They don't care; they don't listen to what we say anyway.
I'm simply saying that I want to be able to ask these witnesses proper questions. I don't know about the opposition, but certainly on this side, we try to find out the topic, the area of their expertise. We have some idea of what these two witnesses are going to say; they've been in the newspapers.
Quite frankly, I didn't know they were coming this morning. I know you and I have disagreed on that, but I'm going to say that. Certainly other members of the committee, opposition and government, didn't know they were coming this morning. They all want to prepare for it too.
We have an obligation as members of Parliament, as members of this committee, to be as fully prepared as we can when witnesses come. Otherwise we have to listen to what they say and have them come back again. Our job is to prepare, and I haven't had an opportunity to prepare.
One of the ways in which I want to prepare is with respect to this report. I want to be able to look at the report and read it, so I can ask the appropriate questions to these two witnesses, who I assume have seen it, but maybe they haven't seen it. Maybe this is the one they were saying they weren't allowed to see. I don't know, but at least I want to be able to see it, so I can try to ask reasonably intelligent questions. Now, if they come this morning and give evidence, I'm asked to ask questions about a report I haven't even seen. I haven't even looked at it.
Yes, I've seen the two sections in The Globe and Mail, and that's all I've seen. I don't even know whether that's the report. That's what The Globe and Mail says is the report, but maybe it isn't. I want to see the official report before I ask these witnesses. I think that starting these proceedings at this time is inappropriate without getting the report.
Also, Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reid has quite appropriately listed the Information Commissioner. The Information Commissioner is the expert. We did talk somewhat during the estimates, there's no question about that. We talked about this subject during the estimates, but I think that before we can ask appropriately intelligent questions of any other witness—whether it be from the staff in Foreign Affairs, someone from The Globe and Mail, Mr. Esau, the professor, or whoever—Mr. Marleau and his staff should come and give us a full briefing as to this situation and how we should conduct ourselves.
Mr. Chairman, it's appropriate that it be made quite clear by this committee that it's not going to be just exclusive to names that come out of the subcommittee. There may be other names, but we haven't had an opportunity to put those names forward. We haven't had an opportunity to determine the order of those names, because all of a sudden—slam, bang, boom—this report comes to this committee.
There may be other names as a result of the report that the committee may wish to put forward, ahead of Mr. Esau's name and ahead of anyone else.
The committee surely has some control. Surely they have not signing everything over to the subcommittee. The purpose of the subcommittee is to debate in camera, listen to legal advice—and we did get some legal advice—and other matters. That's the purpose. The subcommittee doesn't decide what happens in this place. This committee hopefully rules its own house.
Mr. Chairman, I would encourage members of the committee to support the amendment of Mr. Reid.