Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2011

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I always think it's important.... I'm not sure how to respond to Mr. Dewar's intervention, except to point out that it is not unprecedented for a member of a committee, or indeed even a member speaking in the House, to speak in favour of something they support. That's all I'm doing.

The point, of course, of all discussion in the House and in its committees is to try to persuade members over to the point of view expressed by the speaker in order, hopefully, to have them vote in favour of the item on which they are speaking in favour. But we even have situations where something is non-votable, ultimately, and we still have debate over it. People try to convince each other of the merits in a more abstract fashion, something which I think is relevant here, since this ultimately is the issue that the opposition is planning on fighting the election over.

I was frustrated throughout these hearings by some of the ways in which.... I don't want to criticize other members. I'll say that I was frustrated by some of the things I saw some members do where I thought it just wasn't appropriate behaviour. I suppose it wasn't contempt of Parliament, obviously, but it was not respectful in the way we ought to be respectful--

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

Do you mean with a filibuster?

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

--of the proceedings.

Well, in answer to Mr. Proulx's question, I will just point out that you could write the rules here. We do have rules that deal with closure, right? We can write the rules so that debate just ends, regardless of whether all the germane points have been discussed or not, but the resting state of Parliament is to permit further debate, because there is always the possibility that the debate might result in a decision being made.

That's why, when the Speaker rules to break a tie, he rules as he does. At third reading, he'll rule against, and at second reading, he'll rule in favour, always to ensure that further discussion and further debate can occur, that the door is never closed. Of course, that's the reason for talking. That is ultimately the reason why, from a procedural point of view, additional debate is always possible in committee. That's all that I'm attempting to do here.

As I say, the issue of contempt of Parliament ultimately comes down to whether Parliament makes that decision. The fear one can legitimately have, I think, is that this and other procedures can be bent sufficiently out of shape such that they no longer serve their initial purpose. The purpose of the concept of contempt of Parliament, as with contempt of court, is not that it be used, first of all, as a rhetorical tool--that's obvious--but additionally that it not be used for the purpose of going after people when you don't have some other method for doing it, because effectively you can find anybody in contempt on the basis of anything at all. All you need is to have a majority willing to do what you want to do.

That's the reason why I think it's so important that we all understand and all support this paragraph, and support it knowingly, knowing what we are voting on. That is why I wanted to send that thought, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Laframboise.

[Mario Laframboise, Bloc, Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC]

Mr. Chair, I am going to support paragraph 38. Mr. Reid is doing so for his own reasons, but I am supporting it precisely because Mr. Walsh told us that it is important for us to see that, in the minister's office, there are two levels of decision-making, a departmental level and a political level.

The Bloc Québécois is clear in its decision. We are not questioning the minister's decision, a decision made in her office. Rather, we are questioning the fact that, for more than a year, the attempt has been made to make it seem like a CIDA decision, and that we will never accept. That is why we are going to support paragraph 41, that, by way of conclusion, says: “… the committee sees no other choice to find her in contempt of Parliament”. If my colleagues were in agreement, Mr. Chair, we could even add “and to recommend that the House withdraw its confidence in this government that, by its systematic obstruction, today once more clearly shows that it no longer deserves to govern this country”.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Mr. Chair, I honestly wasn't planning to speak again, but what Mr. Laframboise just said clearly indicates that side does not understand the difference between the departmental recommendation and CIDA's decision. The decision is CIDA's, when the minister made it, and he clearly identified the opposite just a minute ago. He doesn't get it.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Blaney.

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

I just want to say that I am ready to support the paragraph as presented. As I understand it, no amendments have been introduced. Is that correct? We are voting on this as presented? So I think we can move to a vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have finished our amendments on paragraph 38, and we're discussing 38 as it's been amended.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I just wouldn't feel right if I didn't have a chance to comment on this, Marcel.

I want to pick up where Mr. Albrecht left off, because I think that's the whole thrust of the argument on contempt. From the opposition standpoint it seems they have this continuing confusion on what a CIDA decision truly means.

When she appeared before committee, the minister was crystal clear when she stated that she had always said the decision to defund Kairos was a CIDA decision. The committee heard her testimony and had the benefit of her thoughts. By her saying it was a CIDA decision, she stated it was because she had made the decision to defund Kairos, and once she had made a decision, her decision became a CIDA decision.

However, the opposition continues to operate under a misunderstanding. They point to her testimony as evidence, in their minds at least, that when she said the CIDA decision was to defund Kairos, or not to fund Kairos, that she misled Parliament because she's saying that it was CIDA officials.

She never stated that it was CIDA officials. In fact, during committee, if members recall, I challenged the committee to find one excerpt from Hansard or one comment in a news report afterwards that quoted Minister Oda saying that CIDA officials made this decision. She had never done so. I'm sure that all of the researchers from the opposition parties will have had adequate time by now at least to go over every single word the minister said.

She made many appearances. She talked at length at committee, particularly during her appearance at committee on December 9. She spoke in the House. She answered questions. She gave interviews outside the House. At no time was her testimony inconsistent. At no time did her testimony, either in the House or outside the House, offer contradictory statements. She continually stated this was a CIDA decision.

As members will recall, when I questioned the minister at committee, I asked her specifically, did she say at any time, did she give any impression or inference at any time, did she make any suggestion at any time that this was a decision to defund Kairos that was made by her officials as opposed to her? She said no, she never stated that, and she never meant to state that. She also clarified the fact that although she was comfortable in her own mind when she said it was a CIDA decision and that others would interpret her remarks as she intended them to be received, that it was her decision and she represented CIDA, she understood there was some confusion. That is why in her statement in the House in February of this year she apologized for any confusion and she wanted to clarify the record. She went on to clarify and apologize once again at committee. She apologized if there was any confusion on this matter.

I think her direct testimony at committee should put an end to this. She stated that at no time did she state this was a decision made by her officials and that she overturned it. She said it was a recommendation by her officials. She rejected the recommendation. Her officials confirmed that. Ms. Biggs confirmed the fact that it was a decision made by Minister Oda and that CIDA officials were not confused whatsoever. It seems the only confusion is that generated—and I say generated for a reason—by the opposition. I think, quite frankly, they're manufacturing their confusion.

In the Speaker's ruling, if you recall, he said that the primary reason he was referring this to committee was to clear the air because there appeared to be some confusion. He cited a similar case back in 2002, and although he didn't mention the name of the minister involved, it was Art Eglington, a former minister in the former Liberal government.

[A voice]

Eggleton.

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

Eggleton. Thank you for that.

I'll just call him Art.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Not named after the street...?

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

When that issue was referred to committee, the committee finding was that the minister was not in contempt.

[An hon. member]

A point of order. The bells are ringing.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are adjourned.