Evidence of meeting #45 for Foreign Affairs and International Development in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I would like to understand the process. The researchers would come with a report, right? Would the report have recommendations in it or not? It's just a report.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
No. What the researchers will do is basically outline, clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name the individuals involved, indicate the privilege that may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action. So it is their job only to lay out the facts as they see them, not to make recommendations, not to....
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
How does our argument that I've just made go into the report?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
My thought would be that when the researchers come back with the facts on Wednesday, then that will be an issue of debate here in the committee. We have to adopt it. We have to adopt the report.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
My question is on a procedural basis. I'm asking the clerk.
There is the argument that the government has just made in reference to this question of privilege. How does that argument that I just made go into the report to say that this is what I meant?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
Probably as a supplementary, just like we put any report back to the House....
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I'm going to suggest that the researchers put together a report based on the history and based on the facts and that we spend two hours on Wednesday to look at it and determine what that report needs to look at to go back to the House.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
I'm not finished yet. It's just so I'm clear.
It's fine whatever they will do and what report will come and we'll have two hours of debate over here. The fact does not change that when this report is made, it should also be pointed out to the researchers that the statement that was made by the minister today should be part and parcel of it.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
We're only going to relate to the facts here in committee, to what was said here in committee.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
Okay, but I have laid down my arguments, stated what the minister said in the House. How would that be formed as part of the report? Would that be formed as part of a minority report, a supplementary report, or what? I just want a direction from the clerk so that we can understand the process. What is the direction?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I would think that would be part of it, and then an opportunity to speak to it in the House as well.
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
But before I speak in the House, I want this argument to go forward, so that when the Speaker, at the end of the day, is making his ruling on all the facts that are there, he's also getting what we said in the committee and what I said in the committee.
Conservative
Conservative
Deepak Obhrai Conservative Calgary East, AB
So a supplementary report then would be attached to that.
Okay, thank you.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
This is a bit of an unusual procedure, and we're all finding our way around here, and as a fellow chair I have some sympathy for your position.
Having said that, the issue is getting the material to the Speaker. The only comment, in my view, that the committee makes is that there “may” have been a breach of privilege. That's the material that we wish. The reason we do that is because you can't rule on a breach of privilege. The chairs have no ability to rule on breaches of privilege. You can rule on other matters, but not on breaches of privilege. Therefore it's the Speaker who has to rule.
So the only material that should be before the Speaker is the material he asked for, effectively, in his previous ruling and the material that has occurred before this committee. That's all that we can actually say. I don't believe we can write opinions, supplementary or otherwise. I'd be interested in a clarification from you and the clerk on that point, but I don't think this is a matter of opinion. I don't think this is a matter of report as we would normally write reports, paragraph this, paragraph that, we recommend la, la, la.
This is a very different report in its nature. It's really a procedural question and it's documentation where the committee simply asks a very simple question: have our privileges been breached? I think it's that simple.
NDP
Paul Dewar NDP Ottawa Centre, ON
Well put. I was going to state similar points.
We're not writing a report that we would typically do here. It's simply submitting a point that a privilege has been compromised and asks that there be certain facets of statement of fact from what occurred at this committee to be included in that report and then have the Speaker rule. I really don't think we need two hours, frankly, to look that over.
What I was asking for is to paraphrase what was discussed here at committee, certainly, but that we look to the facts as they were presented by the minister herself through the testimony on December 9. It's fairly straightforward. We're not making recommendations, as was mentioned. We're putting forward, as we've okayed, the motion to have the privilege noted and sent to the Speaker.
I concur. I don't think it would take two hours at all. In fact, we should give ourselves a limit of not more than 45 minutes to an hour to look that over.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Dean Allison
I appreciate the fact that you think it may not take more than an hour. I've been in this committee where we've changed “the” on reports that were based on the language of what the researchers wrote. So I think when it comes to an issue of privilege, you're going to have a little bit more debate than one hour. I've just got a feeling.
The challenge is that when a report comes forward here, the committee would want to have a fulsome discussion on it. I don't think we should limit ourselves. Quite frankly, committee members are able to speak as long as they're on the list. We're going to be debating the report until we send it to the House. I believe we should give adequate time for that.
Mr. Rae and then Mr. Harris.
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
Very briefly, it seems to me that the report doesn't have to be very long. It should focus principally on the statements that the minister made in response to questions from members in this committee, as well as the supporting documents with respect to the addition of the word “not” and the document that has appeared in many newspapers now, and elsewhere. It clearly shows that something was changed.
I think there are some issues there around what was the net effect of that change. It made it look as if officials from CIDA agreed with a decision of the minister that they in fact did not agree with. The subsequent story.... I don't know whether in fact you can do this or not, because you say you can only talk about what's in the committee, but the other reality is that through a series of answers on the order paper, and in other ways, answers were given to the House that were misleading to the House. The net effect is that there are two or three cases where there is an issue with respect to the House having been misled.
I must say, just parenthetically, that I don't think the minister's statement today clears that up. There are apologies that clear the air and there are statements that don't clear the air. I think the minister's statement today fits into the second category.
Conservative
Dick Harris Conservative Cariboo—Prince George, BC
Mr. Chair, with all due respect to my colleagues across the way, at the beginning of this conversation, regarding how the report was going to be, it was explained that it would be a report based on what occurred in the committee today. I understand that.
If that is to include things that were said by Mr. Rae, Mr. Pearson, Mr. McKay, Mr. Dorion, and Mr. Dewar, if any of their comments or recommendations or suggestions, or whatever, are to appear in that report, then I would suggest that you must also include all of the comments that were made by the minister today.
While there's been a suggestion by Mr. Rae that this is some sort of a special report, the principles of the report are that if there are to be comments or recommendations from any of the members on the other side, then the report must include any comments that were made by the minister.