Information & Ethics Committee on May 10th, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I'm reluctant to wade in at any depth, but I will take the opportunity to say I think it's regrettable that the Conservatives appear to be trying to run down the clock in this.

For a matter of record—I have the floor and I have an opinion—it does seem to me that the Conservatives are trying to run down the clock to avoid bringing this matter up for a study.

On Mr. Stanton's idea that nobody will give you any information anyway, we can't predict whether a witness will be productive or not until we get the witness here. That, in and of itself, is not a good reason to not undertake a study of this kind.

The one amendment that I would have looked at as being productive, possibly, and even more useful is that Madame Lavallée's motion calls on us to consider the matter, gather evidence and report on the apparent violation of the Access to Information Act.

We could have put a date, that perhaps we should call on the committee to undertake this analysis and submit a report to the House of Commons before June 8, 2007, for instance, to serve notice to the government-side members that we don't intend to drag this out forever. I don't think it's our wish or our interest to humiliate the government by exposing all kinds of wrongdoing.

We want to get to the bottom of this one issue, that somebody denied this report ever existed. That's a criminal offence, and it undermines and devalues the whole freedom of information regime if that's taking place in one government department.

I don't think the government-side member should be so self-conscious about this. This isn't a condemnation of the whole new Conservative government. We've stumbled across the bad administration of the access to information regime in this one instance.

It's a unique instance, I pointed out, and I don't think Mr. Van Kesteren understood my point. It isn't unique that big chunks of this were blocked out. That's quite common in documents, for any number of legitimate reasons. But this same access to information coordinator gave the entire document to a university professor a couple of weeks earlier. So we have the unique situation of being able to examine what the whole document said and what sections were blocked out and then use our judgment as to whether this was in fact within the 13 legitimate reasons.

So the two questions that need to be addressed, that are crying out to be addressed by this committee, are: did they deny knowledge or did they deny that this document existed at all, in which case it's a very serious offence; and secondly, are they using good judgment or are they working within the parameters of what's allowed in what paragraphs they choose to black out?

That's entirely within the mandate. I think we have an obligation as the access to information committee to ensure the proper administration of our access to information laws or freedom of information laws. It would be irresponsible of this committee not to undertake this study, because it's a rare thing, as I say, that we get such an egregious example with all the evidence clearly accessible and available.

I move that we put the question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm consulting with my advisers.

Order.

Mr. Martin, did you move that the committee put the question? That motion is not receivable in a committee.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I know.

[Some hon. members]

Oh! Oh!

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I wasn't born yesterday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Did you want to make a motion along the lines of what you were talking about in terms of a date?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No? Fine.

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Thank you. Mr. Chair, I was preparing in my head the things I was going to say. I was going to start off by praising my colleague, Mr. Martin, for his respectful and thoughtful presentation. With the exception of the very last little fast one he tried to pull there, I still think that he was, as usual, very thoughtful, and I appreciated what he had to say. I find in these discussions often it's best to listen to the people who are speaking in the lowest tone of voice. You often get something that's worthwhile.

I've been reading the motion that Madame Lavallée proposed, both in the French and in the English. I'm not sure that the English is identical to the French, but that's not the point I'm working on. I'm going to propose an amendment, and I'm going to propose the amendment to the English, but I think if I read the French as well, you'll see where I'm coming from in the amendment that I'm going to propose to the motion.

Let me read the French first.

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics, urgently address the internal report by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled Afghanistan-2006; Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, consider the matter, gather evidence and report on the apparent violation of the Access to Information Act.

Okay, now I'll read it in English. The important part is towards the end, but I'll read the whole thing:

That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics urgently address the internal report by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights, consider the matter...

It's fine so far.

...gather evidence and report on the apparent violation of the Access to Information Act.

Now the problem I see with this.... It is somewhat different in French. It talks about shining the light on the fact that the Access to Information Act.... I think it would be “might have been violated”, but in English it's “report on the apparent violation” and it presupposes the outcome. So what I am suggesting is that in the English version it be changed to “report on any violations that may have occurred to the Access to Information Act”.

I'm not sure if that requires an adjustment to the French to make them parallel, but I think you can see what I am trying to do. It's to have us not presuppose our outcome, which I think in a roundabout way was what my colleague Mr. Tilson was trying to get at. Anyway, that's the motion, and I'll stop there. Once we've decided if it's receivable and how to deal with it, I would then like to comment briefly on it, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The motion is receivable. Could you just state what the wording is that you would like?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes. It would be “...to report on any violations that may have occurred of the Access to Information Act”.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Instead of “the apparent”?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'll state the motion when I figure it out here. It's “...any violations that may have occurred of the Access to Information Act”?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So the motion is--and I'll just read the last line of the English version because we're dealing with the English version. I stated the motion in the English language: “...gather evidence and report on any violations that may have occurred of the Access to Information Act”. Is that correct?

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

That is correct.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That is the motion that has been moved by Mr. Reid. It is receivable. Is there any discussion?

Mr. Reid.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I think you can see....

I'll just explain it, Madame Lavallée. I just overheard you ask what the difference is.

The way it's worded right now, it's almost as if we've made the decision that having found that there were violations of the act, we are now working to determine what the nature of these violations had been. The point I'm making is that--I could be wrong, and maybe that was their intention to say that--we should not presuppose that violations have occurred. We are making assumptions that they could have occurred, and we're now investigating that and bringing witnesses forward in order to see whether or not these violations occurred and what their nature would have been. As a matter of fact, I think the way the chair wrote it down, it's violations in the plural. We're leaving the potential for more than one if they occurred. So essentially that's the goal here.

Yes, you can see how it's a little bit different from the English.

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

As long as it doesn't change the meaning, I have no objection.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Reid's amendment?

Do you have discussion on Mr. Reid's amendment, Mr. Dhaliwal?

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

Sure, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Bear in mind the time.

[Sukh Dhaliwal, Liberal, Newton—North Delta, BC]

I personally support this amendment. I think we should all put it to a vote so we can be out of here by 11.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Is there any further discussion on Mr. Reid's amendment?

(Amendment agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We are now debating Madame Lavallée's motion as amended. I want to be clear so we understand what it is we're debating.

I'll read it in English: “That the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics urgently address the internal report by the Department of Foreign Affairs entitled”, and we have the title there, “consider the matter, gather evidence and report on any violations that may have occurred of the Access to Information Act”.

That is the motion as amended. Is there any discussion?

Go ahead, Mr. Wallace.