Evidence of meeting #52 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
I think that would clarify for the reader who hasn't been part of the discussion what we're trying to say.
Committee Researcher
That was what was intended by this sentence. In the sentence it's a little vague.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
All right.
With the changes in place, are we okay with the paragraph?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It's “extracted what was necessary in order to maintain cabinet confidence”.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I would move the following amendment to the final sentence. I would replace “Other” with “A minority of”, and I would end that sentence after the word “testimony”. There would be a period after the word “testimony”, and the rest of the sentence as written currently would be deleted. The sentence would--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
In the last sentence of paragraph 34, you're suggesting that we change the word “Other” to “A minority of” members and that we end the sentence after “Minister of State's testimony”, removing everything following that.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, again, we have an inconsistency in terms of inserting “minority”. My bigger concern, Mr. Chair, is with excluding the information regarding the stand of the Canadian Federation of Independent Business. This is clearly part of the sessions that we held. It was part of the testimony. I think it's important that that piece of information stay in. I'd be opposed to the amendment.
Conservative
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
I feel there is an advantage to not having been here during the testimony. I actually have a chance to read the report. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the analysts. I find that the report is well done and it is very objective.
Mr. Brison, since there has not been a vote, I think the word “minorité” is subjective and suggests that we divided up the witnesses. Earlier, we had the word “plusieurs” and the word “quelques”, but I don't think the word “minorité” is appropriate at all.
It seems there is information about the clerk, Mel Cappe, and Kevin Page. That's obviously in the report. That sets the stage for the issue tackled in the report and in this study, that is to say the impact of tax cuts on both the government and on business. I feel this information is very useful and I don't see why the members would want to censor the report or hide this information, which barely takes up a paragraph.
Thank you.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. Godin is next on the list.
I will challenge the members. We are getting very close to the time. We must finish this. If this is the one you want to take the time on....
Mr. Lukiwski.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Quickly, let's cut to the chase then, Chair, as you suggest.
It appears that any time there's any reference in this report to a position that supports the opposition position, Mr. Brison is fine with it. But any time there's a reference to something that actually supports the government's position, he wants to exclude it from the report.
Come on. Stop playing politics here.
You know what's going to happen on the recommendation side. There are four options before us. We know what's going to happen. The opposition is going to vote for the Liberal motion, as they did originally. We know that's going to end up being a recommendation of this report. So give me a break. This is what Mr. Menzies said, and it is true. It is factually correct.
Stop playing games. Let it go. Let's get to the recommendations and get out of here before 12 noon.
