Committees / Reports

November 24, 1994

Debates, p. 8252

On November 16, 1994, after Oral Questions, Michel Gauthier (Roberval) rose on a point of order to protest the fact that the dissenting opinions of the report of the Special Joint Committee on Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy were included in a document separate from the report signed by the committee’s co-chairs.^[1] In Mr. Gauthier’s opinion, that went against the rules of parliamentary procedure governing the House of Commons and its committees. He pointed out that Standing Order 108 (1)(a) allowed committees to print a brief appendix to any report, after the signature of the chairman, containing dissenting opinions or recommendations proposed by committee members. Noting that the motion adopted by the committee to that effect did not provide in any way for the report to be tabled in two separate documents, Mr. Gauthier urged the Speaker to rule out of order the reports tabled by Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier), joint Chair of the committee, on Tuesday, November 15, 1994,^[2] and to order to reprint so that the dissenting opinions appeared together with the report within a single document. Mr. Gauthier (Ottawa—Vanier) then intervened in the discussion and argued that there were not two separate reports, but a single report in two volumes. The two volumes had been put in a folder marked “Report of the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canadian Foreign Policy”. Don Boudria (Chief Government Whip) proposed that, in the event of a reprint or the printing of additional copies of the report, the volumes be joined together. Elwin Hermanson (Kindersley—Lloydminster) then rose to concur with the statement made by Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) and suggested affixing a stamp or sticker on the volumes to distinguish the two volumes. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons (Peter Milliken) then recalled that it was commonplace for reports to be published in two separate volumes. He further pointed out that the Standing Order referred to by Mr. Gauthier (Roberval) applied only to standing committees of the House, and that the report only included a dissenting opinion through the good graces of the committee Chair. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.

The Speaker ruled on November 24, 1994, that, under Standing Order 108(1)(a), opinions dissenting from or supplementary to a report must be appended after the signature of the chair in a single volume. He concluded however that the report as presented would be accepted but that, should a reprint be required, dissenting opinions would be printed after the signatures of the Co-Chairs in the same volume.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the point of order raised by the honourable member for Roberval on November 16, 1994, concerning the format of the report of the Special Joint Committee Reviewing Canada’s Foreign Policy.

I would like to thank the honourable member for his intervention, and to thank the former member for Ottawa—Vanier and Co-Chair of the Special Joint Committee, the chief government whip, the member for Kindersley—Lloydminster and the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader for their contributions to this discussion.

In his submission, the honourable member for Roberval requested that the report of the Special Joint Committee be ruled out of order for a number of reasons. First he noted that Standing Order 108 provides that dissenting opinions be appended after the signature of the chair and argued that printing dissenting opinions in a second document breached the provisions of the standing order.

Further, he argued that, although the Committee had agreed to append dissenting opinions to its report, no decision was taken by the Committee to print the report in the format in which it was tabled. He therefore went on to request that the report be reprinted in a single volume.

The House has a relatively recent practice of allowing committees to include dissenting opinions in the reports. In 1991, Standing Order 108 was amended to permit standing committees to “report from time to time and to print a brief appendix to any report after the signature of the Chairman containing such opinions or recommendations dissenting from the report or supplementary to it as may be proposed by committee members”.

Also in 1991, Standing Order 35(2) was added to permit a representative of the official opposition to give a succinct explanation of such dissenting opinions when the committee report is tabled. These changes made explicit the House practice with regard to dissenting opinions in the committee reports.

As the honourable parliamentary secretary to the government House leader noted, a close reading of these Standing Orders reveals that the provisions of the rules refer only to standing committees of the House.

A review of the 20 reports tabled with dissenting opinions since these rules were adopted in 1991 reveals that four have been from special committees. Three of these four reports were presented in the House and on these three occasions a representative of the official opposition rose to comment, pursuant to Standing Order 35(2).

It appears that it has become our practice to apply Standing Order 108 to special committees and there has been heretofore no challenge to such a practice. So, unless the House directs otherwise, the Chair does not intend to intervene on that point.

The wording of Standing Order 108(1)(a) is very clear. First, it allows a committee to print opinions or recommendations that dissent from a report or are supplementary to it. It specifies that such an appendix is to be printed after the signature of the chairman. It specifies that such an appendix must be brief and brief means short and concise.

The Standing Order does not allow for minority reports. Regardless of how the media or members themselves may label such dissent, the House has never recognized or permitted the tabling of minority reports. Speaker Lamoureux twice condemned the idea of minority reports, explaining to the House that what is presented to the House from a committee is a report from the committee, not a report from the majority.

I would draw the attention of members to the rulings of July 24, 1969, at pages 1397 to 1399 and March 16, 1972, at pages 194 and 195 of the Journals.

If members of this House or parties in this House wish to disseminate their views on a matter, they are free to find their own way of doing so. This Standing Order does not exist to provide a convenient vehicle for publicizing a different or alternate report on a subject matter.

With the exception of the provisions of Standing Order 32(4) requiring that documents be tabled in both official languages, the rules of the House are silent on questions relating to the format of a committee report. These questions are largely left in the hands of the committee.

In the past, committees have allowed their Chairs considerable latitude as to the format and presentation of special cover reports to the House. Perhaps in this case we have discovered the limits to such latitude and the lesson for all is that committees themselves will have to decide these matters in advance of the printing of the report.

Committees must be careful to assume their responsibilities in this regard: they cannot heedlessly go forward without deciding such specific matters as the relevance and brevity of dissenting opinions and the form in which these will be appended to the printed report.

For example, the Special Joint Committee on Canada’s Defence Policy presented a two-volume report some weeks ago with the dissenting opinions contained in volume one after the signatures of the Co-Chairs. This was in conformity with a very explicit motion adopted by the committee to include the dissenting opinions in volume one. But the publication of committee reports in more than one volume is a new phenomenon and this may have contributed to our present difficulty.

The Standing Joint Committee Reviewing Canada’s Foreign Policy also adopted a motion to append dissenting opinions to the report, but the committee Minutes reveal that the only motion specifically speaking to the question of format is one requiring that the report be printed in a bilingual tumble format. Furthermore, the motion authorizing the printing of dissenting opinions is phrased in general terms and this too may have contributed to the current imbroglio.

The Chair concludes that the report as presented meets the spirit of the Standing Order and that it should be accepted as tabled. While supplies last, the report will continue to be distributed in its present two-volume format. However, I am of the opinion that the report does not meet the letter of the Standing Order. Therefore, should a reprint be required, I am instructing my officials to ensure that the dissenting opinions of the official opposition and Reform Party be printed after the signatures of the Co-Chairs in the same volume.

The terms of the Standing Orders which allow for the printing of dissenting opinions must be carefully observed and it is the duty of committees to ensure their observance. To avoid any future confusion, the Chair expects that all committees will ensure by means of explicit and carefully worded motions in keeping with the terms of Standing Order 108(1)(a) that their members are perfectly clear as to the format in which their reports will be presented to the House.

I thank all members for their interventions and I hope that this clarification of Standing Order 108(1) will be useful to the committees of the House.

P0906-e

35-1

1994-11-24