Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

His speech was 10 days later. How could it have influenced her decision if Mrs. Corkery received it 10 days earlier, well, 13 days earlier, perhaps, verbally, and then had it in writing 13 days later? It's ludicrous to imply that the minister's speech in any way influenced her decision.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

The question is how--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, you don't have the floor. I have other members on the speakers list. If you'd like to get on, go ahead and put your hand up.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I apologize, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Albrecht.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

To be honest, I didn't even catch this in my first read of it. But now that I see this, there are two very problematic words in this first sentence. You have “speculated” and you have “potentially unfavourable”. It's unnecessary in the motion. It doesn't do anything to add to the credibility of what this committee heard, especially with respect to Mr. Young's point about the timing of the phone call Mrs. Corkery received and the statement Minister Kenney made 10 or 13 days later. I totally agree that this first part of paragraph 34 would be better deleted.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Monsieur Laframboise, and then Mr. Rae and Mr. Young.

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

Personally, I still say that our researchers have faithfully reflected the status of the discussions and they have described that situation as speculation—they stayed very neutral, those people, because a lot of politics were going on around the table. I feel that it is even to the minister's advantage. I would take out the word “spéculation“, but that is basically what it was, and Mr. Rae is right. We were discussing the Liberal motion and the Conservatives wanted to bring some of the debates back in. The analysts have analyzed the debates for us, but some people are challenging the content. That was the content of the debates, that's the reality. I cannot be opposed to their analysis and I cannot support removing paragraph 34.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We asked Mr. Kenney to come here and he didn't come here, but his speech raises speculation because he gave a reason for the decision, and no one else has repeated that reason. He himself has not repeated that reason.

It's a reason that's highly prejudicial to the organization, highly prejudicial to the Anglican Church, to the Catholic Church, to all those churches who have supported KAIROS. I thought it was a reprehensible comment by the minister, but that's editorial on my part. It's entirely reasonable for people to speculate as to Mr. Kenney's reasons for making that comment when the implication of the minister's speech is that he knew why the decision was made. This reason for the decision has never been given by the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Rae, I'll suggest again, and probably not for the last time today, you're looking for evidence. We've moved beyond looking for evidence--

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

He's stating facts.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

No, Mr. Chairman, with great respect, I'm simply indicating why paragraph 34 should stay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We're all agreed, and you gave your opinion on Mr. Kenney's thoughts at the time of giving his speech, and we're not certain. That's in evidence.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

We're allowed to do that. If somebody else did that, I'm allowed to do that.

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

It's speculation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Agreed.

[Yasmin Ratansi, Liberal, Don Valley East, ON]

That's there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

I agree with my colleague Mr. Albrecht. The first sentence is speculation of possible involvement. In other words, there was a rumour going around. Are we going to start putting all the rumours that go around this place into committee reports?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Well, it ended up in Minister Kenney's speech, so tell me how the rumours ended up in the speech.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

No, the rumour was that his speech had influenced a decision that was made almost two weeks before. That was the rumour, and why would you put a rumour like that in a report when it's been proven to be impossible?

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

We don't know--he never came to committee to defend himself.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I think that speech was 10 days later.