Evidence of meeting #50 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was chair.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

William V. Baker  Deputy Minister, Department of Public Safety
Doug Nevison  Director, Fiscal Policy Division, Economic and Fiscal Policy Branch, Department of Finance
Ned Franks  Professor Emeritus, Department of Political Studies, Queen's University, As an Individual

3:50 p.m.

Liberal

David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON

Thank you, sir.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Continue, Mr. Lukiwski.

3:50 p.m.

Conservative

Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK

Thank you. I was just waiting for the microphone to come on, Mr. Chair.

Again, the opposition coalition wants--let's make sure that everyone is perfectly clear about what this motion states--the final report not to be assembled and written by the analysts. It wants it to be a report that is no more than two pages in length. It wants the report to come to some specific conclusions, conclusions that may be completely contrary to the testimony that has been heard here over two days, and it wants no summary of evidence to be included in the draft report.

My colleague Mr. Reid called this the “star chamber”. I can think of no better term than this.

We heard Mr. Franks talk about the games that parliamentarians play. There's no better example than this.

We've heard Mr. Walsh say that if you've got the numbers, you win, and if you don't have the numbers, you lose.

All of that is very true, Mr. Chair, but it flies in the face of, it directly contradicts, this sanctimonious approach that the opposition coalition has taken over the last two days. It flies in the face of that. This has been proven without a doubt by this motion. Mr. Chair, I suggest to you, and to any Canadians who may be watching, that this is not only an abuse of the parliamentary process; it makes a mockery of the parliamentary process.

I asked this question of a couple of our witnesses: if the opposition was hell-bent on coming forward with a finding of contempt and it was predisposed to that conclusion before the committee started its hearings, what worth does this committee have? Why did we even engage in these hearings? There's no reason.

I've heard time and time again the sanctimony from the other side of the table when they say that we have to respect the taxpayers' dollars. What is this except a complete misuse of taxpayers' dollars? In bringing this committee together for two days--bringing officials from the Department of Finance, ministers of the crown, and parliamentarians from across Canada--in fact it had no intention of listening to testimony, no intention of having testimony included in the final report, and no intention to give a fair and impartial accounting of what we heard today. All its intent was, Mr. Chair, was to use this as a vehicle to present this motion at the conclusion of the two days of hearings. It does not want impartiality. It does not want reasoned documents being presented. It does not want the truth. All it was looking for, Mr. Chair, was a vehicle to try to force an election.

Apparently, Mr. Chair, the opposition seems to think that actions like this--complete abuse of the democratic process, the parliamentary process--will be valuable for it if there is an election campaign coming, an election that it desperately seems to want to force.

Let me point out again for the record, Mr. Chair--as I have on countless occasions over the past months, as has our Prime Minister--that our government does not want an election. Canadians do not want an election. We want to focus on the priorities of Canadians, those being job growth and the economy, but it is vividly apparent that the opposition doesn't care about or share in those priorities. All it is trying to do, as it has done countless times in past years, is to try to create scandals where none exist.

Mr. Chair, we have heard the Speaker's ruling. We agree with the Speaker's ruling. What the Speaker said was he felt there was insufficient information concerning the costs of government legislative bills, primarily the costs of corporate tax cuts and the costs of our government's crime legislation.

The motion then, Mr. Chair, was sent before this committee. We said at the outset that we would comply with the Speaker's ruling and would be attempting to provide all the information that the Speaker requested--

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

3:55 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Go ahead, Mr. Godin, on a point of order.

3:55 p.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As you know, yesterday, the committee and the clerk were asked to obtain Mr. Page's report. Now that Mr. Page's report has been received—it will soon be 4:00 p.m.—members of Parliament have a right... Based on the principle of transparency, and if it is the wish of Canadians, this document should be made available to the Canadian public. For some time, Mr. Lukiwski has been saying that Canadians have a right to know. So we want to make sure that this is made public.

As a member of Parliament, I have a right to have the document. So I would appreciate it if could be circulated now.

4 p.m.

NDP

Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB

That's a good point.

4 p.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

We would be happy to have it distributed. It's strange to distribute documents that won't be attached to the report, but we'll do so.

It being four o'clock, we will adjourn until tomorrow morning at nine o'clock.