Dissenting Report
from Conservative Members
of the Procedure and
House Affairs Committee
The Conservative members of the
Procedure and House Affairs Committee (PROC) must issue a dissenting report in
response to the March 21st PROC report. This dissenting report is made
necessary by the fact that the conclusion of the committee’s report does not
take into consideration the actions of the Government to comply with the
Speaker’s March 9th ruling or the evidence heard at committee.
For instance, the committee’s
conclusion does not take into account the fact that the Government tabled the
following sets of documents:
- On March 16th, in response to the Speaker’s ruling and the Government’s commitment to comply with the Speaker’s ruling, the Ministers of Justice and Public Safety tabled a comprehensive response to the Finance Committee (FINA) motion of the Hon. Scott Brison, that supplemented the government’s February 17th response.
- This information was formatted to answer each request contained in Mr. Brison’s motion and incorporated in the Speaker’s March 9th ruling, and clearly explained the reason why some cost information was unavailable to the federal government or inapplicable for legislation that is projected to have no meaningful cost. It should be noted that the information directly addressed the material requested by Mr. Brison. For example, the motion requested financial information of the Government of Canada, which is what was provided. The motion did not ask for financial information from provinces or territories.
- On March 17th, the Minister of National Defence sent to the chairs of PROC and FINA a wide ranging set of documents regarding the future purchase of the F-35 and maintenance costs of the CF-18 that had been requested by FINA and then later ordered by the House on February 28th.
It is clear, that the Opposition
members who voted to pass the conclusions of the committee report gave only a
cursory review of the information provided. Had they treated it seriously, they
would have found detailed information that answered fully and directly the
request of the motion.
Throughout the entire process, the
Opposition showed little interest in the Government’s compliance with the
Speaker’s ruling or with the findings of the committee’s hearings. It was
clear that Opposition MPs had pre-judged the outcome of the hearings before
they had even begun. In fact, they appeared to regret the fact that the
Government provided the supplemental information. The following are just three
examples of the Opposition’s disregard for the proceedings:
- As pointed out several times in committee, Liberal MP and member of PROC, Marcel Proulx, was quoted in the media days before hearings began on March 14th that the Opposition’s ultimate goal of the committee hearings was to find the Government in contempt of Parliament;
- When pointed out by the Chair that he was not allowing witnesses to answer the questions he was asking, NDP MP Yvon Godin stated, “I make the decision if I want an answer or not”; and
- Liberal MP David McGuinty attempted to pass, in secret, a motion that would have banned the independent Library of Parliament analysts from including evidence in the report, leaving the report without the important input of witnesses and containing nothing but the Opposition’s partisan conclusions. That in and of itself raises serious questions about whether the Opposition has any respect for Parliament and its processes.
In conclusion, it is clear that the
Opposition members of the committee never intended to do the work laid before
them by the Speaker. They have ignored the substance of the evidence provided by
the Government and by the witnesses who appeared. The report tabled by the
committee is simply a piece of partisan gamesmanship that diminishes the important
work of Parliament.