Committees / Committee Proceedings

Questions on the Order Paper: delay in reply deemed referred to committee; officials not questioned

February 4, 2002

Debates, pp. 8664-5

On January 31, 2002, Vic Toews (Provencher) rose on a question of privilege arguing that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights subverted Standing Order 39(5)(b) by not considering the failure of the Ministry to provide a response to Question Q-98 on the Order Paper within the 45-day time limit. Mr. Toews noted that, although officials from the Department of Justice were present at the meeting held earlier that day, the Committee decided not to hear from them regarding the lateness of the Government’s response.^[1] This, he maintained, went against the Standing Order as the Committee had an obligation to investigate the delay and report its findings to the House. The Chair of the Committee, Andy Scott (Fredericton) pointed out that, given that the response to the Question was made prior to the Committee’s meeting, the Members felt there was no need to pursue the matter of lateness any further. For his part, Ralph Goodale (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, Minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board and Federal Interlocutor for Métis and Non-Status Indians) stated that the Standing Order did not prescribe how the Committee should dispose of the matter and that this was for the Committee to determine. He added that the Committee did meet the requirements of the Standing Order by meeting within five sitting days after the expiration of the time limit to consider the matter. Other Members also intervened. The Deputy Speaker (Bob Kilger) reminded the House that it was not the practice of the Chair to interfere in committee business, as committees are masters of their own proceedings; however, since this was the first time this new procedure had been tested, he would take the matter under advisement.^[2]

On February 4, 2002, the Deputy Speaker delivered his ruling. He declared that there was a long-standing convention in the House that committees are masters of their own proceedings, and that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was therefore free to dispose of the matter as it saw fit. That the Committee had chosen not to pursue the matter was a decision taken in full compliance with the rules and procedures of the House. The Deputy Speaker concluded that since the Committee was empowered to decide how it managed its orders of reference and since there had been no report to the House, no further action was required. He also took the opportunity to review the Chair’s understanding of how this new procedure was intended to function, when pursuant to Standing Order 39(5)(b), the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond to a written question was referred to a standing committee. He noted that the Standing Order did not prescribe how a committee should dispose of such a matter but only that it must meet on the issue within five sitting days.

Decision of the Chair

The Deputy Speaker: Before I call for resumption of the debate I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Provencher on Thursday, January 31, concerning the manner in which the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights carried out its Order of Reference with respect to unanswered questions on the Order Paper.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for having raised this matter and the Chair of the Committee, the hon. Member for Fredericton, for providing additional helpful information on the Committee’s work. I would also like to thank the hon. House Leader of the PC/DR Coalition, the hon. Member for Yorkton–Melville, the hon. Government House Leader and the hon. Member for Surrey North for their contributions on this question.

The hon. Member for Provencher in raising the question alleged that the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights violated Standing Order 39(5)(b) when at its meeting on Thursday, January 31, the Committee voted down a motion to invite departmental officials to testify regarding the delay in answering Question No. 98.

He argued that the Order of Reference given to the Committee on January 29 concerning the delay in replying to Question No. 98 constituted an Order of the House to investigate the delay and report the matter back. He disputed the Committee’s right to decide that it was satisfied that there were mitigating circumstances and that, since a response had been tabled in the House, the matter could be considered closed. The Chair of the Committee explained that the Committee considered a motion to invite the departmental officials to answer questions about the delay but that the motion was negatived and the Committee passed on to other business.

Let us briefly review the basic procedures involved in this matter. With respect to written questions, Standing Order 39(5)(a) provides that the Ministry must respond within 45 days. Standing Order 39(5)(b) states:

If such a question remains unanswered at the expiration of the said period of forty-five days, the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond shall be deemed referred to the appropriate Standing Committee. Within five sitting days of such a referral the Chair of the committee shall convene a meeting of the committee to consider the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond. The question shall be designated as referred to committee on the Order paper and, notwithstanding Standing Order 39(4), the Member may submit one further question for each question so designated.

It is important to note that it is the matter of the failure of the Ministry to respond that is referred to the Committee, and the hon. Member for Provencher rightly draws a distinction between that matter and any issue relating to the sufficiency of the reply, an issue that he wishes to pursue as a separate item.

There is a longstanding convention in this House that committees are masters of their own procedure. I refer hon. Members to page 804 of Marleau and Montpetit which states:

Committees are bound to follow the procedures set out in the Standing Orders, as well as any specific sessional or special orders that the House has issued to them. Committees are otherwise left free to organize their work. In this sense, committees are said to be masters of their own proceedings.

Again at page 885 it states:

If there is an irregularity in the committee’s proceedings, the House can only be seized of it once it is reported to the House.

In the case before us the delay in replying to a question stands referred to the Committee, but it is important to remember that, like other matters before it, the Committee may dispose of this as it deems appropriate. The Committee in this instance has decided not to pursue the matter further. This is a decision that properly rests with the Committee, and while the hon. Member for Provencher may disagree with the decision it has been taken in full compliance with our rules and procedures.

The Chair has always refrained from interfering in the business of committees which are free to pursue the work before them as they see fit. In this instance the Chair has concluded that since the Committee is empowered to decide how it will deal with its orders of reference and since there has been no report to the House concerning its proceedings, no further action is required on this point of order.

That being said, as hon. Members know, I was the Chair of the Special Committee on the Modernization and Improvement of the Procedures of the House of Commons and this new procedure with regard to unanswered questions was one of the Committee’s recommendations that, like the rest of the Report, was adopted unanimously by this House. As such, this is a matter that is of special interest to me and I believe that it might be helpful for committees faced with such orders of reference in the future, if the Chair outlines its understanding of how this procedure is intended to function.

Let me simply describe how the Chair sees these matters unfolding, always bearing in mind that each committee will decide how to handle its own order of reference.

First, upon the expiration of the 45 days, the Speaker informs the House that the question has been referred to a particular standing committee. The Member in whose name the question stands is responsible for determining the committee to which the question will stand referred.

Second, the specified committee must meet within five sitting days of the referral to discuss the matter of the failure of the Government to respond in the time period provided by the Standing Orders. The Member in whose name the question stands should be advised at the committee meeting at which the failure to respond to the question will be raised.

Third, departmental officials may be asked to be available to explain why the question has not been answered within the 45 days. For more complicated questions, a committee may wish to invite the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, who is responsible for coordinating the tabling of answers to questions.

Fourth, the committee decides how it wishes to proceed. It may decide to proceed no further with the matter; to invite witnesses to appear; not to report back to the House; or to report back to the House: one, stating that it has considered the matter and considers it closed; two, stating that it has considered the matter and recommending improvements in the departmental or agency responsiveness; three, stating that it has considered the matter and recommending to the Member certain actions to facilitate a timely response; four, stating that it has considered the matter and making other pertinent recommendations.

The Chair has provided this guidance because this is a new procedure. Also, as the Government House Leader explained, Standing Order 39(5)(b) does not prescribe how the committee will dispose of the matter but only that it must meet on the issue within five sitting days.

All Members of the House are conscious of the steps that we have taken recently toward modernizing our procedures. The changes that have been made as a result of the adoption of the Report of the Modernization Committee represent a clear indication that Members are committed to improving the way in which we conduct our proceedings. This is true of Members from all parties on both sides of the House.

I would urge everyone to respect the decision that the House has made to institute new procedures to better serve Members’ interests. I hope that all of us will continue to be guided both by the letter and the spirit of the Special Committee’s Report.

I thank the hon. Member for Provencher for raising his concern.