Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

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

Yes, I do, sir. I'm trying to emphasize that Mr. Koring should be called, really, after the Information Commissioner and before anyone else.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So you're speaking against the amendment—

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

No, I'm not. Mr. Koring—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

—because the amendment lists Mr. Koring after Mr. Esau.

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

I'm calling in support of that, because I seem to be getting the impression from the opposition that they don't want him to come first. I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, that Mr. Koring should come first. He's the one who raised all these issues.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That he come first from what? What do you mean by “first”?

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

Oh, well, the Information Commissioner would be first, according to the amendment, followed by Mr. Esau and Mr. Koring together. The report doesn't say that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's true.

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

I'm saying that I support the amendment, because I believe that Mr. Koring perhaps has the most relevant evidence I've seen so far for this committee. He talks about—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I have to interrupt you, Mr. Tilson. We have a point of order.

Monsieur Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

For some time now we been talking about the order of witnesses. The Conservatives have provided us with the list of all the witnesses they would like to meet. Furthermore, it is said that any other individual could come and testify before this committee. If we know which witnesses are to come, we need only figure out who will come first and who will come second. Do we want to hear from all these witnesses? If he wants to know whether we agree on his choice of witnesses, he need only call the question. Afterwards, he can bring forward all the witnesses he wants. I don't have a problem with that, however, I would like us to call the question to find out if everyone is in agreement. If so, he is talking for no reason, because there is no problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Vincent. I'm going to rule your point not well taken, but it's the last time I will do that. I'm warning the members that if you are not absolutely relevant in your first sentence, I'm going to cut you off.

Mr. Tilson.

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

I think we are generally in agreement. My submission to you, Mr. Chairman, directly refers to paragraph (2). I am supporting the amendment. I think we all—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So you're for the amendment. Is there anything else?

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

Yes, there is.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

What is it?

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

Mr. Chairman, I believe the point about the legal issue is crucial enough that we should hear those legal people before we hear the main witnesses, perhaps after the Information Commissioner.

I would accordingly move a subamendment to the amendment, Mr. Chairman, that after the Information Commissioner we hear such witnesses as are necessary to guide and ensure the committee that it is not violating the Official Secrets Act or the Access to Information Act.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Is that not what we said earlier? Has there not already been a motion to that effect? In my opinion, we're hearing the same motions, the same themes, over and over again. We shouldn't repeat ourselves. I think that this is what someone said earlier, and that is what he is debating.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Could you repeat your wording, Mr. Tilson?

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

Mr. Chairman, I'm proposing a subamendment that would be a new paragraph after “the Information Commissioner” and before “Jeff Esau, and Paul Koring”. This would be the new paragraph (2), and the numbers of the others would then change to (3), (4), (5), and (6).

Paragraph (2) would now read:such witnesses as are necessary to guide and to ensure that the committee does not violate the Official Secrets Act or the Access to Information Act;

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Would you not consider putting that in the first paragraph? In other words:the Information Commissioner and such other witnesses as are necessary to establish which sections of the Access to Information Act may have been violated, and such witnesses as are necessary to guide the committee

etc.

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

Mr. Chair, I have no problem putting it there, as long as it's prior to—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Would it not make more sense to add it to that?

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

I have no problem with your putting it there, sir, as long as those witnesses are before Mr. Koring or Mr. Esau or the other witnesses who are referred to in the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

As I have the subamendment, Mr. Tilson moves to add, in the portion of the amendment following the words, “in the following order”, after the words “may have been violated”:and such other witnesses as are necessary to guide the committee to ensure that it does not violate the Official Secrets Act or the Access to Information Act.

Do I have your amendment to the amendment stated correctly?