000, he explained that: “As with all Speaker’s rulings, after it has been delivered by the Speaker, there is no appeal and no discussion is allowed.” He continued to say that “since the Committee had not risen and reported progress, as soon as the appeal proceedings are completed, the Speaker leaves the Chair, the mace is removed from the Table and the Committee of the Whole resumes its deliberations.”^[3]