Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 18th, 2011

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Thank you.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

I apologize deeply.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

I accept that, Mr. Chair.

I want to reiterate that this is no way distancing myself from good relationships with the Mennonite Church.

Mr. Chair, I want to speak to the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Now on to the motion?

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, let's go to the motion.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

Well, to the motion as well, in relation to expert witnesses, Mr. Chair....

Here we see in the motion this limitation of two pages. I find it objectionable. After calling in members for two days of hearings on this one specific issue, members from across Canada, many witnesses, and three of our ministers—and in fact two of them came back again with less than a day's notice—I find objectionable that we would actually try to limit the analysts' report to two pages. But that's not even as troubling as the last part of the motion, which actually asks us to include no summary of evidence. All of this time, all of this evidence that has been collected will not find its way into a report, Mr. Chair. I find that objectionable. I think it's an affront to democracy.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Thanks.

Hopefully we can get to a resolution here quickly, and I mean that sincerely. I'm not here to filibuster. Those of you who know me....

Mr. Paquette, please hear me out.

Those of you who know me--as Mr. Proulx does, and others who have served with me on the procedure and House affairs committee--know that if I'm going to filibuster I announce it. I let members know. I have always done that. I am not intending to do that.

Yesterday, I was angry, and I'm still angry, at the motion as it was presented and at the content of the motion itself. However, having said that, I can assure you that from the government's perspective, we are committed to having a report tabled in the House on Monday, March 21, as was the motion that was approved. So I want to get something done today so a report can be tabled.

I would ask my colleagues from both the Bloc and the NDP to make comment on whether or not the motion as presented yesterday should be amended. Now, unfortunately two of the members who were sitting at committee yesterday are not here today. Madame DeBellefeuille had said yesterday that the Bloc might be open to amending or even deleting that last portion that says “no summary of evidence” to be attached. Monsieur Godin indicated the same willingness--at least, that's my interpretation.

I agree with my colleague, Mr. Albrecht, that arbitrarily limiting the report to two pages seems to be undemocratic, to say the very least, because based on testimony heard, in all probability it will go more than two pages.

Having said all that, I am obviously still aware that if the united opposition wants to have a finding that is contained in the main body of the motion--that is, stating that the government is in contempt--they can certainly do so. There is very little we can do to prevent that from happening, and I'm not going to filibuster to try to stop this motion from coming forward, as I said earlier. But I would like to hear from my colleagues in the Bloc Québécois, at least on those two points. Can we at least agree to have a report that includes a summary of evidence, and to also include a report that is not restricted to two pages or less?

With that, I certainly hope I can hear some commentary from my colleagues across.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're going to have to hear from Mr. Young first. He's next on the list. Monsieur Paquette will follow that.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

When I look for subterfuge, I usually don't go to the top of a document; I usually go to the end, because that's where they like to hide it. And that's where the evil intent usually lies.

So I'm looking at the last line of this motion, and here's what it says: “That no summary of evidence be included in the draft report”. Summaries of evidence are rich in detail, they're helpful in understanding the nuances of what went on at these proceedings, and they provide the Canadian public with an understanding of what went on here.

I ask myself, where do government proceedings not have summaries of evidence? I think in Cuba they wouldn't have summaries of evidence, because in Cuba they just knock on your door in the middle of the night and then you disappear and nobody sees you for years. Of course, that's the kind of thing that would happen in North Korea as well, the same kind of thing. There are no summaries of evidence because they just say what happens and hear what happens. And of course they don't have summaries of evidence in Iran because they're dictators--the ayatollahs and Ahmadinejad--and if you get on the wrong side of them, your life isn't worth anything, so they don't have summaries of evidence.

It's obvious here, Chair, that the coalition are using their majority to censor what Canadians hear. We've sat here for three days in this committee, at their request, and heard evidence from four ministers now. I didn't count the hours. I think it's about nine or ten hours. They don't want the Canadian public, through the media who are here today, to hear that.

Then I go to the top of the page, and maybe I should have gone there first, because at the top of the page it says, “That the draft report be no longer than two pages in each official language”. This is an incredible attempt to silence Parliament. When you hear this much evidence on these committees, what you would normally get is a report that might be 15, 20, or 30 pages long. The opposition coalition are demanding that this committee produce a report that has no summaries and is no more than two pages long. This motion itself is one full page, and it's a foolscap page.

The opposition have the information they asked for, all the evidence we've heard in the last two and a half to three days now, and they have this. They complained about getting too much information after complaining they didn't have enough information.

Chair, if there is any contempt for Parliament here, it's contempt here and now expressed by the opposition coalition for this committee, and indirectly through this committee to Parliament. They're asking us to work in the dark. They're asking to leave Canadians in the dark regarding what we did here for these three days. I simply say to Canadians, here is the coalition. How do you like it so far?

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Paquette is next on this motion.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

We do not see a point to having a summary of evidence because everything is a matter of public record anyways. It will all appear in the committee's blues. What's more, it creates additional work for our researchers. This is a report that has to be handed in Monday morning so we can discuss it Monday morning.

We do not object at all to including a summary of evidence, but it is important to keep in mind that, given the time constraints, it cannot be an exhaustive summary. It should cover the key points made by each witness—we have no problem with that—but it should not be something that overwhelms the researchers and prevents them from doing their work.

Obviously, since there was no evidence, the crux would be the recommendations—so, two pages. I am not sure whether my Liberal colleagues would support this, but I would be prepared to simply remove two paragraphs, the first and the last. The crux clearly being the second paragraph, I don't think there is much we could take out there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. McGuinty, you're next.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm glad we're having this discussion. It's an important one. I want to simply let folks, members, and Canadians know the reason why the “summary of evidence” not “be included in the draft report” was originally put in here. We've been informed by the table officers that the House of Commons cannot translate more than eight pages a day. We're working on a really tight deadline. We have until the 21st.

Here's the good news. My colleague Mr. Proulx had a conversation with the Clerk of the House, Ms. O'Brien, who informed him they are prepared to waive that rule. They will put all of the resources necessary into translating this text by Monday morning. So despite all the aspersions cast and all of the ghosts that have been divined by Mr. Young and others, the only reason this was put in here in the first place was to try to make the work of the drafters easier and more time-effective so we can get this done by Monday.

We are certainly prepared to entertain amendments to this motion, as we said yesterday. I said it openly here. We said it in the media. I say it again today. There are no ghosts. There's no question here of limiting debate. We've just had three full days of debate. We have all kinds of information in the public realm. If Mr. Young doesn't know, this has all been broadcast on TV. The transcripts are all available. It's all over the Internet, and the paper material is being published. So it's all available for any Canadian who wants to look at it and make up their own mind.

I would be prepared to entertain a friendly amendment, whether it's from Mr. Paquette in the Bloc, someone from the Conservative party, or Mr. Martin over here, that addresses this question of summary of evidence so we can get on with our job.

I implore my colleagues not to cast aspersions where they simply don't exist.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Why did you try to do it in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Gentlemen, it's been a long week. Let's end it on a nice note.

Mr. Lukiwski, you're up next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I thank all of my colleagues for their interventions.

I believe I heard Monsieur Paquette say that the Bloc would be willing to eliminate the first and last paragraphs. Just so we're quite clear here, the first paragraph is: “That the draft report be no longer than two pages in each official language”.

You will be willing to eliminate that?

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes.

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

And you would be willing to eliminate the last paragraph that states: “That no summary of evidence be included in the draft report”.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes.

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

If that is your position--

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Yes, but I also want the committee to know that the deadline is March 21. I do not necessarily want to state that explicitly—through an amendment—but no one is going to ask that it be exhaustive when we know they have barely two days to get it done. It is just that. Perhaps two pages was not long enough, but 25 would certainly be too long.

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

Perhaps I can conclude my remarks. I wasn't quite finished.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly.