Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

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

Yes, I think there's a second reason why it's relevant to allow Professor Attaran to leave, and that is that he indicated to me as we were coming over from the other room that he is taking care of a mother who is indisposed and it's very difficult for him to stay at this time. If we had dealt with this as I had proposed earlier, he would have been able in fact to have gone home and dealt with his personal situation with less personal hardship. It seems to me that we could accommodate that by allowing us to hear from Mr. Esau today and Professor Attaran at a later point in time. We could easily ask him what's most convenient for him, given his personal circumstances.

That was all I had to say, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you for that information, Mr. Reid. Neither the clerk nor I were aware of it, and we always invite any witness who is invited to this committee to speak to the clerk or the chair at any time if they're finding things inconvenient or difficult--whatever the case may be--and then we'll ask the committee to deal with it. But I do thank you for that information, for what it's worth.

Can I call the question then, please? The question is on the subamendment moved by Mr. Wallace as follows: that Mr. Reid's amendment be amended after the words “in the following order” by changing the order to read as follows: one, Jeff Esau today, May 17, 2007; two, Professor Amir Attaran at the next meeting of the committee; three, the Information Commissioner...and the remainder of the wording; four, Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail; five, Jocelyne Sabourin, etc.; and, six, the final portion about other witnesses, etc.

Is everybody clear on the subamendment by Mr. Wallace?

I call the vote. I would really appreciate it if everyone would speak into their microphones and let me at least hear the votes because I had some difficulty the last time.

(Subamendment negatived: nays, 6; yeas 5)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm sorry, members, it's defeated. We are back to the amendment by Mr. Reid. Is there any further relevant and non-repetitious debate or are there any further amendments?

Mr. Van Kesteren, you'd indicated a potential amendment to the amendment.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In the spirit of goodwill and cooperation, and we've heard much from the opposite side--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Colleagues, we are going to hear Mr. Van Kesteren who's wanting to propose a subamendment, if I could just ask for some order. Thank you.

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

There are many charges on the other side that this is a routine filibustering, not taking into consideration that we have a serious issue with this amendment or the amendment that was just taken off. I would propose this amendment. I haven't had a chance to discuss this with my colleagues, except for one, but I think this is what lies at the heart of the issue.

My amendment would be that the witnesses' statements be taken in camera and that their statements remain confidential until the report is released.

Mr. Martin, it's like a sleep. It's like a birthday party. You have to wait for the next day. It's not that big a deal.

And the committee has the opportunity to examine the study before witnesses' statements are released. At the crux of this matter, we have argued repeatedly--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Just so that I understand it, you're moving that the evidence of all witnesses in the committee be in camera and kept in camera until the report is--

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

The witnesses today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The witnesses today?

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

The witnesses today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

What witnesses?

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

The witnesses who have been called, I would assume.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So this is not in order. That's why I stopped you, because this is not a subamendment to the amendment. This is an entirely new thing.

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

I thought we just--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No, we're still debating the amendment. I thought I understood you to say you had a possible subamendment to the amendment. If I was wrong, I'm sorry, but that's not in order at this time.

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

So we're still on Mr. Reid's--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We're still on Mr. Reid's amendment, and I'm calling for non-repetitious and relevant commentary.

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

And I will have opportunity to present this motion or this amendment--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

To the fourth report, assuming we ever get to it, yes.

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

All right, my apologies.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I just want to point out that it was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish in the 13 years of the Liberals, and Mr. Chair, these guys billed themselves as the most open government in history. That was how they were selling the future in the last federal election, yet they're conspiring to put a veil of secrecy on the testimony of these witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, I have to call you to order.

We're trying to move a meeting along here, and name-calling doesn't help that. The facts as they come out will speak for themselves.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, he called me McCarthy.

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No, no point of order. That's it. No.