Committees / Committee Proceedings

Previous question inadmissible in committee; appealing the Chair’s ruling

March 23, 2015

Debates, pp. 12179–80

On February 27, 2015, Peter Julian (Burnaby—New Westminster) rose on a point of order with respect to the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security during its meeting of February 26, 2015, on Bill C-51, An Act to enact the Security of Canada Information Sharing Act and the Secure Air Travel Act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act and to make related and consequential amendments to other Acts. At this meeting, a motion for the previous question, which would put an end to debate, was moved and deemed out of order by the Chair of the Committee. The decision was appealed and the Chair’s ruling was overturned, leading to the motion being passed, which put an end to the debate.^[1] Mr. Julian charged that this inadmissible motion could not be moved in committee, thereby contravening the Standing Orders, nor could the Chair’s ruling be overturned when it was in keeping with the Standing Orders. He also maintained that debate could not be cut short and that the Committee must continue debating until all those wishing to speak had had the opportunity to do so. Another Member made comments. In response, Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) said that, faced with systematic obstruction, the Committee, as the master of its own proceedings, was free to make its own decisions and overturn the Chair’s ruling. He contended that, in the absence of a Committee report on these events, an intervention from the Speaker would go against the practices of the House. The Deputy Speaker (Joe Comartin) took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On March 23, 2015, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He reminded Members that committees enjoy considerable flexibility and latitude in their proceedings in order to foster greater co-operation among committee members so that they may find their own solutions to issues they face. He recognized that, while this latitude should not be used to thwart existing rules, it is also not desirable to have committee deliberations brought to a procedural standstill.

He then mentioned the reluctance of the Chair to intervene in a committee’s proceedings, given that committees have the freedom to determine their own approaches to carrying out their work. For that reason, he indicated that the Chair must refrain from intervening unless the Committee has formally invited the Speaker to do so by way of a report. In the absence of a report, and given the circumstances, he concluded that he could not intervene and that the Committee would maintain its exclusive jurisdiction over the management of its proceedings; however, he reminded Members that the Standing Orders provide avenues to deal with situations where the parties have difficulty reaching an agreement.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised by the House Leader of the Official Opposition regarding events which took place in the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security on February 26, 2015.

I would like to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition for raising this matter, as well as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and the Member for Winnipeg North for their comments.

The House Leader for the Official Opposition described the sequence of events at issue in the following manner. The Member for Northumberland—Quinte West having moved the previous question during debate on a subamendment to the motion regarding the schedule of meetings for the study of Bill C-51, Anti-terrorism Act, 2015, the Chair of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security ruled it out of order. His ruling was then appealed and overturned by a vote of the Committee, effectively allowing a procedurally inadmissible motion to pass and ending debate on the matter. He considered this manner of proceeding to be unacceptable, one in which parliamentary rules, practices and precedents were ignored.

The Government House Leader, for his part, summarized the events somewhat differently. He claimed that it was in response to a filibuster that the Member for Northumberland—Quinte West asked the Chair to put the question to a vote, citing persistence, repetition and irrelevance on the part of certain members of the Committee. Furthermore, he noted that the Members were within their right to overturn the Chair’s ruling pursuant to the rules of the House. He argued that the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security must remain the Committee’s exclusive concern unless and until it reported this matter to the House, given that committees were masters of their own proceedings and that Speakers had resisted adjudicating committee matters in the absence of a report from the committee.

It is not unusual for issues related to committee proceedings to be raised in the House when, for whatever reason, Members feel that they have no other recourse. Needless to say, versions of events often differ significantly.

In the present circumstance, the Chair is concerned by the suggestion that the proceedings that took place in Committee on February 26 threatened to undermine the work of the Committee and that the Committee was unable to find its way to a mutually acceptable solution, even with both sides stating that they wished to proceed with committee consideration of Bill C-51.

Committees enjoy considerable flexibility and fluidity in their proceedings. It is one of the great advantages that they have in the organization of their work. In fact, it is one of the hallmarks of the committee system, since it not only facilitates and fosters greater co-operation among committee members, but it also enables committee members to find their own solutions to the issues they face. Yet this latitude was certainly never intended as a means to thwart existing rules and practices wilfully.

On June 3, 2003, the then Deputy Speaker stated, at page 6775 of the Debates:

I have said that committees are granted much liberty by the House but, along with the right to conduct their proceedings in a way that facilitates their deliberations, committees have a concomitant responsibility to see that the necessary rules and procedures are followed and the rights of Members and the Canadian public are respected.

Just as importantly, it has always been understood that bringing deliberations in committee to a procedural standstill is also not desirable.

The work of committees is an essential part of the legislative process; its integrity depends on Members remembering that the rules governing its proceedings matter. The rules adopted by the House exist for the benefit and protection of all Members as they carry out their parliamentary functions, both in the House and in committee.

It is perhaps useful in the circumstances to remind the House of the underlying principle, as stated on page 250 of O’Brien and Bosc, that:

 … parliamentary procedure is intended to ensure that there is a balance between the government’s need to get its business through the House, and the opposition’s responsibility to debate that business without completely immobilizing the proceedings of the House.

Faced with such a situation arising in committee, how is the Speaker to adjudicate? As has been noted, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 1046 that:

The Speaker is reluctant to intervene in a committee’s internal affairs unless the committee has previously reported on the matter to the House.

This is so because of the freedom that committees have to determine their own approaches to carrying out their work. For this reason, committees are commonly referred to as being “masters of their proceedings”. This is why it is said that matters originating in committee which require the attention of the House must be brought forward by way of a report from the Committee itself. This is not merely a technicality. Rather, it is an indication of the breadth and importance of the powers delegated to committees by the House.

The approach taken by the Chair in cases brought to its attention has long been founded on respect for the authority of committees to manage their own affairs, even in times of difficulty. This requires the Chair to refrain from intervening until invited to do so formally by way of a report from the Committee itself on a given matter. Speakers have consistently and successively upheld this separation of authorities.

On June 10, 2010, Speaker Milliken stated, at page 3678 of Debates:

Indeed, on numerous occasions, Speakers have restated the cardinal rule that committees are masters of their own proceedings and any alleged irregularities occurring in committees can be taken up in the House only following a report from the Committee itself. There have been very few exceptions to this rule.

On March 13, 2012, as Speaker, I had cause to state, at page 6199 of Debates:

In the absence of a report from that Committee, I do not know what the Speaker can do about what is alleged to have happened. However, if such a report does end up coming to the House then the Speaker will consider it then.

Again, on June 5, 2012, at page 8860 of Debates, I stated:

When events transpire at committee, it is up to the Committee to deal with anything that may have breach­ed protocol or the rules at the Committee ... if there is a report present­ed to the House, it will be something that the Speaker can then weigh in on.

This is not to suggest that the Chair is left without any discretion to intervene in committee matters but, rather, it acknowledges that such intervention is exceedingly rare and justifiable only in highly exceptional procedural as opposed to political circumstances. For example, in a ruling delivered on June 20, 1994, Debates pages 5582 to 5584, Speaker Parent intervened in a committee matter involving two bills that had been reported to the House when the fundamental right of the House to establish the membership of a committee was not respected by a committee that had exceeded its powers.

On July 24, 1969, Speaker Lamoureux stated, at page 4183 of Debates:

What hon. Members would like the Chair to do ... is to substitute his judgment for the judgment of certain hon. Members. Can I do this in accordance with the traditions of Canada ... where the Speaker is not the master of the House ...? The Speaker is a servant of the House. Hon. Members may want me to be the master of the House today but tomorrow, when, perhaps in other circumstances I might claim this privilege, they might have a different opinion .... It would make me a hero, I suppose, if I were to adopt the attitude that I could judge political situations such as this and substitute my judgment for that of certain hon. Members .... But I do not believe that this is the role of a Speaker under our system ....

In keeping with the overwhelming body of practice in adjudicating disputes of this kind, the Chair cannot find sufficient grounds in this case to supplant the Committee’s authority by reaching into committee proceedings on this matter before the Committee has seen fit to report it to the House.

Thus, until such time as the Standing Committee on Public Safety and National Security decides to report this matter to the House, the management of its proceedings remains within its exclusive purview.

Before concluding, I would however be remiss if I did not point out that the Standing Orders, as they exist today, provide avenues to deal with difficulties in reaching agreements between the parties in circumstances such as those brought before the House in this case.

I thank all hon. Members for their attention in this matter.