Evidence of meeting #46 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was report.
A recording is available from Parliament.
10:30 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
That's not a point of order.
Is there any debate on the motion?
Mr. Wallace.
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
First of all, I'm very disappointed that my motion did not pass. I think if I had not been so gracious at the last meeting, it would have passed and we wouldn't be dealing with it today, or there would have been a reconsideration; I don't even know if you can do that, but I got a lot of heat from other members for being fair. In retrospect, I don't think I will be fair in the future.
I have some amendments to the motion before me, which I'd like to move. But have you and the clerk determined whether the actual motion is in order—not the preamble, which you've indicated is not part of the motion—based on page 449 of the rules of order?
10:30 a.m.
Conservative
Mike Wallace Conservative Burlington, ON
It is in order. Okay, thank you.
The first amendment I'd like to make is to take out the word “urgently” from the second sentence—I'm sorry this is only in English, as I don't know what the French is—so that it would state, “That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics address.... ” So the word “urgently” would come out.
The reason I'm moving this amendment—which is debatable—is that we, as a committee, put together an agenda. We had a meeting just on the agenda, if I recall, and talked about what we wanted to do. The word “urgently” tells me that we maybe would want to pre-empt, as we have today, other speakers on identity theft, which I'm not sure is actually Madame Lavallée's approach. The word “urgently” means that we will suspend other work.
I'm going back to my other motion—not moving it, but just talking about the principles in it. In principle, I believe you're not going to get any good answers from anybody while we have this in front of the Information Commissioner. He can come and say whatever he wants, that he's sorry, he can't answer this; that he's sorry, he can't answer that. It's not that he wouldn't want to answer or the staffers wouldn't want to answer; it's just that they can't.
So “urgently” means a suspension of the work. I think we've done a decent job as a committee, working together over this past year, on PIPEDA and a number of other issues. And Madame Lavallée indicated there was a government motion to look at another item, which she read from the blues, dealing with something that had a specific need, on which I think we all worked together and got an answer and moved on.
I'm not afraid of any answer in this case, but I think the word “urgently” sends the wrong message. And we will not, as a committee, attain anything usable other than having a few witnesses and holding a meeting or two, and nothing else will happen.
So my motion, which is debatable, is that the word “urgency” be removed. I apologize for not knowing what it is in French.
That's my motion, Mr. Chair, at this point. I have others after that.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The amendment is receivable. An amendment has been moved to amend the main motion by removing the word “urgently”.
Is there any debate on the amendment?
I see no debate on the amendment. Can we call the question on the amendment, please?
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
It's up to you guys. Let's see hands. All those in favour to remove the word “urgently”?
(Amendment negatived [See Minutes of Proceedings])
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Chairman, I actually have a proposed amendment to Madam Lavallée's motion.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
You may do so, but you have to get on the list. It's not a point of order.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't realize these were points of order. My apologies.
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
No, these are not points of order. We'll put you on the list, by all means.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
10:35 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Monsieur Vincent was next, but he said no.
We now go to Mr. Stanton.
We're now back to debate on the main motion.
10:35 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
I'll say at the outset that I'm against the motion, of course, and here's why.
The motion is far too broad in its scope. The motion is asking that our committee, the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, urgently address an internal report entitled Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights.
Mr. Chair, it occurs to me that addressing this report falls outside the purview of this committee. It would likely be better addressed or dealt with perhaps in the scope of international development, defence, foreign affairs, or call it what you will.
The motion before this committee, which in fact guides the scope of this proposed study, is not on point with the mandate of this committee. Why doesn't the motion get to the point?
I get the fact that the real question here is that concern has been expressed that the redacted sections of this report have fallen into question. Members have expressed some concern that perhaps too much was redacted.
Then there's this article in the Globe and Mail that made some wild speculation. There are allegations in Ms. Lavallée's highly hearsay preamble about the government doing this and that. It's highly accusatory and very inflammatory.
To be honest, I agree with Mr. Wallace. This preamble shouldn't even be on this piece of paper. We have a motion by Carol Lavallée, we have all this bunk at the front end of this motion, and then we have a motion. The preamble shouldn't be there. It's editorializing, and that's all it is.
But to get back to the point, the only concern that may be in front of this committee is the question on whether or not the redaction the department provided on this report, when it was provided to an access requester, is too extensive. That's it. It's the only question. It's the only thing that could possibly come under the scope of this committee. As has already been suggested, it's a question that's in front of the Information Commissioner.
When all is said and done, I don't know who it is, but we've heard that the requester of this particular report may have filed a complaint to say that he or she believes the redacted sections were too extensive. If the requester has filed a complaint, the complaint will be investigated.
What is there for us to do? There is nothing for us to do here. We've left it in the hands of the impartial and objective office of Parliament. It's what they do. They deal with that question, and they then have all kinds of recourse to conduct an investigation and take whatever recourse they want.
I'll again say this is an attempt to politically become inflammatory about some kind of obscure, completely based on hearsay, newspaper article, Mr. Chair. It's a newspaper article. What possible interest would a newspaper reporter have in inflaming an argument about that? Come on.
May 10th, 2007 / 10:40 a.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
That's my point, Mr. Chairman. I'm finished. I've made my point, and I speak against it.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
I would suggest, Mr. Chair, that you could see the time as being 11 o'clock and we could save another 20 minutes of this.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I don't think that's a point of order and I don't think I'd do that, because then I would deny members who wish to make a point the opportunity to do so.
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
I'm going to suggest to all members that we could get out of here 20 minutes earlier by recognizing that.
10:40 a.m.
Conservative
10:40 a.m.
Liberal
