Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 17th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have no comment. Go ahead, then, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I thank members of the media for being here and finally being allowed in.

I would point out that despite the impression that Mr. McGuinty was giving, this was not intended to be public. The opposition coalition did not want members of the media in here. They did not want the Canadian public to see what this is.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Lukiwski, I will just issue a blanket warning of being careful of what was in camera and what was not.

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

Mr. Chair, I won't breach any in camera privileges, but for a period of time--and correct me if I'm wrong--we were in public, right? A motion I made put us in public. While we were in public, the opposition was squealing that this was undemocratic and that they wanted to go in camera. Eventually, we did go in camera. I won't point out what happened in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Go ahead, Mr. Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

If Mr. Lukiwski wants to start talking about that, we will have to say that the francophone party did not hear your order, and then we will be skating on very thin ice. Mrs. DeBellefeuille was entitled to hear the chair. There was no translation. That was just a technical problem. Do not point fingers. That's all I have to say.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Since you've just said it anyway, I guess you'll be tempted to say it. You have just said it, so....

Mr. Lukiwski, you're back on.

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

Mr. Chairman, on a point of order, I want to point out that seeing that the other side is now very particular about keeping secrets and not violating in camera convention, that too happened in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

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

Let's talk about the motion. It is absolutely unbelievable to me that after two days of testimony, the opposition coalition would come together to present a motion that basically gives the conclusion to a report before the report is even written.

We know that the Liberals came in here with an endgame of trying to find the government in contempt, but to do something like this, Mr. Chairman, is unfathomable, in my estimation. What they could have done--and what they clearly had the ability to do, since the coalition does have the majority on committee--is that once the draft report was brought back to this committee by the analysts as an impartial assessment of the testimony that we heard, I'm sure the opposition coalition could have then used their power of numbers to make recommendations calling for the government perhaps to be found in contempt. In other words, they could have overturned any of the recommendations or any of the information contained in the report.

Instead they bring forward this motion, which is unbelievable. First and foremost it states that the committee report shall be no more than two pages in length. We've heard several hours of testimony. We've heard two ministers appear twice before committee and a minister of state appear for an hour. We've had many other witnesses, and many of them gave information conflicting with the opposition's position, by the way.

This report, in my estimation--and I've seen a few reports brought back to committee in my career--would have no chance whatsoever of being less than two pages in length had it run its due course, but the opposition, of course, wants to restrict the information contained in the report. They want to restrict information that was given in testimony before committee members, and even more obscene is the fact that they are trying to pass a motion that finds the government in contempt without the benefit of any testimony included in the report.

Mr. Chair, I don't know if anyone in this Parliament or any historian who has been observing Parliament for the last 50 years or more can find an example of a committee passing a motion either condemning the government or praising the government or coming to a conclusion before a draft report was presented by its analysts. There is no unanimity here, obviously, Mr. Chair. It is the opposition coalition merely trying, for some unknown reason, to come up with a conclusion before a report is presented to committee.

I honestly don't know what their endgame is in doing this. Do they think for a moment that the media are going to give them a free pass on this, that the media will agree that this is perhaps appropriate? It's far from being appropriate, Mr. Chair.

We can have our differences, and we do. We have severe differences on political ideology and philosophy on government programs and on our vision, but to pull something like this.... On the one hand they are complaining that the government has been secretive and manipulative, while on the other hand they are bringing forward a motion like this. It basically says that the two days of hearings we've had are meaningless, that they mean nothing, because they don't want the testimony that was given to be read in a report. They just want to have a motion passed that says that the government is in contempt and didn't comply with the Speaker's ruling. They do not want this report to be made public, Mr. Chair. They do not want testimony to be part of the public record.

Let's review some of that testimony, Mr. Chair. We've had the two ministers in question appear on two different occasions over the last two days. They presented binders of information, information that the government has stated fully complies with the Speaker's ruling, yet none of that information, Mr. Chair, is apparently going to be included in the final report if the opposition coalition has its way.

They come here full of sanctimony and pious indignation, stating that they oppose the government's approach because it hasn't been open and accountable to Parliament, and then they come up with this motion that absolutely prevents any direct testimony from being presented in a report.

Again I point out what members of the media know full well, because they saw the ushering in and out of this room by guards and officials who were trying to prevent them from seeing this motion, but they have seen it now, Mr. Chair. The media are aware of this; hopefully the Canadian public will become engaged as well, and whether or not, Mr. Chair, members of the Canadian public agree or disagree--

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Chair, I have a point of order.

Mr. Lukiwski referred to the disagreement earlier about the in camera versus public sessions. That disagreement occurred because there were members of the committee from the Bloc and the NDP who felt their rights as parliamentarians were being violated by a vote that did not provide them, through translation, with the information on the vote prior to the vote. In Canada we're proud to be a bilingual country; our institutions respect bilingualism, and I think it is shoddy, as well as disrespectful of this committee and of Parliament, for Mr. Lukiwski to keep referring to that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Brison, I will make the rulings on the points of order. It's a very nice ruling that you've made, but it really will be up to the chair to make them.

Mr. Lukiwski, you still have the floor.

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

Thank you.

Then let's talk about being disrespectful. What is this? What is this motion before us, except the height of disrespect of Parliament? This motion suggests that we should ignore the testimony we've heard over the last two days and come to conclusions based on an opposition motion. That's exactly what this is saying. There is nothing more disrespectful than that.

Over the last two days I've heard members of the opposition complain on countless occasions that there have been abuses of power, abuses of government, and abuses of Parliament. There is no bigger abuse that we have seen in recent history, in my view, than this motion. This motion basically tries to craft a report through the tyranny of the majority, without any testimony and without any evaluation by our analysts, who are non-partisan in nature and who have over time provided excellent service to every committee in the Parliamentary precinct. Talk about an abuse of a majority.

When the Speaker ruled last year, he said that there is something called a tyranny of the majority, and he was right. He was referring to committees, and this is the best example we can see.

Why are the opposition members so afraid of seeing a report based on the testimony that we have received today? Obviously we know that the Liberals want to find a ruling of contempt so that they can use it for their own political purposes, but why in the world are they bringing forward a motion like this, which totally abuses and disrespects the conventions, policies, procedures, and practices of Parliament?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Godin?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes. Mr. Lukiwski is saying that the opposition has come to an agreement on that. It is a motion, we have agreed that the motion be introduced at the committee, but that does not mean we agree on the motion itself. There are some things we want to change. Personally, speaking for the NDP, I want to change some things in the motion. He is accusing all the opposition and I don't agree with that.

I would like you to acknowledge that the motion has not been passed. We have not had a chance to make amendments. So he shouldn't be putting everyone in the same boat.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I will agree that from time to time partisan comments are made at committee and I will chastise Mr. Lukiwski to watch that he doesn't make conclusions for you in the future. We'll allow you to discuss the motion also.

Continue, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

What I point out, Mr. Chair, is that there was a willingness from all members of the opposition to bring this motion in its current language before this committee, but anything could have been done in terms of recommendations after we saw the draft report. If Monsieur Godin or anyone else tries to back out of this now that they're having to defend their position publicly--

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chair.

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

If they want to try to back out of this by saying, “Well, just a minute; we may want amendments--”

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

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

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Yes, Mr. Chair. Again, he's saying that the opposition is thinking along the same lines. And I don't agree that there be no summary of evidence in the draft report. I am ready to make an amendment on that. He is also putting words in..., which is not right. Some of the things he says are not right.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Godin, you are on my speaker's list; when Mr. Lukiwski is done, you'll get to make your points.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Could he please stop saying things that are false? Through you, Mr. Chair, I ask that Tom Lukiwski stop saying things that are false.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Continue, Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I'm not saying anything that is false. I'm expressing my opinion, as obviously the coalition opposition has done by the drafting of this motion.