Private Members’ Business / Miscellaneous

December 9, 1987

Debates, p. 11628

On November 25, 1987, Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview—Greenwood) rose on a question of privilege to protest that Bill C-204, respecting the regulation of smoking in the federal workplace, standing in her name, was being treated differently in legislative committee than bills sponsored by Government Members and that progress on the Bill had been obstructed by certain members of the committee and its Chair. In her presentation, she argued that in the case of a Government bill, the membership on the relevant committee was weighted in favour of its passage, while in the case of her initiative the reverse was true. She then referred to a particular incident which had taken place in the committee room the previous day. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker reserved his decision.^[1] The House continued its discussion on this question of privilege on December 1, 1987, by hearing from Mr. Ken James (Sarnia—Lambton) in his role as Chairman of the legislative committee appointed to consider the bill and further from Ms. McDonald.^[2] The Speaker delivered his ruling on December 9, which is reproduced in its entirety below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: On Wednesday, November 25, 1987, the honourable Member for Broadview-Greenwood raised in the House the manner in which her Private Members' Bill C-204 is being dealt with in the legislative committee appointed to study the Bill.

The honourable Member for Broadview-Greenwood claimed that the Committee's proceedings were being systematically obstructed by Government Members sitting on the Committee and by the Committee's Chairman or Acting Chairman. She said that Government Members did not look favourably on the Bill and that the actions of the Acting Chairman on Thursday, November 24, 1987, reflected his prejudice against the Bill before the Committee.

I wish to thank the Deputy Prime Minister (Hon. Don Mazankowski) and the honourable Member for Mission—Port Moody (Mr. Gerry St. Germain) for their contribution to this important matter. The honourable Member for Sarnia—Lambton must also be mentioned, and I thank him for his helpful intervention.

I wish to remind all honourable Members of my ruling of November 18, 1987,^[3] where I cited several excerpts from the rulings of my predecessors concerning the established custom and traditions of the House in not interfering in committee proceedings until such committees have reported to the House. This is an important rule that has clear underpinnings in logic, and I, of course, want to follow it.

Thus, after careful consideration, I have come to the conclusion that the honourable Member's complaint ought properly to be dealt with in committee and, therefore, it is not a question of privilege and cannot be dealt with here unless the matter is reported to the House by the committee.

There are established practices which have been followed for a long time. One is that Members refrain from criticizing the actions of another Member without the making of a clear charge set out in a motion. The traditional and proper way of dealing with the type of conduct alleged by the honourable Member for Broadview-Greenwood would be by appealing the conduct of the chairman to the committee, or by way of a motion proposed to the committee and, if it is adopted, reporting the same to the House.

I hope that in future honourable Members will be guided by what I said on November 18, 1987 and will formulate their complaints and grievances in the committees, which are entirely capable of dealing with these matters, instead of wasting the precious time of the House. The precedents are clear: These questions do not come under the jurisdiction of the Chair.

F1003-e

33-2

1987-12-09