Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2011

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

It would be “...did not provide a specific explanation as to how the KAIROS application did not meet these criteria.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

I still have Mr. Albrecht. Are you okay now that you've heard it?

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

I may want to come back to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, you may want me to come back to it.

Monsieur Laframboise, and then Mr. Reid.

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

Mr. Chair, the only thing is that paragraph 36 mentions Mrs. Corkery's appearance and the answers she gave. It seems to me that, in her reply, she said that the letter did not give any more specific explanations. That is not the committee's position, actually. It really is what she said.

I do not know whether the analysts found the sentence in her testimony where she said that the letter did not give any more specific explanations. I think that is what she said.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You may.

[Nicolas Auclair]

Mrs. Corkery's testimony reads as follows: “We didn't receive anything under December 4—it was dated December 3, but it arrived on December 4—and it was quite general”. A little further on, she says, and I quote: “We did receive a letter, dated December 3, which we got on December 4, which said that CIDA has to make decisions, and that's for efficiency and effectiveness, and also for our priorities on food security, children and youth…”. We based ourselves on those two quotations when we wrote the end of the paragraph.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

Chair, the problem I have with them ending this way is that this implies it is normal practice to provide the reasons, a list of the ways in which an application failed to meet the criteria. First of all, that isn't the practice, at least not as far as I'm aware, for this agency or any other. It's a different story when you're dealing with court decisions, when you're reading through court rulings, and they'll frequently give greater explanations, but they won't, for example, give reasons why they've refused to hear an appeal. They'll just say you're not getting an appeal, and that's it. I think you have to wind up reading it in the Gazette. I don't think you actually get to see this thing.

Remember, there were 758 applications. We were asked that question. How many of these things come across the minister's desk? Why did the minister fall behind in dealing with these things? Well, there are 758 applications and 365 days in the year, and the minister has to go back to her riding, back and forth, but she tries conscientiously to deal with these things at all times, including by telephone. The decision in question, the final decision, as we know from her testimony, was dealt with in part while she was in her car—one hopes not driving—on a cellphone because they were up against some kind of deadline—

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It would probably be a hands-free unit.

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

No. I think she doesn't drive because of her eyes.

Anyway, you can see what I'm getting at. This is more than two decisions a day. Talking about week days, it's three or four decisions a day. And she is trying to give adequate time to all of them and take them seriously—perhaps not the ones that are really obviously not fit to be presented. But obviously the ability to sit down and write a response to each of them doesn't exist, giving a specific explanation as to why they don't meet the criteria. The facts are that here are criteria and we've determined the application doesn't meet them, and that's all that needs to be said; that's all that is said.

I've had an objection, which I've voiced a number of times in the course of discussing this draft report, that one of the problems we face here is that we are implying that which could not actually be stated clearly. We're effectively, as the saying goes, doing through the back door that which we couldn't do through the front door. Here is an implication that the minister departed from normal practice. Given that that is the entire assertion on which the opposition is basing its complaint that she is in contempt, because I don't think they any longer are arguing.... I stand to be corrected, but I don't believe they are arguing any longer that she deliberately misled Parliament by forging a document, given the fact that we now see that was the normal practice. I don't think, based, for example, on what Mr. McKay was saying in his final questions to the minister, that he was arguing any longer that she had actually lied to Parliament or deliberately misled Parliament or stated something that was, in a narrow sense, an untrue statement in the House of Commons.

I believe his assertion was that she had said something that was misunderstood and had then not looked at the misunderstanding and reported back to us to say, “Look, I'm worried there's a misapprehension here; I want to correct something that was never started by me but has gotten in the air”, and that is a pattern of behaviour that is, in and of itself, unacceptable. Given that that is the avenue they are going down, putting things in that say that—

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

Your time is up.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I thought you said you liked procedure. Let the man speak.

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

This is very important—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Carry on, Mr. Reid.

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

--and germane, Mr. Chair.

Given that fact, it seems to me that saying the letter didn't provide a specific explanation, unless we are going to add something and say that “as is typical in such cases, the letter did not provide a specific explanation” as to why.... I would be willing to move an amendment to that effect, but I think that would reduce our ability to complete our report and get it back to the House in time to deal with the subject matter.

So let me just say that on this basis I oppose the motion as amended and suggest that we return to the original wording of the proposed amendment. We'll simply remove the last sentence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We have a motion to remove the last sentence, rather than what was suggested, but that's a new amendment. We had one where we were adjusting the sentence. We'll go to Mr. Reid's motion to remove the sentence.

[An hon. member]

A recorded vote.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On the motion to remove the sentence, all in favour? Opposed?

(Amendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas, 5)

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Now we're back to the changes to the sentence that Mr. Rae had proposed. All in favour?

Mr. Reid?

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

I don't mean to interrupt, but could we get a recorded vote on that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure we can.

On Mr. Young's amendment, subamended by Mr. Rae, those in favour? Opposed?

(Amendment agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So we've amended paragraph 36 by changing the last sentence.

We have to vote on it. We now have a new last sentence. Those in favour of 36 as it is now written?

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

A recorded vote, please, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid would like a recorded vote. Certainly. We can do that. We know how to do that now.

(Paragraph 36 as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])