NDDN Committee Report

The Standing Committee on National Defence (SCOND) in June 2010, tabled a report in the House of Commons titled, Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty.  Following Standing Order 109 of Chapter XIII, the Government of Canada replied accordingly and presented SCOND with a response. 

It is highly unusual that the SCOND would table a report to the House of Commons, the sole purpose of which is to comment on the rules and procedures of Parliament.  The mandate of SCOND is clear; it is to examine relevant legislation, the activities and expenditures of the department, and the effectiveness of the department’s policies and programs. SCOND does not have a mandate to evaluate standing orders that govern parliamentary procedure, and nowhere in the report titled, The Effectiveness of Committees, does it mention legislation, activities and expenditures of the department or the effectiveness of policies or programs. For this reason, the report is beyond the scope of this committee’s mandate.

The report, The Effectiveness of Committees, is not only inappropriate with respect to the mandate of the SCOND, it is also unfounded. The Government of Canada has responded to the SCOND’s reports since 2006 by either acting upon or accepting elements of 65 of the committee’s recommendations while only declining 15. It should be noted that the Government has always responded in a respectful and thoughtful manner to the committee’s recommendations. With regard to the report entitled, Canada’s Arctic Sovereignty, the government responded and gave careful consideration to the report’s recommendations. Thus far, the government has accepted five of the recommendations, adopted elements of nine, and only declined three.

It would be inappropriate for any government to accept all recommendations from any committee. The role of committees is to provide guidance, influence and recommendations to government; however it is up to the Government to have the final decision on policy.  

Regardless of the current situation, the onus must remain on individual Members of Parliament to ensure that their respective committee functions in a manner that best fulfills the committee’s mandate.  If the opposition committee members were displeased with some of the Government’s responses, they had a number of means by which they could have more constructively sought further clarification as to why their recommendations have not been adopted.  They could have asked follow-up questions, requested that the Minister or Departmental staff appear before the committee, or a take note debate in the House. The committee members did not pursue any of these available alternatives. A report arguing that the current system is dysfunctional, without exhausting all avenues by which to hold the system to account is disingenuous. It is also irresponsible as it undermines all of the productive work that the SCOND had undertaken over the last four years.