<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<Hansard xml:lang="EN" id="3816119">
	<StartPageNumber>1</StartPageNumber>
	<DocumentTitle>
		<DocumentName>EVIDENCE</DocumentName>
	</DocumentTitle>
	<ExtractedInformation>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebate">Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Number">NUMBER 053</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Session">3rd SESSION</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Parliament">40th PARLIAMENT</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Date">Tuesday, March 22, 2011</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="DateOtherLang">Le mardi 22 mars 2011</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Institution">Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Country">CANADA</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="RecordingNote">[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="HeaderTitle">EVIDENCE</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="HeaderDate">March 22, 2011</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDocumentCategory">Committee</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitle">Edited Evidence * Table of Contents * Number 053 (Official Version)</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleEn">Official Report * Table of Contents * Number 053 (Official Version)</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaTitleFr">Témoignages * Table des matières * Numéro 053 (Version officielle)</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaNumberNumber">53</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumDay">22</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumMonth">03</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaDateNumYear">2011</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaCreationTime">2011/03/22 11:00:00</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="MetaInstitution">House of Commons</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateFr">Comité permanent de la procédure et des affaires de la Chambre</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InstitutionDebateEn">Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="Acronyme">PROC</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerTitle">Chair</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="SpeakerName">Mr. Joe Preston</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="ParliamentNumber">40</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="SessionNumber">3</ExtractedItem>
		<ExtractedItem Name="InCameraNote">PUBLIC PART ONLY - PARTIE PUBLIQUE SEULEMENT</ExtractedItem></ExtractedInformation>
	<HansardBody>
		<OrderOfBusiness><CatchLine></CatchLine><SubjectOfBusiness><SubjectOfBusinessContent><Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="00">(1100)</Timestamp><FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3816145" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair (Mr. Joe Preston (Elgin—Middlesex—London, CPC))</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417283"> We'll bring the meeting to order. We are in public session.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417284">Mr. McKay, you had your hand up.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3816151"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay (Scarborough—Guildwood, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417285">I did indeed. Thank you, Chair, for the recognition. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417286">I'm going to move a motion that is actually quite lengthy, as a framework, if you will, for our discussions with respect to what should constitute the report or what should be included in the report, so that the people writing the report will actually have a clear understanding of the wishes of the committee. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816159"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417287">I see a copy here, but we don't have it in both.... </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816164"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417288">We may...I know that it was being rushed through.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816165"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417289">All right. So we can't hand it out because it's not in both languages. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816166"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417290">No, we can't. I'm just going to be reading from it in my own notes here, but hopefully by the end of the meeting we'll have it in the other official language.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417291">I think the first point to be made--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816195"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417292">Excuse me.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417293">I'm going to recognize Monsieur Laframboise.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816200"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise (Argenteuil—Papineau—Mirabel, BQ)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417294">Mr. Chair, it would be good if the interpreter could have a copy of the note.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816203"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417295">I've already given them a copy. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816204"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417296">Yes. It is there now, so let's do it, but let's.... </ParaText><ParaText id="2417297">Mr. McKay, go ahead. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816205"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417298">Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417299">I think the first item that should be dealt with by those who will be drafting the report is what constitutes contempt. I would suggest that as good a definition as any is found in <I>Halsbury's Laws of England</I>, on page 608:</ParaText><ParaText id="2417300"><Quote><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House in the performance of its functions or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of the House in the discharge of his duty or which has a tendency to produce such a result as may be treated as contempt even though there is not a precedent for the offence.</QuotePara></Quote></ParaText><ParaText id="2417301">I think that was backed up by Mr. Walsh, who said that contempt is what the committee says it is, effectively. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417302"> I think that's the framework with which we need to deal.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417303">The second thing is what needs to be established to prove contempt. I think there are two points there. The first is that the statement must have in fact been “misleading”. The second point is that “it must be established that the Member making the statement knew”--or, I would suggest, ought to have known--“that the statement was incorrect”, and in making it, “the Member intended to mislead the House”. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417304">I think that's the procedural framework, if you will, under which we should cast our deliberations. I would argue essentially almost 17 points, which.... I'm sure my colleagues will be thrilled to listen to me pontificate for 17 points; nevertheless, I'll try to be as brief as I can. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417305">The first point has to do with-- </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="05">(1105)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3818027" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young (Oakville, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417306">Mr. Chairman?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816221"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417307">Yes, Mr. Young.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3816222" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417308">I'm trying to follow Mr. McKay and the source, etc. Do we have anything...? Is there anything in writing?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816223"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417309">No, not yet, not that we can distribute to the committee. As soon as we can, we will.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417310"> You're going to have to listen to his motion. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816224"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417311">Well, he just gave us a quote.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417312">What was it that you quoted out of?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816226"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417313">It's out of Halsbury's.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816227"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417314">I think you injected your own editorial comments--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816228"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417315">Yes, there was one on-- </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816229"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417316">--in that quote to change the key definition.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417317">Would you please repeat that?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816230"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417318">Yes: “knew or ought to have known”.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816231"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417319">So you changed the definition while you were--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816234"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417320">I didn't change the definition. I simply added--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816235"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417321">So in your view, “ought to have known” should have been part of that definition, but it is not part of that definition.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417322">Thank you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816236"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417323">It's a quote from <I>Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand</I>. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816237"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417324">New Zealand? Thank you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816238"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417325">All right.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816239"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417326">The motion is as follows. Maybe I'll hold argument for later, but let me just read the motion. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816240"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417327">I think we'd like that.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417328"><B>Hon. John McKay:</B> Okay.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417329"><B>The Chair:</B> Let's get the motion in and then we'll debate. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816243"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417330"> Okay.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417331">Maybe I'll hold argument for later, but the motion is as follows: </ParaText><ParaText id="2417332"><Quote><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">1. That the response to the order paper questions to the members for London North Centre and Notre-Dame-de-Grâce—Lachine misled members in two respects: one, that a reader would be left with the impression that the decision to defund was a CIDA decision made by CIDA civil servants; and two, that the universe of funding criteria was contained on CIDA's website, both of which we now know are not true.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">2. That the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the minister, was himself misled when he spoke in the House on behalf of the minister, saying that “the Kairos application did not meet agencies' priorities”. We now know this also to be untrue. The parliamentary secretary had done the honourable thing and apologized to the House, as he too was misled.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">3. That the talking points of the agency itself led one to the clear conclusion that this was a CIDA decision.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">4. That on December 9, 2010, the minister knew, or ought to have known, who inserted the “not” in the approval line.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">5. That within 24 hours of the question being asked, the minister knew who had inserted the “not” in the approval line.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">6. That for 14 months the minister let MPs and Canadians believe that that decision to defund was a CIDA decision, and that except for an access to information inquiry and the President of CIDA's subsequent confirmation, this was clearly not a CIDA decision, but purely a ministerial decision.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">7. That when the facts were exposed on December 9, 2010, the minister changed her position from it being a CIDA decision to it being a government priorities decision.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">8. That to date there's been no satisfactory explanation as to what constitutes government priorities.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">9. That Minister Kenney accused Kairos of anti-Semitism in a speech in Israel at the Global Forum for Combatting Anti-Semitism on December 16, 2009, and that this was the reason for its defunding, and that we now know that this too was untrue.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">10. That the Minister of CIDA and the President of CIDA have never said that anti-Semitism was the reason for defunding, and further that they had no evidence of anti-Semitism.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">11. That the allegation of anti-Semitism is false, that it slandered Kairos' reputation as an organization and the 11 Christian churches and organizations that constitute Kairos, and further that thousands of Kairos supporters have been hurt by this slander.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">12. That the defunding decision has affected the lives of thousands of poor people by causing Kairos to withdraw from many partnerships.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">13. That the committee regrets that CIDA officials have been made to appear as if the decision was theirs, when in fact it was not.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">14. That the minister had every opportunity to clarify the “confusion” in response to questions in question period and in her apology of February 14, 2011.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">15. That the minister must be held to the highest standard of accountability, not only so members may do their duty, but also so that witnesses coming before committee understand the duty of truthfulness when appearing before a committee of Parliament.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">16. That the truthfulness, transparency, and accountability of the executive branch to the legislature is a core function and a necessity for a democracy.</QuotePara><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">17. That confusion is not contempt, it is incompetence. However, the pattern of misinformation and limited truthfulness has been so consistent over the past 14 months that the committee has been led to the inescapable conclusion that a contempt has occurred.</QuotePara></Quote></ParaText><ParaText id="2417333">Thank you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="10">(1110)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817125"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417334">Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417335">Can I have just a minute to speak with the clerk? </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817126"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417336">Yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816303"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417337">Mr. McKay, on your motion, I have identified three or four spots in it that aren't part of study or part of the point of privilege. Since it's been given as one motion, I can't rule those pieces out of order, I can only rule the motion out of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816311"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417338"> Can you identify what you think are not the constituent elements?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816314"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417339">Yes. Certainly number 2 was not part of our study, not part of the information brought forward under the motion of privilege. On number 8, again, I'm not certain that was part of the motion of privilege. It's information you're looking for, I'm sure, but I don't think it constitutes what caused the breach of privilege. Numbers 9, 10, and 11 fit into the same spot, and number 12 is arguable.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417340">Getting into the funding of Kairos isn't what this motion of privilege is about; the motion of privilege is about statements being made by the ministers. I understand you are trying to be all-inclusive in your motion, and I thank you for doing that.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417341">I'd love another solution from you, but at this moment I'm going to go with that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816323"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417342">I suppose I'm going to challenge the chair, but before I challenge the chair, let me deal with several points.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417343">I think that point number 2 is critical. There is evidence to support that. It is in the record. It is--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816324"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417344">I'm not suggesting that there isn't evidence. I'm not suggesting it is something that didn't take place. I'm just suggesting it is not part of what we're looking at from the point of privilege.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816328"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417345">Oh, it has to be. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816329"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417346">We can differ on opinion.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816330"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417347">On number 8, I might well agree with you. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417348">On number 9, that is the only reason that has been put forward at this point by a minister of the crown as to what constitutes--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816361"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417349">Yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816362"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht (Kitchener—Conestoga, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417350">On a point of order, I'm finding it extremely difficult to follow this without these points in front of us. Could we...?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816363"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417351">I'm sorry, you're absolutely right. I'm reading off a piece of paper that the rest don't have. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816365"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417352">Could we suspend for five minutes and get this document translated? It's almost impossible for us to talk about the details without having it in front of us. This should have been translated long ago. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816369"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417353">We tried to.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816370"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="162402" Type="40">Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille (Beauharnois—Salaberry, BQ)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417354">Can't we use the House services and have an analyst do the translation? It seems to me that they do that in the Wellington Building. They do translation.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417355">In other committee rooms, isn't there a House service that provides simultaneous translation in writing on the screen?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816382"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417356">They all do, but this has to be asked for ahead of time. It doesn't just happen because you want it at that minute. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417357">This is what we're faced with again. I know there were accusations the other day about handing in documents that aren't translated and we had to say we wouldn't accept them. Here we're dealing with a document, again not translated. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417358">I happen to have been handed a copy, so I'm working off it. I do apologize. I momentarily forgot that the rest of you don't have it. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417359">I'm looking for a solution here. I'm not certain that we shouldn't wait until this document is translated. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417360">It's that detailed of a document, Mr. McKay.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417361">Madame DeBellefeuille, and then I'll come to Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Blaney.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816396"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="162402" Type="40">Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417362">I understand Mr. Young's discomfort. We share it, given that we do not have a written document to look at.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417363">The French translation was very good, you know, and I understood it. Perhaps we could read it once more, because we are used to hearing motions translated by the interpreters. Could we have it repeated once or twice for Mr. Young, if we can't get the translation?</ParaText><ParaText id="2417364">I am quite satisfied with the interpretation. We can take notes. It just may take a little more time. If translation is not available, that is a compromise we could accept.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="15">(1115)</Timestamp><FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816404"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417365">Madame DeBellefeuille, I understand that, and you're being more than generous in helping us with this. But I'm about to rule that some of these points are not correct. I think you may want to know what they are exactly as we do each one. I'm just suggesting that may take a period of time. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417366">I'll go to Mr. Lukiwski, Mr. Blaney, and then back to Monsieur Laframboise.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816412"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417367">Thank you, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417368">I share the same concerns that have been expressed around the table. I listened to the motion, but there were 16 or 17 points. Then you were starting to refer to points 2, 8, 10, 12, and I didn't have a copy in front of me. Members who wish to have it <I>en français</I> do not have a copy in front of them. I think it is patently unfair for us to try to determine whether this motion is acceptable or not without having the ability to read verbatim what the motion is.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417369">Chair, I am suggesting that we suspend until such time as we have this document in both official languages for all members of the committee to examine.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816426"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417370">I see no other option.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417371">Mr. McKay, I know it's your motion, and I have other speakers on this, but I'm going to speak from the chair at this moment and say that I suggest we suspend. Whether it's until later today, which seems impossible, with it being budget day.... More likely it will be until our regular scheduled meeting on Thursday.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417372">The clerk suggested we could have it in about an hour. That makes it 12:15. I suppose we could reconvene at that point. I'm not certain it's giving us enough time to finish our work for today, but I'll leave it at that. Let's finish the discussion on this to see if we can come to a conclusion as a committee.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417373">Mr. Blaney.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816429"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165801" Type="47">Mr. Steven Blaney (Lévis—Bellechasse, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417374">Mr. Chair, I feel that you are heading towards a very interesting solution. I just remind you that I also have the pleasure and privilege to chair the Standing Committee on Official Languages. I humbly point out to you that no document can be distributed to committee members if it is not presented in both official languages. Clearly, we are not talking about a sentence of three or four words here, we are talking about a complete text.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417375">I just want to urge you to respect parliamentary rules, as I am sure you will, by allowing all members of the committee, whether they speak French or English, to have access to the same information. So I feel you are on the right track because, as you know, in any committee, not just in the official languages committee but in all committees, documents may not be submitted in only one of the official languages. They must be submitted in both official languages.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816448"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417376"> Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417377">On a point of order, Madame DeBellefeuille.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816449"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="162402" Type="40">Mrs. Claude DeBellefeuille</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417378">Mr. Chair, I have a point of order on what Mr. Blaney has just said.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417379">It very frequently happens that we study motions on the spot in a language that is not our own. As francophones, we have to listen very carefully and have the motion repeated several times. We must be careful when Mr. Blaney says that we do not have a right to do that. I often accept unilingual documents or have the interpreters repeat documents that we have just received. But I understand that this is a long document and it would be good to have the French translation. If you are telling us that we will be getting it in an hour, that would be the best way to go.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816463"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417380">Okay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816464"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417381">I'm fine with that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816465"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417382">I'll take a couple of more speakers.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417383">I'm inclined right now to suspend until 12:20 to see if--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816466"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417384">It could be 45 minutes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816469"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417385">When we do suspend, we'll set a time as to when we will reconvene.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417386">I had Mr. Albrecht, Mr. Laframboise, and then Mr. Godin.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816470"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417387">Mr. Chair, with due respect, I totally agree with my colleague, Madame DeBellefeuille. The difference here is that there are 17 points that we're going to discuss, in sequence or not, and I think it would be helpful for all of us to have them in front of us.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816473"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417388">Agreed?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816474"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417389">Or not.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816475"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417390">Monsieur Laframboise.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816478"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417391">I have no problem with having the translation sent as soon as possible. We could then resume work around noon.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816479"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417392">We'll do our fastest.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417393">Monsieur Godin.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816480"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417394">My comment is along the same lines, Mr. Chair. It is always best to have the translated document in our hands. There is no breach of the Standing Orders, because the document has not been submitted. A motion has been introduced. I echo Mrs. DeBellefeuille's comment that, as francophone members, we very often have to put up with motions that have been submitted in English. But given the length of this document, I am ready to support the motion.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816487"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417395">I agree.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417396">So let's suspend until 12:15. We'll reconvene in this room at 12:15.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816489"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty (Ottawa South, Lib.)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417397">At noon, <I>midi</I>, 12 noon.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3816495"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417398">Is this an auction?</ParaText><ParaText id="2417399">Twelve noon it is. </ParaText><Pause><StartPause><Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="20"></Timestamp></StartPause><EndPause><Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="59"></Timestamp></EndPause></Pause></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="11" Mn="55">(1155)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817265"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417400">Order.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417401">On a point of order, Mr. Proulx. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3817272" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417402">You have to realize that the French version was supplied by the Liberal Party of Canada, and obviously our employees are very used to talking about the Liberal Party of Canada, so in the first sentence in French there is a huge mistake. We're saying we are giving directions to members of the Liberal Party. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817284"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417403">And rightfully so, right?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817285"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417404">So I apologize. It must have been a template they used. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817293"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417405">Yes, we will find some spelling and grammatical errors on this motion as we move through, and I accept that we will cross out certain things and do that type of thing. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417406">Mr. McKay, we were on your motion. I had made certain comments, and you were about to--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="00">(1200)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817304"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417407">And I was about to--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817305"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417408">--tell me what a bad person I am. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817306"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417409">Exactly, yes. I wouldn't want to castigate the honour of the chair. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417410">Just as a point of facilitation, and because I'm such a heck of a reasonable guy, I think we can delete paragraphs 8 and 12, because my judgment there is that they are argumentative rather than factual. However, the rest of the commentary you made is substantiated by both the record of Parliament itself with respect to paragraph 2 and paragraphs 9, 10, and 11 with respect to the evidence introduced by Mary Corkery, the president of Kairos. So I think all of that is in order and on the record.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817329"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417411">Thank you very much. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417412">I'm going to apologize. You're maybe being reasonable, and I am not, but the ruling has to be for the whole thing, not picking and choosing. So if you have some things in here that make your motion non-compliant in my case, then I have to rule the whole thing out of order. So that's what I've done at the moment. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817337"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417413">Okay. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817338"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417414">Mr. Lukiwski. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817341"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417415">Thank you. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417416">Again, since we have a lot of difficulty, certainly from the government side, and since the chair seems to have difficulties on the propriety of some of the points in the motion, and in an effort to try to make this committee work to our timetable as best as possible, which as we all know is Friday, I would propose an amendment to this. I will read it. We do have copies in both official languages, but I'll read the amendment to the motion first. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417417">Everything after the word “That” in Mr. McKay's motion would be replaced with “the analysis draft that the analysts”-- </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817347"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417418">Which “that”?</ParaText><ParaText id="2417419"><B>An hon. member:</B> The first “that”. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817351"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417420">Is that the paragraph 1, “That”?</ParaText><ParaText id="2417421"><B>An hon. member:</B> No, before paragraph 1. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817352"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417422">The preamble to paragraph 1, where it says “That the draft report contain the conclusions of the committee”. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817354"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417423">How can we start into amendments when we have challenged your decision, Mr. Chair, and a challenge of your-- </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817355"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417424">How can you challenge it? We're discussing it. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817356"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417425">No, we're challenging a decision. I'm still on the point of order. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817357"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417426">Still on the point of order. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817358"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417427">You ruled this out of order. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817359"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417428">Right. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817360"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417429">We have challenged the chair's decision. There is supposed to be no debate on a challenge. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818066"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417430">Point of order, Mr. Chair. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817362"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417431">Let Mr. Proulx finish his, and then--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817363"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417432">Gladly. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817364"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417433">Mr. Proulx. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817365"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417434">Therefore, my impression was that we were to vote on that challenge to see if this was on the table or not. Am I right or am I wrong?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817368"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417435">I'll hear it all and then make one ruling. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817369"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417436">Mr. Chair, how can we vote on a challenge when the mover of the motion has come to a subsequent session and said he would remove part of the motion? We're not voting on the same thing the motion was on. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817372"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417437">Yes, we are. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817373"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417438">Mr. Chair, he's removed paragraphs 8 and 12. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817374"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417439">I'm going to suggest that Mr. Proulx is correct, that at this moment we need to clear up the fact that I've ruled Mr. McKay's motion out of order, and make it either in order or out of order so we could then amend it, if that's the case. I think that's the route we have to take here. I know that in a moment we'll of course know the answer to that. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417440">This is what we're voting on, that the decision of the chair be sustained. A recorded vote? Okay. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417441">(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)</ParaText><ParaText id="2417442"><B>The Chair:</B> I had a chance there for a moment, I thought. I saw it in your eyes. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817382"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417443"> If they want to brag about you, I was okay too.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817385"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417444">I have to rule that the conversation on the motion can proceed.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417445"> Mr. Lukiwski.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="05">(1205)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817390"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417446"> I'd like to make an amendment. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417447">The preamble currently reads “That the draft report contain the conclusions of the committee, namely”, and it lists the 17 points. I suggest that everything after the word “That” be replaced with the following: “the analysts draft a report that summarizes the testimony witnesses heard, and that the analysts provide the committee with a series of options for conclusions that are to be discussed at the March 24 procedure and House affairs committee meeting”.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417448">I have this motion in both official languages. We'll have it distributed.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817395"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165801" Type="47">Mr. Steven Blaney</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417449">I'll do that for you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817396"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417450">I have Mr. Albrecht and then Mr. Reid, and I did see a hand over here.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417451">Mr. Albrecht.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817416"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417452">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417453"> I was originally intending to speak to the motion, but I'd be glad to speak to the amendment, because I think it gets to the heart of the mandate of our committee, and that is, to listen objectively to the input from the many witnesses that we heard over the last day, on Friday, to reflect on that, and then to ask our analysts to provide a summary of what the witnesses said. As with all the committees I've ever served on, Mr. Chair, there are a series of options that give the elected members of Parliament, who are the ones who need to come up with a conclusion.... It should not be a foregone conclusion by any one person or any one party. It's very important that we allow the analysts to come back with a summary and at least two or three options that the committee could consider and then hopefully adopt the one that will be the clearest for the way forward.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417454">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817430"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417455">Thank you very much.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417456">Mr. Young, you are next, I think.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817431"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417457">It was Mr. Reid.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817432"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417458">Sorry, it was Mr. Reid. Yes.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417459">Mr. Reid.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817435"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, CPC)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417460"> Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417461">We had some experience in our two most recent meetings of the opposition attempting to introduce what amounts to a pre-written draft report by means of a motion. I gather it's not actually prohibited under the standing rules. This is part of the reason why we need to change the standing rules from time to time. It's certainly against the practices of the House of Commons.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417462">I don't want to exaggerate my own experience here. I've been here for ten years now, and certainly up until last week I had never seen anything like this occur. So to continue down that same unprecedented road seems inadvisable, particularly given our recent history of how unsuccessful that actually was. The result was to produce a report that, quite frankly, is a farce--the last report of this committee--through a process that.... I've been trying to think of the appropriate analogy. The one that comes closest to mind, especially when we're dealing with the minister potentially being found in contempt, is the process by which bills of attainder were passed in the Parliament in England in the 16th and 17th centuries, before the practice was stopped. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417463">You couldn't convince a court through normal procedures that someone was guilty of treason. You'd simply be attainted with treason. The person would be accused by someone who would then bring a bill forward in the House of Commons. If you could pass the bill there, pass it in the Lords, and get the King to sign it, you could then hang that person or cut their head off. It didn't matter. None of the normal rules of evidence, none of the normal protections, none of the normal procedural constraints were in place. That person was led off to their execution. Ending that practice was an important part of civilizing and modernizing the system on which ours is based. Now it seems that there's a desire to return to that barbaric system. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417464">The things we saw with Mr. Martin's very aggressive badgering of the witness and interrupting her would never be permitted in a court, that's for sure.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417465"> There are the sorts of things we saw from Mr. Godin. I can't remember if it was in this proceeding or the previous one, but he said “I get to choose which answers I get to hear”. That is not permitted. Once you've asked the question, you get a fulsome answer. In all fairness, that doesn't happen in committees in general. That is why committees do not engage in that kind of thing. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417466">While that salutary practice of abandoning the practice of attainting people has been forgotten, we've seen other abuses of the same type occur. The McCarthy hearings are the classic example from the United States. People were dragged into them with no procedural protections. Outrageous assertions based on Senator McCarthy's own delusions were trotted out and used to ruin their lives and careers.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417467"> Something similar is going on here. No regard is given to the evidence we've heard, or even to evidence we haven't heard, such as, in point two, an assertion that the parliamentary secretary was himself misled. That is based on what conclusion? Has the parliamentary secretary ever said this? Was he invited before this committee to express an opinion on this? No. We simply assert that this must be what he was saying.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="10">(1210)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817491"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417468">Just a second, Mr. Reid. I have a point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817492"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417469">I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Reid, but he is discussing the motion. He is not speaking to his amendment. Mr. Chair, could he please speak to his amendment? Please, we must not discuss the motion.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817502"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417470">Since he's talking about evidence and the amendment talks about a summary of the testimony of witnesses, I think he was just getting to a point where he was suggesting that the witness wasn't even at our committee. I have to rule that he's on topic, for the moment.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417471">Mr. Reid, please continue.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817509"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417472"> That is exactly where I was going with this. The point is there are things in here that I suspect--in fact I'm positive--would not make it into a report written by the analysts. The analysts would only consult the actual testimony we heard before us. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417473">Now, if it were the decision of this committee to say we're not ready to write the report yet because we need to have additional witnesses, such as the parliamentary secretary, it would be perfectly reasonable and well within the rights of the committee to make that decision. The motion put forward by Mr. McKay today could, for example, have said we want to call the parliamentary secretary before this committee because we believe that if he were asked he would say something like that. But perhaps he wouldn't give the answers that were desired by Mr. McKay, and that would not produce the desired result. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417474">That's just one of 17 points, but it's hardly the only one that is problematic. That's the reason for going along. The much shorter, more elegant motion that would result if this amendment were adopted would eliminate the possibility of that sort of thing occurring. It would remove the possibility that we would be pressed into a conclusion that might not reflect where the committee ought to be going, ought to be led by the evidence, because the only standard that we ought to have--I will not suggest this is the only standard we do have--is to be led by the evidence towards the finding that gathers the truth as well as we can find it, and then writes conclusions and recommendations based upon what the truth is. That is not where we are led when we advise the analysts or instruct them to come to a conclusion.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417475">This amendment simply returns us to the normal practices that are carried on by every committee, that have been carried on by this committee ever since I have been on it. I think--although I stand to be corrected--I'm now the senior member on this committee in terms of length of service. I've never seen it do anything like this. This is the senior committee in the House of Commons. I'll add that I've served on a number of other committees. I've never seen any of them do this. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417476">I have to leave here early today, unfortunately, because I'm chairing a subcommittee on human rights, and that's never been the way that subcommittee has behaved either. I've been a witness at committees both here and in the Ontario Legislature, and I've never seen them behave that way. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="15">(1215)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817541"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417477">That bell means it's a hanging offence. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417478"><B>Some hon. members:</B> Oh, oh!</ParaText><ParaText id="2417479"><B>Hon. John McKay:</B> The gallows are calling.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817544"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417480">Practices that are normal, that are the tradition in this House, that are precedented, that have caused Canada's Parliament to function--I wouldn't suggest perfectly, but on a scale of parliaments worldwide, pretty darned well--should be returned to. That's what Mr. Lukiwski's motion proposes to do. I think it does it well. I think it takes what has become a kind of kangaroo court--or as I suggested, essentially a body looking at what amounts to a bill of attainder--and returns it to the parliamentary practices of the 21st century rather than those of the 16th century.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417481">That's all I have to say, Mr. Chair. Thank you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817562"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417482">Thank you, Mr. Reid. And you did reflect back on a time when many speakers and chairs lost their heads too.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817563"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417483">That's true.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817564"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417484">We'll tread lightly.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417485">Mr. Young.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817570"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417486">Thank you, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417487"> I thank my colleague for the motion. I think it prevents us from going down a road that we do not want to go down with regard to parliamentary precedent and law.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417488">When Mr. McKay first read his motion to me, I was actually shocked. He talked about an act or an omission that obstructs the House. I guess the researchers searched high and low to find this definition. They ended up in New Zealand, which has a vibrant Parliament. I'm not saying it's not a good decision, except he changed the decision.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417489">We heard the other day from expert witnesses. We heard last week that it's Parliament that defines what contempt is. There is no section anywhere, no statute you can go to that says to every parliament in the world, “Here is contempt. Here it is. It's all clear for you.” In fact what we're doing today is defining it.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417490">But what he brought forward was an essential element of contempt, which is that the person being accused of contempt knew--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817596"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417491"> Monsieur Laframboise</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817597"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417492">A point of order, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417493">This amendment completely distorts the meaning of the proposal. It is not an amendment, it is a proposal in itself. This amendment should not be ruled to be in order, Mr. Chair, because passing it would be just like negating the motion. I have no problem with the Conservatives being against the motion; all they have to do is vote against it. The problem is that this amendment does not serve to amend the proposal, it serves to destroy it and to put a completely new one in its place. I think you should take that into consideration, Mr. Chair.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817608"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417494">I will rule that Mr. Young has the floor.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817610"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417495">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417496">What Mr. McKay has done, and I will direct committee members to number 4—</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817612"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417497">A point of order, Mr. Chair.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817613"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417498">Monsieur Laframboise.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817614"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417499">What is your decision? I am telling you that this amendment is out of order. What is your decision?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817619"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417500">At the beginning, when it was handed to me, I would have ruled it out of order if I felt it was. We went to discussing it and that's where we are now.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417501">Mr. Blaney, did you also have a point of order?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817620"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417502">I challenge your decision, Mr. Chair, as I have the right to do. I challenge your decision.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817621"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417503">You're challenging a decision that hasn't been made, I suppose.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817623"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417504">Yes, your decision means that we are continuing to discuss this amendment even though it is out of order. That is what I am telling you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817625"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417505">Let's do a whole round of points of order. Let's get one from each party. We had Mr. Laframboise. We're going to go to Mr. Blaney next and then we'll come back.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817626"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165801" Type="47">Mr. Steven Blaney</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417506">Mr. Laframboise has now raised two points of order. Earlier, a motion was introduced that you ruled out of order, but members decided to consider it anyway. In the course of an exchange about the purpose of the motion, Mr. Laframboise intervened. I feel that is more a debate than a matter of procedure. I feel that your ruling on the matter was very clear.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417507">At the moment, Mr. Chair, we are considering an amendment and Mr. Laframboise is interrupting the discussion with what is basically procedural nitpicking. I am telling you that I too would like to express my opinion on the motion now that it has been ruled in order. I think your decision was legitimate and fair.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="20">(1220)</Timestamp><FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817649"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417508">You can't debate a point of order. It's either in or out.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817651"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417509">We're getting there.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817652"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417510">That is not true, John.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817653"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417511">We are on the same point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817654"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417512">You can't debate it.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817655"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417513">Mr. Chair…</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817656"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417514">But I can take other conversation on the same point of order.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417515">Mr. Godin, you are speaking on the same point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817659"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417516">…my comment is about the point of order from the members of the governing party. Mr. Chair, you yourself said that, if the question had been raised at the outset, you would have said that the amendment was out of order. You did not hesitate to declare the first motion out of order. When a member feels that an amendment is out of order because it goes contrary to the main motion, I believe he can make the chair aware of that fact at any time. As chair, you have already said that, if you had been asked the question earlier, you would have said that the amendment was out of order. But that did not happen. You did not hesitate to rule the first motion out of order. Mr. Chair. This amendment really is out of order. It is contrary to the intent of the motion and you have to tell us now whether it is in order or not.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817674"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417517">You put words in my mouth. I did not say that.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417518">We are on the same point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817944"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417519"> Check the blues.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817678"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417520">Mr. Chair, this is on the same point of order. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417521">Let me start by saying that in the House the rules are quite clear, the Standing Orders are quite clear. Unless we have adopted rules that are different from those in the House and that are not forbidden by the Standing Orders themselves, the rules of the House apply to this committee. And in the House you cannot come along and deal with something after it's already in debate; you have to raise it at the time. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417522">This amendment was brought up, was circulated. The appropriate time to challenge it would have been at that time, and not after the debate has started to then decide that given that the debate isn't turning out the way we planned, we would now like to find that the whole thing has been out of order. There simply is no process for that. So you don't have to make a ruling in order for this to remain in order.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417523">I want to make this point very clearly, because one of the tactics that I've seen used numerous times by the opposition, when they're acting as a coalition, is that they will insist, whatever is going on, that there be a ruling that it's in order, and then they'll declare that we override the chair, making it out of order, so that they can then go and suspend every single rule here. This misunderstands profoundly what the nature of a chair's ruling is and where the rules apply in the absence of rulings. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417524">The rules exist, whether or not the chair says he's making a rule. When the chair is trying to interpret the rules, that's one thing. When the rules are written down and are black-letter, there's no way of overriding these things. There's no way of suspending them just because we decide, as a group or as a majority, that they are not permitted. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417525"> I'm just encouraging you, Chair, not to let yourself be bullied--not that I think you're subject to being bullied, quite frankly--or badgered into a position where you would be aiding and abetting this completely unparliamentary tactic of saying “I demand to know whether this is in order”, and then “I challenge your ruling”, and then we get the predictable vote.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417526">It's not as if it's a mystery how the votes will go on this committee. They're always a one-person majority on that side, ramming through everything without any regard for what the minority thinks. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417527">Anyway, there is no point of order, really no requirement for a ruling, nor can there be on this matter.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817705"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417528">Thank you, Mr. Reid.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417529">Mr. Young, you have the floor on the amendment.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817706"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417530">Thank you, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417531">Just let me recollect my thoughts. I thought I was being persuasive. I'll try harder.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417532">From Mr. McKay's definition, it's quite clear that Minister Oda never expressed or never showed any contempt for the House, because she never had any. There is no evidence that there was any intent to cause a misunderstanding or confusion. An intent is what the law requires. This is what the common law requires, this is what parliamentary law requires--that the person have intent.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417533">If every minister or member of Parliament who caused a misunderstanding, who caused some confusion--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="25">(1225)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817715"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417534"> Mr. Chair, I have a point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817716"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417535">On another point of order, Mr. McGuinty.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817717"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417536">Thank you, sir.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417537">Mr. Chair, it's important. You've been asked to rule on the admissibility of this amendment--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817722"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417538">Since we are debating it, Mr. McGuinty, I think it's obvious what has been done there. It was read into the record by Mr. Lukiwski.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817724"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417539">Yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817725"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417540">I asked for debate on the amendment, and we put a speakers list together, which even includes your name. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817729"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417541">Not on this amendment, sir.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817730"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417542">I'm sorry, your name is down here. Okay, it includes some of the members of your party then, if not you. I see your name here, but maybe there's a second one here--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817731"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417543">But not on this amendment.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817733"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417544">So we started discussing it. I think that certainly is self-explanatory, what we're doing here. We're speaking on the amendment.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817734"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417545">I understand, sir, but I'm asking if you ruled on the specific question put to you by my colleague from the Bloc Québécois some ten minutes ago.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817735"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417546">We keep coming back to it. The answer is that when the amendment was put forward by Mr. Lukiwski, I suggested we debate it. A speakers list was formed. We've started to debate it. That stands on its own, Mr. McGuinty. You can go from there.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817738"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417547">Where in the Standing Orders, sir, does it say that my colleague from the Bloc Québécois does not have the right to first of all put the question to you once the debate has begun, and where in the Standing Orders does it say that he's not able to challenge your ruling once that question is put to you? Can you point out specifically in the Standing Orders--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817760"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417548"> I'm sorry, I don't have the Standing Orders in front of me, Mr. McGuinty.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817761"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417549">I have them right here. I'll give them to you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817762"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417550">By all means.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417551">The answer here is that we have certainly done business in this way for a long time. I recognize you're not normally here, but this committee tends to work in a fairly collegial manner and moves things forward. I don't remember in my time as chair ever having to say at the start of a debate, “Here's my ruling,” so that we can start the debate. That's not the case, and it isn't the case in our Standing Orders that the chair must make a ruling to start a debate. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417552">Mr. McKay tabled a motion. Mr. Lukiwski amended it. Usually in a friendly manner in this committee that's what happens. Mr. McKay didn't say “No, no, no.” Nobody on the floor said “No, it's not in order.” I said “Let's debate it.” We made a speakers list and we started through it. Five or six speakers in, I started to get points of order. That's a fairly good recap of where we are.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817783"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417553">That's your side.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817784"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417554">As a standard practice this is exactly how this committee functions.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817785"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417555">Except that you received, Mr. Chair, a specific request from my colleague from the Bloc Québécois to make a ruling on whether or not this is admissible.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817790"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417556">I am suggesting that because we are debating it, Mr. McGuinty, I have already said that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817795"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417557">Really? When did you say it?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817796"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417558">Let's say it's implied. I didn't say this morning, “Oh boy, I'm going to have toast.” I just had toast.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817797"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417559">But your first reaction this morning when Mr. McKay put forward his motion was to say you wanted to rule it inadmissible.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817802"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417560">As the chair, when I see something that I think is inadmissible, I will rule. When I see something that isn't, we'll carry on and function as a committee.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817803"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417561">So your decision is that it is admissible.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817804"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417562">Yes, or we wouldn't be discussing it, Mr. McGuinty.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817805"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417563">So as a result of that, you are challenged in terms of your decision, which you've just now formally given.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817808"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417564">I guess I'm challenged well after the fact, but I guess that's the case.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817809"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417565">And that is admissible. Our reading of the rules is that there is nothing precluding your ruling being challenged, and as a result of that being put to you, Chair, there can be no further debate. A vote must be taken in terms of the rules.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817810"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417566">On the same point of order, we can take another view. We'll not debate on it, but....</ParaText><ParaText id="2417567">Mr. Reid.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817829"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417568">On the same point of order, Mr. McGuinty has very convincingly demonstrated to everybody in the room that the Standing Orders indeed are in the room. He said “I'll show them to you.” Good for him. But he hasn't shown the actual rule that he appears to have just invented saying that if anybody calls for a ruling on anything, interrupts on a point of order to say they want a ruling on something, they can use it, for example, to shut down and terminate debate. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417569">If that were actually allowed in the rules, we wouldn't have debates. Everything would get shut down right away. Once a group within had decided that they had a majority, they would get someone to.... This is completely outside the practices and rules of this place. That's why he hasn't actually cited anything from the Standing Orders to back up his quite frankly preposterous case.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="30">(1230)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817849"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417570">Thank you, Mr. Reid.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417571">Monsieur Laframboise, on the same point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817850"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417572">Yes, I want to comment on the same point of order, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417573">We can ask whether an amendment is in order at any time, accepting that the decision is yours to make. Even more so because, since this morning, the rules we have always abided by have not been followed. We waited an hour for the Liberal motion to be translated. The Conservative party was able to bring forward a motion that was accepted on the spot. Normally, documents are sent beforehand.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417574">In my opinion, you should have declared this amendment out of order, as you first did with the motion. I am giving you the opportunity to ask the committee to consider whether this motion is in order. I think that the committee should discuss the decision you have made.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817867"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417575">Since we're debating an amendment to Mr. McKay's motion, I will defer to the will of the committee and ask that question. I consider the amendment to Mr. McKay's motion to be in order, and I hear from you that you do not.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417576">Mr. Lukiwski, on that? I'm about partway through.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817883"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417577">Yes, on that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817884"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417578">Excuse me, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417579">As much as I would like to speak on this--</ParaText><ParaText id="2417580"><B>The Chair:</B> I'm about to go to the decision.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417581"><B>Hon. John McKay:</B> I thought you just made the decision, actually--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817885"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417582">Mr. Chair, on a point of order, I thought you recognized me, not Mr. McKay.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817886"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417583">--in which case, neither Mr. Lukiwski nor I can speak on this. It is simply will it be sustained or not. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818453"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417584"> He doesn't say it should be now. He doesn't say “I've ruled, this is my ruling”.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817891"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417585">He just did.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817892"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417586">No, he didn't actually. This is like Simon Says. If you don't hear the magic words “Simon Says”--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817893"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417587">Why does he have the floor, Mr. Chair?</ParaText><ParaText id="2417588"><B>An hon. member:</B> Are you chairing this meeting?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817898"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417589">We all seem to be able to just speak over the chair when he starts speaking, so I'll just wait for order. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417590">Thank you very much.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417591">I was in error. I did recognize Mr. Lukiwski when Mr. McKay's name was up next, but I've suggested that we can perhaps resolve this by saying that I've ruled this amendment in order, and we'll carry on with debate, if that's the case, if you're all happy with that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817910"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417592">Now, that is challengeable. It is not debatable. Your decision now is not debatable, and therefore I along with Mr. Laframboise, whoever, challenges that ruling--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817912"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417593">That's what I needed to hear to move forward.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817913"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417594">--and the obligation now is to take a vote.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817914"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417595">Great.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417596"> The vote is that we sustain the chair.... </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817918"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417597">A recorded vote.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3818269" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165361" Type="27">The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Michelle Tittley)</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417598"> Members are voting on the motion that the decision of the chair be sustained.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817919"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417599">Let's finish this piece and we'll go on to discussing. Either way we'll have a motion to discuss.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417600">(Ruling of the chair overturned: nays 6; yeas 5)</ParaText><ParaText id="2417601"><B>The Chair:</B> It was not sustained.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417602">We'll now go back to the original motion, Mr. McKay's motion.</ParaText>
						</Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817935"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417603">Mr. Chair, I'd like to move an amendment to Mr. McKay's motion. The second paragraph, the one that I noted, is problematic because it's based on other evidence. I'd like to move that this be deleted, and when you're finished doing that I'll then speak to the motion.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817942"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417604">All right. We have an amendment from Mr. Reid to remove paragraph 2 of Mr. McKay's motion.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817947"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417605">Do you consider that to be in order, sir?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817948"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417606">I do.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417607">Mr. Reid, on the amendment.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817949"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417608">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417609">Let me just read what the second paragraph says, and you'll see, I think, why I think it should be removed. By the way, there are some odd capitalizations and there's a grammatical error in here. I think it should be a lower-case “s” in “speaking”.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417610"><Quote><QuotePara Align="Left" IndentFirst="2" IndentRest="2">That the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the minister, was himself misled when he spoke in the House on behalf of the minister, saying that “the Kairos application did not meet agencies' priorities”. We now know this also to be untrue. The parliamentary secretary has done the honourable thing and apologized to the House, as he too was misled. </QuotePara></Quote></ParaText><ParaText id="2417611">We don't know that he was misled. I suspect if he was brought before this committee he would say he wasn't misled. He might say he misunderstood. You can see the distinction there. And because I know I'm going to be challenged on relevance or something, the reason I mention the distinction is that “misled” involves an outside agency.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417612">If, Mr. Chair, you misled me as to the location of today's meeting by telling me it's in Room 112-North, then it is--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="35">(1235)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818401"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417613">Which I may have....</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818403"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417614">No, actually, in all fairness, the reason I was late was based on my having misunderstood. That's actually a good example.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417615">So the thing is, you misled me by telling me that. Now, you might have done it intentionally: I think I'll play a joke on Scott, so I'll tell him it's 112-North. You could do it--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817966"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417616">He's discussing his point here.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417617">Mr. McGuinty, is that a point of order?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817967"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417618"> Yes, I have a point of order. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417619">Maybe, Mr. Chair, we could ask Mr. Reid whether he intends to filibuster until 1 p.m., because then we could all get on with other business. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817968"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417620">You're the one bringing all the points of order. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817969"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417621">I have a number of people on the speaking list. I'm certain that after Mr. Reid there will be plenty. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417622">Thank you so much.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817970"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417623">So he's not filibustering, sir, or...?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817971"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417624">You know, that's the mind-reading skill that I haven't quite yet developed, Mr. McGuinty. It's getting there, but....</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817972"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165800" Type="47">Mr. Terence Young</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417625">I had the floor when you interrupted it so many times, Mr. McGuinty--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817973"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417626">Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. I appreciate it. Thank you for your indulgence.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817975"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417627">Mr. Reid.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817976"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417628">Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417629">If we all had the mind-reading skills that Mr. McGuinty expects the chair to have, writing this would be so much simpler. We'd be able to find out whether or not Mr. Abbott had been misled. We could look into his brain, find out those answers, and come back and say, “Based upon our mind-reading skills, we've discovered how he feels.” </ParaText><ParaText id="2417630">We don't have those skills. We rely upon testimony. We rely upon certain rules we have, accepting everything that is said by a member in this place as being truthful. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417631">We don't have him here. We don't have that information, right? So we are relying upon our imaginations to say that he was misled. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417632">Now, in all fairness, this does not say “deliberately misled”, so there's no suggestion, as worded, that it...misled by Minister Oda, or who he was misled by. Nor is there an implication....</ParaText><ParaText id="2417633">Well, there is, of course, an implication a mile wide that it's deliberate, but there's no.... It's not stated overtly that...misled deliberately as opposed to not deliberately.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417634">The point is that “misunderstood“ is a completely legitimate alternative meaning. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417635">Now, given the fact that it's not possible to make an amendment to paragraph 2 that says “misled or misunderstood” without essentially obviating the purpose of paragraph 2, which was to be a list in the “bill of wrongs”, the list of wrongs--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3817999"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417636">Surprisingly enough, I have another point of order.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417637">Mr. Proulx.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818000"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417638">Maybe it's not a point of order but more a point of information. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417639">I just want to make sure that this is being recorded. I'm sure Mr. Reid will want to listen to himself again. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417640">Is this being recorded, Mr. Chair?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818001"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417641">I believe we are in public, yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818002"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417642">Okay. Thank you very much.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818003"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417643">Mr. Reid.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818005"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417644">I suppose it means I can listen to the translator and I can hear myself in French--probably with a female voice--if I want to. Heaven knows, though, that I don't think any of us would really want to have to do that at great length. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818006"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417645">What's the relevance, Mr. Chair? What relevancy do his comments have?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818007"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417646">Are you raising this?</ParaText><ParaText id="2417647"><B>Mr. Marcel Proulx:</B> Yes.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417648"><B>The Chair:</B> After what you just asked? </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818008"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417649">I asked you a point of information. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417650"><B>The Chair:</B> Yes, okay....</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818012"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417651">Mr. Chair, I want to get back to my comments, but I would just point out that “point of information” doesn't exist. I'm constantly hearing this from opposition members--and especially from Mr. Proulx, who ran for Speaker once. </ParaText>
							<ParaText id="2417652"> There's no such thing as a point of information. It's like, “I don't know what's going on, so I'll just invent something that's supposed to take a higher rank in the order than everything else.”</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="40">(1240)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818016"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417653">Can I ask you to return to your comments relevant to the motion before us and the amendment before us? </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818025"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417654">He's just giving a point of information.</ParaText>
						</Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818026"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417655">Sorry, but I've been suffering with Mr. Proulx doing this for half a decade now. I've been meaning to bring it up at some point and say he needs to read the rule book; there is no such thing as a point of information. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818028"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417656">What Speaker needs the rule book?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818029"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417657">At any rate, look, I actually do want to wrap up. I have to leave to go and chair the human rights subcommittee--</ParaText><ParaText id="2417658"><B>Some hon. members:</B> Hear, hear.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818030"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417659">Bravo.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818031"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147310" Type="47">Mr. Scott Reid</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417660">I should get you guys on the human rights subcommittee. They don't like me as much as you do.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417661">My point is simply that this paragraph is fatally flawed. It's not possible, for the purposes of the motion, to save it by changing the wording--even though I disagree with the purpose of the motion, which, as I mentioned, is effectively to taint the minister--and therefore the only solution is to just remove this paragraph entirely from the motion.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417662">I'll let that go, Mr. Chairman. I actually could say a lot more, but I'll let it rest there.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417663">Thank you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818034"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417664">Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417665">Mr. Lukiwski, you are next.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818037"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417666"> Thank you, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417667">I want to just follow up a little bit on Mr. Reid's point on paragraph 2, because I agree. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417668"><B>The Chair:</B> That's where we are. It's on the amendment.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417669"><B>Mr. Tom Lukiwski:</B> It should certainly be deleted from this motion. How can we in all justification confirm that the former parliamentary secretary, Mr. Abbott, was misled when he hasn't testified to that? I find this to be quite extraordinary that the Liberals are trying to put words in Mr. Abbott's mouth and trying to suggest that they are factual. Nothing could be further from the truth. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417670">Frankly, I'm very surprised, because when we developed the witness list for these hearings, I had predicted that Mr. Abbott would be one of the witnesses who the opposition would call. I suspect the reason he wasn't is because they finally determined, in their strategic overview and analysis of who would be the best witnesses to buttress their case, that Mr. Abbott wouldn't help their cause because he would probably say that he was not misled. But I was very surprised that they did not ask Mr. Abbott to attend the committee as a witness, as would have been their right. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417671">But now, since they didn't, and he did not testify before the committee, this motion purports to put words into Mr. Abbott's mouth, which is not only unparliamentary but frankly is beyond whatever sort of scope of justice and common courtesy and fairness one could possibly imagine. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417672">I would suspect Mr. Reid is right. If asked the direct question, Mr. Abbott would say “No, I wasn't misled. I wasn't misled whatsoever. I might have misunderstood it, and I apologized later for making statements on which I was wrong, but I certainly wasn't misled.”</ParaText><ParaText id="2417673"> There are many other points here, and if we're going to speak to these points, all 17 of them, one at a time, which I suspect we probably will, if given the time, I will make mention of many other inconsistencies in Mr. McKay's motion, and in fact not only inconsistencies but factual inaccuracies. This is one of them. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417674">Point number 2 states categorically that the former parliamentary secretary to the minister was misled. How can he say that? How can they possibly allow this point to remain in this motion? He is stating something as fact that in fact is not true. No one knows whether Mr. Abbott was misled or not, but point number 2 in Mr. McKay's motion states categorically that he was misled. We cannot allow that to happen. We can simply not allow that to happen. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417675">If this is left as is, we would in effect be condoning all committees to start putting words into parliamentarians' mouths. If we leave this in the motion and it is passed by the united opposition, in effect, we would be setting a precedent that states then that any committee can put words into another parliamentarian's mouth, draft it into a motion, pass it at committee, and then in fact it becomes almost the rule of the land. That would never be allowed in a court of law, never. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417676">In fact this certainly isn't a court of law, Mr. McGuinty, I agree with that. If anything, it's a kangaroo court, thanks to the motions that you've been bringing forward. We simply can't do this. I hear time and time again that the members of the opposition get on their sanctimonious high horse and pontificate by saying that this is a government that doesn't respect democracy. What are they trying to do here by putting words into another member's mouth that are simply not true or probably would not be proven to be true? How can they possibly sit here and say, in all good conscience, that this is a legitimate motion? It's ridiculous. It's beyond ridiculous.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417677">Mr. Speaker, I know you've got a speaking list, and I'll let others give their two cents' worth. But any fair-minded Canadian taking a look at this would understand fully, completely, and instantaneously--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="45">(1245)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818060"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417678">Isn't that filibustering?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818061"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417679">--that this is nothing but political posturing by the opposition, who want to try to find a minister of the crown in contempt with nothing to substantiate their opinion.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417680">Thank you, Chair. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818062"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417681">Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417682">Monsieur Laframboise, I have your name next. Were you on my list?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818063"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="158676" Type="47">Mr. Mario Laframboise</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417683">No, that's fine.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818064"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417684">All right.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417685">Mr. McKay, you're next.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818065"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417686"> With respect to what Mr. Abbott said, or didn't say, it's part of the record. I would deem what has been said in the House to be part of the committee. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417687">On March 15, 2010, Mr. Abbott said, “CIDA thoroughly analyzed Kairos' program proposal and determined, with regret, that it did not meet the agency's current priorities.” </ParaText><ParaText id="2417688">On April 23, also part of the record of this committee, I would respectfully submit: “The criteria for the funding for Kairos are the same as the criteria for funding for anyone else applying for such funding. Kairos did not meet the criteria. It did not get the funding. There was no surprise there.” </ParaText><ParaText id="2417689">In both instances, I would suggest that Mr. Abbott was certainly repeating the speaking lines as provided by the media inquiry, which was that after completing due diligence it was determined that the organization proposal did not meet CIDA's current priorities. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417690">All of this, I would respectfully suggest, is part of the record of this committee. Therefore, Mr. Abbott must necessarily have been misled with respect to this particular application. Otherwise, what would be the reason for his apology? He, I respectfully submit, was misled. He feels badly about it. He did not intend to mislead the House. It was not his intention because he spoke out of innocence, I would respectfully suggest. This was part of the larger message of the government that it was a CIDA decision, not a minister's decision.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417691"><B>An hon. member:</B> It was.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417692"><B>Hon. John McKay:</B> For whatever reason, the minister wanted to sell it as a CIDA decision, rather than as her own decision. Why she doesn't wish to own up to that decision, I don't really know. I don't know why for 13, 14, 15 months she kept continuing to spin the same story that it didn't meet CIDA criteria, when we know that it met CIDA criteria. Margaret Biggs said it met CIDA criteria, and she repeated just last week that it met CIDA criteria.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417693">The core point here is that her own parliamentary secretary was caught up in this web of deceit, and he didn't know it. He had no idea that he was in effect a mouthpiece for the government to speak to this issue, to effectively mislead members of Parliament who were trying to do their job to find out what the real reason for the funding cut might be. That is the core point.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417694">Otherwise, as I said, why would he have apologized? What is the point of an apology if in fact he didn't intend to.... In his case, I don't think he intended to mislead, but he in fact was caught up in a larger game plan by the government, for whatever reason, to download that responsibility onto the ministry itself.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417695"> As the Speaker observed in his first ruling, CIDA officials must be more than just mildly disturbed that they have been made to look as if they were the ones who made the decision. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417696">Chair, you may have insight into this that I don't have, but I don't know and I don't understand why the minister didn't just stand up months ago and say “This was my decision, I made it, and this was the reason I made it”, etc. She has let it hang out there for way too long that this is a--</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="50">(1250)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818096"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417697">A point of order, surprisingly enough.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818097"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417698">Yes, it certainly appears that Mr. McKay is trying to filibuster, because I don't believe this is germane to my amendment. Also, Mr. Chair, the opposition continually talks about filibustering this committee meeting. Mr. McKay could have made his point long ago. We understand it completely. There are other people on the speakers list, so I would suggest that he wrap it up, and let others speak.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818101"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417699">Thank you very much. It's not really a point of order, but thank you for getting that in.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818105"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417700">Maybe it's a point of information.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Debate" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818414"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417701">I think it might have been a point of information.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818111"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417702"> I thank Mr. Lukiwski for that advice. It's very helpful to have Mr. Lukiwski on a committee like this. First of all, he tells you what questions you should be asking, because you've already asked the wrong questions. Apparently I've been asking the wrong questions all the time. Now he gives the advice that possibly I was going on a bit too long on the point. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417703">I was only going on a little too long on the point, Mr. Chair, because I don't think the members on the opposite side actually have gotten the point thus far, and that is that the minister has misled the committee, has misled members of Parliament, and has impaired our ability to do the job.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417704">So I thank Mr. Lukiwski for his generous contribution to my inadequacies as a member of Parliament. If Mr. Lukiwski could from time to time— </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818121"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417705">Mr. McKay, I have a point of order from Monsieur Godin.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818123"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417706">And you decide whether I have a point of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818124"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417707">I will decide that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818125"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417708">I know you have the capability at times to do it. But it's about seven minutes to one o'clock, and we will adjourn very soon.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818128"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417709">Yes.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818129"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417710">I don't know whether we could deal with it, but it is that the analysts start to work on the document of the witnesses who came in, prepare the document, and when we come in on Thursday, we could finish those—</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818132"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417711">That was my amendment. You voted it down, for God's sake.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818133"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417712">That's because it was out of order.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" id="3818139" ToCText=""><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417713">Your amendment was to get rid of—</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818140"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417714">You have to follow the rules.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818141"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147304" Type="47">Mr. Yvon Godin</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417715">Mr. Chair, his amendment was to get rid of this motion that was put to the committee. That's not what I'm saying. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417716">I'm saying that with this up in the air, we'll continue on Thursday. At the same time, the analysts could start to work on the document to present what was put forward by the witnesses who came in front of us, which will be a continuance of it. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417717">I'm not saying that we get rid of the proposal from the Liberal Party.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818147"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417718">We are getting close to the one o'clock hour.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417719">Mr. McKay, were you finished?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818148"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417720">I'm going to take Mr. Lukiwski's advice and wind it up, because I'm getting close to the view that there's some possibility that they are actually understanding the point.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818156"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417721">Okay.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417722">I have Mr. Proulx next.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818159"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417723">I didn't really ask to speak. It was a point of order that I had about half an hour ago in regard to—</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818160"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417724">We're very efficient at getting names on the list.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818161"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417725">—Mr. Reid's qualifying the report we did on the previous point of privilege as a farce. I thought that was sufficient for him to be in contempt of this committee, but seeing that you didn't recognize me back then, I guess we'll let it go. He was frustrated, and I can understand that.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818168"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417726">I think you can probably understand frustration today.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818169"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147309" Type="47">Mr. Marcel Proulx</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417727">Somewhat.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818171"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417728">Mr. Blaney.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<FloorLanguage language="FR">[<I>Translation</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818172"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165801" Type="47">Mr. Steven Blaney</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417729">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417730">I have listened carefully to Mr. Godin's comments. Curiously, those comments seem to be coming close to a solution that seems very valid to me. Recently, right here in this committee, we have been able to see how professional the analysts' work is. Members from all parties have congratulated them on their work. Clearly, for the credibility of the committee, once our conclusions are established, it would be preferable to base ourselves on a document that has a certain balance than on one that I would call a mish-mash of propaganda. Far be it from me to call Mr. McKay's proposal a mish-mash of propaganda. That is not what I am saying. It just seems that the work of this committee should be based on an objective analysis of the testimony we have gathered. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417731">I support Mr. Reid's motion, but, in order for the committee to be able to achieve the goals it has set for itself, it is certainly time to give the analysts a clear mandate. It seems to me that that would avoid a lot of hot air.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="12" Mn="55">(1255)</Timestamp><FloorLanguage language="EN">[<I>English</I>]</FloorLanguage><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818190"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417732">I still have others ahead of you, Mr. Lukiwski.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818191"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417733">I'd like to raise a point of order, please. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417734">Mr. Chair, since you allowed Monsieur Godin to raise a point of order on recommending that the analysts start preparing a report based on witness testimony, I would certainly support that. That was the crux of my amendment. But let it be known for the record that the government also would strongly recommend that the analysts begin writing a report based on witness testimony; hopefully by the next time this committee meets, on Thursday of this week, we'll be able to take a look at the first version at least of their draft.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818197"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417735">I'll take that as a point of order at the moment.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417736">Mr. Blaney, were you finished?</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818200"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="165801" Type="47">Mr. Steven Blaney</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417737">Yes, thank you.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818201"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417738">Okay, great.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417739">Mr. McGuinty, you were next on my list.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818202"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128579" Type="2">Mr. David McGuinty</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417740"> No, I'm not on your list.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818203"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417741">You're right: we did get to that earlier. I'm sorry.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417742">Mr. Albrecht, you're next on my list.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818208"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417743">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417744">In addition to point two here and, as has been stated on numerous occasions, attempting to put words in the mouth of a fellow parliamentarian, on that basis alone, I'd have difficulty supporting it. Every time the word “agency” is used in this document, and especially in point two, there's almost the underlying assumption that the agency is everybody but the minister. I need to remind this committee that the agency, CIDA, includes the minister. In fact, not only does it include the minister, but the minister is the head of the agency. </ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818216"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="128204" Type="2">Hon. John McKay</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417745">That's not true.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818221"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147300" Type="47">Mr. Harold Albrecht</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417746">So we're playing games with this. If the minister, the elected representative, does not have input into the agency, then we're in a difficult position, because it's the elected representatives of this Parliament who make those decisions.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417747">But on another point in point two, let's read this: “...the parliamentary secretary, speaking for the minister, was himself misled...”. It goes on and then says, “We now know this also to be untrue”. Well, which is “also” referring to? Is it referring to the minister being misled, or the next statement within that sentence? I think it's very poor wordsmithing and could be confusing. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417748">So point two should be excluded for a number of reasons.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417749">I just want to go back to what was pointed out earlier, which is that it was very unfortunate that this committee wasted an hour of its time waiting for translation when in fact we had four days that could have provided more than adequate time to get a motion to this committee and translation in order. We could have had at least another 45 minutes of productive discussion on this entire package.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417750">Thank you, Mr. Chair.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818234"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417751">Thank you.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417752">Mr. Lukiwski, you have the floor.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818237"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147308" Type="47">Mr. Tom Lukiwski</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417753">Thanks, Chair.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417754">I'm glad I have an opportunity at the end of the meeting to respond to Mr. McKay's earlier comments, because he continues to...I wouldn't say mislead this committee, but certainly he's confused. </ParaText><ParaText id="2417755"><B>An hon. member:</B> Well, that's good.</ParaText>
							<ParaText id="2417756"><B>Mr. Tom Lukiwski:</B> Let me just say that the Liberals continue to be confused on this issue, because he continuously says that the minister was in error when she stated that it was a CIDA decision, and that she should have stated it was her decision. I beg to differ.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417757"> In fact, if Mr. McKay was listening at committee--and I know he was--I can only come to the conclusion that he's trying to confuse or mislead this committee, because at committee during direct testimony, the minister stated on several occasions--and this was confirmed by Madame Biggs, the president of CIDA--that when the minister makes a decision concerning CIDA, it becomes a CIDA decision, bottom line. I asked her that directly. There should be no confusion. A minister's decision makes it a CIDA decision.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417758">Mr. McKay also went on to ask why she didn't at any time state in the months preceding committee hearings that it was her decision. I would point out that at the December 9 committee meeting of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs she said on several occasions that it was her decision. The two statements are not contradictory; they are compatible. It was her decision; therefore, it became a CIDA decision.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
					<Timestamp Hr="13" Mn="00">(1300)</Timestamp><Intervention Type="Interjection" ToC="No" ToCText="" id="3818266"><PersonSpeaking><Affiliation DbId="147627" Type="35">The Chair</Affiliation>: </PersonSpeaking><Content><ParaText id="2417759">We are at our time. We will reconvene on Thursday at eleven.</ParaText><ParaText id="2417760">The meeting is adjourned.</ParaText></Content></Intervention>
				</SubjectOfBusinessContent></SubjectOfBusiness></OrderOfBusiness></HansardBody></Hansard>
