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.