Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to thank Mr. Malo for his comments. I think that's the purpose of Standing Orders: to try to anticipate as best we can what circumstances we will face as a committee and try to set parameters around those very things. I believe that having the 72 hours is fair and reasonable. It will give dissenting opinions time to be developed. We don't know which of our parties may wish to write these dissenting opinions, but it makes sense to give a reasonable amount of time. To have a lesser period might not provide that opportunity.
Any of the work we undertake is important enough that when we disagree, which I'm sure will happen on rare occasions, there will be the opportunity for those expressions of disagreement to be articulated clearly and affixed to the reports we table. This is simply why I'm suggesting we use the 72 hours, rather than try to fly by the seat of our pants. The purpose of the Standing Orders themselves is to give some certainty to the structures we use when we are preparing our work for tabling in the House of Commons.