Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Just go ahead.

[Andre Barnes]

I stand to be corrected, but I think we only received one document in the e-mail from CIDA. You might have two. I stand to be corrected, but I think that the committee has only circulated one in the e-mail.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Then that will be fixed by Mr. Reid's previous motion of two documents. He has two examples, and you've only received one. We've now moved that this committee will receive both of the ones you have in evidence in your hands. I don't believe I've seen either yet, so that will be fine, but where are we on this, if that's the case?

[Nicolas Auclair]

I'm going to try to answer your question, Mr. Paquette.

As my colleague was saying, when Ms. Biggs and the Minister appeared, they both promised to send documents to the committee that would reflect a similar practice to the one being considered now. We received only one document, and that is the one mentioned in paragraph 30. The committee is now considering another motion, and the reason they were not included in the document was that we didn't receive them.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We hadn't received them. So we haven't seen them either.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So Mr. Reid's motion, accepted unanimously by the committee, is about two documents. That's fine. If there is a second one, it will now be in evidence with us. So what's been asked for in the wordsmithing change here then is to make it read in the plural about documents received. Okay? So we're all right with that?

Mr. Reid, I know you're talking to Marcel, but are we finished with your intervention?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

No, I was trying to make an amendment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

While I'm doing it, I'll explain it. Let me just go through this. Forgive me, it's a bit confusing here, and normally you should make the amendment and then speak to it.

First, I have the cover page of a letter from the clerk dated March 21 sent out to all members or whatever assistants they are. It's the usual kind of list of assistants. It just says:

Dear Members of the Committee, Please find attached, for your information, responses to questions from Margaret Biggs (Canadian international Development Agency), following her appearance before the Committee on Friday, March 18, 2011.

That's the cover letter that was sent out to all offices, although I recognize there are members here who aren't normally members and they may not have seen it for that reason.

[An hon. member]

That was received on the 21st?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

The 21st at 1:31 p.m., and it was sent in your case to....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have a cover letter from Michelle saying that she sent it, but it doesn't say whether there are one or two letters in it. It just says an e-mail went out at that time. So the argument still is whether there's one or two.

I think we've dealt with that by saying you have two examples, and you wanted them tabled. We voted unanimously to do that, so now they are on record in this, even if there was one in the e-mail and now there are two. We've dealt with that.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes. I'm just trying to move now to what they.... The analyst didn't put this in there, so now we have a cover letter addressed to you from Ms. Biggs, saying there are two documents, and now here's the part where we have to start amending. It's two documents, their dates are March 5, 2010, and March 8, 2010—that's recorded in the cover letter—and one of them uses the word “not” in two spots, the other one uses the words “do not”. So if we can make those changes, this part would now reflect the documents we were given.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Great. So we have an idea how we're going to say that then: it's a matter of changing it into the plural and adding “not” and “do not”.

I have Mr. McGuinty. You're okay?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes, let's get through this. I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Paquette.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I want to be sure I understand. In that case, you will be checking to ensure that there are, in fact, two examples and will include them in this paragraph. However, if we were to conclude that there is only one, you will ensure that the report reflects that fact.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have both of the documents now in both official languages. They're about to be given to you. I think we can safely say there were two documents. From that, we'll make the changes on this to the plural. And with the other suggestion, Mr. Reid, because they're not exactly the same--one says “not”, one says “do not”--we'll make it read that.

Mr. McGuinty, are you okay?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Yes, I'm fine. I just want to make sure of something, Chair.

Earlier, in one of the other paragraphs that we've already approved, there was reference to the “sheer number of memos”. In paragraph 27 it reads: “Due to the sheer number of memos that she must deal with (in 2010, she dealt with 758 memos)....”. So I assume, because we requested of the minister any examples and all examples, frankly.... I recall putting the question to her and to Ms. Biggs. I don't know if it's useful for folks who will be reading the report finally to know that it's two examples of the 758 memos that she would have decided upon in her year of 2010.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's not my recollection, but I'll take other interventions.

Mr. Lukiwski, on that.

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

I apologize, David. I was dealing with the document I had in front of me. Could you repeat what you said? Were you saying your assumption was that since there were 758 memorandums that the minister dealt with and she only supplied these two, we should surmise, then, that those were the only two? Is that the thrust of what you were saying? I don't want to put words in your mouth, but I couldn't quite hear what you were saying.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I recall asking Ms. Biggs and the minister if they could deliver up all of the examples of the 758 memos. I remember putting that right to her, saying to her that she--

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

I'd like to--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Can I finish?

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

Sure, go ahead.