Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 17th, 2011

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Could you please restate what we're voting on, so that we all know?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The chair is ruling that the motion you just read into the record is out of order on the basis that it's presupposing the report before the evidence has been written by the analysts.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Chair, is that the vote?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

The vote is on whether to sustain the chair's ruling.

Shall the chair's ruling be sustained?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

The vote is on whether to sustain the chair's decision?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Right.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays, 6; yeas, 5) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

On the motion, I have started a list of speakers. As this is a contentious subject, I will ask, please, from a behavioural point of view, that we behave, or we will suspend until tomorrow on that reason alone.

Go ahead, Madame DeBellefeuille.

Oh, I'm sorry, you haven't had a chance to do your motion, Mr. McGuinty. Please do so.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, sir.

The purpose of the motion, Mr. Chair, is to assist the committee going forward and to assist in particular the drafters of the report, who are charged with a very difficult assignment, which is to try to circumscribe the evidence and deliberations in a very short period of time, as ordered by the Speaker of the House of Commons: it has to be done, completed, and reported back to the House on the 21st of this month.

Given the onerous scheduling tomorrow, Mr. Chair, in anticipation of our dealing with the issue of the Minister of International Cooperation, which is the second part of the reference to this committee, we felt that it would be productive and useful to help circumscribe and to help lend some early shape for the drafters so that they can deal with this onerous task in a very short period of time.

Particularly, I think the idea of having a draft report in two pages for each official language often helps sharpen the proposals or propositions that are put in the final report. I've seen way too many draft reports come in that are verbose. As I have often reminded my former students, verbosity is never a substitute for content, so I think it would be important for us to help the drafters circumscribe the length to two pages. If we can't say it in two pages in each official language, it's probably too long.

The addenda that would follow, of course, would include all of the briefs, all of the submissions by expert witnesses, all the testimony provided, and the transcripts. It's all there, Mr. Chair, as a matter of very public record, having been broadcast, for example, on television, the Internet, and beyond for the last two days.

There are of course all kinds.... The list of substantive reasons to go through to substantiate the points 1 through 5 in this motion is simply too long to cover. It would take me probably until 10 p.m. tonight, Mr. Chair, and I won't do that, but I do want to cite a few fundamental ones to help to substantiate some of the early conclusions that are reduced to writing in this motion.

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

Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

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

I don't want to interrupt, but apparently the television cameras aren't on here. I'm wondering why that is, and since the meeting is supposed to be televised and we are in public, perhaps the Canadian public would like to hear the terms of this motion, so why don't we see if we can get them turned on?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We'll work on that as quickly as we can.

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

Thank you.

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

Should we suspend in the meantime?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm sure we're going out on audio.

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

Yes, but pictures, you know....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I know.

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

Especially of you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. McGuinty, carry on, please.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I want to make a couple of foundational remarks to wrap up. I don't want to be much longer, Mr. Chair, I really don't, but I am inspired by a few statements. Chief among them is the statement by Mr. Stephen Harper, the Prime Minister of Canada himself. I believe he meant this when he said it. I really do. Let me just read the remark into the record again. It is something that he said some six years ago, as reported in the Montreal Gazette.

He said:

Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions, and incompetent or corrupt governance can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy.

I think that is irrefutable in its wisdom and irrefutable in its impact. I think it informs the five points put before you today in this motion.

I would also refer the testimony of Dr. Franks--Professor Franks--as also being irrefutable. Each of us can go back and examine the record, as we have with respect to Mel Cappe's testimony and with respect to the testimony from the associate secretary of the Treasury Board and beyond. It boils down to a simple conclusion, and I asked that question earlier today of two cabinet ministers. They refused to answer. I think it's an important question that informs these five points.

With all that has transpired here over the last four months, limited just to this issue that we're treating here in this committee and leaving aside the government's conduct elsewhere--as we should rightly do in this instance--the question to ask of the government and of the ministers who were here today is a simple one: why shouldn't Canadians hold this government in contempt?

With all of the evidence, all of the conduct, all of the performance yesterday--walking in and dropping documents, which only fulfilled 15 of 72 requests--it's interesting, Mr. Chair, how that question is really a question that we're framing for our drafters. I believe deeply that these five preliminary conclusions ought to help inform this difficult drafting job for our parliamentary drafters.

With that, Mr. Chair, I submit this motion for your and the committee's consideration.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

On the motion, Madame DeBellefeuille, you have the next speaking spot.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair. I supported the motion because I saw it as a work plan, the start of a debate to help us to write our report. But I would like to maybe discuss some aspects.

The last paragraph of the motion suggests that no summaries of evidence be included in the draft report. Perhaps we should give that some thought. Witnesses like Dr. Franks have given us some ideas that could be included. The report is supposed to have two pages. I understand Mr. McGuinty's idea of not having a huge long report, because the issue seems really to be very clear in his mind. I feel it would be fine to soften his motion if we come up with other ideas to improve it a bit. I would also like us to be able to include any significant and necessary testimony in the report.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Madame DeBellefeuille.

I think you've all been informed that we are on television now, so we're back to that.

Monsieur Proulx, you were next on the speaking list.

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

No.