Committees / Committee Reports

Government response; comprehensive response; interim response; special committee; standing committee; Speaker's authority

September 24, 1987

Debates, pp. 9266-8

On March 30, 1987, the Special Committee on Child Care tabled its Final Report and, pursuant to Standing Order 99(2), requested that the Government table a comprehensive response within 150 days.^[1] On July 28, 1987, the Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare) filed with the Clerk of the House a document entitled "Interim Response of the Government of Canada to the Final Report of the Special Committee on Child Care".^[2] On August 12, 1987, Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East) rose on a point of order to argue that the Government's response was incomplete. The Minister replied that the Government would table a further report and a further response on child care in the coming months, and added that the reasons for this delay were clearly stated in the Government's Interim Response. After hearing from several other Members, the Speaker reserved his ruling.^[3]

On August 28, 1987, Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal) rose on a point of order regarding the apparent failure of the Government to provide a comprehensive response to the Fifth and Sixth Reports of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. The Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)) said he would be prepared to deal with the procedural aspect of the Member's point of order, but asked Mrs. Finestone to delay the presentation of her argument until the Minister of Communications (Hon. Flora MacDonald) could be present to deal with the substantive aspects of the matter. Mrs. Finestone agreed.^[4] On September 9, 1987, Mrs. Finestone again raised a point of order on the matter. The Member argued that by dealing in "vague terms" with only some of the recommendations in the Fifth Report, and by failing to respond to any of the recommendations in the Sixth Report, the Government had breached Standing Order 99(2). She therefore requested that the Speaker rule whether the response tabled by the Government in fact constituted a comprehensive response to the Committee's reports. Several other Members, including the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture (Mr. Jim Edwards) and the Minister of Communications, participated in the discussion. Having listened to the arguments, the Speaker took the question under advisement.^[5]

On September 24, 1987, the Speaker made one ruling covering the points of order of both Ms. Copps and Mrs. Finestone. The text of the ruling is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I want to draw to the attention of honourable Members that the Chair is now ready to rule on a point of order raised on August 12, 1987, by the honourable Member for Hamilton East about the Government's response to the report of the Special Committee on Child Care and the point of order raised by the honourable Member for Mount Royal on September 9 last relating to the Government's response to the Fifth and Sixth Reports of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture. Because both points of order deal with the interpretation of Standing Order 99(2) the Chair wishes to comment on both points in the same ruling, but because of certain differences of form and content, I will deal with them in the order in which they were raised.

On August 12, the honourable Member for Hamilton East took the position that the document tabled by the Minister of National Health and Welfare in response to the Special Committee on Child Care and entered in the Votes and Proceedings of Tuesday, August 11, 1987, did not meet the requirements of Standing Order 99(2) which reads as follows:

Within 150 days of the presentation of a report from a standing or special committee, the government shall, upon the request of the committee, table a comprehensive response thereto.

The honourable Member for Hamilton East claimed that the response of the Minister was interim in nature and did not fulfil the essential condition of the standing order that it be comprehensive. A number of other honourable Members expressed the same concern.

The question before the Chair is whether the Minister's response adequately meets the requirements of the Standing Order, namely whether or not it is a comprehensive response. This is not the first time the Chair has been asked to rule on the quality of a Government response. In earlier rulings on similar points of order the Chair expressed the view that the very fact of establishing what constitutes a comprehensive response would be tantamount to ruling on the acceptability of the response, something which the Chair simply cannot do.

There are, however, certain details of this matter which differentiate it from previous cases. The Chair has read the letter from the Minister of National Health and Welfare. It plainly states at the beginning that it is an "interim response" and goes on in the second to last paragraph to affirm that a "comprehensive announcement" on the National Strategy on Child Care will be made in the fall. In essence, this is an open admission that the response in question is not as comprehensive as required by the terms of Standing Order 99(2).

The Chair finds itself in some difficulty on this matter since there has obviously been a specific and clear breach of rules by the Minister. Nonetheless, there are reasons in this particular case why the Chair feels inclined to give the benefit of the doubt to the Minister.

As the Minister pointed out to the House, divided constitutional jurisdiction and unresolved intergovernmental discussions and negotiations are involved in this issue. This would suggest that the Minister is not entirely at fault in these particular circumstances and that efforts are being made to address the Committee's recommendations. Furthermore, the Minister did report back to the House within the specified period, albeit in a form not provided for in this standing order.

Having said that I would like, however, to remind all honourable Members that government responses to committee reports are an important element of the reform process and one which the Chair feels should be respected.

The honourable Member for Winnipeg—Birds Hill (Mr. Bill Blaikie), a distinguished member of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons, in his intervention on this matter, made the point that having the Government make its position clear at a predetermined time with respect to the recommendations of particular Committees is an essential ingredient of the reform process. He went on to argue that if technical responses became the habit in this place then the spirit of reform will have been lost. The Chair feels that there is considerable merit to this observation and reminds all honourable Members of the need to make every effort to interpret our rules in as reasonable and as straightforward a way as possible.

The Chair wants to make another comment which was not made in the course of the debate. The Committee on Child Care was a special committee, and, unlike a standing committee, it was dissolved after tabling its final report to the House, pursuant to the current practice. Committee Members, therefore, had no recourse other than raising the issue in the House. Although the rule does not provide for sanctions against Ministers who would choose to disregard these provisions, the Chair considers that breaching this rule with respect to a special committee report is more serious, for it might enable the Government to delay indefinitely its response to special committee reports.

The point of order raised by the honourable Member for Mount Royal on the surface seems to be a similar case. But a close scrutiny of the issues demonstrated fundamental differences. First, the matter pertains to a standing committee of the House and not a special committee. Second, the Minister of Communications in tabling a response to the Fifth and Sixth Reports of the Communications Committee was not offering to give an interim response but attempting to comply with the provisions of Standing Order 99(2). Third, the complaints of the honourable Member for Mount Royal, the honourable Member for Edmonton South and the honourable Member for Broadview—Greenwood (Ms. Lynn McDonald) revolve around the issue of the " lack of comprehensiveness" of the Minister's response.

The honourable Member for Edmonton South, who is the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture, eloquently summarized the frustration of the committee members and urged the Chair to reconsider an earlier ruling of June 29, 1987, when the Chair ruled that:

-The nature of the response must be left to the discretion of the Government [and,] if honourable Members are dissatisfied, there are other avenues available through which they can pursue the matter.^[6]

The honourable Member for Edmonton South would know that the Chair is always reluctant to reconsider earlier rulings. Still I can elaborate on what I said in June by attempting to be more specific and providing an explanation which might be more useful in this case.

What I said on June 29, 1987, and what Mr. Speaker Bosley said on April [21], 1986,^[7] still applies to this case. It is not for the Chair to pronounce on the quality of the government response. The word "comprehensive" in the standing order is not without meaning, however. A simple yes or a curt no to all of a committee's recommendations could be a comprehensive response indeed. Neither response might be satisfactory, depending on one's point of view.

Under the new rules, and particularly Standing Order 96(2), standing Committees now have extensive new powers and the Committee on Communications and Culture can pursue the matter of the quality of the Minister's response with her. I understand that process has already begun.

The statute law, the programs and policy objectives, the expenditure plans, management and organization and operation of government departments are permanently and fully accessible to the Committee. That is the other avenue to which I alluded on June 29, 1987. No longer do standing committee members need to raise in the House such issues and no longer do they need a specific House order to proceed. The proper place to raise these matters is in the committee which ultimately can use its power to report to the House if it feels its privileges have been offended.

The reform of the standing Committees is an important and fundamental aspect of the renewal of our parliamentary system of Government. The principle of accountability has been enhanced to a degree never achieved before. Having been given such enlarged mandates, Committees should proceed judiciously and responsibly. Standing committee members should avoid raising disputes in the House unless a standing committee has reported that its business is being systematically frustrated, and its privileges are consequently affected.

As to special Committees, since their mandate expires with the tabling of their reports the Chair will always be prepared to entertain such grievances as that submitted by the honourable Member for Hamilton East even though the Chair has no direct authority to order the Government to provide comprehensive responses.

These are very important matters that relate to our new rules and the Chair hopes its comments can and will be helpful.

F0905-e

33-2

1987-09-24