Evidence of meeting #22 for Government Operations and Estimates in the 40th Parliament, 3rd session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was contract.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
—if it is the will of the committee. If it is not the will of the committee, well, we'll vote accordingly.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Sorry, Madam Chair. Procedurally, is that a majority vote or is that consensus? Do we all have to agree?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
It's a majority vote.
We have a motion on the floor. If you need clarification, Mr. Jaffer is still coming on June 9. Sorry, Mr. Jaffer is coming. He has not said no. Since he hasn't said no, I'm not going to say he's not coming. He is coming on June 9, and Ms. Guergis has asked to come on June 16.
Go ahead, Mr. Holder.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Then I suppose we'd have to amend Ms. Mendes' motion to have those first two lines, and then add Mr. Jaffer into that to make it accurate.
Liberal
Alexandra Mendes Liberal Brossard—La Prairie, QC
But we're not asking for Mr. Jaffer; he's already been asked.
Liberal
Conservative
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
No, no, no, no, no, no, no; we never invited him.
Okay, here's a clarification. Mr. Hamilton said the following:
I am aware that the Standing Committee on Government Operations and Estimates will consider a motion to invite me to appear to speak this coming Wednesday.
If it is the Committee's wish to invite me, I have re-arranged my schedule...
He's aware of the motion. He is being pre-emptive and he's telling us, “I'm available if you want me.” This is a motion. If the motion passes, then we tell him, “Yes, come.” If it doesn't pass, we don't invite him.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
I don't want to sound thick on this, Madam Chair, but why aren't we including Mr. Jaffer in this? Is that because he has already accepted or...?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
It's because Mr. Jaffer was already a pre-arranged witness for June 9. The only change is that Ms. Guergis cannot come. That's why we are putting in Mr. Hamilton instead of Ms. Guergis—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
So can I have a vote on the amended motion? Did I call the vote on it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Okay.
Those in favour of the amended motion that ends with “...for its meeting on Wednesday, June 9, 2010”, please raise your hands? Opposed?
(Motion as amended agreed to [See Minutes of Proceedings])
So for our meeting on June 9, we are now going to let Mr. Hamilton know that he has been invited. Mr. Jaffer has not said no.
For June 16, then, we have Ms. Guergis. She said she'd like to come in at 4:30, so if she's coming in at 4:30, we have the 3:30 to 4:30 hour. Can we have one of the ministers who we probably should be speaking to on the green fund?
Yes, Mr. Martin.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
I'm just curious as to why she gets to pick when she's coming. It's bad enough that she's picking the dates that she chooses to be here, but what if we want her for two hours?
I think it's a big mistake that we just voted to bring in Hamilton for one very valuable hour this Wednesday, and now we're stuck with—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
May I give her reasons?
She told me to keep it privileged, but I saw it on Jane Taber. How many of you saw it on Jane Taber? If you saw it on Jane Taber, it's there in the public domain. So if you saw it, perhaps you can reveal why she's not coming; I can't.
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
Well, I heard it on the weekend from a number of people. I'm not going to say it in public.
I don't see why one hour or two hours makes any difference. And what if we want her from 3:30 p.m. to 4:30 p.m.? These people are messing around with our committee. We might not even be in session on June 16, to tell you the truth. Parliament might be adjourned, so I think we're almost out of time on this.
I think we should keep her for the two hours, because there's lots and lots to talk about.
Let me just explain one of the reasons. There's the whole thing about the passports that we haven't investigated. We now believe that she was meeting regularly with this Dr. Chen prior to going to China, multiple times, prior to sending her husband to China on the diplomatic passport that he can no longer find, without her, travelling internationally on a diplomatic passport for private business without his cabinet minister wife, on behalf of this client.
There's all kinds of information that now needs to be explored with her. So having her book one hour for some scripted scene that she has staged isn't good enough for me. We have a lot more serious questions.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Yasmin Ratansi
Mr. Bruinooge, and then Mr. Holder.
Mr. Warkentin, did you have your hand up? If you did, yes, I will put you down.
Mr. Bruinooge.
Conservative
Rod Bruinooge Conservative Winnipeg South, MB
I was just going to speak to Mr. Martin's assertion.
In light of the fact that Madam Guergis is a sitting MP... I know we've had some deference to non-ministers, sitting MPs—like Mr. Lee, for instance—in terms of timing that works for them. I think that's a reasonable precedent to continue with for Madam Guergis. She is a sitting member of Parliament, and it's reasonable to allow for her to have at least a suggestion of timing.
If it were to become a pattern over six months, where dates and times are changing, then we may want to take a different approach. But in light of the fact that this is, essentially, her first appearance subsequent to everything that's happened for her, I think it's reasonable for us to agree to the time she wants to come.
Conservative
Ed Holder Conservative London West, ON
Thank you, Madam Chair.
My honourable colleague, Mr. Martin, has been in the House much longer than I have been. I've only been here 19 months, 3 weeks, and 2 days. I've got to tell you that if there's one thing I've learned by reading the rules, clearly, it's that if a member of Parliament chooses not to attend, notwithstanding cabinet ministers, we do not compel them to attend. But Ms. Guergis, of her own volition, has made that decision to choose to attend, and frankly, I think that's appreciated by any and all. If we don't accommodate, her other alternative is to say, “Well then, I'm not going to attend.”
I think we need to show some reasonableness in all of this, so I'd ask my honourable colleague just to be mindful of that, and to some extent be pleased that she's chosen to attend, and on we go.