Evidence of meeting #54 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 document.
A recording is available from Parliament.
12:45 p.m.
Nicholas Auclair
In paragraph 32.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
I would like to add that, as: “in statements to the House of Commons, including one made on April 23, 2010 and in answer to Question 106 on the Order Paper”. We would simply add the same date, and the sentence would continue after that. That is an objective fact.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay: after 2010, “and in response to question 106...”.
Members have heard that's the insertion. That's what we would like. Are all in favour of the new wording on paragraph 32?
12:45 p.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great.
Now, on paragraph 32 itself, are all in favour of 32 as it's now worded?
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
12:45 p.m.
An hon. member
That was agreed to.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
No, it looked like it for a second, but we never quite got there.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
You always ignore my hand. I'll try waving or something, Chair.
12:45 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
This is important, because I'm not disputing that what is written is not factual, but I think it's more the omission than anything else. In effect, what this paragraph is doing is parroting the opposition's position on this.
I have the blues here, and we can go over it. This is stating, for example, that a statement had been made by the minister to the effect that Kairos' proposal did not meet government funding standards, and it seemed to be unclear by some members that if the decision not to fund Kairos was the minister's and not that of CIDA, why did her statement to the House not reflect that?
On several occasions, if members recall, when Minister Oda appeared before committee I asked her whether she was here to testify that when she makes a decision it then becomes a CIDA decision. She said yes. I asked her whether that was how she reflected it in her commentary both in the House and outside the House, consistently throughout this whole period of discussion. She said yes. I went on to ask her whether or not she at any time had tried to suggest, either directly or indirectly, that the decision not to fund Kairos was a CIDA official's decision as opposed to her decision. She said there was no intent at any time.
This paragraph doesn't really reflect the counter-argument, and I think it should, because it's really relevant to the whole discussion whether there was intent of the minister to deceive.
This paragraph as written seems to imply that the minister had been making statements that referred to the CIDA decision as a decision made by officials. She stated categorically during her appearance before the committee that she never at any time had intended to do that. In fact, she had always said it was a CIDA decision, and that was quite factually correct. This paragraph seems to be a little ambiguous, to say the least, when it comes to that clarification.
I think, at the very least, it should have the counter-argument that was presented during committee, that while some members may feel there was some confusion, Minister Oda felt there was no confusion. If members recall, she said she was quite surprised at the apparent confusion among the members of the opposition. She said it was common practice to deal with issues like this on recommending or not recommending projects to be funded in this way, and she'd always referred to this as a CIDA decision, which in her mind meant once she made the decision, it became a CIDA decision.
This seems to be more of a narrative woven by the opposition than actual testimony that occurred. There is a huge difference. I understand that it's debatable, and this is the crux of the argument, that the opposition contends that when Minister Oda said it was a CIDA decision, she was trying to deceive and she was referring to CIDA officials. The minister said absolutely not. When she said it was a CIDA decision, in her mind it was because she had made the decision not to fund Kairos and her decision became a CIDA decision.
I don't think there should be any ambiguity in this report about that. We have to make it quite clear that while there is a difference of opinion between the opposition and the minister, it isn't generally accepted that the wording as expressed here on a couple of other points is in fact true. We have to have that second point of view. That's the whole thrust of this argument. We'll get to the options and we'll discuss it more then, I suppose, but we have to be absolutely clear in this report that there are divergent points of view. Just because the opposition feels that when she said it was a CIDA decision.... That doesn't necessarily mean that she was referring to CIDA officials.
Nowhere do I really see here that there's any commentary saying that the minister, under questioning by some members, particularly me, stated categorically that when she continued to refer to this being a CIDA decision, she was referring to the fact that when she as minister decided not to fund Kairos it became a CIDA decision. And that is factually true. I don't see any reference to that point of view here, and I think we need to....
12:50 p.m.
Committee Researcher
It might be helpful if in paragraph 33 you wanted to import some of that language, perhaps.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Yes, I certainly think that needs to be done consistently throughout it all.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
She never varied from that whatsoever. And I think any commentary we have in here, whatever points, we have to have that counterpoint.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'm looking for a suggestion of what that language is.
I'll move on while you're doing that, Mr. Lukiwski. I will come back to you when you say you're ready, but I have other speakers on the list too.
Monsieur Laframboise.
12:50 p.m.
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
I simply wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that paragraph 32 makes reference to the statements made by certain members. Other paragraphs do the same in relation to other members. I believe the researchers have simply reflected the discussions that actually occurred in committee. In paragraph 32, the wording is consistent with the discussions that occurred at that time and the questions raised by certain members. In paragraph 33 and others as well, the Minister provides an explanation.
This is an accurate account of the discussions that took place in committee, Mr. Chairman.
12:50 p.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Mr. Chair, there are seven minutes left in this meeting. Are we to reconvene at three o'clock, after question period? We have a duty to file a report on this particular question by tomorrow.
12:50 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
It was my thought that we would reconvene tomorrow, not this afternoon. I have things I have to get done.