Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Do I have a comment on 16, or an opposition to 16?

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

I have a suggestion on additional information to be included in paragraph 16. I don't have the transcript of the Speaker's ruling, all of his wording, but I believe he mentioned at the time that the incident that was forwarded to the committee in February 2002 actually ended up with the Minister of National Defence being found not in contempt. Of course that was also in a majority government environment, but he did make reference to the fact, I believe.

I have it here, if I may read it into the record.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Certainly.

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

This is from the debates of February 1, 2002:

I am prepared, as I must be, to accept the minister's assertion that he had no intention to mislead the House. Nevertheless, this remains a very difficult situation. ... I have concluded that the situation before us where the House is left with two versions of events....

No, I'll withdraw that, Chair. I thought the Speaker made reference that in the case of the Minister of National Defence in 2002, the ultimate ruling was that he was not found in contempt. I do not see where the Speaker says that in the ruling.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

So we're going to leave paragraph 16 as it is?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Paragraphs 17 to 24 inclusive agreed to)

All in favour of paragraph 25?

Sorry, do you have a question, Mr. Lukiwski, on 25?

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

Sorry, Chair, I had notes here. I just want to go back over them.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Young, did you want to jump in? Do you have an intervention?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

In paragraph 24, when you read it, it sounds like Mr. Franks had drawn a conclusion with regard to contempt. Neither Professor Franks nor the parliamentary counsel drew any conclusion with regard to contempt. They specifically chose not to when given the opportunity. I just have a concern that 24 makes it sound like a conclusion has been drawn.

Perhaps at the beginning of the paragraph it could say that although Mr. Franks chose not to or never made a conclusion with regard to the contempt....

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

Point of order.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

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

We've dealt with paragraph 24. Whatever Mr. Young is bringing forth, I don't read it like that in the French version, that's for sure.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

[Bob Rae, Liberal, Toronto Centre, ON]

Mr. Chair, I think paragraph 22 satisfies Mr. Young's concern. It's clear. It says: “Without offering an opinion as to whether Ms. Oda was guilty of contempt of Parliament...”. So you don't have to repeat it in 24.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Yes, I read that. I was concerned with 24, though. If the members agree that it's not a concern, I'll withdraw my concern.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I'm not feeling it, so I'm thinking we're going to leave it there.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

I can live with what you have there.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Then I'll go back to where I was.

All in favour of paragraph 25 as written?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

(Paragraphs 26 and 27 agreed to)

On paragraph 28, you have a point, Mr. Reid.

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

I move that we add a sentence at the end of paragraph 28, which would read: “She subsequently submitted two such memoranda, at the request of the committee, which had been marked in this manner.”

That is the motion I'm suggesting, and now I will speak to it, if I could, very briefly.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Sure.

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

These are the documents we've just tabled.

Of course the point of putting this in here is that this demonstrates very clearly that this was the standard operating mode within the department, and therefore it could not have been the case that this word was inserted to mislead Parliament.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Okay, on Mr. Reid's motion to insert that sentence or to insert something to that effect.