Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2011

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

No, don't repeat it. Just go to the cut. Don't repeat it, please.

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

The amendment is to delete the words “political decision” in the last sentence of paragraph 38, and replace them with the words “ministerial decision, which is political”. That would be what would go into that spot, and it would be in quotes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're okay with that?

Do we want a recorded vote on that?

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 11 ; nays 0 )

Carried.

Mr. Young, with respect to your motion, as amended, I'll call for a vote if there's no further discussion.

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

Perhaps we could have a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Perhaps we could.

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

We're on Mr. Young's amendment, as I amended it. That's what we're on now. Then we'll get to 38.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

That adds the word “departmental”?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It has been done, so we're just asking if you approve the change.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's “departmental”, plus his changes. That's fine.

(Amendment agreed to: yeas 10 ; nays 0 )

It carries.

Paragraph 38, as amended?

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

We voted on my amendment to his amendment, and then we voted on his amendment. Now we would be voting on 38, but I wanted—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We voted on the amendments to paragraph 38. Now we're speaking to it as a whole.

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you.

I wanted to speak in favour of paragraph 38 as amended.

[An hon. member]

Good thinking.

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

This is significant. Mr. Walsh stresses--this is really important--that he was not offering an opinion as to whether the minister was guilty of contempt of Parliament. He went on at some length. I actually would like to have seen in there some of what he said about contempt, about what contempt means, because it was a very enlightening discussion.

To be honest, I am having trouble remembering now--he appeared before us twice on two different subjects--whether it was in his Wednesday testimony or his Friday testimony. I think those are the two days he came before us. I don't know which day he made the point that contempt is whatever Parliament wants to find contempt to be.

That's significant. He says, number one, that he's genuinely not in a position where he can say, because this clearly isn't covered by the current definition of contempt, but that it is possible for Parliament to extend the term “contempt” out beyond its meaning, or to apply it, I suppose, on one basis and not in another in a manner that would be inconsistent. That would be within Parliament's rights. All that procedural folks like O'Brien and Bosc can do is keep a record of where the term has been used in the past and where it hasn't. Whether the uses are consistent is not within their powers to say.

I did say that this was important, and I wasn't just saying that rhetorically. The point is that it's Parliament's decision. In the Commons right now, there is a motion of non-confidence in the government under way on the subject of whether the government is in contempt.

You know, all this is really about is whether the term “contempt” is going to be extended to include something that has never been there before, because, as Mr. Walsh pointed out, contempt is whatever the majority of members voting on the issue want to say is contempt. Contempt is nothing more than that.

During our hearings it was frustrating for me personally. Mr. McGuinty on a couple of occasions read a dictionary definition of the word “contempt”, which really has absolutely nothing to do with the parliamentary definition of the word contempt. A parliamentary definition refers to something that relates back to the privileges of the House or respect for the House, that kind of thing. It is narrowly defined, which is why we see people acting in manners that are, by any objective sense, contemptuous--and I suppose sometimes even contemptible--but that would never qualify as contempt in the technical definition, particularly if they happen to be people who are members of a majority government.

Now, heaven knows, having sat under the Chrétien government and watched previous governments operating, majority governments of more than one partisan stripe.... We can all think of examples. We all read history, too, so we can think of examples. But they had a majority behind them, so...a different story.

The point here is that contempt is something that unfortunately can be subject to abuse. That's why when this statement kept on getting made, as part of the Liberal talking points, that this is a historic first, that never before has the government been found in contempt....

But there's a whole bunch of other things that will become firsts as we try them just because they're so far outside the normal practices of this Parliament, the Westminster Parliament on which it's based, and the various other parliaments throughout the Commonwealth. We are talking literally dozens of parliaments when you take into account the parliaments of the various provinces of Canada, the states of Australia, the states of India, the provinces of South Africa, and so on.

When you're talking about contempt and saying that it doesn't exist, or that these things don't happen elsewhere, it's because they are being respectful of the need to keep this term very tightly under wraps. They are aware of the dangers of using this too broadly, something that unfortunately has not occurred in this case.

I would argue, quite frankly, that if we're talking about contempt in the dictionary sense, there was some degree of contempt displayed by--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, on a point of order--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Dewar.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

--just on relevance, we have a member who is actually aware that he supports the amendment. He has voted on the amendment. He supports the motion. I am just wondering if we could move things along, because he seems to be having the discussion with himself.

[An hon. member]

I think it's fascinating.

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

I'm learning something.

[Some hon. members]

Oh, oh!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

He's referring to what Mr. Walsh has said, to the paragraph that's about--

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

But in light of the fact that he has already stated he agrees with the amendment and everyone agrees--

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

It's educational, Paul. You're a scholar. You should learn something too.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

It's a point of relevance, and I know you're anxious to get things moving, Mr. Chair.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.