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
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
The answer is that if this motion gets voted down, nothing gets changed, right?
Conservative
Bloc
Mario Laframboise Bloc Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, QC
Mr. Chair, I would really like you to give permission for us to study paragraph 38 at the same time as paragraph 33. It is not a big deal. The only thing that concerns me is that, in paragraph 38, they are asking us to change what Mr. Walsh apparently said. Did he mention an administrative decision? If so, we cannot have it look like he said “organizational decision”. The difference is important because, in paragraph 38, the words are Mr. Walsh's.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We'll have the analyst respond to that, and then, Mr. Reid, you can--
Committee Researcher
If we stay with paragraph 38, the French version says that “on devrait faire une distinction entre une décision politique et une décision administrative…”. In the transcript, he makes mention of a decision coming from the professional level and one made at ministerial level. We could make changes to reflect more accurately what he said. We were trying to emphasize the fact that Mr. Walsh specified that a distinction must be made. If it is the wish of the committee, we could change it.
Conservative
Steven Blaney Conservative Lévis—Bellechasse, QC
Mr. Chair, I would really like to understand.
What would the final word choice be here? My question is for the analyst.
Committee Researcher
The committee can change paragraph 38 if it wishes. As I mentioned when telling you what is in the transcript, Mr. Walsh does not talk about an administrative decision, but about a recommendation coming from the professional level.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
About the change, just so it it's clear, I wasn't suggesting we change the wording in the French version. I hadn't even had a chance to look at the French version. He was speaking in English when he did this.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
In the English version, the exact words. For the French version, it's not for me to say what the appropriate translation is.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes, specifically, he said, “To go to your point about the use of terminology, such as 'CIDA's decision' or “'the department's decision'”-- it's a quote within a quote--“that's the parlance for talking about a decision that has been taken with the minister's approval. Typically, it's referred to as a departmental decision or a CIDA decision.”
That's one place he refers to it. Then you go down a paragraph and he says, “I don't think one should, however, allow this way of talking--'CIDA decision, departmental decision'”....
The term “departmental” is--
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We've agreed to “departmental” in English. What are you suggesting en français?
Liberal
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay, great.
We're on 33, and the motion has been moved by Mr. Reid that we remove 33.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Number 33 would be removed. Is there further discussion on that?
I'm seeing none.
Those in agreement to remove 33? Those against removing 33?
It looks like that was defeated. Number 33 will stay.
Those in favour of 33 as it stands?
(Paragraph 33 agreed to)
Paragraph 34.
Mr. Young.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
I have a concern with regard to the first part of paragraph 34, the first sentence. It's innuendo and very misleading. It says, “...members speculated about the possible involvement of other ministers”, etc.
I asked Margaret Biggs a series of questions. I don't know if the analysts can find them. I have the blues here. But I asked her--I will just use rough dates, and if we need the exact dates I think that's helpful--a series of questions about when she first heard about it. She said she received I think a phone call on December 1, and then a letter. She had received a notice in writing that funding wouldn't be extended. I think it was three days later.
Conservative
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Mrs. Corkery. Thank you, Chair.
There have been a number of conclusions in this report. This report is full of conclusions that are trying to lead to a political statement that is incredibly unfair to Minister Oda and totally incorrect. For example, in the next paragraph it was asked if she could produce one document that shows how a decision was made by inserting “not” or “do not”, and of course she came up with two very easily.
But in this one there was an intimation that somehow the Minister of Citizenship, Immigration and Multiculturalism had influenced Minister Oda's decision. And yet they refer to a comment he made, or I think he made a comment in his speech. I don't remember the exact occasion, but it was mid-December. It was 10 days or two weeks later. So that's proven to be not true.
Why would we include in this report misleading innuendo and put on the official record something that our days of hearings proved to be not true? Why don't we just leave paragraph 34 with the last sentence:
The Minister stated that no discussions occurred between herself and the Prime Minister, the Prime Minister's Office, or any other Minister regarding KAIROS' application to CIDA. She also stated that this issue had not been raised in any meeting....
No one could have possibly taken more responsibility more often on the record than Minister Oda has for this decision. So why are we leaving innuendo in this report that was influenced by something that happened at least 10 days later?
Liberal
Bob Rae Liberal Toronto Centre, ON
There was bound to have been speculation because of Minister Kenney's speech. Minister Kenney made a speech for which he, himself, has never given an explanation, to which he's not responded to any questions in the House with respect to how it did.... The minister repeatedly asked in the House about it, and he provided no explanation. So there was inevitably going to be speculation about the speech. I think it's fair to leave it in.
The reason the paragraph is fair is that it allows the minister's statement there as well. It simply says there was speculation and here's the minister's answer. I don't see what's unfair about that.
