Evidence of meeting #55 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 political.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We are now in public on the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 9, 2011, the question of privilege relating to the statements made by the Minister of International Cooperation.
When we were last together, which somehow seems like yesterday, I believe we had proceeded as far as paragraph 32. Am I correct?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Had we voted on paragraph 32 and accepted it? No, we had not. We were still doing things to paragraph 32. I can only assume if we hadn't passed it that there--
Nicolas Auclair Committee Researcher
If I may, the committee had adopted the changes, but not the paragraph as such.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I wasn't here for paragraph 32. I was out of the room at the time, so I'm not sure if we're now looking at the new version of paragraph 32 or the old version as we see it here in the report.
Andre Barnes Committee Researcher
The difference would be the addition of English, at least, following “April 23, 2010”. We added “as well as in response to question 106 on the Order Paper of that same date”. If you have that on your copy, that's the most recent version.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
On that point, there were some other changes yesterday that we had asked for as a committee. Up until paragraph 32 and including...I think there's a change later on that has to do with something we voted on yesterday, so if you have that document, you now have the latest one with the changes already in place. Excellent work.
On paragraph 32, further discussion? Seeing none--
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Sorry, seeing as effectively this amounts to a changed version, what was the point of the change?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
To include “question 106 on the Order Paper” as a piece of detail....
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Any other changes suggested to paragraph 32?
Seeing none, all those in favour of paragraph 32?
(Paragraph 32 agreed to)
Great.
Now on paragraph 33, are there any changes?
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I'll just let Mr. Proulx get caught up. I count on him for some of the translation.
Mr. Reid, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That's okay.
Whatever we may think about the whole contempt issue, we all agree that the point of this report is to summarize the evidence that was presented to the committee, either for or against the final argument that the minister either was or was not in contempt of the House.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
So there's something here, and I don't see its relevance to that question. It says here:
...some members questioned the Minister as to whether “political” criteria had been employed to assess KAIROS' funding proposal, considering that the proposal had been recommended by CIDA officials using departmental criteria. The Minister responded that the responsibility for making funding decisions on proposals such as KAIROS' proposal was hers alone. Once her decision has been made, it becomes the department's decision as well as that of the government.
So the question is, was the minister using political criteria? By definition, isn't she using political criteria? If she is, that's problematic. If she isn't, I don't think she can't not use it whether she's approving it or not. Everything she does is political by definition, so it just strikes me that this is effectively a paragraph that need not be here.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay. You got to that point. I was going to ask you, then, if that was correct, what was wrong with it? Are you suggesting that we remove paragraph 33?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
That is effectively what I'm suggesting, yes.
Committee Researcher
That point makes reference to paragraph 38 later on, to testimony by Mr. Walsh: “...Mr. Walsh asserted that a distinction must be made between a political decision and an administrative one....” That might need to be removed as well.
