Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges discussed at some length the question of the sitting hours of the Assembly, and the suggestion of leaving one day each week open for committee and constituency business for Members.
Several concerns have been raised in the past regarding the schedule of Members during session. Often meetings are held during each morning and evening around the sitting hours of the Assembly. Although attempts have been made to curtail the number of committee meetings, the schedule and work load of each committee often requires several meetings to be held during session.
The standing committee recognizes as well, however, that many Members are unable to return to their constituencies for lengthy periods of time while the House is sitting and that proceeding with the business of the House in an efficient manner is a priority.
The standing committee was of the opinion that a provisional amendment to the rules, to be in force for a limited term on a trial basis, would be an effective means of addressing the scheduling problems. This would allow further input to be provided by Members on the issue, based on their experience with the amendment. Therefore, on February 17, 1993, a motion for a provisional rule change for the sitting hours was moved by the chairperson of the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges, and was carried by the Assembly.
Until the prorogation of the Third Session, the Speaker shall adjourn the Assembly each Wednesday until the next sitting day upon the completion of oral question period.
The standing committee would welcome the comments of the Members on this provisional amendment.
Mr. Chairman, you may recall last week the provisional rule was rescinded. Our standing committee would like comments pertaining to that particular issue.
Responses To Oral And Written Questions
Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Rules, Procedures and Privileges considered the issue of whether time frames should be instituted for responses by Ministers to written or oral questions. As well, the committee discussed whether returns to written questions should be required to be filed with the Clerk of the Legislative Assembly during extended adjournments.
The standing committee is of the opinion that there should be no time frame incorporated within the rules for responses to oral questions. Where an issue is uncomplicated and urgent, a Member may wish to raise the issue again rather quickly to request that a Minister address the issue and provide a response.
Where a response is more complex, a Minister may indicate, when questioned, that more time is required to investigate the issue. As the oral question period allows Members to raise issues of immediate concern, the committee is of the view that flexibility should be maintained. Accordingly, the standing committee does not recommend an amendment to the rules in this area.
With respect to written questions, the standing committee is of the opinion that a rule specifying the time frame for a response would assist the efficient functioning of the House.
The standing committee holds the view that a time period of 21 calendar days would allow sufficient time for responses to be provided to most written questions. However, accommodation should be made for complex matters. Where 21 days is not adequate, the committee is of the view that the rules should provide a method for the Minister to indicate to the House in writing that more time is required, and to specify a date upon which the response will be provided.