Committees / Business of Committees

March 25, 1998

Debates, p. 5337

On March 24, 1998, after Oral Questions, Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) rose on a point of order with regard to the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, which had ignored an order of the House adopted on October 30, 1997,^[1] to prepare and bring in a bill on impaired driving no later than May 15, 1998. Shaughnessy Cohen (Windsor—St. Clair), Chair of the Committee, explained that the order of reference received from the House was not time-dated.^[2] The Speaker reserved his decision.

The Speaker delivered his ruling the following day. He indicated that two motions had been adopted on October 30, 1997. The first, adopted under supply proceedings, called on the government to bring forward a motion to order the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights to prepare a bill on impaired driving and report the same no later than May 15, 1998. The House then adopted a second motion proposed by Pierre Pettigrew (Minister of Human Resources Development) to have the Committee prepare and bring in a bill on impaired driving. However, this second motion contained no reporting deadline. The Speaker pointed out that each order of reference was simply an extract from the Journals, and that ordinarily an order of reference was contained within a single motion. In this case there were two, which should have been read in conjunction with one another. Only one motion had been communicated to the Committee. The Speaker suggested that, if the Committee deemed that more time was necessary to deal with this matter, it could, by way of report, request an extension of the original time frame.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on Tuesday, March 24, 1998, by the House leader of the official opposition. I would like to thank the opposition House leader and the member for Windsor—St. Clair, who chairs the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights, for their contributions on this matter.

The House leader of the official opposition argued that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was not complying with the terms of an order of reference of the House contained in two motions adopted on October 30, 1997.^[3]

The first motion was presented as part of the business of supply. He called on the government to present a motion under Standing Order 68(4), instructing the Committee to prepare and bring in a bill concerning penalties for impaired driving. The motion further stipulated that once the Committee was so instructed, it should report by May 15, 1998. That motion was adopted by the House.

Following the adoption of that motion, a second motion, introduced by the Minister of Human Resources Development pursuant to Standing Order 68(4), instructed the Committee to prepare and bring in such a bill.

The honourable member for Windsor—St. Clair, as Chair of the Justice Committee, argued that there was no deadline contained in the motion supplied to the Committee as its order of reference by Journals Branch. She further maintained that while the Committee had every intention of complying with the order of reference, pressure of other business referred to the Committee by this House would prevent its dealing with it immediately.

Having looked into the matter, it appears that the basic confusion arises from an original misunderstanding about the order of reference given to the Committee. I understand that the text of orders of reference to committees are duly noted within the Committees and Legislative Services Directorate and that each committee is advised accordingly of any new order of reference it receives.

Reference is simply an extract from the actual Journals published by the House which are the official minutes of our proceedings and the record of our decisions. Ordinarily an order of reference is contained within a single motion, and this may be where the confusion has arisen. I understand that only the minister’s motion was originally communicated to the Committee through the usual channels within the Directorate.

I have reviewed the two motions carefully. It is clear to me that these motions must be read in conjunction one with the other. The first motion presented as part of the business of supply contains two parts. The first part calls on the government to move a motion of instruction to the Committee pursuant to Standing Order 68(4). The second part sets out a deadline to apply once such a motion of instruction has been adopted by the House. The second of the two motions is of course the motion of instruction itself presented by the minister and unanimously adopted by the House.

Once the motion of instruction presented by the minister was adopted, the deadline contained in the earlier motion adopted by the House became applicable, as this had already been agreed to by the House in adopting the supply motion as amended.

It is therefore my decision that the instructions to the Justice Committee adopted by the House October 30, 1997, do include a reporting deadline of May 15, 1998.

That said, it appears that the Committee has been operating in good faith on the understanding that its instructions did not contain a deadline for reporting back a draft bill on impaired driving.

I realize that in a matter as serious and complex as the preparation of legislation, the time which remains for the Committee to carry out this work is short, particularly given its other responsibilities on other fronts.

If the Committee deems that more time is necessary to deal with this matter, then it may by way of report request the House to grant an extension to the original time frame.

P0902-e

36-1

1998-03-25