Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 17th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure, I'll take another point of order.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It's a clarification as much as a point of order, but my understanding is that in the motion first presented by Mr. Brison, there was no mention of the F-35s.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I don't find it in what's been brought to this committee either. It's not in our order of reference.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Except, Mr. Chair, it's in the opposition day motion to which the Speaker referred substantively.

I have a single question for the ministers, if I could, through you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I think I made a statement.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Given all of this litany of conduct, the question is simple. Why shouldn't Canadians find your government in contempt?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Nicholson.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I completely disagree with the premise upon which that question is based. If we accept what the committee is asking for, that you're genuinely interested in the cost of our crime bills, to say that the public servants who head up each of those departments are wasting their time appearing before a parliamentary committee...I want you to know, I completely disagree with that.

If it's only about procedures that you're talking about, I guess the Liberals could make that point. But if you're sincerely interested in what it costs the federal government in terms of its crime prevention and the crime bills, then I think it is entirely appropriate that public servants, who have an in-depth knowledge of each of these areas, get the time to respond.

This is the second time that I've been asked about the F-35s. Again, I'm not the defence minister, but anything that equips our men and women in uniform and gives them the very best equipment in the world has my complete support. I completely agree with my colleague, the Minister of National Defence. So inasmuch as this is the second time that this has been raised with me, I want you to know, Mr. Chair, that I completely support having first-class equipment for the men and women in uniform in our Canadian armed forces. I want to make that clear, since it's been raised twice with me.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister, but it is beyond the order that's been referred to us.

[Rob Nicholson, Conservative, Niagara Falls, ON]

To be fair, Mr. Chair, I've been asked twice now about this, so I just wanted to make that clear. I didn't want anybody to think, by reason of my silence, that I'm not an enthusiastic supporter of having outstanding, first-class, world-class equipment for the Canadian armed forces. I want to make that very clear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Minister.

We'll go to Mr. Reid for five minutes, please.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair, and thank you to our witnesses for being here.

Before I ask any questions, I thought of raising a point of order, but I just want to point out in response to Mr. McGuinty that I'm mystified by his constant references to contempt. The motion moved by Mr. Brison, and seconded by Mr. McGuinty himself, which was taken to the Speaker reads, “That, given your finding that a prima facie breach of the privileges of Parliament...”. There is nothing about contempt in there; it is about breach of privileges. I note that in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, more commonly known as O'Brien and Bosc, on page 82 you'll find the statement, “It is important to distinguish between a 'breach of privilege' and 'contempt of Parliament'”.

I also note that contempt of Parliament is very different from the Oxford English Dictionary definition of the word “contempt”. It's a specialized technical thing, and one ought to be careful to distinguish in order to carry on proper parliamentary procedure.

I turn now to the ministers to ask some questions. First of all, Ministers, you got notice very late yesterday asking you to come here. I appreciate your being here. Am I correct that you were both at the airport on the way to other destinations when you were called back?

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

If I could answer that, I wasn't on the plane, but I did have an announcement today north of Winnipeg. As you know, we have a very serious potential flooding situation, and I've been working very closely--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

A point of order.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

—with the provincial government in respect of the flooding issue, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Excuse me, Minister, we'll stop it there.

Go ahead, Mr. Proulx.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Mr. Chair, I do not think that the minister's remarks have anything to do with the question put by my colleague, Mr. Reid.

I'd like to know, what's the relevancy of this subject within this particular committee?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, I'm going to tell you that today the chair would have a rough time figuring out the relevance of a lot of people's questions, but I'll let the minister finish his answer.

[Vic Toews, Conservative, Provencher, MB]

In any event—

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

Mr. Chair, if I could interrupt, on the same point of order, there are two things.

One, I don't want Mr. Proulx's intervention or my response taken out of the five minutes I've been given.

Two, I'm raising this because the technical definition of “contempt of Parliament”, which has been raised by Mr. McGuinty, and it's clear that Mr. McGuinty and Mr. Brison are heading in the direction of asserting that the ministers have been in contempt of Parliament, or indeed that the entire government is in contempt of Parliament.... That has been an assertion they've made. Having said that, it's important to go to—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'll rule that that's not a point of order. Let's move on to the question.

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

No, but the thing is this. Seeing as they're going in that direction, deliberately refusing to provide testimony is part of contempt of Parliament. I'm trying to demonstrate that in fact—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

—these ministers have made a real effort to be here.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid, when I make a ruling or suggest we move on, I'd like us to do so.