Committees / Business of Committees

Lack of quorum; absence of Government Members; non-interference by the Speaker in committee proceedings; notice of meeting to elect a Chairman; Members' rights

November 28, 1990

Debates, pp. 15854-5

On October 11, 1990, a notice was distributed to inform Members of the Standing Committee on Transport that a meeting would be held on October 18, 1990. On October 15, 1990, Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley—Rants) resigned both as Chairman and as a member of the Standing Committee on Transport.

On October 18, 1990, Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay—Atikokan) rose on a question of privilege to deplore the failure of the Standing Committee on Transport to hold the meeting planned for that day because a quorum could not be met. He suggested that Government Members had perhaps purposely boycotted the meeting to bring pressure for adoption of the recommendations in the 49th Striking Committee Report on new membership lists for standing Committees, and argued that such action amounted to an infringement of his rights and that of other Committee members. The Speaker took the matter under advisement but urged the Members to resolve it amongst themselves.^[1]

On October 30, 1990, Mr. Angus raised another question of privilege, this one regarding the failure of the Chief Government Whip (Mr. Jim Hawkes) to call a meeting of the Committee for the purpose of electing a new Chair. Following remarks by several other Members, the Speaker pointed out that he had already taken the matter under advisement, but added that he would take the day's representations into consideration when making his decision.^[2] On November 28, 1990, the Speaker handed down a ruling which is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on Thursday, October 18 by the honourable Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan regarding events which transpired in connection with a planned meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport of the same day. The honourable Member explained that a meeting of the transport committee had been duly convened with seven days notice pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) for the morning of October 18. He went on to state that the meeting did not take place because quorum could not be met. To put it in ordinary terms, there were not enough members there to proceed with the meeting.

The honourable Member further argued that the absence of Government Members was perhaps a collective decision which in essence created a boycott of the Committee and as such was an infringement upon the rights of other members of the Committee. The honourable Chief Government Whip stated on the other hand that various Government Members of the committee had important previous commitments and it was felt that the subject matter was too important to leave in the hands of alternate or substitute members.

I have carefully considered the comments made by the Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan and the Chief Government Whip, and also the excellent arguments for and against which were made on that day by other Members. It is difficult for the Speaker to decide on the specific issues raised by the Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan.

According to the conventions and traditions of this place, the Chair ought not to intervene in the proceedings of a committee unless the matter has been placed before the House by means of a report from the committee. While there obviously could be no report in these circumstances since the meeting never took place, the attendance or non-attendance of honourable Members at committee meetings is clearly in the Chair's view not a matter upon which the Chair can or should take a position. However, it is a matter obviously of concern to the House and it becomes a matter of concern for the Speaker because when there are problems within the committee system, eventually and inevitably they are raised in this Chamber and before the Speaker.

As I have said on other occasions, it has to be a very severe situation indeed for the Speaker to consider intervening.

Further details of this situation have, however, been brought to the attention of the Chair by the honourable Member for Thunder Bay—Atikokan in a subsequent intervention on Tuesday, October 30, 1990. At that point, the honourable Member asked the Chair to rule on whether the fact that the Chief Government Whip had not convened a meeting of the Standing Committee on Transport for the purposes of electing a chairman constitutes an act which impedes Members of the House in the performance of their duties on Committees, in connection, specifically, with the review of Order in Council appointments [as] provided for in Standing Orders 110 and [111].

In his comments, the Chief Government Whip said that [the] House need only vote on the Striking Committee report pertaining to the membership of standing Committees in order to deal with the situation of the Transport Committee.

The Chair has looked very closely at this matter. Clearly there is no chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to convene a meeting for any purpose. Under these circumstances and pursuant to past practice, the next meeting of the committee can be convened by the Clerk of the House if the report of the Striking Committee providing for new committee memberships is adopted, or by the Chief Government Whip in consultation with the Whips of the other parties.

The Chair can see that there is cause for concern here, that it is difficult to find a breach of the privileges of honourable Members in the fact that a standing committee is paralysed and cannot meet. The solution would appear to lie in negotiations among the parties, which the Chair would encourage at this time.

I have to say to honourable Members and to the public that the working of Committees is very important to the working of the House of Commons. I do ask honourable colleagues to make every effort possible to come to whatever agreements and understandings among themselves which are necessary to make these Committees work.

I do not want to state this too often, and I hope that I will not have to, but there is a general feeling across this country that somehow or other not only politicians, but maybe institutions, are letting down the country. This is why it is essential that everybody make an extra effort to try to make this system work.

I am not happy with this situation, obviously. But, I am also bound by rules here and if I am to intervene in Committees, it has to be in a very severe and outrageous situation indeed. While this is not only inconvenient but perhaps aggravating, I do not feel that I can depart from the laws which bind me as they bind all other Members of the House of Commons.

I thank honourable Members for their intervention.

…

The honourable Member for Hamilton West (Mr. Stan Keyes) rises on a point of clarification. I have made it clear in the past that I do not take the position, nor do I think a Speaker should take the position, that a Speaker is forever bound never to intervene in a committee matter. But, it will have to be a matter of very gross disorder indeed, a very grave situation.

This is a matter which can still be settled by consultation. The jurisprudence on this kind of question goes back not just decades, but for a long, long time indeed, and not just to jurisprudence in this House but in other Houses where we have the parliamentary system. I am very reluctant to move into the Committees if it can be possibly avoided.

What I want the honourable Member and other honourable Members to understand very clearly, I am not saying that there might not be an occasion in which the Speaker would have to move. One can say well, it has not been done before. Speakers have made decisions in the past that had not been done before, and they form part of the precedents of our law of procedure.

What I am asking honourable Members in this case to do is please take into account everybody's responsibility to this institution and to our country, and try to resolve it. I think it can be resolved by discussion, and that is the way I would hope it would be resolved.

What I am saying to the honourable Member, in summary, is I might have to intervene at some point.

It would have to be under a most grave situation, and I am reluctant to move into the committee field and do what really the members of the committee ought to do for themselves.

F0903-e

34-2

1990-11-28