Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

I have Mr. Proulx next.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I didn't really ask to speak. It was a point of order that I had about half an hour ago in regard to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're very efficient at getting names on the list.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

—Mr. Reid's qualifying the report we did on the previous point of privilege as a farce. I thought that was sufficient for him to be in contempt of this committee, but seeing that you didn't recognize me back then, I guess we'll let it go. He was frustrated, and I can understand that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think you can probably understand frustration today.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Somewhat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I have listened carefully to Mr. Godin's comments. Curiously, those comments seem to be coming close to a solution that seems very valid to me. Recently, right here in this committee, we have been able to see how professional the analysts' work is. Members from all parties have congratulated them on their work. Clearly, for the credibility of the committee, once our conclusions are established, it would be preferable to base ourselves on a document that has a certain balance than on one that I would call a mish-mash of propaganda. Far be it from me to call Mr. McKay's proposal a mish-mash of propaganda. That is not what I am saying. It just seems that the work of this committee should be based on an objective analysis of the testimony we have gathered.

I support Mr. Reid's motion, but, in order for the committee to be able to achieve the goals it has set for itself, it is certainly time to give the analysts a clear mandate. It seems to me that that would avoid a lot of hot air.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I still have others ahead of you, Mr. Lukiwski.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I'd like to raise a point of order, please.

Mr. Chair, since you allowed Monsieur Godin to raise a point of order on recommending that the analysts start preparing a report based on witness testimony, I would certainly support that. That was the crux of my amendment. But let it be known for the record that the government also would strongly recommend that the analysts begin writing a report based on witness testimony; hopefully by the next time this committee meets, on Thursday of this week, we'll be able to take a look at the first version at least of their draft.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll take that as a point of order at the moment.

Mr. Blaney, were you finished?

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Yes, thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, great.

Mr. McGuinty, you were next on my list.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No, I'm not on your list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're right: we did get to that earlier. I'm sorry.

Mr. Albrecht, you're next on my list.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In addition to point two here and, as has been stated on numerous occasions, attempting to put words in the mouth of a fellow parliamentarian, on that basis alone, I'd have difficulty supporting it. Every time the word “agency” is used in this document, and especially in point two, there's almost the underlying assumption that the agency is everybody but the minister. I need to remind this committee that the agency, CIDA, includes the minister. In fact, not only does it include the minister, but the minister is the head of the agency.

[John McKay, Liberal, Scarborough—Guildwood, ON]

That's not true.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

So we're playing games with this. If the minister, the elected representative, does not have input into the agency, then we're in a difficult position, because it's the elected representatives of this Parliament who make those decisions.

But on another point in point two, let's read this: “...the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the minister, was himself misled...”. It goes on and then says, “We now know this also to be untrue”. Well, which is “also” referring to? Is it referring to the minister being misled, or the next statement within that sentence? I think it's very poor wordsmithing and could be confusing.

So point two should be excluded for a number of reasons.

I just want to go back to what was pointed out earlier, which is that it was very unfortunate that this committee wasted an hour of its time waiting for translation when in fact we had four days that could have provided more than adequate time to get a motion to this committee and translation in order. We could have had at least another 45 minutes of productive discussion on this entire package.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks, Chair.

I'm glad I have an opportunity at the end of the meeting to respond to Mr. McKay's earlier comments, because he continues to...I wouldn't say mislead this committee, but certainly he's confused.

[An hon. member]

Well, that's good.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Let me just say that the Liberals continue to be confused on this issue, because he continuously says that the minister was in error when she stated that it was a CIDA decision, and that she should have stated it was her decision. I beg to differ.

In fact, if Mr. McKay was listening at committee--and I know he was--I can only come to the conclusion that he's trying to confuse or mislead this committee, because at committee during direct testimony, the minister stated on several occasions--and this was confirmed by Madame Biggs, the president of CIDA--that when the minister makes a decision concerning CIDA, it becomes a CIDA decision, bottom line. I asked her that directly. There should be no confusion. A minister's decision makes it a CIDA decision.

Mr. McKay also went on to ask why she didn't at any time state in the months preceding committee hearings that it was her decision. I would point out that at the December 9 committee meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs she said on several occasions that it was her decision. The two statements are not contradictory; they are compatible. It was her decision; therefore, it became a CIDA decision.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are at our time. We will reconvene on Thursday at eleven.

The meeting is adjourned.