Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 25th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay. I'll make a speakers list. I have Mr. Reid speaking, and Mr. Dewar's hand was up. I assume that since there was an intervention from Mr. Rae, he will put his name on the list.

[Paul Dewar, NDP, Ottawa Centre, ON]

Chair, it's very straightforward. The role of the department is to follow the wishes of the government, and they follow criteria. That's what Ms. Biggs did. That's why she signed off on it. That's what the dossier is all about.

The fact of the matter is that it was with the minister for a couple of months. We know that. What Mr. Walsh refers to is the fact that there was a political lens put on this. It's straightforward. Whether the government wants to say that's just the way it should be or not, it was....

My final point is that this is CIDA. CIDA is an agency; it has a president. It is different from other agencies. They conduct themselves in accordance with the criteria they've been given. They did that. The minister, at the last minute, directed one of her political officials to change that determination.

That has to stay in. Leave it as is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I think both paragraphs are relevant. I think it's an attempt to give a more complete view of the evidence and the various views expressed by members and parliamentary counsel. I think it's an important part of the balance that the staff has been trying to present as we go down that list.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Rae.

Monsieur Laframboise.

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

I just want to say that is a quite faithful report of the debates that went on in our committee. If we want to take out one part, we could be heading towards taking out what we do not like and keeping what we like.

I think the research staff has done a good job. I said so at the last meeting. They reported what was said and it is very well done.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay.

Mr. Albrecht.

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

I think this goes to the heart of the entire report. It's not only in paragraph 33. Back in paragraph 30, we see in line 5: “She also made it clear, as did Ms. Biggs, that it is the Minister's decision in respect of funding that becomes the decision of the agency and that of the government”.

There is no agency that can sign off on these dollar figures without the approval of a minister. So I think we're trying to split hairs. Repeatedly, the minister was clear in her witness that while it may have appeared that people thought she said one thing, what she actually said was that CIDA did not approve it, and CIDA includes the minister.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Rae.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

In that case, why did Mr. Abbott apologize?

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

Ask him.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are you asking the chair a question?

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

I'm asking, through you, to our Conservative friends, if there's no difference between CIDA and the minister, why did Mr. Abbott make the statement that CIDA had examined this and it did not fit into CIDA's priorities? He stood up in his place in the House and said he was embarrassed to say that this had been his understanding when he made the statement, but that he now realized it wasn't true. Why would he have said that?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Rae, I will offer today, as I offered yesterday, to return to the evidentiary portion of this committee's study to find that answer. But I don't think that's your will.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

That would be correct.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Right. So testimony on behalf of Mr. Abbott isn't getting it done here.

Mr. Reid.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

It was his last day in Parliament. I just wanted to give him—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know that often we'll get the speeches that might not otherwise happen in the review of a report.

The chair can offer an opinion once in a while, too, Mr. Proulx.

Mr. Reid.

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

I know we're careful about not revealing in public what goes on in camera, but I don't think I'm in contempt of Parliament in saying that there is some speechifying that occurs at some in camera meetings of this committee and others.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will never admit to that, Mr. Reid.

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

I wasn't referring to you specifically, Mr. Chair. It was a broader reference.

As to Mr. Rae's comments--this is not the main part of my commentary--I wanted to address the relevant—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

But since a speech was made, you're going to give the rebuttal?

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

No, I actually think it's important, because when we're in public...so yeah, the speeches are being made in the hopes that they'll be picked up and looked at afterwards.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go for it.

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

If memory serves, what happened was that Mr. Abbott misunderstood the situation and stated something that was not correct, not true. He unintentionally said something that was not true. He did not intentionally mislead the House. I think we all accept that. He unintentionally misled the House by asserting--more aggressively than the minister ever asserted anything of this sort, because she never did this--that the CIDA officials were in agreement and...the point being not CIDA, which includes the minister, but the CIDA officials, in the same way that Parliament includes three bodies; it's that kind of distinction.

That is the technical distinction that made it appropriate and indeed necessary for him to offer an apology, which he did. But no such apology was necessary from the minister, because she didn't make such a statement.

Turning now to paragraphs 33 and 38, apologies; I am just trying to get my head around it. I've been trying to find Mr. Walsh's comments where he makes a distinction....

I get the distinction made in paragraph 33 between “departmental criteria” and “political criteria”. I actually just think it's unnecessary, because it seems to me to be kind of obvious. Like, this is what you do. You sit down and ask if something's outside the criteria, i.e., is this something we can't fund because it's not dealing with Foreign Affairs?

So they go through that process, and that's departmental criteria.

She then applies the political criteria, i.e., is this in line with the government's policy objectives?

I don't get the point of introducing administrative criteria in paragraph 38. That's why I'm trying to find Mr. Walsh's commentary, to determine what it was he was doing.

I'm not sure if administrative is actually....

If in saying that he meant “departmental”, or if he has some other point he was trying to make...there are actually three criteria here. Presumably this leads back to some kind of assertion that political criteria are in some respect illegitimate. That's why opposition members were raising it, I assume.

I don't think that's the case, but if it is the case, then that changes everything.

I'm throwing that question out to our analysts so we can get an answer on that.