Evidence of meeting #53 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.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
The motion is as follows. Maybe I'll hold argument for later, but let me just read the motion.
Conservative
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Okay.
Maybe I'll hold argument for later, but the motion is as follows:
1. That the response to the order paper questions to the members for London North Centre and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine misled members in two respects: one, that a reader would be left with the impression that the decision to defund was a CIDA decision made by CIDA civil servants; and two, that the universe of funding criteria was contained on CIDA's website, both of which we now know are not true. 2. That the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the minister, was himself misled when he spoke in the House on behalf of the minister, saying that “the Kairos application did not meet agencies' priorities”. We now know this also to be untrue. The parliamentary secretary had done the honourable thing and apologized to the House, as he too was misled. 3. That the talking points of the agency itself led one to the clear conclusion that this was a CIDA decision. 4. That on December 9, 2010, the minister knew, or ought to have known, who inserted the “not” in the approval line. 5. That within 24 hours of the question being asked, the minister knew who had inserted the “not” in the approval line. 6. That for 14 months the minister let MPs and Canadians believe that that decision to defund was a CIDA decision, and that except for an access to information inquiry and the President of CIDA's subsequent confirmation, this was clearly not a CIDA decision, but purely a ministerial decision. 7. That when the facts were exposed on December 9, 2010, the minister changed her position from it being a CIDA decision to it being a government priorities decision. 8. That to date there's been no satisfactory explanation as to what constitutes government priorities. 9. That Minister Kenney accused Kairos of anti-Semitism in a speech in Israel at the Global Forum for Combatting Anti-Semitism on December 16, 2009, and that this was the reason for its defunding, and that we now know that this too was untrue. 10. That the Minister of CIDA and the President of CIDA have never said that anti-Semitism was the reason for defunding, and further that they had no evidence of anti-Semitism. 11. That the allegation of anti-Semitism is false, that it slandered Kairos' reputation as an organization and the 11 Christian churches and organizations that constitute Kairos, and further that thousands of Kairos supporters have been hurt by this slander. 12. That the defunding decision has affected the lives of thousands of poor people by causing Kairos to withdraw from many partnerships. 13. That the committee regrets that CIDA officials have been made to appear as if the decision was theirs, when in fact it was not. 14. That the minister had every opportunity to clarify the “confusion” in response to questions in question period and in her apology of February 14, 2011. 15. That the minister must be held to the highest standard of accountability, not only so members may do their duty, but also so that witnesses coming before committee understand the duty of truthfulness when appearing before a committee of Parliament. 16. That the truthfulness, transparency, and accountability of the executive branch to the legislature is a core function and a necessity for a democracy. 17. That confusion is not contempt, it is incompetence. However, the pattern of misinformation and limited truthfulness has been so consistent over the past 14 months that the committee has been led to the inescapable conclusion that a contempt has occurred.
Thank you.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. McKay, on your motion, I have identified three or four spots in it that aren't part of study or part of the point of privilege. Since it's been given as one motion, I can't rule those pieces out of order, I can only rule the motion out of order.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
Can you identify what you think are not the constituent elements?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Yes. Certainly number 2 was not part of our study, not part of the information brought forward under the motion of privilege. On number 8, again, I'm not certain that was part of the motion of privilege. It's information you're looking for, I'm sure, but I don't think it constitutes what caused the breach of privilege. Numbers 9, 10, and 11 fit into the same spot, and number 12 is arguable.
Getting into the funding of Kairos isn't what this motion of privilege is about; the motion of privilege is about statements being made by the ministers. I understand you are trying to be all-inclusive in your motion, and I thank you for doing that.
I'd love another solution from you, but at this moment I'm going to go with that.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
I suppose I'm going to challenge the chair, but before I challenge the chair, let me deal with several points.
I think that point number 2 is critical. There is evidence to support that. It is in the record. It is--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm not suggesting that there isn't evidence. I'm not suggesting it is something that didn't take place. I'm just suggesting it is not part of what we're looking at from the point of privilege.
Liberal
John McKay Liberal Scarborough—Guildwood, ON
On number 8, I might well agree with you.
On number 9, that is the only reason that has been put forward at this point by a minister of the crown as to what constitutes--
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
On a point of order, I'm finding it extremely difficult to follow this without these points in front of us. Could we...?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. I'm reading off a piece of paper that the rest don't have.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Could we suspend for five minutes and get this document translated? It's almost impossible for us to talk about the details without having it in front of us. This should have been translated long ago.
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
Can't we use the House services and have an analyst do the translation? It seems to me that they do that in the Wellington Building. They do translation.
In other committee rooms, isn't there a House service that provides simultaneous translation in writing on the screen?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
They all do, but this has to be asked for ahead of time. It doesn't just happen because you want it at that minute.
This is what we're faced with again. I know there were accusations the other day about handing in documents that aren't translated and we had to say we wouldn't accept them. Here we're dealing with a document, again not translated.
I happen to have been handed a copy, so I'm working off it. I do apologize. I momentarily forgot that the rest of you don't have it.
I'm looking for a solution here. I'm not certain that we shouldn't wait until this document is translated.
It's that detailed of a document, Mr. McKay.
Madame DeBellefeuille, and then I'll come to Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Blaney.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
I understand Mr. Young's discomfort. We share it, given that we do not have a written document to look at.
The French translation was very good, you know, and I understood it. Perhaps we could read it once more, because we are used to hearing motions translated by the interpreters. Could we have it repeated once or twice for Mr. Young, if we can't get the translation?
I am quite satisfied with the interpretation. We can take notes. It just may take a little more time. If translation is not available, that is a compromise we could accept.
