Evidence of meeting #1 for International Trade in the 39th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was clerk.
A recording is available from Parliament.
4:30 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
Excuse me, we do have a speakers list. I just think we're on a point of order here to clarify what we're actually debating.
Mr. Bains, did you have a point of order?
4:30 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
I have a question. What's the difference between a supplementary and a dissenting report? Aren't they one and the same, effectively? Can you explain the difference to me?
4:30 p.m.
The Clerk
Essentially the difference, Mr. Chair, is that a dissenting opinion essentially differentiates from what the committee has decided on, and a supplementary opinion is essentially just going a little bit further, not necessarily disagreeing with what's in the report, but adding certain elements to a report.
4:35 p.m.
Liberal
Navdeep Bains Liberal Mississauga—Brampton South, ON
And is it common practice to add a supplementary or dissenting report?
4:35 p.m.
The Clerk
I can read the passage that deals with supplementary reports from the book if you like. I'll just read this passage. It might be able to clarify it in the other committee. It's just a quick paragraph.
A committee report reflects the opinion of the committee and not that of the individual members. Members of the committee who disagree with the decision of the majority may not present a separate report. ... Where one or several members of a standing committee are in disagreement with the committee’s report or wish to make supplementary comments, the committee may decide to append such opinions to the report.... Dissenting or supplementary opinions may be presented by any member of a committee. Although committees have the power to append these opinions to their reports, they are not obliged to do so.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
So it appears to give the opportunity without being required to do so.
Mr. Clerk, I wonder if you could read the amended motion and then we'll continue debate. I have Mr. Miller, Monsieur Malo, and Mr. Masse on the speakers list. But before we proceed with Mr. Miller, could I ask you to read the amended motion?
4:35 p.m.
The Clerk
The amended motion reads:
That every party shall have the right to attach, as an annex, a dissenting or supplementary opinion on any report to be presented to the House of Commons by the committee; and that this dissenting or supplementary opinion shall be submitted to the clerk of the committee within 72 hours of the passing of the report by the committee in accordance with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I don't want to debate it, necessarily, but I'm amazed that we don't have the same format in every committee. In the agriculture committee there was a timeline of 48 hours, but it was increased to 72 hours yesterday. The argument came up for 72 hours versus 48 hours because if this happened on a Friday it would allow time until the first of the week. It's certainly not a precedent. We already had a time in there. It was a little shorter, whereas this one didn't have any timeline.
4:35 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
I would like the regular members of this committee to answer a question for me. In the past, have you encountered any problems with the motion as previously adopted? From what I've observed in other committees, once they have completed their study, members agree amongst themselves on a period of time for dispensing with dissenting opinions. This approach has always worked very well. I simply wonder why Mr. Pallister is today asking that we dispense with dissenting opinions within 72 hours, whereas in practice, members generally agree to allocate time to dispense with these opinions on a case by case basis. I do not think that this suggestion improves in any way upon the motion previously adopted by the committee.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
I'm not on the speaking order, so I'll wait. I'll let everybody who wants to speak do so.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Dean Allison Conservative Niagara West—Glanbrook, ON
I'll speak to this.
In the last Parliament I believe we were given only four hours to respond with a dissenting opinion on one report we came up with. That clearly wasn't enough time to do it.
If we want to recommend less on a case-by-case basis we could certainly look at it, but I think we need to set the 72 hours so it's fair for all parties to come up with something once they have seen the completed report.
4:35 p.m.
Conservative
Larry Miller Conservative Bruce—Grey—Owen Sound, ON
I'm surprised by Mr. Malo's comment. From his explanation, it sounds like it was just loosey-goosey before. Every time a report came up, the committee of the day set a timeline. For the life of me I can't figure out what the problem is in setting out a timeline. Is 72 hours too long?
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Luc Malo Bloc Verchères—Les Patriotes, QC
To answer your question very briefly, events occur over the course of a year where members can decide together if they will need 24 hours, 48 hours or 72 hours, based on the work of the House, statutory holidays or a number of other considerations. The members can decide amongst themselves, once a report has been completed, how much time they will allow to dispense with a dissenting opinion.
I don't see how we can agree on 72 hours as a firm time period when in some instances, 24 or 48 hours may be sufficient. That is my question to the mover of the motion. We cannot, at the start of a session, predetermine a course of action for the coming year.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Brian Pallister Conservative Portage—Lisgar, MB
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.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
Ron Cannan Conservative Kelowna—Lake Country, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I just wanted to echo my colleague's comments. If there is a sentiment that.... Last session that there were some real concerns about coming down to the four-hour aspect, so if 48 hours is more agreeable to the rest of the committee, I think we can work on that. I think a reasonable time is 48 or 72. Whatever they prefer, I'm pretty flexible and I think my colleagues are too, but we need to put something in there.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
We have a motion on the floor for 72 hours, so let's deal with that first.
Go ahead, Monsieur Cardin.
4:40 p.m.
Bloc
Serge Cardin Bloc Sherbrooke, QC
Some are surprised by the existence of this provision respecting dissenting opinions, but as the clerk stated earlier, other committees make no mention of it at all, since Standing Orders 108(1) authorizes the committee to establish different procedures each time around.
I happened to substitute yesterday for a member of the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates and there was no mention of dissenting or secondary opinions in their routine motions. Such opinions are regularly considered in other committees, but I have no problem with the previously adopted wording. I just want to say that I tend to agree with my colleague's position. We cannot predict the future. We may require more than 72 hours, but if that's the case, because the committee is master of its own destiny, members could ask for more time. It's fine if you want to put down 72 hours, but four hours was not a great deal of time during the last session.
4:40 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Lee Richardson
I have no further speakers on the list. I'll call the question.
(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]