Committees / Committee Exceeding Its Authority

Committee proceedings; notice of meeting; items on the agenda; changes in the agenda; non-interference by the Speaker in committee proceedings; notice of motion not required

December 18, 1989

Debates, pp. 7059-60

On October 19, 1989, members of the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations were to meet, according to the notice of meeting, to continue the Committee's consideration of a draft report on the issue of credit cards. During the meeting, a motion to allow Mr. Donald Lander, President and Chief Executive Officer of Canada Post, to appear as a witness on October 31 rather than on October 24 was adopted.

On October 20, 1989, Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry—Prescott—Russell) rose on a question of privilege, arguing that this sudden change in the Committee's agenda was a breach of Members' privileges. He contended that a committee notice of meeting is equivalent to the Order Paper of the House and that Committees are, by extension, restricted to discussing matters listed on their notices of meeting.

Mr. Albert Cooper (Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader) then rose to say that the motion adopted by the Committee was simply intended to accommodate a busy witness. The Speaker responded that he would deal only with the procedural aspect, as it was not the place of the Chair to interfere in committee proceedings. The matter was taken under advisement,^[1] with a decision being handed down on December 18, 1989. It is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Friday, October 20 by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell regarding proceedings in the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Government Operations the previous day. The honourable Member had made the case that he had been convened to a meeting of the Committee to discuss the specific subject matter, that during the course of the meeting a motion was moved relating to an entirely different subject, and that this constituted a breach of his privileges as a Member.

He further argued that the Committee notice of meeting is equivalent to the Order Paper of the House and that if a single item of business appears on the committee notice of meeting then only that item can be dealt with by the committee.

I have carefully considered the argument of the honourable Member and the excellent points made by honourable Members on both sides of the question. The Chair finds itself in some difficulty in addressing the specifics of the case made by the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell. According to our traditions and practices, the Chair ought not to intervene with the proceedings of a committee unless a problem has been reported by the committee to the House or in extremely unusual circumstances. It is also clear that disputes arising from committee meetings ought to be dealt with in that committee and not raised on the floor of the House. I will therefore not comment on the specific incident in the Standing Committee on Consumer and Corporate Affairs. The Chair is pleased, however, to comment on the larger questions which arose during the discussion of the honourable Member's grievance, which relates to Committees dealing with business other than that listed on the green sheet announcing the date, time and place of the meeting.

Although Standing Order 116 states in part that "in a standing, special or legislative committee, the Standing Orders shall apply so far as may be applicable," it is nonetheless a long-standing convention that notice is not required for any motion in committee.

Beauchesne Fifth Edition in Citation 571 reminds us that flexibility is the watchword in committee deliberations when it states:

Proceedings in the Committees are more relaxed in nature than those in the House as the requirements which must be observed in the Chamber are not so strictly enforced when Members sit [as] Committees.

This difference in practices between the House and its Committees is nowhere more evident than when dealing with motions in amendment to the clauses of a bill. Motions to amend a bill in committee require no notice whatsoever. In the House, on the other hand, the Standing Orders specifically require that 24-hour written notice be given for motions in amendment at report stage of a bill.

This being the case, and while some Members may feel that it causes inconvenience and creates difficulties for the orderly pursuit of a committee's agenda, the Chair must rule that there is no procedural impediment to a committee's dealing with any matter within its mandate at any meeting of that committee regardless of the stated purpose or purposes of a particular meeting.

The Chair must also inform honourable Members that it has been unable to find any procedural authority to support the position of the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell and other honourable Members that the committee notice of meeting constitutes an Order Paper for the committee.

Should the House in its wisdom wish to alter this long-standing practice it can certainly do so, and there are several avenues open to achieve this end.

I thank the honourable Member for Glengarry—Prescott—Russell  for raising this most interesting issue.

I hope that this judgment has helped to clarify the matter for all honourable Members.

F0912-e

34-2

1989-12-18