Committees / Committee Exceeding Its Authority

Committee proceedings; expunging testimony-mention in the Minutes of Proceedings; order and decorum; non-interference by the Speaker in committee proceedings; unparliamentary remarks by a witness-refusal to withdraw his remarks; committee powers

March 16, 1993

Debates, pp. 17071-2

On March 10, 1993, the Legislative Committee on Bill C-113, An Act to provide for government expenditure restraint heard testimony from a representative of the International Association of Machinists and Aerospace Workers. During his appearance, the witness made comments to which several Members took exception. Following the refusal of the witness to heed the requests of Members to withdraw his remarks, the Committee agreed to a motion to expunge his testimony from the record.

  March 11, 1993, Mr. Cid Samson (Timmins-Chapleau) rose on a question of privilege to argue that the actions by the Committee the previous day were akin to censorship and could potentially affect the functioning of all Committees of the House. In the Member's opinion, Committees did not have the right to expunge verbatim records of committee proceedings, because it would leave an imperfect record of the testimony heard and this could create problems for those who dissent from the majority committee opinions in reports. Mr. Samson concluded by requesting that the motion for expunging testimony be declared void; that the expunged testimony be restored, or, alternatively, that the witness be invited to appear again before the Committee; that a declaration be made that expunging testimony was unacceptable; and that the question of the conduct of certain Members of the Legislative Committee be referred to the appropriate committee for consideration.

After hearing comments from the Chairman (Mr. Doug Fee) and other Committee members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1] His decision, handed down on March 16, 1993, reiterates the points raised by the Members and is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: On March 11, 1993 the honourable Member for Timmins­ Chapleau raised a question of privilege concerning an occurrence in the Legislative Committee on Bill C-113 the previous day. Members of the Committee had found remarks made by a witness to be offensive; and after the witness had refused repeated requests from both sides of the Committee table and from the Chair to withdraw the remark, the Committee had agreed to a motion that his evidence be expunged from the Committee's record.

The honourable Member indicated that the action taken was not within the Committee's powers because committee evidence and the testimony of witnesses before the committee are privileged; because the correction of the record, which is within the power of committee, cannot extend to the expunging of whole sections of the verbatim transcript, and finally because a majority of the Committee's members had acted to silence the witness. He also suggested that the Chairman of the Committee might have intervened during the hearing of the testimony to caution the witness or even to eject him.

In support of this position the honourable Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Hon. Warren Allmand) added that the extreme measure taken, of expunging the entire testimony because of one unacceptable statement, was unprecedented in his experience and contrary to democratic parliamentary procedures.

The honourable Member for Red Deer, the Chairman of the Committee, then briefly related the events in question from the Committee Chair's perspective. He indicated that he had been reluctant to interrupt the testimony at some earlier points on account of questionable remarks and that "one extremely inflammatory statement" had come at the very end of the testimony. At that time he had asked the witness to withdraw the remark. During the subsequent discussion he and other Members had repeated this request; but when the motion to strike out the witness' testimony was proposed he felt he had no choice but to put it before the Committee.

The honourable Member for Ontario (Mr. Rene Soetens) who had proposed in Committee the motion which has been brought to the Speaker's attention, argued that the Committee's action was in order because a Committee like the House has the power to enforce the rules of order and civility on all those within its ambit and also the power to order the exclusion of the public from its meetings. He also pointed out that the House had not yet received the report from the Committee relating to this question citing Beauchesne Sixth Edition, Citation 107, which states that the House deals with a question of privilege arising in committee on report from that committee.

I would like to thank the Members who contributed to the discussion on this point for the conciseness and restraint they have shown in making their arguments. The events occurring in Committee were clearly such as to cause strong feelings, and the Chair appreciates the rationality and objectivity with which all Members put their points of view.

I would particularly like to thank the honourable Member for Red Deer for his help. He seemed at one point to be beginning to wonder if the Chair of a legislative committee was as great a mark of honour as he had supposed; but I would like to assure him that, in the eyes of the Speaker, selection to the Panels of Chairmen, like election to the Speakership, is a distinct mark of honour if not always good for the nerves.

With regard to the question that has been raised, I need hardly detail to the House the many occasions on which the Chair has clearly stated its reluctance to interfere in the proceedings of a committee. I have already mentioned the quotation by the honourable Member for Ontario of Citation 107 of Beauchesne.

As the House knows, however, this rule is not entirely inflexible. The Speaker may pronounce on such a question if it is very serious or urgent or if there is a lack of direct or recent Canadian practice available for the guidance of Members. Such a departure from regular practice cannot in my opinion be considered a precedent.

There are in fact some Canadian precedents for the deletion of short passages of the Debates of the House because of their unparliamentary or offensive character. The most recent of these that the Chair has been able to find dates from April [5 and 7,] 1933, when the Speaker ruled that an unparliamentary word previously used in the House should be expunged from the Debates of that day.^[2]

May 21st edition at pages 634 [and 635] states that Committees have expunged evidence which is "improper or inadmissible-which properly speaking [was] not evidence-and even the whole of the evidence given by a witness». This is in accord with the implications of our own Standing Order 113(5) which gives a legislative committee the power "to print from day to day such papers and evidence as may be ordered by it"; and therefore necessarily the power to decide not to print.

The procedural objections raised to the committee's action were, very briefly, because testimony is privileged and because the correction of the record cannot extend to wholesale deletion. It seems to the Chair that the privileged nature of testimony mentioned in Beauchesne Sixth Edition at Citation 106 refers to the witness' immunity from prosecution rather than to any inviolability of the evidence itself. I agree that what was done in this case is not a correction as envisaged in Beauchesne Sixth Edition, Citation 828, but rather as I have mentioned a decision not to exercise the power which the Committee undoubtedly possesses.

Such a decision by a committee would of course be noted in its Minutes of Proceedings and Erskine May suggests, at page 636 of his 21st edition, that "the committee-indicate in the evidence as printed the places in the text where material has been omitted." I understand in the present case these measures have been taken.

In conclusion, the Chair must find that the actions taken by the Committee, as outlined by its Chairman, were within its powers and that the matter raised by the honourable Member for Timmins—Chapleau does not under the circumstances constitute a question of privilege.

F0913-e

34-3

1993-03-16