Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2011

[Andre Barnes]

I know it's a nuance.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

That's fine with me. If you feel you've captured it, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So we're all right with paragraph 26 as it stands?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

And paragraph 27?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Paragraph 28?

Mr. Brison, on paragraph 28, and then I have Mr. Albrecht.

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

I think with paragraph 28 I would propose an amendment to make the paragraph reflect more accurately the view of the committee at the time. My amendment would be to the second sentence in paragraph 28:

There were also comments, including that members found it difficult to understand why the FINA deadline was not respected, and why it took the government four months to provide FINA and Parliament with the information that it had requested.

I would propose replacing “members” with “the committee”, because I think the majority of the members found it difficult to understand why the FINA deadline was not respected; as such, the majority of members would constitute “the committee”.

Further, the sentence beginning--

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

Excuse me, Mr. Brison. Sir, what paragraph are you in?

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

Paragraph 28.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Paragraph 28, line number three, is where that change is.

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

Further, I would amend the sentence that begins:

Members also commented that the information contained in the binders provided to the Committee was insufficient in a number of respects....

I would propose replacing “members” with “the Committee”, because again it reflects the majority of the members. It more precisely reflects what actually took place at the time.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Mr. Albrecht next.

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

Mr. Chair, we had the binders presented to us. The information that was in the binders responded to every question that was asked for in the committee. It's a direct response to each question in a motion. So somehow that needs to be reflected in paragraph 28 or a new paragraph.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So you're suggesting that addition?

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

I think it addresses Mr. Brison's concern, but we also need to go further and indicate that the binder does in fact respond to each of the questions that were raised in the motion.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Brison.

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

Mr. Chair, I think paragraph 29 addresses Mr. Albrecht's concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's get to paragraph 29 when we get to paragraph 29. We're on paragraph 28.

I have Mr. Reid next.

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

Thank you.

It's funny, I had actually meant to go the opposite way in this. Where the word “members” is used in the English version, on the second-to-last line on page 8, where the sentence begins with the word “Members”, I was going to put in “Some members”, because obviously all members did not comment. That would have been my suggestion for everywhere else where we're discussing Mr. Brison's amendment, which I would oppose--“the Committee”.

We all go through this nonsense where assertion is made that the committee has spoken. Ideally, from the point of view of the opposition--and we can guess this from the motion they had proposed in an in camera meeting, reversed only when they realized they couldn't keep it secret last week--they were going to have us come up with resolutions and they would say “the Committee decided on this”. They were going to have us do so in a manner that would not allow for any recording, without breaking parliamentary privileges, revealing that there had been dissent in the committee. Well, this is one of these things where another attempt is being made to--

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Monsieur Godin, on a point of order.

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

If the meeting was held in camera, it should stay in camera. Here goes the member again today. And things have been going well so far.

Mr. Chair, I'm not sure you are going to realize what's going on and stop the hon. member in time. If you want to disclose what happened in camera, we can do that and it will be quick because the meeting was not very long. But we cannot do through the back door, what we cannot do through the front door.

I would like Mr. Reid to respect the fact that what took place in camera has to stay in camera. I wouldn't have a problem with making it all public, but as you know, under parliamentary practice, a meeting held in camera must stay in camera. When we start talking about what happened in camera, that sparks other types of discussions and the in-camera status no longer applies.

Mr. Chair, I would like you to call Mr. Reid to order, please.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid, you will need to remember what was done in camera and what wasn't. I know there's a real dotted line there.