I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised on September 23, 2024, by the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills concerning the alleged violation of Standing Order 116(2) at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.
The member explained that while the committee was still debating a substantive motion that day, the chair proceeded to the putting of the question on the motion, despite her clearly manifested intention to continue debating the motion. This, she argued, violated Standing Order 116(2), which prevents committee chairs from cutting off debate on a motion when there are committee members still wishing to debate it. She asked the Speaker to use the authority conferred in Standing Order 116(2) to nullify the proceedings on the motion in question and to allow the member to voice her views on it prior to the committee coming to a decision.
The member further intervened on September 26, 2024, to emphasize that the Standing Order is in place to safeguard committee members’ right to participate in debate on motions before they are put to a vote and a final decision is taken. She asserted that this is so regardless of whether the committee chair is acting intentionally or not.
In response, the chair of the committee, the member for New Brunswick Southwest, assured the House that he believed that the debate had concluded with no further members wishing to speak to the motion. He explained that he did not do so precipitously, wanting to ensure that no member of the committee wished to make additional remarks. He explained that, from his perspective, the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills had indicated a desire to speak, but only after the question had been called. He also explained that he had informed the member and the committee that the question had been put and that the only remedy would be for her to appeal his decision. His ruling was ultimately sustained by committee members.
Until now, Standing Order 116(2) had only been invoked twice since coming into effect on September 18, 2017. This Standing Order specifies that:
(a) Unless a time limit has been adopted by the committee or by the House, the Chair of a standing, special or legislative committee may not bring a debate to an end while there are members present who still wish to participate. A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.
(b) A violation of paragraph (a) of this section may be brought to the attention of the Speaker by any member and the Speaker shall have the power to rule on the matter. If, in the opinion of the Speaker, such violation has occurred, the Speaker may order that all subsequent proceedings in relation to the said violation be nullified.
As a point of general process, committee chairs should never prematurely end debate while there are still committee members wishing to speak. This key principle is what Standing Order 116(2) is meant to safeguard.
Standing Order 116(2) also empowers the Speaker to exceptionally intervene in procedural concerns arising in committee proceedings without a report from a committee.
Called upon to rule for the first time on the operation of the standing order, Speaker Regan stated, on April 1, 2019, at page 26496 of the Debates, and I quote:
At the very core of this new provision, then, stands the desire to allow committee members to participate fully in their deliberations without being unduly stopped from debating matters until their natural conclusion. Defence of this mattered to the extent that it was, in fact, fortified with a recourse, and a new authority for the Speaker, in the event of a clear violation.
He indicated in the same ruling:
Essentially, it seems to the Chair that this new rule is intended to safeguard debate in committee from a procedural hijacking, so to speak, that would permanently end debate on a motion.
The Speaker reviewed the events that occurred at the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on September 23, 2024, including relevant video clips, as well as the back-and-forth discussion that occurred between the member and the committee chair.
I would like to make three points about those events. First, it was helpful that the member first raised her concerns about wishing to speak to the motion in committee before doing so in the House. This made it easier to follow the chain of events.
Related to that discussion in committee, and my second point, is an argument advanced by the committee chair, as to the fact that the chair's decision was appealed and sustained. This has no bearing on the procedural soundness of the proceedings on the committee motion. As Standing Order 116(2)(a) denotes in its last sentence, and I quote: “A decision of the Chair in this regard may not be subject to an appeal to the committee.”
Therefore, this is not an argument that I considered in assessing this point of order and all members need to be mindful that this is not an option when such situations arise during debate in committee.
Third, the Speaker is convinced that the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills sincerely believed that she had flagged her intent to speak again on the motion and had reason to believe that the committee chair would recognize her before putting the question on the motion. I am equally satisfied that the committee Chair thought that no other committee member wished to continue debate. With that said, from viewing the video of the meeting, it would certainly appear that very little time was afforded to committee members by the chair to indicate their desire to continue debate on the motion before the question was put.
These points provide important context in considering this matter. There is no evidence of an intent to manipulate the process of debate by the chair's proceeding to a decision on the motion in question in this instance, but rather this appears to be a misunderstanding between the member and the chair. The member for New Brunswick Southwest seems to have operated in good faith in presiding over the committee proceedings on September 23, 2024.
That being said, such a miscommunication between the committee chair and the member for Mississauga—Erin Mills seems to have led to the unfortunate circumstance of the member missing an opportunity to contribute to debate.
Nevertheless, in the circumstances, I cannot conclude that the committee chair violated Standing Order 116(2). The proceedings of the committee on September 23 can stand. The Chair's decision is in part influenced by the fact that this is still a relatively untested standing order, and that guidance has not really been provided to committee chairs. Going forward, it is likely that the Chair will take a more rigid approach.
Accordingly, to avoid a repetition of this situation, I wish to provide guidance for the benefit of all committee chairs and members.
When a chair begins to discern that debate is nearing completion, before putting the question, they should take great care to ensure that no other members might wish to debate a motion. For instance, they should call for “resuming debate” or ask members if they are ready for the question. This is similar to the practice in the House and one that committee chairs should emulate.
As well, when members wish to have their name added to the speaking list in committee, they should also ensure they receive an acknowledgement from the chair or the clerk that their name has been added to the list. As members know, it is often the committee clerk who maintains a speaking list for use by the chair. Indeed, it is a best practice that the committee clerk maintains such a list.
I thank all members for their attention.
The hon. member for Nepean is rising on a point of order.
