Inside Politics

UPDATED Tale of the Tape: Tony Clement and the Case of the Missing 'Sure's

by Kady O'Malley Posted: November 23, 2011 10:28 AM Last Updated: November 23, 2011 3:47 PM

UPDATE:

It seems the minister is as baffled by the vanishing verbal tics as the rest of us, at least according to his comments in the House after Question Period. Clement categorically denied that he or anyone in his office requested that the blues be changed. Over to you ... Rogue Hansard Compiler?

Here's Clement's letter to House of Commons Speaker Andrew Scheer:

Dear Mr. Speaker:

It has come to my attention that changes were made to the Evidence of the meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts on November 2, 2011, including particularly my testimony.

There are insinuations I have made changes, or have caused changes to be made, to the Evidence.

I have not, nor has anyone in my employ.

These allegations form a serious breach of my privilege, which is impeding my work as a member of this House and a Minister of the Crown.

I will raise this matter at the earliest opportunity in the House this afternoon.

Should you deem a motion necessary in response to a prima facie finding of a question of privilege, I propose to move the following motion:

That the matter of the editing of the Evidence of the November 2, 2011, meeting of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration and to report to the House.

Thank you for your attention to this matter.

Yours respectfully,

Tony Clement, P.C., M.P.

 

Original post: 

Was the official transcript of Treasury Board President Tony Clement's much-anticipated G8 legacy fund-related appearance at Public Accounts subjected to a little ex post facto redaction action: specifically, the expunging of certain words that ostensibly demonstrated his apparent willingness to voluntarily hand over copies of key documents to the committee?

That was the claim made by New Democrat MPs Charlie Angus and Alexandre Boulerice at a press conference earlier this morning, so let's examine the evidence, shall we?

Courtesy of the NDP, here are the relevant sections from the committee blues -- which, I should note, is an unofficial transcript prepared for internal parliamentary usage, and is technically not supposed to be published.

I've highlighted the two instances in which the minister begins two separate responses to Charlie Angus with the word "sure". 


Here's the first excerpt:  


pacp-1.jpg
And here's the second: 
pacp-2.jpg

Now, here's how those exchanges appear in the official record, which is typically published several days later, and -- and this is the important bit -- only after members have had an opportunity to review and, if necessary, request corrections to the blues:

Hon. Tony Clement:
    My recollection of this is that there are two sets of projects that I think we are talking about. What you are referring to, or what you think you're referring to, is the G-8 legacy projects, but Mr. Dodds was not referring to those projects. He was referring generally to projects that are in fact delivered to FedNor, an organization with which you're familiar. He was referring to those kinds of projects rather than the G-8 legacy projects.

[...]

Hon. Tony Clement:
    I believe the document you're holding up is a document created by the local municipalities; it wasn't created by me, per se. It was distributed, I believe, at the December meeting of the local area leadership group as a way to get the municipalities thinking about what their priority was.
The "sures" have, indeed, vanished. So -- case closed? Well, maybe not. 

UPDATE -- Here's a video clip of the exchange: 

Download Flash Player to view this content.


 If you watch the video it's not entirely clear that either "sure" should, in fact, be taken as a direct response to the specific request being made by the questioner. In fact, the intonation suggests that it may actually be a verbal tic  -- an unconscious interjection, like witnesses who insist on beginning every answer with "thanks", or certain livebloggers who start every second sentence with "okay, so..".

If you search the transcript -- the official record, that is -- for other instances of "sure" as an opening word, you'll see that the minister began responses in precisely that way on two other occasions: his opening reply to his own parliamentary secretary, and again in a later exchange with Angus.

It seems to be more of a talking point initialization sequence than an actual response, and it seems unlikely that the minister actually believed that he was agreeing to provide the documents in question.

Still, it's worth noting that someone saw those two "sures" as sufficiently potentially problematic to attempt to have them stricken them from the record, which provokes at least two very simple questions: Who, and why?

Given the keen interest that the opposition has shown on the file, the minister will almost certainly be given the opportunity to answer either -- or both -- of those questions when the House convenes for Question Period this afternoon, although whether he'll actually do so, or once again stay seated and silent while one of his colleagues runs interference on his behalf, remains to be seen.

Finally, none of the above would prevent the NDP from simply re-asking the question -- or, in this case, making the request --  in the House or when he goes before committee tomorrow. 

My advice? This time, make it a yes or no question.


Tags: blackberry jungle, CSI: Hansard Unit, g8/20: the aftermath, tale of the tape - tony clement edition, tony clement