Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I will say that what I'm about to say I don't like saying, because I find you an honourable person in this House. I respect you. There have been some difficult moments in this committee, and I think under the circumstances you've handled them very well.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear!

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Absolutely.

However, I will say that I too have chaired this committee before you, and it's most unusual that business of this committee--business of this committee--is dealt with in public. I've never seen it done—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Now you are repeating yourself, Mr. Tilson, I'm sorry.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Well, I'm going to say something else. Even to the degree.... The only time I ever recall where it was dealt with in public was when Mr. Broadbent was sitting where Mr. Martin was, and Mr. Broadbent wanted a particular issue to be discussed in public. There was a motion made, and the majority of the committee ruled that it would go into public session. Other than that, we've always dealt with things in private.

So it's very difficult—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Tilson, I'm so sorry, I've tried to be patient. I've already ruled on this point. Mr. Martin already explained his view of the difference between the subcommittee, in camera and the other one. I really don't want to hear anything more about it.

Please carry on.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

I've made my point, and I appreciate that.

The other issue, sir, having been a member of the subcommittee, is that we certainly agreed that the three witnesses who are in the fourth report be on a list, as were others—the Information Commissioner, someone from the ministry—and it was agreed that other names could be added at a later date. There's no question.

What I don't recall, sir, is that these particular witnesses appear today in this particular order. Our objection is not that these witnesses appear; I think these witnesses should appear. Our objection is that they're appearing in the wrong order, that the report should be first, the report should be given to the members of the committee so that we know what the report says. Secondly, the process should be explained to us, the process as to where applications under the Information Act go, by someone from the ministry--I think the committee agreed that someone from the ministry would come--and someone from the Information Commissioner's office, because that could ultimately go there, so that the committee—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. We are reliving the exact arguments and statements that he made in the planning committee. The reason standing committees have subcommittees for planning is so that we don't have to use the valuable time of the committee to have these very debates.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, that's not a correct point of order. The entire committee was not there. It was in camera. We're not discussing what was there. If Mr. Tilson wishes to make his points to the entire committee, he's entitled to do so.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My only point, Mr. Chairman, is that the various parties had representatives at the planning committee, and the obligation of the representative of that party is to brief his party so that we don't have to go through this agonizing process in the committee as a whole.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Agonizing as it may be, it's not for the committee to tell members of parties how to deal with their colleagues, or if they are to deal with them.

Mr. Tilson.

[David Tilson, Conservative, Dufferin—Caledon, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I've concluded. Mr. Martin disagrees with what I'm saying, and through you to him, that's the way I see it should be done. He obviously feels differently, and he's entitled to that view. I've listened to his view, and out of courtesy I would hope he would listen to the procedure that I'm suggesting is, with due respect to him—and I respect him as well—the appropriate procedure to follow, not the procedure that Mr. Martin is recommending.

The opposition happens to have the majority on this committee, and you can do pretty well as you like, as you appear to be doing. But that's the procedure that I'm recommending, Mr. Chairman, and I hope other members of the committee would reconsider the position of the subcommittee and change the procedure.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

You have every right to make that observation, in my view. I also want to go on record as saying that my recollection is that in the subcommittee Mr. Tilson was not opposed to proceeding with this matter; he was talking about how to proceed with it.

I also say that in my view, since I discussed this with the clerk and helped draft the fourth report, that the fourth report does accurately reflect the consensus of the subcommittee.

I now go to Mr. Wallace.

A clarification?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, on a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, just to be accurate, in my reading the fourth report, the second sentence says, “It was the consensus of Members present, but not unanimous”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's right.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Seeing as the NDP, the Bloc, and the Liberals were in favour of this study taking place, and there was only one other person present, it was logical for me or any objective third party to conclude that the Conservatives were not in favour of this motion or this study taking place. They can paint it any way they want to. It was not unanimous.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No, if you're asking for a point of clarification, it's fair to conclude that they did not agree that the matter should proceed in the manner in which it is set out in the fourth report. Mr. Tilson has made that point again today.

We now go to Mr. Wallace, followed by Mr. Dhaliwal.

Order, please.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

First of all, Mr. Chair, because this is a public document, it's come to us, and all I have is one paragraph from the discussion. Obviously I wasn't there. All I was asking for, and I may have a motion to that effect, is that if we are going to name some witnesses, if possible we name all the witnesses that we've invited from the report. Based on what I see here from this report, that's what we're debating and discussing. And just because my colleague was there, it doesn't mean I have to agree with him. I know that may happen in the NDP, but I'm not sure.

Since this is a public document, I'd like to see what other witnesses there are, even if their date hasn't been assigned yet, so that if there are people we've missed and so on, that we.... That's what I would like to see--I'm just telling you--on the list of witnesses. I think I have the right to talk about the report. I'm not trying to talk for three hours, or however the paper put it.

I just want to make one point, because I was somewhat offended personally by Madame Lavallée's characterization of what happened. If we recall what actually happened at the committee, I had moved a motion--

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

What's this got to do with the report?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Well, I was personally attacked. It was said that I was trying to delay something, and you've said it yourself. That is not the case.

I actually moved a motion at a committee--you were not here--verbally. I did not agree that it go forward, because I thought it was appropriate for it be translated and everyone to have it. In fact, once they got it, they didn't like it, but at the time they wanted to vote yes, in favour of it.

I have not been one to be obstructive. You may not have liked the time I spent talking about what was in the act at the last meeting, and that's fair. I had three points to make. I made them. It took a little time. It is not stopping us from moving forward on this. All I was concerned about is that we heard in a logical order the witnesses we would see. That's all I wanted to talk about, Mr. Chairman, and that's why I was asking the questions: are these the only witnesses, and can we publish the other witnesses who have been asked for? That's all I want to know from this report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The answer to the question is that the report clearly addressed the witnesses for today. That's it.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Okay, so it doesn't indicate that this is the limit--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Obviously not, absolutely not. These are the witnesses for today.

I can tell the committee that numerous other witnesses have been suggested, and I invite anybody in the entire committee to submit to the clerk any suggested witness they want to have, and if there's any problem, or if any member feels that somehow the chair or anybody else is not going to call a witness they want to call, I'll happily undertake that in a meeting of the committee.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'm not arguing. I just need to know the procedure on it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's the procedure.