Committees / Mandate

Report: admissibility questioned for committee exceeding mandate

June 17, 2010

Debates, pp. 4022-3

On June 10, 2010, Paul Szabo (Mississauga South) rose on a point of order with regard to the admissibility of the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates. The Report, presented to the House earlier that day, concerned the Committee’s study of the claim that Derek Lee (Scarborough–Rouge River) had been actively lobbying the Government while sitting as a Member.^[1] Mr. Szabo argued that the Report went beyond the mandate of the Committee, as set out in Standing Order 108, since matters related to the Conflict of Interest Code for Members of the House of Commons and the conduct of Members fell within the mandate of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. Mr. Szabo also argued that the dissenting opinion submitted by Mr. Lee had not been appended to the Report, thus rendering it incomplete. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

On June 17, 2010, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that only committee members could submit dissenting opinions and, since Mr. Lee was not a member of the Committee, his dissenting opinion could not be appended to the Report. He concluded that the Report was therefore neither invalid nor incomplete on these grounds. With regard to the main argument, the Speaker noted that committees are empowered to deal with issues delegated to them by the House and that their power to report is limited to issues within their mandates or specifically assigned to them by the House. He declared that one committee cannot usurp the powers of another and ruled that the Third Report of the Committee was such an encroachment. He affirmed that should a committee wish to broaden its mandate, it must first seek the authority of the House to do so by means of a motion of instruction adopted by the latter. Accordingly, he declared that the Third Report was out of order, ordered that it be deemed withdrawn, that the motion for concurrence in it standing on the Order Paper also be deemed withdrawn, and that no further proceedings take place in relation to the Report. The Speaker concluded his remarks by reminding Members that, although committees are accorded significant power and authority, they must respect their mandates.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the point of order raised on June 10, 2010 by the hon. Member for Mississauga South concerning the admissibility of [the]^[3] Third Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates which was presented to the House earlier that day.

I would like to thank the Member for Mississauga South for bringing this matter to the attention of the House and the Member for Eglinton–Lawrence for his comments.

In his remarks, the Member for Mississauga South explained that the subject matter of the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates was based on a study of claims that the Member for Scarborough–Rouge River was actively lobbying the Government of Canada while sitting as a Member of Parliament. He argued that the authority to look into any claims related to the Conflict of Interest Code or the conduct of Members of Parliament lay with the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(viii) and not the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

He claimed that the Committee had strayed beyond its mandate and that the Report was therefore out of order.

The Member also complained that the dissenting opinion to the Report, which he understood had been submitted by the Member for Scarborough–Rouge River, had not been appended to the Report and so rendered the Report incomplete.

Let me deal with this matter immediately. Pursuant to Standing Order 108(1)(a) such appendices to reports must be proposed by committee members only. As the Member for Scarborough–Rouge River is not a member of the Committee, his dissenting opinion could not be appended to the Report. This in no way invalidates the Report nor does it render it incomplete.

Now, let us turn to what I see as the central question the Chair faces: whether the Report in question is procedurally invalid by virtue of the Committee having undertaken to study and report on a matter that is beyond its mandate as prescribed by the House.

That committees are empowered to deal with issues delegated to it by the House is indisputable. As House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at page 985:

Like all other powers of standing committees, the power to report is limited to issues that fall within their mandate or that have been specifically assigned to them by the House. Every report must identify the authority under which it is presented.

The Member for Eglinton–Lawrence was correct when he stated that even though committees are masters of their own agenda and they can do what they wish, they have been created by the House and must reflect the intent of the House in carrying out their work.

Limitations on committees are again spelled out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, which states at page 1048:

These freedoms are not, however, total or absolute. First, it is useful to bear in mind that committees are creatures of the House. This means that they have no independent existence and are not permitted to take action unless they have been authorized/empowered to do so by the House.

It continues to read:

… committees are free to organize their proceedings as they see fit provided that their studies and the motions and reports they adopt comply with the orders of reference and instructions issued by the House.

The text further emphasizes that orders of reference, instructions, the Standing Orders and rulings by the Speaker take precedence over any rules a committee may adopt.

In other words, while the actual decision to proceed with a study may be taken according to established committee procedures, the fact remains that no committee can simply usurp the powers of another. Rather, a committee must seek the authority from the House to widen an order of reference. Beauchesne’s 6th edition, on page 233, citation 831(3) states:

When it has been thought desirable to do so, the House has enlarged the Order of Reference of a committee by means of an instruction.

Objections to committees acting beyond their mandate are nothing new. For example, on May 15, 2008—see Debates, page 5924—during the Thirty-Ninth Parliament, the Chair determined that the Seventh Report of the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics went beyond the Committee’s mandate and thus was out of order. An identical conclusion was reached in relation to the Second Report of the Standing Committee on Finance when I ruled that Report out of order on April 2, 2009—see Debates, pages 2301-2.

In that ruling, I acknowledged that

… the House has taken great care to define and differentiate the responsibilities of its committees, particularly where there might at first glance appear to be overlapping jurisdictions.

In the case before us, I have carefully reviewed Standing Order 108(3)(c), which delineates the powers of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates.

It is clear to the Chair that the House did not grant that Committee the authority to study issues related to lobbying. The Member for Mississauga South is right in his assertion that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, pursuant to Standing Order 108(3)(a)(viii), has been given the necessary authority to look into any claims related to the Conflict of Interest Code or the conduct of Members of Parliament. Authority for considering other issues related to lobbying have been conferred upon the Standing Committee on Information, Privacy and Ethics, including examination of reports from the Commissioner of Lobbying.

Therefore, for those reasons I must conclude that the Third Report of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates is out of order. Accordingly, I rule that the Report be deemed withdrawn. Furthermore, with regard to the motion on the Order paper standing in the name of the hon. Member for Winnipeg Centre, I am ordering that this motion for concurrence in the Third Report be deemed withdrawn and that no further proceedings may take place in relation to this Report.

In conjunction with this, I will reiterate an important message contained in my ruling on April 2, 2009, when I stated:

While it is true that the House has given its committees broad mandates and significant powers, with such power and authority comes the responsibility of committees to respect their mandates and not exceed the limits of their authority.

I thank hon. Members for their attention.