Evidence of meeting #28 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 2nd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was question.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I agree with you.
All I'm saying is we focus in on what the Speaker wanted us to resolve on the point of privilege. The one who is aggrieved, affected by this, Mr. Stoffer, said he is satisfied. He's looking for two things. One of them is to get assurances from a person or persons that this will not happen again. If those assurances could be given to Mr. Stoffer, he would be satisfied then, in my opinion, from what I heard. The issue was dealt with and it's over.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
In order to improve my knowledge of English, contrary to most of the unilingual anglophones here, I try to listen to what was said in English directly. As for the others, those who want to continue to speak just one language, that is their right....
This is what I understood, and I would like the clerk to provide us with the blues of Mr. Stoffer's testimony as soon as possible—I would think we would have them at our offices. Mr. Stoffer said he was satisfied with our colleague Mr. Vellacott's apology. Yet he wants an apology from the person who authorized or who wrote the document. He did not seem satisfied with respect to the content. Regardless, if he had been satisfied.... He continued, he agreed to appear before us.
I want to see the blues because he asked for an apology from the person who authorized or who wrote the document.
12:50 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I will be very brief. I just wanted to second what Mr. Guimond said. I think we should be able to look at the blues where he said that the person who should apologize is the individual who wrote and produced the document. Someone in the Conservative party needs to apologize. He was not satisfied.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I agree. Let's see the blues and see what he said.
I'm not disagreeing with that whatsoever. What he also said—and he obviously said it tongue in cheek—is that where he comes from he'd normally like to talk to the person who put this out because that person would then go on disability immediately after that discussion. He was obviously speaking tongue in cheek.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
But I would like to see the blues. I honestly don't know whether he asked for an apology or said he would like to talk to the person who did this. I interpreted that he wanted a one-on-one with the person. But let's see the blues and see what he said. I was very sincere.
Mr. Chair, if I can—
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I was very sincere when I asked Mr. Stoffer what he wanted to see done to rectify this. If he wants an apology, fair ball, but let's check the blues and see exactly what he asked for. Frankly, I thought he was going to say he wanted something to be sent out into his riding setting the record straight. I think that would be a legitimate request, but he didn't say that. He just said he wanted to talk to the person and he also wanted assurances that this would never happen again. I think those are both very legitimate requests.
12:55 p.m.
Bloc
Michel Guimond Bloc Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC
Through you, Mr. Chair, I would like to tell Mr. Lukiwski that he is a master of butchering statements. He takes the parts of a sentence that suit him: Mr. Stoffer is satisfied. He stops there and fails to mention the rest of the sentence when Mr. Stoffer said that he was angry with the person....
I am beginning to understand the tactic, because Mr. Lukiwski uses it regularly in the House with points of privilege. He refers only to parts of a sentence. But we will get the blues, I am going to read them, and I am going to ask him whether he still thinks that Mr. Stoffer is a man who is satisfied.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I've just been on the receiving end of a personal attack from Mr. Guimond. Let me say, for the record once again, that I agreed to seeing the blues to see what he asked for. There is no incomplete sentence there.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I think we're all at the same thought, but I'll give Mr. Proulx one more chance.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
We're going to look at the blues, but in the meantime I'm back to my request. When you jokingly said let's invite an unknown person, I think you were carrying it a little bit too far. You very well know that, in the case of the Conservative Party, it's probably the director or manager of caucus services or director or manager of printed materials—whatever you want to call it. We all know there's one person in charge of something. It doesn't come out of the blues. That will be the other person who I would want invited as a witness to this committee.
The motion is on the table—the first one: let's invite. I know we can't use any more severe language in regard to Mr. Vellacott. Let's invite him, and let's also invite the director of Conservative caucus services.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I need clarification before I can vote on this motion. During the discussion on this motion it was said that we'd better check our facts against the blues. If you would allow me, I will take it upon myself to discuss the blues with the clerk. If indeed Mr. Stoffer has not asked for these things....
Mr. Stoffer has asked us to address his point of privilege. My understanding from reading his motion of privilege that he read in the House was that if he and his constituents got an apology then this matter would die. If those things have been accounted for, this matter of privilege should then be closed.
However, let's see if under questioning today Mr. Stoffer asked for anything else. If indeed he did, then this committee will endeavour to do so.
12:55 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
I disagree with you, but you're the chair. This is not a Stoffer committee; this is the procedure and House affairs committee.
12:55 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Right, to which a motion of privilege has been sent. It's our job to deal with that.
Mr. Godin, very quickly, please. I know you're going to tell me I'm incorrect.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
No, but you're saying “honestly”. I'm not going to try to be dishonest.
12:55 p.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
I'm not the chair; you're the chair. I was referring to what you said.
My interpretation is that when a point of privilege is sent by the House to the committee it then belongs to the committee; it doesn't belong to Peter Stoffer. We have to deal with it. We have to look at it. We have the right to study it and make recommendations to the House, and that's what we will do.