Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 22nd, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I believe we are in public, yes.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Okay. Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Reid.

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

I suppose it means I can listen to the translator and I can hear myself in French--probably with a female voice--if I want to. Heaven knows, though, that I don't think any of us would really want to have to do that at great length.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

What's the relevance, Mr. Chair? What relevancy do his comments have?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are you raising this?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

After what you just asked?

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

I asked you a point of information.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes, okay....

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

Mr. Chair, I want to get back to my comments, but I would just point out that “point of information” doesn't exist. I'm constantly hearing this from opposition members--and especially from Mr. Proulx, who ran for Speaker once.

There's no such thing as a point of information. It's like, “I don't know what's going on, so I'll just invent something that's supposed to take a higher rank in the order than everything else.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Can I ask you to return to your comments relevant to the motion before us and the amendment before us?

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

He's just giving a point of information.

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

Sorry, but I've been suffering with Mr. Proulx doing this for half a decade now. I've been meaning to bring it up at some point and say he needs to read the rule book; there is no such thing as a point of information.

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

What Speaker needs the rule book?

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

At any rate, look, I actually do want to wrap up. I have to leave to go and chair the human rights subcommittee--

[Some hon. members]

Hear, hear.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Bravo.

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

I should get you guys on the human rights subcommittee. They don't like me as much as you do.

My point is simply that this paragraph is fatally flawed. It's not possible, for the purposes of the motion, to save it by changing the wording--even though I disagree with the purpose of the motion, which, as I mentioned, is effectively to taint the minister--and therefore the only solution is to just remove this paragraph entirely from the motion.

I'll let that go, Mr. Chairman. I actually could say a lot more, but I'll let it rest there.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, you are next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

I want to just follow up a little bit on Mr. Reid's point on paragraph 2, because I agree.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

That's where we are. It's on the amendment.

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

It should certainly be deleted from this motion. How can we in all justification confirm that the former parliamentary secretary, Mr. Abbott, was misled when he hasn't testified to that? I find this to be quite extraordinary that the Liberals are trying to put words in Mr. Abbott's mouth and trying to suggest that they are factual. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Frankly, I'm very surprised, because when we developed the witness list for these hearings, I had predicted that Mr. Abbott would be one of the witnesses who the opposition would call. I suspect the reason he wasn't is because they finally determined, in their strategic overview and analysis of who would be the best witnesses to buttress their case, that Mr. Abbott wouldn't help their cause because he would probably say that he was not misled. But I was very surprised that they did not ask Mr. Abbott to attend the committee as a witness, as would have been their right.

But now, since they didn't, and he did not testify before the committee, this motion purports to put words into Mr. Abbott's mouth, which is not only unparliamentary but frankly is beyond whatever sort of scope of justice and common courtesy and fairness one could possibly imagine.

I would suspect Mr. Reid is right. If asked the direct question, Mr. Abbott would say “No, I wasn't misled. I wasn't misled whatsoever. I might have misunderstood it, and I apologized later for making statements on which I was wrong, but I certainly wasn't misled.”

There are many other points here, and if we're going to speak to these points, all 17 of them, one at a time, which I suspect we probably will, if given the time, I will make mention of many other inconsistencies in Mr. McKay's motion, and in fact not only inconsistencies but factual inaccuracies. This is one of them.

Point number 2 states categorically that the former parliamentary secretary to the minister was misled. How can he say that? How can they possibly allow this point to remain in this motion? He is stating something as fact that in fact is not true. No one knows whether Mr. Abbott was misled or not, but point number 2 in Mr. McKay's motion states categorically that he was misled. We cannot allow that to happen. We can simply not allow that to happen.

If this is left as is, we would in effect be condoning all committees to start putting words into parliamentarians' mouths. If we leave this in the motion and it is passed by the united opposition, in effect, we would be setting a precedent that states then that any committee can put words into another parliamentarian's mouth, draft it into a motion, pass it at committee, and then in fact it becomes almost the rule of the land. That would never be allowed in a court of law, never.

In fact this certainly isn't a court of law, Mr. McGuinty, I agree with that. If anything, it's a kangaroo court, thanks to the motions that you've been bringing forward. We simply can't do this. I hear time and time again that the members of the opposition get on their sanctimonious high horse and pontificate by saying that this is a government that doesn't respect democracy. What are they trying to do here by putting words into another member's mouth that are simply not true or probably would not be proven to be true? How can they possibly sit here and say, in all good conscience, that this is a legitimate motion? It's ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous.

Mr. Speaker, I know you've got a speaking list, and I'll let others give their two cents' worth. But any fair-minded Canadian taking a look at this would understand fully, completely, and instantaneously--

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

Isn't that filibustering?

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

--that this is nothing but political posturing by the opposition, who want to try to find a minister of the crown in contempt with nothing to substantiate their opinion.

Thank you, Chair.