Evidence of meeting #144 for Public Accounts in the 44th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was point.
A video is available from Parliament.
Conservative
Liberal
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
If it's just an up or down vote and we've passed this motion that it's to our satisfaction, to someone's satisfaction or to another's.... It's obviously not to Mr. Perkins' satisfaction to hear “I don't recall”, even though I think that's not even close to a breach of privilege.
These are different standards we're dealing with, which I think we ought to be clear on.
I'm perfectly happy if the goal is to come back and have a full-on debate after he's testified for two hours as to whether there's a breach of privilege. We can have at it all over again. So be it. However, I think the language of this motion as it is right now goes a bit further than that. Maybe we can amend it down to something that lets us get to where I think we all agree we need to go.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Sure.
To answer that question, I would view it as, yes, obviously a debate with a vote at the end. It would not be up to one member—far from it.
I have a couple of hands up. I think it was Mr. Genuis next and then Mr. Drouin.
Go ahead, Mr. Genuis.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I guess the goal is to get unanimous consent on what Mr. Desjarlais has put forward. Maybe we'll still get that.
To Mr. Erskine-Smith's questions, I don't mean to be pedantic or to unnecessarily quote the The Princess Bride. With respect to “prevaricate”, I don't think that word means what you think it means. The dictionary definition of “prevaricate” is “to speak or act in an evasive way”; it's not to lie. It's to be evasive.
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
It's “the deliberate act of deviating from the truth”. That's the.... Come on, Garnett.
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
I just googled the definition, and it provided me with an Oxford definition, which is consistent with my own experience of the word, which says to “speak or act in an evasive way”.
Again, The Princess Bride aside, I think we can at least understand the term in the way it's used in that dictionary if it doesn't conform with the dictionary you maintain, Mr. Erskine-Smith.
Beyond that—
Liberal
Nathaniel Erskine-Smith Liberal Beaches—East York, ON
It's the Merriam-Webster. It's to fabricate.... I mean, come on. They're synonyms.
What are we talking about, Garnett?
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
All right. Is there a point you want to make, or should I go to Mr. Drouin?
Conservative
Garnett Genuis Conservative Sherwood Park—Fort Saskatchewan, AB
To the more important point, the latter part of the motion that Mr. Desjarlais put forward refers to an agreement of the committee. I think that's fairly clear.
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
Again, we're talking about something that may be debatable but may not be debatable.
I appreciate what Mr. Desjarlais is putting forward. I want to assure him that my intention and Mr. Erskine-Smith's intention.... We're not running again. We don't give two.... I can't say the word, but I don't care about re-election. I'm just here for work, and I just want to make sure that we're following due process.
My intentions are definitely not partisan. I want to make sure, in the motion that you have presented—and I just want to reread the words—that we are talking about a motion on a question of privilege.
When you include the words “outlining the potential breach of privilege”, then we are dealing with a question of privilege. Whether we give unanimous consent to remove Mr. Perkins' motion so that you can reintroduce your question of privilege motion because it presupposes that perhaps we may not be satisfied with Mr. Bains' answers, then of course I do have an issue, because we're presupposing something, and we're....
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
We don't [Inaudible—Editor] the Speaker does.
I'm giving you evidence for the Speaker.
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
The point is that we've made those arguments. These guys have no interest in understanding the Speaker's ruling. They're filibustering their own motion in the House, and everything's stalled to a halt. We care about what goes to the House and what doesn't go back to the House.
I also care about private citizens coming before this committee, and when we treat them as liars before the investigation, before we're even done analyzing this study, how the heck are we supposed to make sure that this analysis is done properly? Who is the judge?
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
No, the Speaker will not be able to rule whether Mr. Bains....
NDP
Blake Desjarlais NDP Edmonton Griesbach, AB
He will be able to rule whether or not we have a breach of privilege.
Liberal
Conservative
Liberal
Francis Drouin Liberal Glengarry—Prescott—Russell, ON
We don't mind inviting Mr. Bains to committee, but there's also....
Mr. Desjarlais, you said you had six specific questions. I'm sure you can write those questions, or the committee can write those questions to Mr. Bains, and I'm sure we can ask him to write back to the committee.
Conservative
Conservative
The Chair Conservative John Williamson
Okay, just hold on.
Ms. Khalid has a brief point of order. I just want to hear it—
Conservative
Rick Perkins Conservative South Shore—St. Margarets, NS
Why? There's no UC. The question was whether there is UC.
