Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do so somewhat reluctantly. I feel it is important to raise in the House at the earliest possible moment a matter that I believe is of considerable importance. It may in fact constitute a grievance. It may even be a question of privilege at some future date.

As you know, Sir, it has been the practice in the House of Commons to establish the need for the presence of both government and opposition in order to conduct business. I recognize that it may not be absolutely necessary under certain circumstances, but the practice has always been that, for the business of the House to be conducted properly and adequately, there would be representation both from the government and from the opposition at the start of the business of the day. I suggest this practice has been a good practice, one that has resulted in a harmonious relationship in the House of Commons which in turn has resulted in the House being able to deal with questions in a way which brings about their resolution.

At the moment, there appears to be a deviation from that practice, if not in the House itself, in the committees of the House. I would ask Mr. Speaker if he would consider motions that were put in committee-given that the committees have the right to establish their own rules of procedure, they must do so within the generally accepted framework of the rules of procedure of the House of Commons-that have resulted in the establishment of a practice which could disrupt the orderly procedures both in the House and in the committee. In a number of committees, decisions have been made by the Government members that a quorum shall be established based not on the normal practice of representation from both sides, but-

Mr. Speaker:

May I be clear that the Hon. Member is in fact raising a question relating to practices in committees? Does the point of order relate to that issue?

Mr. Deans:

Mr. Speaker, I am raising the practices that have been pursued in the past.

Mr. Speaker:

In committee?

Mr. Deans:

The committees are an emanation of the House. The committees operate by the same rules as the House of

Commons. They do not set separate rules. They may set with unanimous consent, as can the House, different rules, practices and procedures, but only with unanimous consent.

I suggest that what is happening is going to cause grievous difficulty not only in the committee but in the House. All I am asking is that there be some attempt made to ensure that the practices that have been followed, both in the House of Commons with regard to quorum and in the past in committee with regard to quorum, be followed during this Parliament. At the moment I have reason to believe that is not the case.

Mr. Speaker:

The Member may have reason to believe that is not the case. The Member is an experienced parliamentarian. He knows the traditions of the House are that the Speaker has no right to intervene in procedures or decisions taken in committee. The committees are masters of their own affairs. The Hon. Member knows well enough that the issue that he is raising may at first blush be an issue that the procedural committee or a committee on reform of the House may want to consider.

The rulings in the past with regard to these questions have been very clear. The committees are master of their own destiny. An appeal from a decision taken in a committee shall be made in the committee to the chair of the committee and, if necessary, resolved in the committee, but cannot be brought before the House. The Speaker has no authority to decide on something that has happened in a committee unless it is reported by the committee in its report to the House. Only in that circumstance does the Speaker have any capacity to deal with a question or a grievance or a point of order that the committee has dealt with. I think the Hon. Member knows that.

I regret to find that, while he may have a point of serious concern, and I appreciate the point he is making, I cannot at the moment find that it is a point within the grounds of a point of order in the House. I therefore think that the matter should end at this point. However, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain may have a supplementary comment. That is certainly my current view and I am prepared to rule in that manner unless the Hon. Member has something else to say.

Mr. Deans:

Mr. Speaker, I do not deny for a moment the validity of the comments you have made; neither do I question them. My concern is that I may well find it necessary to attempt to raise a question of privilege.

My problem is that the practice that is being followed will cause disruption in the House of Commons as it will cause disruption in committees. That worries me. I raise the matter

November 22, 1984

Ways and Means

since it is of worry to me and I alert the House to the fact that there are problems in committees.

Mr. Speaker:

I think I should leave the matter as I indicated earlier. I feel that a point of order for the purposes of the House has not been established.

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved

that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Income Tax Act and Related Statutes, laid upon the Table on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.

Mrs. McDougall moved

that Bill C-7, an Act to amend the Income Tax Act and related statutes, be read the first time and printed.

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved

that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, laid upon the Table on Thursday, November 8, 1984, be concurred in.

Mrs. McDougall moved

that Bill C-8, an Act to amend the Petroleum and Gas Revenue Tax Act, be read the first time and printed.