Information & Ethics Committee on May 10th, 2007

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

Yes, it's a point of order. In fact, the point of order is that Mr. Wallace did not respect the civility of this place in calling...when I did not have any dealing....

In fact, if a member comes to me and says they're going to bring in a motion, they have every right to bring in a motion, and I have no problem with that, but there was no commitment, and Mr. Wallace did not approach me at all with his motion since that meeting. I only saw the motion that Mr. Wallace brought in when the clerk handed the motion to me.

I think Mr. Wallace should apologize for his act, to respect the civility of this place.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Dhaliwal, you were speaking to me on a point of personal privilege, as opposed to a point of order, and you've made your point. I'm not quite clear on exactly what your point is. I could be wrong, but I don't recall Mr. Wallace saying anything on the record about you, though I may have to review the blues. He may have, but I just don't recall anything.

What is it that you think he said on the record? I can't do anything about things that may have been said in the hallway, or anything, but do you recall anything he said on the record that you feel he should apologize for?

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

Mr. Chair, I mean—

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'd like to respond.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Wallace, did you want to respond?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Sure.

I appreciate his point of personal privilege. If he was offended by me when I talked to him in the hallway afterwards, I'll apologize if I offended him, but sometimes the truth hurts.

I just want to point out to the member opposite that I actually read the motion into the record at the last meeting. He may not have seen it in writing, but he heard it. I read it twice. It's in the record, in the blues, and they were calling for us to vote on it at the time, and I said, no, because I thought it needed to be in writing and to be translated.

So I am opposed a little bit to his comment that he didn't hear or know the motion. I, actually, as a member of the committee—which I think is appropriate—favour doing it in writing, instead of just reading it out and maybe having it misinterpreted. And that's what I did.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you for apologizing for any perceived slight in the hallway. You are correct that the motion was read into the record, because I was briefed on this and know that it occurred.

Now, Mr. Tilson, do you have another point of order?

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

I just want to be clear, Mr. Chairman, on what you said. If we can't get the report from the ministry, are you going to go to some professor and get the report from him?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We'll discuss what we do and how we do it when the motion passes. The motion is currently—

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

If it passes, indeed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes, if it passes.

We have to discuss how to “urgently address”, and in what manner to “urgently address”, the matter and how to gather evidence. I'm not going to entertain discussion of that unless and until the motion passes.

We are on debate on the motion as amended. Is there any further debate on the motion?

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I still have the floor, do I not?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes. It was a point of order. You are right, sir.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Why I continue to read parts of section 15, related to the motion in front of us, is that I would like you to consider the point that as a member of Parliament I'm willing to look at documentation that is obtained legally, but I'm not sure how as committee members, with a sworn oath, we can look at illegally obtained information.

I'm not asking you to rule on that, but it's for your information for future discussions.

Paragraph 15(1)(f) reads:

on methods of, and scientific or technical equipment for, collecting, assessing or handling information referred to in paragraph (d) or (e) or on sources of such information

Let's be honest about this. Chances are that the methods or scientific equipment piece are probably not in the report on good governance and democratic development, but I don't know that because I didn't have it.

But I'll concede that this is likely not one of the areas that might have required the ATI staff member to remove that information. This is what that person does in every single department, not since we've come into government in 2006, but since the inception of the act. There have been ATI people in departments looking at the information that's being requested, and they decide whether those exemptions apply, based on the legislation that was duly passed by the House of Commons with all 13 exemptions.

Then there is an appeals process, if you didn't like the answers you received or how the document looked. That's why it goes to the Information Commissioner. They get to look at it in its complete form. They get to decide, and then if you don't like what the commissioner has to say about it, you can take it to Federal Court.

That's what the Liberal Party did with 51 cases, and they lost 49 of them. The commissioner won those 49, to the credit of the person doing the work. Let's be honest, if you look at those cases, they may be changing a sentence or a word. “May”, or “not”, or something was blacked out, but now that word is available. It's not like the whole document becomes completely accessible, but often parts become accessible. Often they work with those organizations that put in the request to make sure they get the information. But it does happen, and we should be waiting for the commissioner to rule on this particular case before going any further.

There is paragraph 15(1)(g):

on the positions adopted or to be adopted by the Government of Canada, governments of foreign states or international organizations of states for the purpose of present or future international negotiations

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Vincent has a point of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Excellent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chairman, I am wondering whether we are really debating the substance here and if Mr. Wallace is not, in fact, trying to prepare future meetings by discussing who should appear and who should not appear before the Committee. I thought he was talking about an amendment to the motion earlier. I believe we need some clarification here. He is really just preparing subsequent meetings.

If he wants to do that, I have no objection. We have only to vote on the motion. We could discuss future meetings and who we will invite or not invite to appear. Today, we are not supposed to be planning our future meetings; we are supposed to be voting on the motion. If he wants to speak to the motion and debate it, I have no objection, but I think you should call him to order and ask him to make his comments more specific.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent.

I don't rule your point well taken.

Mr. Wallace is debating the motion and speaking against it, so he is pointing out the various reasons why he believes the committee should vote against the motion, including the points he's making with respect to the act, the difficulty of obtaining evidence, etc.

I rule that perfectly acceptable debate on the motion, and I rule your point not well taken.

Mr. Wallace, you have the floor.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.

This is to the point that Monsieur Vincent was making. I do not have an amendment on the floor, of course, but I may bring notice, as I think should be done, in both English and in French, on a motion to deal with other items dealing with the list of crown cases initiated against the Information Commissioner. That may come, but maybe not today because I want to make sure.

I'm really focusing today, Mr. Chairman, on the motion that's been amended and that's in front of us that deals with the report.

I was on paragraph 15(1)(g), and the report clearly stated--Afghanistan 2006. I'm not sure if there's an Afghanistan 2005, 2004, or 2003, but the title is Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights.

Look at paragraph 15(1)(g). It says:

on the positions adopted or to be adopted by the Government of Canada, governments of foreign states or international organizations of states for the purpose of present or future international negotiations;

Clearly the individual in the department who has the sole responsibility to respond to ATI requests could have looked at that area and said: “Look, some of that information provided in that report deals with future negotiations that we may have with Afghanistan. It has a relevance that has a detrimental effect to either the Government of Canada's position or the position of Afghanistan.” So they could have blacked that out for the purpose of making sure that those intentions stay intact and that no one is injured by that.

Of course, we don't know that, because we haven't heard from the appeals to the Information Commissioner, which in my motion, if it would have passed, would have been the appropriate time to deal with that. We would have then had full information and a full set of witnesses who would have been able to speak freely on the actual request, the actual appeal, and what the decisions were and why they weren't.... So paragraph 15(1)(g) could have been clearly one of the areas they could have worked on.

Paragraph 15(1)(h) reads:

that constitutes diplomatic correspondence exchanged with foreign states or international organizations of states or official correspondence exchanged with Canadian diplomatic missions or consular posts abroad;

Let's be clear, there could have been information that would have been in that report, which I have not seen, that would have been blacked out. That official correspondence or information that would have had an effect on our diplomatic mission or our posting in Afghanistan could have been one clear reason why the ATI person in this department made the decision that it was in the best interest of Canada, which is clearly allowed in the act under “Exemptions” under “International affairs and defence”. It is actually our responsibility to make sure this doesn't happen. It's not done carelessly, and we will work on the assumption that maybe that's why that person didn't do it.

I think this is important. I know you're thinking I'm taking up time here, but I want to make sure that everybody around this table has an understanding of some of the sections we're dealing with. I can guarantee you--

[Carolyn Bennett, Liberal, St. Paul's, ON]

You could have had the study done by now.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Before the--

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

It's because you have nothing to say.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I like being interrupted. Sometimes it's difficult, but that's okay.

Before we're able to decide on these things, we're moving ahead because we haven't had it. So I think it's an important educational piece, to make sure that everybody understands the 13 exemptions that are allowed, the 13 clauses that are allowed in the process, and if and when witnesses are called, that we are well-educated and have a clear understanding of what the legislation has to say and the grounds on which the ATI officer and the Information Commissioner operate.

These are important issues they would be considering on a daily basis. Think about Foreign Affairs. This is not the only ATI request that Foreign Affairs gets in a year. It is likely—and I'm just making an educated guess—that Foreign Affairs gets one of the highest volumes of requests of any department on these issues. I'm guessing there are organizations, individuals, universities, professors, and non-governmental organizations asking for information from Foreign Affairs on a daily basis at a very high volume. Based on these first few things I've read, I'm guessing the ATI individual rules a number of areas are not able to be released to the public, and they get blacked out for good reason.

So let me continue, Mr. Chairman.

Paragraph 15(1)(h) of this act states:

that constitutes diplomatic correspondence exchanged with--