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 53216
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
We are now in public on the orders of the day, pursuant to the order of reference of Wednesday, March 9, 2011, the question of privilege relating to the statements made by the Minister of International Cooperation.
When we were last together, which somehow seems like yesterday, I believe we had proceeded as far as paragraph 32. Am I correct?
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Had we voted on paragraph 32 and accepted it? No, we had not. We were still doing things to paragraph 32. I can only assume if we hadn't passed it that there--
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Our analyst.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Reid.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
I wasn't here for paragraph 32. I was out of the room at the time, so I'm not sure if we're now looking at the new version of paragraph 32 or the old version as we see it here in the report.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
On that point, there were some other changes yesterday that we had asked for as a committee. Up until paragraph 32 and including...I think there's a change later on that has to do with something we voted on yesterday, so if you have that document, you now have the latest one with the changes already in place. Excellent work.
On paragraph 32, further discussion? Seeing none--
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
Sorry, seeing as effectively this amounts to a changed version, what was the point of the change?
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
To include “question 106 on the Order Paper” as a piece of detail....
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Any other changes suggested to paragraph 32?
Seeing none, all those in favour of paragraph 32?
(Paragraph 32 agreed to)
The Chair: Great.
Now on paragraph 33, are there any changes?
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
I'll just let Mr. Proulx get caught up. I count on him for some of the translation.
Mr. Reid, sorry, I didn't mean to interrupt you.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
That's okay.
Whatever we may think about the whole contempt issue, we all agree that the point of this report is to summarize the evidence that was presented to the committee, either for or against the final argument that the minister either was or was not in contempt of the House.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, okay.
View Scott Reid Profile
CPC (ON)
So there's something here, and I don't see its relevance to that question. It says here:
...some members questioned the Minister as to whether “political” criteria had been employed to assess KAIROS' funding proposal, considering that the proposal had been recommended by CIDA officials using departmental criteria. The Minister responded that the responsibility for making funding decisions on proposals such as KAIROS' proposal was hers alone. Once her decision has been made, it becomes the department's decision as well as that of the government.
So the question is, was the minister using political criteria? By definition, isn't she using political criteria? If she is, that's problematic. If she isn't, I don't think she can't not use it whether she's approving it or not. Everything she does is political by definition, so it just strikes me that this is effectively a paragraph that need not be here.
View Joe Preston Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay. You got to that point. I was going to ask you, then, if that was correct, what was wrong with it? Are you suggesting that we remove paragraph 33?
Results: 1 - 15 of 53216 | Page: 1 of 3548

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

For more data options, please see Open Data