NDDN Committee Report

At a recent meeting of the House of Commons Standing Committee on National Defence members discussed the adequacy of government responses to the reports of standing committees.  Several members believed that responses are often less than satisfactory and wondered whether or not the work of our standing committees was receiving appropriate attention from the bodies to whom they submit their recommendations.

Of some concern was the question of exactly what a “comprehensive response” is meant to entail.  What degree of detail, in terms of response to specific recommendations may a committee expect?  Should the response clearly indicate why or why not a recommendation is either accepted or rejected?  What degree of detail in terms of follow up to accepted recommendations can a committee realistically expect?

In expressing this concern we fully realize that certain of the limitations placed on Committees are structural; they are the consequence of our Parliamentary system itself.  This is a reality we all accept.  What we cannot accept is the fact that our Committee, and perhaps others, seems to have been “shut out” of the policy making process.  We also recognize that concerns over the effectiveness of committees are not a recent phenomenon and have existed for some time and under both majority and minority governments.  At the same time there have been instances when committees have had an important impact on policy development, unfortunately this has been the exception rather than the rule.

Our Committees perform a variety of functions; including the review of legislation, the review of departmental programs, and special studies initiated either on their own or referred to them by the Government.  A most important element of the foregoing, however, is providing a conduit for public input into the policy process.  Here committees can be seen to function as a “vehicle” through which public concerns can be articulated.  Thus, depending on the nature of the issue at hand, relevant witnesses may include ministers of the crown, departmental officials, stake holders, academics and members of the general citizenry. 

Given the long-standing cynicism over contemporary politics, engaging the latter is of particular importance, either as individuals themselves or through the agencies that represent them.  If we are left to conclude that today’s politics consists of little more than cynical acts of self-interest justified by sophistry, we will never be able to tap those resources of public virtue that can aid us in reclaiming the public forum for genuine political discourse.

We can all agree that our political institutions could be more responsive and “representative”, but, improvements in this regard need not require major overhaul.  Indeed, a more effective use of existing mechanisms is an important first step in the effort to regain a measure of public confidence.  There is no reason why our Parliamentary Committees cannot be an effective vehicle in this regard.

This may require little more than slight modifications in committee practices and in the relationship between committees and the departments with which they are concerned.  The responsibility then lies with both sides.

With respect to committees it is important that studies be focused and clearly defined and that the reason for undertaking them is clearly stated.  Committees can also do more to follow up on what departments have actually done with respect to implementing recommendations.  With regard to those recommendations that have not been accepted, the issue can be revisited to see if the problem still persists.  If the reasons for not accepting the recommendation have not been clearly stated then departmental officials can be recalled to provide clarification.  It is also extremely important that recommendations be clear and focused.  Vague statements of principle or good intentions may please “client groups” but they will not get serious response from the government.

With respect to the other side of the coin – the department – more openness would be a welcome change.  Bureaucrats should not see committees as a “threat”, but should rather understand that common cause can be made when it comes to solving problems.  Departments could be more forthcoming in providing information and research to help committees and their staffs do their work.  This could easily be done without compromising departmental integrity or breaching codes of conduct.  It is often departmental officials who best understand the nature of the problems that committees undertake to study. Rather than view committees with suspicion they might better view them as valuable sources of information in the overall policy process. 

Finally, when responding to committee reports, departments should address the recommendations in a straightforward manner; explaining why they accept or reject them.  Self-indulgent hyperbole and lists of the wonderful things departments are doing is not going to be welcomed; nor is it fair to the witnesses who gave of their time and energy to the committee’s efforts.  People need to understand that their time has been well spent and taken seriously.  Needless to say, this also holds true for the individual Members of Parliament who serve on committees.

In light of the foregoing concerns, the Standing Committee on National Defence recommends that:

The concerns of committee members about the nature of committee work, as expressed in the above text, be submitted to the House of Commons Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for review consideration and possible recommendations.