Committees / Reports

September 23, 1996

Debates, pp. 4560-2

On September 16, 1996, at the commencement of business, Jack Ramsay (Crowfoot) raised a question of privilege regarding the decision of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, not to report Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Criminal Code, which was referred to the committee by the House on March 12, 1996. Citing Beauchesne, Mr. Ramsay argued that only the House, and not a committee, had the authority to make such a decision, and that the committee therefore had an obligation to report back to the House.^[1] On June 19, 1996, John Nunziata (York South—Weston) had raised a point of privilege on the same subject.^[2] Don Boudria (Chief Government Whip) reminded the Chair that a similar situation had occurred during the previous Parliament, and that Speaker Fraser had ruled on February 26, 1992, that the matter did not constitute a breach of the privileges of a member.^[3] After listening to the opinions of various other members, the Speaker reserved his decision.

The Speaker delivered his decision on September 23, 1996. He stated that the bill was the property of the House, which had entrusted it to the Justice Committee for examination. If the House was of the opinion that the bill had been with the committee too long, it could look into the matter. He ruled that there had been no breach of privilege, because the members’ capacity to carry out their duties had not been impaired.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the honourable member for Crowfoot on September 16, 1996, concerning the proceedings of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs on Bill C-234, An Act to amend the Criminal Code.

I would like to thank the chief government whip, the honourable members for St. Albert, Mission—Coquitlam, Fraser Valley East, Lethbridge, Prince George—Bulkley Valley, Calgary North, Okanagan—Shuswap, Wild Rose, and Yorkton—Melville, and the sponsor of the bill, the honourable member for York South—Weston, for their contributions in this matter.

In their comments, members informed the House that the Standing Committee had dealt with the bill, defeating every clause, and had decided not to report the bill back to the House. In his submission, the honourable member for Crowfoot stated that the committee had breached his privileges as a member of the House by having voted in its meeting of June 18, 1996, not to report Bill C-234 back to the House. He also contended that members of the Justice Committee were in contempt of Parliament for their actions.

Any matter concerning the privileges of members, particularly any matter which may constitute a contempt of the House, is always taken very seriously by the Speaker.

It should be made clear at the outset—and this is a longstanding principle—that it is not for the Chair to get involved in matters within a committee unless there is something so extreme and so blatant that it goes beyond accepted limits and constitutes a contempt of the House or, in some inordinate way, a breach of privilege on an honourable member.

As noted in Beauchesne 6th edition, citation 24, which was quoted in part by the honourable member for Crowfoot, “the privileges of Parliament are rights which are absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers”. As honourable members know, these privileges are precious. They exist in order to ensure that members individually and the House as a whole can properly discharge their functions as the elected representatives of Canadians.

But at the same time, parliamentary privilege is limited. It ensures freedom of speech and, by extension, the right of every member to vote freely on matters before the House. It also ensures that the House has the unimpeded service of its members. Finally, privilege exists to maintain the authority and the dignity of the House. While the matter before us is serious, I am more inclined to view it as a substantive grievance rather than as a question of privilege.

That being said, this grievance is serious enough that it warrants further comments.

As all members know, committees are the creatures of the House. When a bill is referred to a committee, that committee is empowered to examine that bill, amend it if in the opinion of the committee it is in need of amendment, and to report the bill to the House with or without amendment. These powers are explicitly stated in citation 831(2) of Beauchesne 6th edition, which was quoted by several members. While it is often said that committees are masters of their own destiny, they do remain subsidiary to the House and cannot substitute themselves for the main body. Bourinot’s commentary in his 4th edition, at pages 520 and 521 makes this quite clear. It states:

Every committee on a public bill is bound to report thereon. The House alone has power to prevent its passage or to order its withdrawal.

This comment is based on a Canadian precedent dated May 14, 1886, and is found in the Senate Debates at pages 516 and 517.

On the other hand, unless the House specifically sets a date for a committee to report a bill back to the House, the bill remains in the possession of the committee until such time as it is reported to the House. While a committee should always endeavour to report a bill to the House in a timely fashion, having decided not to report the bill does not preclude the committee revisiting the bill and reporting it to the House at a later date. Therefore, the Justice Committee’s decision not to report Bill C-234 to the House at this time is not an offence against the authority or dignity of the House.

Honourable members should keep in mind that the House always has the power to modify the terms of the committal of a bill to any committee. Should a member or a minister be of the opinion that a committee charged with the review of a bill is defying the authority of the House, he or she may choose to bring it to the attention of the House by placing on notice a motion to require the committee to report by a certain date. As honourable members know, this can indeed be done under Government Orders or Private Members’ Business, but such a notice of motion could also be placed under the rubric Motions and be dealt with under Routine Proceedings. As Speaker Fraser ruled on July 13, 1988, at page 17506 of the Debates, referring to the then Standing Order 56(1)(p), which is our current Standing Order 67(1)(p):

This Standing Order lists as debatable items usually raised under Routine Proceedings “motions [concerning] the management of the [House] business [and] the arrangement of its proceedings.”

The rubric Motions usually encompasses matters related to the management of the business of the House and its committees, but it is not the exclusive purview of the government, despite the government’s unquestioned prerogative to determine the agenda of business before the House.

Under our current practices, the Chair may well accept, after due notice, such a motion, on the condition that it is strictly limited to the terms of the committal of a bill to a committee and that it is not an attempt to interfere with the committee’s proceedings thereon. In so doing, the House would have an opportunity to determine whether the bill should remain in committee or be reported back.

In our procedures, the House must always retain control over business it refers to committee. In different circumstances, a situation could arise whereby a majority of members, regardless of party, might, for whatever reason, decide to remove or not remove a bill, even a government bill, from committee.

Bill C-234 is the property of the House which it has delegated to the Justice Committee to examine. As with any bill referred to committee, the House would usually wait for the Justice Committee to report. However, should the House be of the opinion that the bill has remained with the committee too long it can look into the matter.

Speaker Fraser noted in ruling on a similar matter on February 26, 1992, at page 7624 of the Debates:

If the House wishes to take cognizance of this, if the House wishes to exercise its authority, then of course it may do so. But in my view, it would not be correct or proper at the present time for the Speaker to intervene.

I concur with Speaker Fraser’s view.

Since honourable members and the House have a remedy to their grievance I cannot find that the decision taken by the committee has prevented members from expressing their opinions or attending to their parliamentary functions. Therefore there was no breach of privilege because the capacity of honourable members to carry on their duties as members of the House has not been impaired.

Again, I thank the honourable members for raising this important matter.

P0908-e

35-2

1996-09-23