House of Commons Hansard #142 of the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was immigration.

Topics

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

(Motion agreed to)

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:25 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank you for your thoughtful ruling. I was very impressed as you went through the entire matter.

At this point, we generally have an opportunity to refer the matter to a committee, which is the usual form, or to have the House deal with it directly. That is a form which had been used, but it has fallen into disuse lately.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to give consideration to this form of motion which would have the House deal with it rather than the committee itself. My argument is founded in Maingot.

First, the motion, as I would propose it, would be that the actions and words of the member for Durham in relation to the decision to de-fund KAIROS, including the doctoring of documents, and blatantly misleading answers in the House and its standing committees, which have already been subject to two committee studies, demonstrate a clear contempt for Parliament, and that the member be suspended from the service of the House until such time as she appears at the Bar of the House to purge her contempt by apologizing in a manner found satisfactory to the Speaker. This would be seconded by the member for Guelph

My argument is found in Maingot, at page 263. It states:

To have someone attend at the Bar to be questioned respecting alleged contempt or breach of privilege would be too cumbersome, particularly where witnesses would be called. Each question to the person of the Bar must be the subject of a debatable and amendable motion....

The usual reason for referencing to a committee is, in fact, that witnesses are called, evidence is taken and other fresh material may be done in the form of a committee which cannot be done here. I submit that in this instance it is somewhat different. In fact, the House has before it all the evidence there is. There is no more evidence. We have reviewed questions in question period, access to information requests, order paper inquiries, et cetera. The entire and full body of evidence is presently before the House. Therefore, there are no other questions or witnesses to be put as one would normally do in a committee proceeding.

My motion would be that we proceed directly to the House being seized of this matter and that the House then debate the motion as is. If the vote on the debate turns out one way, then the member would be asked to apologize to the House.

I defer to your guidance on this matter, Mr. Speaker. As you said in your ruling, the Speaker does have the ultimate “robust” authority with respect to how a motion might be phrased.

My argument is that it is unnecessary to refer this to a committee.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I indicated in my ruling, both in the two rulings that I gave today, that the normal practice of the House was to refer these matters to committee for study. In this case in particular, I think I made it clear that this could clear the air on the matter if the proper questions were asked in the committee and the matter clarified.

Accordingly I am sticking with my initial statement that this can go to committee. Otherwise, I am not accepting another motion and I would not accept this motion were the hon. member to propose it.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether you would consider a modified motion. The modified motion would be in the same manner up to the word “studies”, but then that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee report back no later than March 25, 2011. We would delete the words after the word “demonstrate” and then the motion would therefore read that it be referred to the standing committee.

Would that be in order?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

The Speaker Liberal Peter Milliken

I suggest the member just move that the matter be referred to the standing committee. It is unnecessary to make other statements about the House's view on this at this stage. The committee can look at it and then the House can express its view when the matter comes back.

I would urge him to move that it be referred to the standing committee with a report date if he wishes. That, of course, can be subject to amendment in the House if there is not agreement on the date. I suggest that is what he do.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:30 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, on your guidance, I move:

That the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs and that the committee report back no later than March 25, 2011.

I do not intend to belabour this point. You have certainly heard a great deal of debate about this. The House has been subject to something in excess of 90 questions in question period about this matter, several order paper questions and access to information requests, and two committee hearings. I do not intend to rehash old ground.

While this may well be a specific ruling about a specific minister and the way in which she has conducted herself, I believe there is in fact a larger issue and, more importantly, an indictment of the government of this country, the Government of Canada or as it has renamed itself. This is one of the issues on which I actually have some sympathy for the minister.

I believe the minister actually made a decision favouring KAIROS and then was instructed to reverse that decision. While she may have been somewhat clumsy in doing so, and certainly her explanation of her reversal of her decision left something to be desired, she has actually been taking the fall for someone else. If anything, she should be given a loyalty badge for her attempt to be a loyal soldier of the Conservative government.

I have asked quite a number of questions of the particular minister. Hon. members have asked quite a number of questions of the minister. Mr. Speaker, you have found that her answers were not fulsome. This issue is going to be referred to a committee. I do not know that a great deal will be added by further debate in this chamber.

With that said, I thank you for your ruling, Mr. Speaker. I thank you for your analysis and thoughtfulness.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre Saskatchewan

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski ConservativeParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Mr. Speaker, let me join my hon. colleague from Scarborough—Guildwood in thanking the Speaker for his ruling today.

I will take up some of this place's time to comment on the situation that we have before us, certainly with no intent to challenge the ruling of the Speaker but merely to add to the commentary of the Speaker when referring to the wish that committees clear the air on this issue.

I think that is a very telling point, because it appeared to me when I was listening very carefully to the Speaker's ruling that there was no admonishment directed toward the minister in question. It was merely an attempt to try to clear up the confusion that may be in the minds of some of the members opposite.

Therefore, I think it is very important to go back over the circumstances that brought us to this point today. I do think there is some confusion in the minds not only of the members of this place but perhaps also in the minds of many of the Canadian public as to what exactly happened. If I may, I want to take just a few moments to try to set the record straight.

All of this seemed to be precipitated by the appearance of the Minister of International Cooperation in December of last year at committee, at which time the members opposite had the opportunity to ask the minister one simple question about the insertion of the word “not” in an internal document that was communicated between CIDA officials and the minister.

The question was whether the “not” was inserted by members of CIDA or by the minister. As I pointed out in my intervention in response to the member's point of privilege a few weeks ago, the minister answered very truthfully, very accurately and very precisely when asked the question: did she know who had inserted the word “not” into that internal document. The Minister of International Cooperation said “no.”

I know that may confuse members opposite, but to me it seems to be a fairly simple, precise and accurate answer to a very simple question. That was an honest response to the question.

I know that the member for Toronto Centre seems to find this funny in seeming to laugh at this. I would remind the member that this is a place where we are supposed to have a meaningful debate. Apparently his time in the provincial legislature of Ontario has clouded his memory as to what meaningful debate truly is.

Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could even inform the member for Toronto Centre that he might have an opportunity to speak in this place. Perhaps he might even say something on which we could actually engage in meaningful debate. Until that time, perhaps he should sit in his place and listen to my words.

Now, we have both the member for Kings—Hants and the member for Toronto Centre.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

I am one of the B-team guys.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:35 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Okay, and that is showing the member's character more than mine, I would point out.

Let me go back to what I was attempting to say before I was interrupted, which was simply that the minister responsible answered accurately and honestly when she said she did not know who had inserted the word “not”, because at the time, she did not. She explained that it was an internal document. She explained that she had instructed her staff to tell CIDA officials that she was not in favour of funding KAIROS.

One of her staff members, of her own volition, inserted the word “not” and sent it back with the electronic signature of the minister to convey to the officials at CIDA that the minister was not in favour of funding KAIROS.

At committee, officials from CIDA, including the president of CIDA, testified to the committee that they found that to have been appropriate. There were no surprises. In fact, it communicated accurately the minister's wishes not to fund KAIROS.

Quite frankly, who put the word “not” in the internal document is irrelevant, because what the minister was attempting to do, and did do, was to convey to her own officials that she, as minister, did not wish to fund KAIROS. That message was conveyed and accepted by the officials of CIDA, as they testified in committee. They were totally aware, by the insertion of the word “not”, that it was the minister's decision.

The CIDA officials also testified that they did not feel there was anything untoward by her putting in the word “not”. They testified that they did not think the minister was trying to deceive anyone as to the intent of that document, because it was an internal document; it was not a parliamentary document. It was meant to convey the minister's wishes back to her own officials.

In fact, the President of CIDA later testified that they are now taking steps to modify those internal documents to allow the minister to register her displeasure or dissatisfaction or opposition to a recommendation by having a separate box the minister could sign off on, a box saying, “I do not accept this recommendation”. Unfortunately, the way the documents were presented at the time did not include that separate opportunity for the minister to say, “I do not accept this recommendation”.

Therefore, when the minister instructed her own ministerial staff to convey back to CIDA officials that she did not wish to fund KAIROS, one of her staff members put in the word “not” and the document was signed with an electronic arm, since the minister was off on travel. The officials at CIDA responded by saying, “We totally understand what the minister's wishes are: she does not want to fund KAIROS. Message received. Message accepted”.

From that, we find ourselves in a situation where the opposition is contending that the minister was trying to deceive both Parliament and Canadian public. It contends that by the insertion of the word “not”, the minister was trying to deceive Parliament by inferring that the CIDA officials who originally recommended funding KAIROS were the ones who did not want to fund KAIROS.

Mr. Speaker, if you go back and check the records of the committee meeting in December 2010, the minister responsible for CIDA, on 11 separate occasions, stated before committee that it was her decision and her decision alone not to fund KAIROS. Thus how can there be any intent whatsoever at deception if the minister, in testifying before committee, stated that it was not CIDA officials who recommended not to fund KAIROS but her own decision?

I do not know where the confusion rests, other than to suggest that the opposition is using this as an opportunity, once again, to try to create a scandal where none exists. If it had been a parliamentary document, we might be having a different discussion and different debate here today. However, we are talking simply about an internal document between officials and the minister, a document aimed at determining whether or not the minister would accept the recommendation to fund the KAIROS group with $7 million. It was an internal document. The minister told her officials that she did not wish to fund KAIROS. Accordingly, there should be no confusion whatsoever.

However, the opposition seems to be making a major issue of this by suggesting that the minister was intending to deceive. Nowhere in testimony before committee or before this House has the minister suggested that she was trying to deceive anyone. As I pointed out in my original intervention, in responding to the question of privilege by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, the statements made in committee and the statements made in this House are not contradictory. In fact, they complement each another because when she was asked the precise question, the minister gave a precise answer.

Unfortunately for the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, he did not follow up his line of questioning. Had he simply asked, “If you don't know who inserted the word 'not', were you aware that the word 'not' was inserted, or were you instructing your department not to fund KAIROS?”. Had he asked that simple question or series of questions to that end, he would have had an affirmative response from the minister.

She would have been able to tell the committee at the time that certainly she instructed her officials to convey to the CIDA officials who made the recommendation initially that she was against the recommendation.

Because the member for Scarborough—Guildwood did not follow up with further questions does not mean that the minister responsible for CIDA was trying to deceive anyone. It simply means that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood, nor the rest of the opposition members, did not ask the probative questions they should have asked.

Should the minister be condemned, castigated, ridiculed or have her reputation sullied because she answered a precise question with a precise answer? I would suggest she should not be subjected to the type of abuse she has been subjected to for the last several weeks.

When is it a fault of anyone in this place to answer a direct question with a direct answer? How can anyone say, when giving a precise answer to a precise question, that one is trying to deceive Parliament?

If anyone in this place can cite one example where that has been proven or ruled upon as being deceptive, I would appreciate that member standing today to cite the example. No one can because there has not been, and never will be, an example of giving an honest and precise answer to a precise question that is considered deceptive. The minister responded accurately, yet members of the opposition seem to consider that to be a deception.

I also will comment on the motion that the member for Scarborough—Guildwood made to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. I have great concerns about that committee being able to honestly and in a non-partisan way try to arbitrate this question and the motion. The Speaker has said quite clearly that the attempt is to clear the air. The reason he invited a motion was to have a committee examine the situation and clear the air to remove any confusion that members may have.

I am not sure if the procedure and House affairs committee will be able to do that. I say that quite sincerely because we have seen, over the course of the past few months, a number of issues come before the procedure and House affairs committee and, in my view, the opposition coalition members who hold a majority on that committee, do not want to ask questions in a non-partisan manner to try to find answers to real questions. They are merely using their ability as the majority, the tyranny of the majority I would suggest, to attempt once again to embarrass the government.

I would point out an example that came before the procedure and House affairs committee very recently to illustrate my concerns. Not long ago, as I am sure all members of the House are aware, there was a very serious incident in which there was a breach of confidentiality concerning the finance committee in which a staff member leaked a draft report from the Standing Committee on Finance to a number of registered lobbyists. The staff member worked for the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar and as the chair has noted, the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar went to extraordinary lengths to inform this place about the leak and how it happened.

As I pointed out in committee, had the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar not done so, probably this whole issue would not have been discussed. At committee we found that rather than having opposition members applaud the actions by the member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar they went out of their way to try to condemn her, to try to suggest that she was at fault.

Nothing could be further from the truth. Those who know the hon. member for Saskatoon—Rosetown—Biggar know, as I do, that there is probably not a more upstanding, honest and forthright individual in Parliament today.

By her own volition, she took the unprecedented action to inform members of the finance committee, the Speaker of the House, the clerk of the committee and the chief information officer of the House as to the leak of confidential information. For that, even the chair admitted she should be congratulated for her actions. Yet opposition members who sit on the procedure and House affairs committee thought otherwise.

A report has been under discussion. While that report has not been tabled in the House, and I certainly cannot comment on the contents of the report since all of these discussions were in camera, I can say that the attitude of the members from the opposition coalition has certainly not been helpful and they have not, in my view at least, reflected accurately the testimony that was heard at committee. I would suggest that if the same attitude prevails with this new question of privilege, we will not end up clearing the air, as the Speaker has requested the committee to do.

I would suggest that it would be far better for a separate committee to examine this issue, hopefully a committee that would take this matter seriously and consider all of the elements that brought us here today, including the fact that the minister responsible for CIDA did not at any time deceive the committee that she first appeared before in December of last year.

Hopefully the committee would take into account the fact that the minister responsible for CIDA was completely honest in all of her comments to committee and Parliament. Hopefully the committee would recognize the fact that if there has been confusion in the minds of members of this place and of some Canadians, it was not because of the actions of the minister but of those in the opposition coalition who want to use this as a partisan method to try to bring forward an issue which has no real relevance before Parliament.

On another day at another time this issue would not be before this place. This issue would have been dealt with expeditiously and succinctly, in a spirit of honesty, in the spirit of Parliament's traditions, which is to ensure that testimony in this place and before committees is the one thing that should be preserved above all else. That is exactly what the minister responsible for CIDA has done. She has not tried to deceive or mislead. She has merely answered every single question honestly, and on top of that, informed committee members on many occasions that it was her decision and her decision solely not to fund KAIROS.

Since I do not believe that we will be able to get a fair hearing before the procedure and House affairs committee, I would move an amendment to the motion brought forward by the member for Scarborough—Guildwood that the motion be referred to the Office of the Conflict of Interest and Ethics Commissioner for further study and ask her to report her findings to the House.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:55 p.m.

Liberal

Paul Szabo Liberal Mississauga South, ON

Mr. Speaker, if you check, you will see that under Standing Order 108 the mandate of the procedure and House affairs committee is in fact clear that this particular matter is specifically the mandate of procedure and House affairs and that to suggest it go to any other body outside of Parliament would be inappropriate. I therefore suggest that the amendment is out of order.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:55 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, my colleague from the Liberal Party who moved the motion, initially unsuccessfully had moved a motion to have this dealt with through another process. It was the Speaker who turned him down. It was very clear to me and other members of Parliament that the reference to the procedure and House affairs committee was the advice that the Speaker. He said he did not think the proposal in the initial motion was the way to go. It is pretty clear that what was accepted by the Speaker was that it go through the regular process, and that is to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Therefore, I am a little confused. My friend from the Conservative Party would want us to deal with this in a straightforward manner as he said, a non-partisan manner as he said, as he talked about coalitions, but I will leave it to others to figure out what he was up to.

It is about due process and these matters are usually, as the Speaker suggested, referred to procedure and House affairs. We should leave it there and move on so we can actually get to a resolution on this issue.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

4:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The Chair has heard the points made by the hon. members and will take those under consideration and report back to the House on the admissibility of the amendment in due course.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Liberal

John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the hon. member's desire to have this matter dealt with some place other than the procedure and House affairs committee. I wonder whether the hon. member would have supported, had he been able to, my initial desire to have the House deal with this matter, as I argued.

All of the evidence that is evidence is actually before the House. All of the relevant people to be questioned are before the House. All the material that is necessary to make a disposition is before the House.

My first question for the hon. member is: Would he have supported, had he been given the opportunity, the initial motion, which was to have the matter dealt with in the House and have the hon. member apologize to the House in front of the bar of Parliament?

My second question has to do with his argument that I should have asked specific questions, longer questions and quite a number of questions. I wonder which particular questions he thinks I should have asked.

I said, “Madam Minister, you've just said that you signed off. You were the one--” Then I was cut off by the minister, who said, “I sign off on all of the documents”. I said, “Yes, and you were the one who wrote the 'not'”. The minister said, “I did not say I was the one who wrote the 'not'”. I asked, “Who did, then?” The minister responded, “I do not know”. I asked, “You don't know?” The minister said, “I do not know”. I stated, “That's a remarkable statement”. It is still a remarkable statement.

We have had so many explanations of what happened. Had the hon. member been giving me advice at the time, would he have told me what other question I could have asked or specifically what other answer the minister could have given which would not have brought us to this point, i.e., an honest answer?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, I have to find this amusing.

On his first point, does the member believe that bringing the question before this House would have a fair and judicial response? Of course not. This would be nothing more than a kangaroo court. If we brought the question before this House, of course it would be, with the attitude of the opposition on this question.

Specifically, Mr. Speaker, let me answer his contention as to what questions should he have asked at committee. In my initial intervention a few moments ago, I gave him several suggestions of questions he could have asked, specifically: “Madam Minister, if you did not insert the word 'not' and you do not know who did, how did it happen? How did it occur?” The minister very clearly could have said, “Because I instructed my officials to communicate to CIDA that I was not in favour of funding KAIROS”. That would have answered everything right there, a pretty simple follow-up question.

Instead, we had no question as a follow-up from the member opposite. He asked, “You didn't insert the word 'not'?” The minister responded, “No, I didn't”. Rather than ask, “Then how did it happen?”, he just said, “Well, that's a remarkable occurrence”.

There are many questions the member for Scarborough—Guildwood could have asked as a follow-up to get the correct information he so desperately desires. To suggest that it is the minister's fault that he could not ask a simple follow-up question is not the fault of the minister. It is the fault of the member opposite.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, I find it astounding that a member of this House would suggest that members of Parliament would not be capable of listening to arguments and weighing reasonable responses.

As an example, the issue from my perspective was simply one of asking the minister when she gave the instruction to put the “not” in a document that does not normally require that type of a response. It is simply a rejection or an acceptance. However, there was an insertion of a word on a document that had already approved, or appeared to approve, a particular funding.

The second issue is what prompted that request? The reason members of Parliament on this side of the House asked that question, of course, is that there is another related issue. The related issue has to do with another minister who went abroad to explain to a foreign audience why a domestic decision had taken place here in Canada with respect to KAIROS and why the $7 million was not going to go to KAIROS, an organization that had been receiving government funding for some 35 years.

When that minister, the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration, came back to Canada, he denied that he had actually uttered those words, i.e., that KAIROS was engaged in a campaign of de-investment in Israel. What in fact he then said is, “No, I didn't say it”, and the newspapers outed him.

Subsequent to that, the minister responsible for CIDA came forward and said, “I now agree that it was on its merits”. The document was produced that indicated the word “not”.

The question was really simple for everybody. Maybe the hon. member could enlighten the House. Who gave her the direction to put the “not” in and when did it happen? Was it before the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration went to Israel to explain the government's position, or was it after the newspapers in Canada outed him on the lie?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Mr. Speaker, notwithstanding the fact that some unparliamentary language has been used here, I would suggest to my hon. friend opposite that, in my view, he must be watching far too many Oliver Stone movies, because he seems to be seeing an armed gunman behind every grassy knoll.

There is no conspiracy here. The minister has quite clearly stated on 11 occasions in committee that it was her decision. No one authorized it other than the minister. It was the minister's decision not to fund KAIROS. She stated that 11 times before committee.

I am not sure if the member opposite cannot understand that, so let me say it slowly and distinctly, because I know he is a Liberal. The minister made the decision herself.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Liberal

Joe Volpe Liberal Eglinton—Lawrence, ON

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

We try to do the very best we can in order to indicate language and direction of debate. There is a great weakness demonstrated by the member opposite when he prefers to think of Liberals as speaking methodically and systematically. For some reason that offends him. We are systematic. We are methodical.

I asked the member two questions. He cannot get away from those two questions by attempting a drive-by smear of those who already espouse a political position that is not his but is a correct one.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The Chair is prepared to rule on both points of order. I am not sure if the one raised by the hon. member for Eglinton—Lawrence falls under the rubric of points of order or whether it is debate.

Nevertheless, at this time the Chair is prepared to rule on the admissibility of the amendment. The Chair finds that the amendment is not admissible. In the Speaker's Ruling earlier today, the terms to proceed were laid out quite clearly. The hon. member for Scarborough—Guildwood made a couple of attempts at reshaping that advice from the Speaker and was rebuffed. Consistent with that, this is an issue of parliamentary privilege and will remain before the House of Commons rather than being taken to an official outside of this chamber.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:05 p.m.

NDP

Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON

Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take too much time in speaking to the prima facie case of privilege, but it is important that we understand a couple of things about this issue.

I want to get back to the issue, that of KAIROS, because often that gets forgotten in this place. This is an organization which, as referenced earlier, has done stellar work. If we examine the evaluations of the department and consider the history of KAIROS, it has done stellar work for over 35 years.

The foreign affairs committee considered the issue of Sudan and the referendum that was about to happen. We studied the issue of Sudan, in particular, the south of Sudan. The referendum went fairly smoothly, but we needed experts before committee to tell us what was happening on the ground in Sudan. The committee asked to have KAIROS appear before the committee. This was after the decision was made by the minister to cut funding to KAIROS. The representatives from KAIROS provided very cogent arguments as to what the government should be doing.

It is important that we consider what we are talking about. It is not some partisan group. It is an ecumenical group. It is a group of churches that has been doing work abroad for 35 years. As someone who has travelled a bit in Africa and elsewhere, I can say that we need people on the ground who know what is going on in these areas. The department knows that. The minister knows that.

Seven million dollars is not a lot of money, but it is an important amount. It would also leverage money. KAIROS, as a group, was also able to raise money. Leveraging money is a responsible fiscal decision as well. It is really important that we understand what the issue is. It is about KAIROS. It is about the way the decision was made.

KAIROS is known around the world for the work it does. It is not about partisanship. It is not about the notion some on the other side have of KAIROS advocating on certain issues. That has been dealt with and I am not going to open that up again. The advocacy that was done, which I would be happy to share with some of my colleagues, was on things like dealing with impunity on sexual violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

I laud the government for recently bringing out an action plan with respect to UN resolution 1325 to deal with the profound challenges of violence against women and the use of women in conflict. The gravity of this issue is such that we have a UN resolution, to which the government responded with an action plan. It was something we all wanted to see. We would like to see more money and action with respect to that action plan, but we know that we must have people on the ground who know what they are doing and what they are talking about.

We heard about the horrific gender violence in the Democratic Republic of Congo. The government said it was concerned about the military being able to get away with sexual crimes and that it was happy with some actions that were being taken. What it forgot to consider was the people who had been doing the work on the ground to help women and girls, who are extremely vulnerable in the DRC, to fight sexual violence and to make sure that this culture of impunity is challenged. KAIROS was doing that work. It was helping young women. It was helping girls to fight against the culture of impunity. Yes, it was advocacy.

If we examine the evaluations of the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade and of CIDA, we will actually find that one of the categories under which it puts its program funding is advocacy. Advocacy is not a dirty word. Advocacy is what we do when we help people take control of a situation, in a chaotic situation, in a precarious situation such as what is happening in the Democratic Republic of Congo.

When we look at the merit of the work that KAIROS does, it is really important that we understand why this decision was made, not just the way the information came out from the minister. It is important to understand the government's decision.

The government has said many times, in both the House and at committee, that it could not fund everyone. We understand that. It said that it would provide funding for other programs, giving the impression that it was unable to fund KAIROS because there was not enough money.

People believed the reason KAIROS did not get the funding was because there was not enough money. The problem with that is it is counter to the decision that was made and contrary to the advice given by the department. The deputy minister signed off on this funding. This program was in line with the programs the department believed should be funded. It was never made clear that there was not enough money throughout the debate or in the documents on record.

The minister said that it was her decision. What was that decision? Was her decision not in line with the government's policies, even though the department recommended funding? The buck stops with the minister. Yes, she has the authority to decide whether funding goes ahead or not.

However, the confusion lies in the impression that was given to members of the House and committee. The government said that it would like to fund KAIROS but it did not have the money. Then we were told, and this is the party line now, that what KAIROS was doing was not in line with the government's priorities. That obviously needs to be cleared up.

There is one other thing that I find difficult to comprehend from the responses I have heard from the government. The minister had the application by KAIROS on her desk for two months. Why did the minister suddenly feel the need to doctor the document, which is what some members have called it? Others have called it a fraudulent document.

The fact is the minister had the document in front of her for two months. The story provided to us was that she was out of town and asked someone to use her signature stamp on the application. At some point, she directed someone to put the word “not” in the document. What is slightly unbelievable is that in 2010 we have not come up with a procedure or a form that would allow a minister to decline the advice of a department. That is hard to conceive.

That begs another question. Were there other applications in which the minister or someone else did the deed and inserted the word not? Members of the House and committee were told that the government wished it had a paper process in place, but it did not, so someone was directed to put the “not” in the document thereby changing the decision. I find that difficult to understand. Some members find it difficult to believe. I will leave that as it is.

What other decisions were made in that manner? Government members make it sound like there was a procedural problem. They tell us that problem has been changed so everything is fine now. What other documents went to the minister and she made her decision by inserting a word into the document? That is important for us to understand.

At the end of the day, when we have the evidence that was in front of us at committee, the evidence that was in front of us in the House and the evidence that the Speaker ruled on, it leaves some holes in terms of full disclosure. Full disclosure is important. If we look at the argument I made on this privilege motion, it goes back to Speaker Jerome's decision of 1978 with regard to the RCMP and the opening of people's mail without people knowing it.

The assertion at the time was the minister of the day said that this was not happening. The McDonald commission was established, following many allegations of improper conduct by the RCMP of the day. Alas, it came out during the McDonald commission that the RCMP was opening people's mail without their knowing it.

The minister was obliged to know those facts. That is why that reference was made by us in this decision. It is important for the minister, who asked someone to put the “not” in the document, would know who the person was. It is a basic notion of accountability. If ministers are directing people to change documents, it is incumbent upon them to at least tell us who those people are.

This is not about, guess what I am thinking. That is what the government seems to put forward as an argument. Because we did not ask the right question, therefore the minister is off the hook, so to speak. In our system the minister, as a cabinet minister, should be held to the highest standard. It should not be about a minister waiting to see if we ask a certain question and then giving us a certain answer.

It is about full disclosure for full accountability. That is where I find the issue of privilege to be most cogent. The minister did say at committee that she did not know, and she was confused at times. She clarified later that she did not mean to convey that she was in line with the department's decision.

However, she did say that she did not know who put the word in that changed the outcome of the decision. Most reasonable people reading that, and certainly I was in the room when it happened, would be under the impression that she had nothing to do with it. Why do I say that? If people are asked if they are responsible for changing a document and they say that they do not know, we would assume they were not involved in that process. It is that simple and that is what we are left with.

If the minister had been living up to the standard of full disclosure and accountability, and frankly the standard that we should hold all cabinet ministers to, she would have said that she did not know who put the word in, but that she did direct someone to do it. I think that would have helped.

The way it has framed by the government is that nobody asked the exact question of who put the “not”. We asked the minister who did it. We have to ask ourselves if it has come to this. We are talking about basic accountability.

What we want to know, further to what we have already had, is why the minister, after having this document on her desk for two months, rushed to have someone else doctor the document, someone she claimed to not even know?

Even if we find that she told us everything she knows, we have a problem with accountability. Basically the minister phoned in a decision to someone, we do not know who, to change the work that was done by KAIROS and all of the people in the department who had looked over this application and said that it should be endorsed.

I do not think we can have confidence in is the kind of procedure, where a minister out of town, phoning in and saying that he or she wants someone to insert a word to negate the decision that was signed off on and not know who that person is. We still have no idea who the person was.

You know what it is like around here, Mr. Speaker. People are hired by all of us to do our work. We are talking about a $7 million application and I want to know that the minister is aware of who is doing the work and, in this case, who has inserted the word. We should at least know who did that. We also need to know the timing.

As has already been expressed, other cabinet ministers were in other parts of the world talking about why the government denied KAIROS funding. We now know they have seen the error of their ways and it was erroneous information. The Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism had no idea what he was talking about. He was talking about a different organization. A minister who is not even related to the portfolio was making claim on why a decision was made. Then there is the minister herself directing people to change documents and we do not know who the person is.

In the end, the decision of the Speaker was a wise one and we will need answers to these questions in the procedure and House affairs committee.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Durham Ontario

Conservative

Bev Oda ConservativeMinister of International Cooperation

Mr. Speaker, I rise in regard to the ruling just made on the question of privilege raised on February 17 by members of the opposition.

I respect the ruling from the Speaker of the House. The Speaker is the arbiter of the rules of the chamber and I have the utmost respect for the Speaker and his office. I also have the greatest respect for the House of Commons and for each of my colleagues who are elected to serve Canadians from coast to coast to coast.

As is known and referred to, on Monday, February 14, I rose in the House to clear up any misunderstandings that might have existed about funding requests made by certain organizations. At that time I stated:

If some were led to conclude that my language implied that the department and I were of one mind on this application, then I apologize.

Let me be clear that I stand by that statement.

From the ruling made, it has been indicated that there appears to be confusion regarding the facts. While I believe I have been clear, I accept the ruling and look forward to providing all the clarity needed truthfully and respectfully in committee. I am fully prepared to offer that clarity and will fully co-operate with the committee and its members.

The trust placed in me by Canadians, by my constituents and by the Prime Minister to serve as a member for Parliament and the Minister of International Cooperation is a serious responsibility. It is a responsibility that I do not take lightly.

I am proud of our government's record on providing aid and assistance around the world that is meaningful and makes a sustainable real difference in the lives of those living in poverty.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

Is the House ready for the question?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Question.

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Conservative

The Acting Speaker Conservative Barry Devolin

The question is on the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?

Reference to Standing Committee on Procedure and House AffairsPrivilegeRoutine Proceedings

5:25 p.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.