Main estimates: extension of consideration in committee

The Acting Speaker: Before we begin the day's proceedings I would like to rule on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough on May 27, 1999, concerning the extension beyond the normal date of expiration of the consideration of the Main Estimates referred to the Standing Committee on Human Resources Development and the Status of Persons with Disabilities. I wish to thank the honourable member for raising the matter and I also want to acknowledge the contributions made by the honourable member for Vancouver Island North and the honourable government House leader. For the benefit of all members and for the listening public, the point of order raised deals with a specific aspect of the business of supply. Supply is the process by which the government asks Parliament to appropriate the funds required to meet its financial obligations and to implement programs already approved by Parliament. On or before March 1 of the fiscal year that is corning to a close the Main Estimates to cover the upcoming fiscal year for every department of government are referred to specific standing committees for scrutiny. Once that consideration is complete a committee reports its estimates back to the House. Committees that have not reported by May 31 are deemed to have done so. The only exception to the May 31 deadline first implemented in 1986 is by virtue of Standing Order 81(4), which reads in part: (a) not later than the third sitting day prior to May 31, the Leader of the Opposition may give notice of a motion to extend consideration of the main estimates of a named department or agency and the said motion shall be deemed adopted when called on "Motions" on the last sitting day prior to May 31; It is evident from the text I have just quoted that there are no provisions in the Standing Orders to allow anyone other than the Leader of the Opposition to propose this extension. Furthermore, the Standing Order does not require that such a motion be proposed. The text is merely permissive. I must acknowledge the ingenuity of the honourable member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough in suggesting that an analogous situation exists in citation 924 of Beauchesne 6th edition which discusses the division of allotted days among opposition parties. However, I must agree with the honourable government House leader when he concludes, on the issue of extension, that the Standing Orders leave the Speaker no discretionary power at all. Thus, I cannot grant the honourable member's request to allow his motion to proceed in the absence of a motion by the Leader of the Opposition. That being said, the challenge of making the supply process more effective continues to bedevil many members of all parties. If members have suggestions and concrete proposals that will enhance the quality of the work of the House and its committees, then I would encourage them to bring these ideas forward, notably to the attention of the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs which has the ongoing mandate for scrutiny of our procedures and Standing Orders. I thank the honourable member for Pictou—Antigonish—Guysborough for bringing this matter to the attention of the House. P0604-e 36-1 1999-05-28