Routine Proceedings / Motions

Committee report; sub judice

Journals pp. 873-4

Debates pp. 7310-2

Background

On March 25, when the Speaker was about to call the motion of Mr. Lessard (LaSalle) to concur in the fifth report of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications, Mr. Macdonald (President of the Privy Council) raised a point of order and claimed that certain recommendations of the report were beyond the powers of the committee, and even of the House, and that the subject-matter referred to in the report was sub judice. On March 27, the Speaker invited Members to consider the substance of the points raised in Mr. Macdonald's point of order. The Speaker went on to note that there were three issues which Members might address: whether the sub judice convention was applicable, if the form of the present report constituted a direction rather than a recommendation, and if the report was within the terms of the committee's order of reference. Arguments were presented by Members on March 31.

Issue

Can the motion for concurrence in the report be put to the House?

Decision

Yes, notwithstanding some reservations of the Chair.

Reasons given by the Speaker

The established form of a committee recommendation dealing with legislative proposals is that the Government take into consideration the advisability of introducing legislation for a specified purpose. While the wording of this report departs from the established practice, there is "some doubt as to the advisability of referring the report back to the committee for the sole purpose of effecting a purely formal modification". Members are cautioned, however, "that committee reports should be drafted according to procedurally acceptable forms" until such time as the House decides to change this practice. No serious argument was presented on the issue of the committee's order of reference. ". . . indeed the President of the Privy Council said that he was not putting forth a view in this regard, and so [the Chair] will not consider that aspect of the matter in any way." Arguments based on the Railway Act and on decisions of the Canadian Transportation Commission should not be reviewed by the Speaker. "The Chair. . . should not be invited to go into the constitutional aspects, the jurisdictional aspects of a statute or of a clause of a statute which has been considered by a committee . . . [T]hese matters may be adjudged by the House itself and the way to proceed is by means of a motion."

Sources cited

Journals, May 11, 1874, p. 216; July 1, 1919, p. 498.

References

Journals, March 27, 1969, pp. 854-5.

Debates, March 25, 1969, pp. 7057-63; March 27, 1969, pp. 7182-3; March 31, 1969, pp. 7301-10.