Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 1641
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Your time is up.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
What was the amendment, by the way?
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
No, don't repeat it. Just go to the cut. Don't repeat it, please.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I did indeed. Thank you, Chair, for the recognition.
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.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
We may...I know that it was being rushed through.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
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.
I think the first point to be made--
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Thank you.
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 Halsbury's Laws of England, on page 608:
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.
I think that was backed up by Mr. Walsh, who said that contempt is what the committee says it is, effectively.
I think that's the framework with which we need to deal.
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”.
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.
The first point has to do with--
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
I didn't change the definition. I simply added--
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
It's a quote from Parliamentary Practice in New Zealand.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
The motion is as follows. Maybe I'll hold argument for later, but let me just read the motion.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Okay.
Maybe I'll hold argument for later, but the motion is as follows:
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.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.3. That the talking points of the agency itself led 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 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.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's 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 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.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, 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.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 have been made to appear as if the decision was theirs, 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 of 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 a necessity for a democracy.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.
Thank you.
View John McKay Profile
Lib. (ON)
Yes.
Results: 1 - 15 of 1641 | Page: 1 of 110

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data