Committees / Business of Committees

Time limits on statements by witnesses: committee decision

Debates, pp. 5423-4

Context

After Oral Questions on March 26, 1998, Michel Gauthier (Roberval) rose on a point of order regarding a decision by Peter Adams (Peterborough), Chair of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, to limit the time allowed for statements by witnesses and questions by members during the committee’s proceedings on a privilege matter concerning comments against the Speaker made by a number of members.[1] He argued that the time allowed for members invited to appear before a committee was not equally fair from one time to the next. The Speaker delivered his ruling immediately.[2]

Resolution

The Speaker recalled that his predecessors had ruled time and time again that, unless there was a report before the House, the Chair would not intervene in committee business, and ruled that the matter should be decided by the committee.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I do not want to get into a debate on this because I think that what we are trying to deal with here in the House is a matter that should be dealt with in the committee. It is up to the committee to decide if its [Chair] was within parliamentary practices. In any case, it has been the longstanding practice of the House not to intervene until we have a report from the committee.

I would prefer that this matter be dealt with in committee. From what I am getting from the interventions so far there may have been an idea that there was to be a limit of time. I am just repeating what I seem to have heard here. If that is the case, perhaps it can be worked out.

I do not want to get into a debate but I am prepared to listen to a few more interventions providing that we give pertinent information on this specific point of order.

Editor’s Note

The Speaker then hears other members.

I have heard the interventions of four or five members on this point of order. My view is that when we set up a committee of this House, it is set up by the House to carry out the orders of the House. My predecessors have ruled time and time again that unless there is a report before the House, the Chair does not intervene.

If this is a misunderstanding of some kind, it should be worked out in the committee with the committee members. I hope it can be worked out.

I will leave this point of order where it is. I suggest that whatever points of order are brought up here in terms of extra time or whatever is needed can be brought up in the committee. They should be dealt with there. I will leave this right here, right now.

P0903-e

36-1

1998-03-26

Some third-party websites may not be compatible with assistive technologies. Should you require assistance with the accessibility of documents found therein, please contact accessible@parl.gc.ca.

[1] On March 9, 1998, Peter MacKay (Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough) rose on a question of privilege concerning statements attributed to members of the House in an article that had appeared in the March 8 edition of the Ottawa Sun. According to Mr. MacKay, the statements constituted an overt attempt to intimidate the Speaker of the House with respect to a ruling that he was to deliver on the use of the flag in a demonstration aimed at causing a disorder in the House. The Speaker found that there was a prima facie case. Mr. MacKay moved the motion that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which was adopted (Debates, March 9, 1998, pp. 4566-75; Journals, March 10, 1998, pp. 550-1).

[2] Debates, March 26, 1998, pp. 5422-4.