Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

These are not interruptions, Mr. Reid. They're side comments that I'm not listening to.

Please do carry on.

[An hon. member]

They're asides. It's like Shakespeare, but it's not Shakespeare. It's far from it.

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

Try, at least.

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

Thanks, Mr. Chairman.

Then I put down, “such other witnesses as the committee, acting as a whole and in camera, decides to call”, and I've already given the explanation of that, so I won't belabour the point. But I think we ought to be making further decisions as a whole committee on who would come as witnesses, so that we are all able to be properly apprised.

What we saw today is that we were not properly apprised of who was coming, because it was sprung upon us. It's the usual practice, but it's a practice that's inappropriate. We need to be properly apprised, so we can do proper work. This is a serious matter.

So in essence, that is what I've got down here.

Actually, I missed on my list that we should get our legal counsel, Mr. Marleau, here to advise us on what we can and cannot request, and how we ought to do it—whether in camera or in public—in order to ensure that we are respectful of what ought to remain secret, while at the same time getting full access to what need not be secret, and at no point reveal what ought to be looked at in camera. I think there is a clear distinction between looking at documents in camera, collecting them at the end, and ensuring that they not be widely revealed.... In other words, I can guess at what we can do, but it's just guesswork. I'm not a lawyer, and I'm certainly not the House of Commons legal counsel.

So those are the observations I had to make with regard to the motion, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Reid.

Mr. Marleau is not the legal counsel for the House of Commons. Mr. Walsh is the legal counsel.

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

I'm sorry, I meant Mr. Walsh. You're quite right, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I have three people on the list, but they were on the list before the amendment was proposed.

Is there anyone else who wishes to speak to the amendment?

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I followed the course of the discussion with great interest. It occurs to me that—and with the greatest respect to honourable members—this is our first piece of business on the agenda today. This is the first opportunity that we've had to see the report and consider it. And really, I certainly freely admit that this discussion is taking some time, but I think that it's perfectly appropriate.

It occurs to me, Mr. Chair, that one of the responsibilities we have as members of the standing committee is to consider the matters before us and ideally have the information in front of us before we come to a committee, be prepared to bring arguments and bring suggestions and debate and hear witnesses.

When you look at the context of this discussion, this topic that we're dealing with, this arose out of allegations that appeared in a Toronto daily newspaper. Going back to the first motion that Madame Lavallée brought forward, this point of discussion was steeped in insinuations about access being denied, much of which flowed from the very words of a newspaper article. It appears to me, Mr. Chair, that we, as a committee—and I, as a member of this committee—are treading into an area that is relatively thin from a legal perspective. There are potential complications here with references to, for example, an unredacted version of this Afghanistan report becoming available. I don't know, as a committee member, what legal implications that brings to put discussions of that nature into a public forum like this, especially now that it's public.

It also occurs to me that insinuations have been made, presumably directed towards the department, that this report was somehow denied access. I don't know what kind of implications that might bring against the individuals involved. Are we treading into an area where we might be impugning the reputation of a civil servant, a public servant, who may be in fact just exercising the course of their duties?

Mr. Chair, there are some legal questions here, and so I support the amendment. I think it's important for us to have the right context before we start going into hearing witnesses on a question. And I support the notion, for example, that.... I mean, the very first line of the motion says: “That we urgently address the internal report by the Department of Foreign Affairs”, etc. We don't have the report. We haven't seen it except for excerpts that have been showing up on the Internet and so on. I have not been able to be properly briefed and brought up to speed on this issue, except with what's essentially in the hearsay world.

Another point, Mr. Chair, is this. I have to say that as a new member of Parliament I've been amply impressed at the work that our researchers do, our analysts, in preparing information for these meetings. They've had no opportunity to prepare for witnesses and provide the proper context for the debate on this topic. This is the first time we're seeing it. We've been asked this morning, as our first piece of business, to consider the fourth report of the subcommittee on agenda and procedure.

Going back to this concern that I have about the public servants, I think it would be vitally important that before we hear from who I would say are the original crafters of the newspaper article.... Questions revolve around what information is out there. Is it legal for them to have it? What I would propose, Mr. Chair, is a subamendment to Mr. Reid's motion. And I would ask that in addition to the early witnesses on that list, before we hear the potentially volatile and/or insinuative—I don't even know if that's a word—accusations that may be directed against the public service, we understand the proper legal grounds that we're working on.

I would therefore add Rob Walsh, the House of Commons legal counsel, to the list of the witnesses, so that the committee can properly understand the circumstances, the environment we are considering here.

If I could, I would propose that as a subamendment to Mr. Reid's amendment, to add Rob Walsh, then, as legal counsel.

Mr. Chair, I think Mr. Walsh should probably come—this would be, I guess, the new item two on the list—after the Information Commissioner but before Jeff Esau and Paul Koring from The Globe and Mail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Are your comments concluded?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Stanton moves a subamendment that Mr. Rob Walsh, counsel to the House of Commons, be added as a witness after “the Information Commissioner” and that clause—because there are other words after that—and before “Jeff Esau, and Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail”.

Do I have your subamendment correctly?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It's in order.

Is there any discussion on the subamendment?

Mr. Tilson.

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

Mr. Chairman, I have a question to the clerk. Since we will be requesting legal advice.... I guess we can say the clerk was instructed to try to get a copy of the report. Can you give us any idea when that might be available for the committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The question should be addressed to the chair, and the answer is that the Department of Foreign Affairs has the English version. They're in the process of translating it. They assured the clerk that the document would be available. It was my understanding that it would be available in both official languages by today's meeting. It is not. I do not know the reason it is not available in both official languages.

When I'm saying “the document”, I'm talking about the document that's referred to in the fourth report, which is the “censored version of the report”.

Frankly, I'm a little surprised that the document has not yet been translated. I really don't understand the delay in that, and it's certainly a question that could be asked. But that's the answer to the question.

There is no question the department will provide us with a copy of the censored report, and would have provided it but for the fact that it had not been translated. We are in the process of trying to get the official translation from the department and being able to distribute it.

When we do, we'll distribute it immediately, not at the beginning of a meeting.

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

Mr. Chairman—and I appreciate what you've said—did they give you any idea when that document would be available to us?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes: before today—and it's not here. So we'll do our best to find out what the delay is.

Thank you for the question.

Is there any debate on the subamendment adding Rob Walsh, legal counsel? I'll call the question.

(Subamendment negatived)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. Dhaliwal, your name was down. Did you want to debate the amendment?

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

Do I have to say something?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

This is debate on the amendment.

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

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I had Mr. Van Kesteren before Mr. Stanton.

Did you want to debate the amendment?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Not this one. I have some other comments.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

I have Mr. Tilson. Did you want to debate the amendment, Mr. Tilson?

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

The amendment of Mr.—?