Committees / Membership

November 7, 1996

Debates, pp. 6225-6

On October 22, 1996, during Routine Proceedings, Myron Thompson (Wild Rose) rose on a point of order regarding an event that had occurred the previous day at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, which he had attended as a substitute member. He stated that Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair), Chair of the committee, had refused to receive a motion he presented because he was not a regular member of the committee.^[1] On October 28, 1996, before Government Orders, Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley East) again brought up the issue raised by Mr. Thompson. The Chair, he pointed out, had told Mr. Thompson that he could not propose his motion at the committee meeting because he was only a substitute, and had based her reasoning on a rule, adopted by the committee, requiring 48-hours’ notice to move a motion. Bob Kilger (Chief Government Whip) also intervened on the matter.^[2] The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

The Speaker delivered his ruling on November 7, 1996. He stated that the Standing Orders provided a mechanism whereby members who were associate members of a committee could become substitutes for regular members of the committee at a particular meeting. Substitute members are considered on an equal footing with permanent members for the period of substitution and this status is unaffected by internal rules adopted by a committee for its own convenience. The Speaker also expressed the wish that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the member for Fraser Valley East could reach some accommodation in the matter.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on a point of order raised by the honourable member for Fraser Valley East on Monday, October 28, 1996, concerning the status of the honourable member for Wild Rose as a substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.

I thank the honourable member for Fraser Valley East for raising this matter and the chief government whip for his contribution to the discussion.

This matter was first brought to my attention on Tuesday, October 22, 1996, by the honourable member for Wild Rose. At that time he described to the Chair how he had been selected as a substitute from the Reform Party’s list of associate members for the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and in that capacity attended the meeting of the committee on Monday, October 21, 1996. The honourable member claimed that he had attempted to give notice of a motion but was ruled out of order by the Chair on the basis that he was not a regular member of the committee. The member indicated that he had sought a resolution to this matter within the committee and had not been successful.

The matter was raised a second time, on October 28, by the honourable member for Fraser Valley East. In his presentation, he argued that, as a duly selected substitute pursuant to Standing Order 114, the member for Wild Rose should have been permitted to give notice of his motion notwithstanding the committee’s internal rule requiring 48-hour notice for consideration of new business.

Having examined the arguments put forward, I find it appropriate in this instance to offer some clarification.

The Standing Orders provide a mechanism whereby members who are associate members of a committee can become substitutes for regular members of the committee at a particular meeting. I have looked carefully at the working of the relevant Standing Orders and in the case before us, it is clear that the requirements were met and the member for Wild Rose was acting as a bona fide substitute member of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for the meeting on October 28, 1996.

There is no doubt in the Chair’s mind that substitute members should be considered on an equal footing with permanent members for the period of substitution. This status must remain unaffected by any internal rules adopted by a committee for its own convenience, otherwise committees risk having two classes of members at the committee table.

In my ruling on June 20, 1994, at page 5583 of the Debates, to which the honourable member for Fraser Valley East also made reference, I pointed out that:

While it is a tradition of this House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, they cannot establish procedures which go beyond the powers conferred upon them by the House.

Committees have found it efficient to establish their own internal procedures such as the 48-hour notice requirement concerning new items of business that was adopted by the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs at its organization meeting on March 12, 1996. I would encourage members involved in committee work to bear in mind that such internal rules and procedures should not be crafted in such a way as to diminish the role of substitute members whose ability to fully function in the committee is a status conferred on them by the House.

There have been difficulties with the understanding of rules and practices regarding substitute members of committees and this is why I found this a suitable opportunity to give my views on the matter.

In the past I have referred to the longstanding practice of the House that the Speaker will not intervene in procedural matters arising in committee. Bearing in mind what I have said, I trust that the members of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs and the honourable member for Fraser Valley East can reach some accommodation in this particular matter.

I hope that my statement today will be of assistance to members and everyone concerned with the work of committees.

P0905-e

35-2

1996-11-07