Skip to main content
Start of content

PROC Committee Meeting

Notices of Meeting include information about the subject matter to be examined by the committee and date, time and place of the meeting, as well as a list of any witnesses scheduled to appear. The Evidence is the edited and revised transcript of what is said before a committee. The Minutes of Proceedings are the official record of the business conducted by the committee at a sitting.

For an advanced search, use Publication Search tool.

If you have any questions or comments regarding the accessibility of this publication, please contact us at accessible@parl.gc.ca.

Previous day publication Next day publication
MINUTES OF PROCEEDINGS
 
Meeting No. 53
 
Tuesday, March 22, 2011
 

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs met in camera at 11:00 a.m. this day, in Room 228, La Promenade Building, the Chair, Joe Preston, presiding.

 

Members of the Committee present: Harold Albrecht, Steven Blaney, Claude DeBellefeuille, Yvon Godin, Mario Laframboise, Tom Lukiwski, Joe Preston, Marcel Proulx, Scott Reid and Terence Young.

 

Acting Members present: David J. McGuinty for Judy Foote and Hon. John McKay for Yasmin Ratansi.

 

In attendance: Library of Parliament: Nicolas Auclair, Analyst; Andre Barnes, Analyst; Nancy Vohl, Research Assistant. House of Commons: Chad Mariage, Procedural Clerk.

 
Pursuant to the Order of Reference of Wednesday, March 9, 2011, the Committee resumed consideration of the question of privilege relating to statements made by the Minister of International Cooperation.
 

It was agreed, — That the Committee proceed to sit in public.

 

At 11:01 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 11:02 a.m., the sitting resumed in public.

 

John McKay moved, — That the draft report contain the conclusions of the committee, namely:

1.) That, the response to the order paper questions to the Members from London North Centre and Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine misled Members in two respects, one a reader would be left with the impression that the decision to defund was a Canadian International Development Agency (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.

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.

3.) That, the talking points of the agency itself lead one to the clear conclusion that this was a CIDA decision.

4.) That, on December 9, 2010 the Minister knew or ought to have known who inserted the “NOT” in the approval line.

5.) That, within 24 hours of the question being asked the Minister knew who had inserted the “NOT” in the approval line.

6.) That, for 14 months the Minister let Members and Canadians believe that the 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.

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.

8.) That, to date there has been no satisfactory explanation as to what constitutes Government priorities.

9.) That, Minister Kenney accused KAIROS of anti-Semitism in a speech in Israel at the Global Forum for Combating Anti-Semitism on Wednesday, December 16, 2009 and that this was the reason for its defunding, and that we now know that this too was untrue.

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.

11.) That, the allegation of anti-Semitism is false. It has 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.

12.) That, the defunding decision has affected the lives of thousands of poor people by causing KAIROS to withdraw from many partnerships.

13.) That, the Committee regrets that CIDA officials were being made to appear as if it was their decision when in fact it was not.

14.) That, the Minister had every opportunity to clarify the “confusion” in response to questions in Question Period and in her “apology” on February 14, 2011.

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.

16.) That, the truthfulness, transparency and accountability of the executive branch to the legislature is a core function and necessity for a democracy.

17.) That, confusion is not contempt, it is incompetence. However, the pattern of misinformation, limited truthfulness has been so consistent over the past 14 months that the Committee has been led to the inescapable conclusion that contempt has occurred.

 

The Chair ruled the proposed motion inadmissible as some elements are out side the scope of the study, as referred to the Committee.

 

It was agreed, — That the sitting be suspended until 12:00 p.m. to allow time for the motion to be translated.

 

At 11:19 a.m., the sitting was suspended.

At 11:59 a.m., the sitting resumed.

 

Whereupon, Marcel Proulx appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Harold Albrecht, Steven Blaney, Tom Lukiwski, Scott Reid, Terence Young — 5; NAYS: Claude DeBellefeuille, Yvon Godin, Mario Laframboise, David J. McGuinty, John McKay, Marcel Proulx — 6.

 

Tom Lukiwski moved, — That the motion be amended by replacing everything after the word “That” with the words “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”.

Debate arose thereon.

 

Mr. Godin raised a point of order that the amendment is inadmissable because it goes against the entire motion and would serve the same purpose as if the Committee voted against it.

 

The Chair ruled the amendment in order.

 

Whereupon, John McKay appealed the decision of the Chair.

The question: "Shall the decision of the Chair be sustained?" was put and the decision was overturned on the following recorded division: YEAS: Harold Albrecht, Steven Blaney, Tom Lukiwski, Scott Reid, Terence Young — 5; NAYS: Claude DeBellefeuille, Yvon Godin, Mario Laframboise, David J. McGuinty, John McKay, Marcel Proulx — 6.

 

Scott Reid moved, — That the motion be amended by removing paragraph 2.

Debate arose thereon.

 

The Chair ruled the amendment in Order.

 

At 1:00 p.m., the Committee adjourned to the call of the Chair.

 



Michelle Tittley
Clerk of the Committee

 
 
2011/03/28 3:45 p.m.