Evidence of meeting #52 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thanks, Chair.
This would be on the fifth line from the end, right towards the latter part of that sentence, where it starts, “It was further noted”. This is the sentence that starts after “the March 16, 2011 hearing.” I just want to make sure everybody is at that spot. You're all there?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
It's the fifth line from the end, from the bottom of the paragraph.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
The sentence starts, “It was further noted”. It's the second-last sentence.
I'm waiting for Monsieur Godin.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
After the words “It was further noted”, I would add the words “by some members”.
The reason I say that, Chair, is it's an accurate statement, because there was a difference of opinion that the information binder placed before committee inadequately and insufficiently replied to documents. Obviously, the opposition thinks it was inadequate. The government side thought it was adequate. Rather than just say “It was further noted”, which implies the entire committee was on the same page, “some members” or something like that should be added to clarify it.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
In the French copy, a little before that, we can see what Mr. Lukiwski is referring to. We can read the following: “Certains membres du Comité ont dit avoir du mal à croire que les provinces n'avaient pas informé le gouvernement des coûts de cette mesure [...]”, and the sentence goes on.
The next sentence talks about the members. It says: “Ils ont soutenu...”. “Ils ont soutenu” refers to the previous part where it says: “Certains membres du comité...”.
I don't know whether it is the same in English, but it comes across in French. I'm not sure my explanation is clear. I will try to go over it again. We can read the following: “Certains membres du comité ont dit avoir du mal à croire que les provinces n'avaient pas informé le gouvernement des coûts de cette mesure et ont dit douter de l'exactitude des projections figurant dans les informations fournies au comité durant l'audience du 16 mars 2011. Ils ont soutenu...”. The word “Ils” refers to the word “Certains” in the previous sentence.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
If I may, the nuance in French, as Claude was explaining, is it ties it into the previous sentences with “some members”. Maybe we should change it in 7 or 8, saying “In response, the majority of the members of the committee expressed disbelief that the provinces would not provide the government...”, and then it follows through. Instead of “It was further noted”, they could say “They also noted that the information binder...”. That's the sense, unless the French is wrong, unless the intent in the French version is not correct, but I think the principle is that it started before.
March 21st, 2011 / 10:40 a.m.
Committee Researcher
Mr. Proulx has an excellent suggestion, yes?
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I would agree with Mr. Proulx, essentially. That is a more accurate reflection of what transpired.
I would add, when you say “It was further noted that the information binder placed before the committee by the government inadequately and insufficiently replied to the documents that Parliament had requested”, that's not simply a reflection of the majority of the members of the committee; that was a clear reflection of the analysis of the Parliamentary Budget Officer in his report to this committee. Having it worded as it was worded originally actually does reflect both the opinion of the majority of the committee and the evidence put before the committee by the Parliamentary Budget Officer. That fortifies it, and if we were to weaken or dilute that, it would not reflect what the Parliamentary Budget Officer's evidence to this committee reflected.
10:45 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm going to refer to the very last line of paragraph 30, just to pick up on what Mr. Proulx suggested and what Madame DeBellefeuille suggested.
If we're going to be consistent, then presumably it's the majority of members of the committee “also stated that members of Parliament had the right to know the full costs of legislative measures”, unless the Conservative members are prepared to state that all members of the committee “stated that members of Parliament had the right to know the full costs of legislative measures”, unless they feel differently and they don't want to indicate unanimous support for Canadians knowing the full costs of legislative measures.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thanks, Chair.
Just to Mr. Brison's comments on my suggestion that we add “by some members” after “It was further noted”, he is suggesting that we don't change it because it accurately reflects what occurred in committee. He mentioned the Parliamentary Budget Officer's views. It does not accurately reflect what happened in committee, because clearly the government members were not in agreement that the information binders were inadequate. So we have to make sure there's delineation. If you want to have an accurate assessment of testimony, it was not the entire committee who agreed with that--far from it. That's why I'm saying “by some members”, indicating--as we have in the past--that there is a difference of opinion.
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
10:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We have Mr. Lukiwski first suggesting “by some members”. We'll take a second motion after we've done that one.
