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.
Noon
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
It's all on the public record. You don't have to get precious about this. It's all a matter of public knowledge.
Noon
Conservative
Noon
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I thought we were doing this one at a time, but perhaps you have a better grasp of how a committee works than I do.
There's one clarification I would point out, however, in Mr. Rae's earlier intervention. He said that the ATIP document that was before the foreign affairs committee demonstrated that CIDA had approved funding. They did not; they recommended funding. Let's make sure we have precise words here. CIDA has never approved funding of Kairos. The CIDA officials, including Ms. Biggs, recommended funding. After the minister disapproved of the funding, the CIDA decision then became that they did not.
There was only one decision that CIDA made on this one, and it was not to fund Kairos. I do not want Mr. Rae or anyone else to try to put into testimony here that something was other than that.
Noon
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
On a point of order, Mr. Chairman.
If what Mr. Lukiwski says were true, the Minister would not have apologized to the House on February 14 for creating that confusion. They are simply playing with words here. That does not in any way reflect the perception of most parliamentarians or the public, and in that respect, once again, they are just wasting our time.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I think I'll start ruling pretty quickly on these points of order that turn into points of testimony or points of argument. It's getting ridiculous. Whenever you don't like what someone else says, you raise a point of order and get your point in. That's not the procedure. That's not how it works. When you're raising a point of order, talk about the procedure that just went wrong, not the testimony that just went wrong.
And please don't speak over top of me. I'm in just a good enough mood today to put up with this.
12:05 p.m.
A voice
Me too.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay, then let's all hold hands and sing Kumbaya and get through this. But we're not getting through it at this pace or with this method.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Good. Mr. Rae says he can help us with the words. That's great.
I have Mr. Reid next on this issue.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I think Mr. Rae made two points, one of which is valid, and he answered a question.... I confess, I did not realize that I did say that it was either an order paper question or an access to information request. It was an order paper question. I then said that the minister doesn't have control over how the material is collected for that, with good reason. He pointed out that the minister's signature is on the response. I take his point on that. It's a good point.
That doesn't change the point that when the document was actually put together, originally typed up, the signatures added, including the one added by autopen, and the word “not” inserted--those are actually several different stages--all of that happened before the order paper question was submitted. The documents were then transferred in a manner that involved no further alteration. No one has argued that any further alteration happened. As far as I know, no one has argued that. If someone had argued that, that would actually make their case in a very devastating way, but no one has made that claim.
The original document was dealt with in a manner by a minister who had every expectation that it would not become public for 20 years. That's the stage it's at when it last leaves the minister's hands.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
The point I'm getting at here is--
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
--simply that Mr. Rae's testimony was very relevant, and I think we should both include the documents I've suggested and—he has a good point--that additional other material he's included, which I think adds to my case of the fact that the minister didn't alter these things. That should be added in as additional documentation submitted to this committee. It does help us to get to where we want to go.
12:05 p.m.
An hon. member
Can we vote on that?
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
I do want to comment, because there's something Mr. Paquette said that is so fundamentally wrong I actually have hope that this issue could be turned around at this meeting today.
Mr. Paquette, we're not here to decide did the minister mislead the House by miscommunication or whatever. We're here to decide if the minister was in contempt, and that's a huge, massive, difference.
The minister admitted to a miscommunication. She's apologized for that. The question is, did she do it intentionally?
And if you go to number 20, by the way, the standard of proof is a very high standard of proof—
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
In practice in New Zealand, it's “proof of a very high order”.
So that is not what we're here to decide. We're here to decide: did she do it intentionally, and is there evidence of a very high order? There's a huge difference.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Let's make reference to the motion that's on the floor, which is Mr. Reid asking if certain documents can be given to this committee. That's the motion we're discussing right now. We'll get back to each of the clauses, hopefully in our lifetime.
12:05 p.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Last week we went through this charade of wanting to get information from the government. When the information's provided, well, it's too much information. It was evident from questions since and some comments in the media that they didn't even read the information they got. Now we have an opportunity to get information that is helpful to the committee. That's not a big deal. It's not as if there's a hundred pages, it's only.... What is it, Mr. Reid? Two pages?