Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. Tilson.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just add that this is difficult. I asked that we go into in camera proceedings to discuss the business of this matter. You've made the ruling, but I don't agree with it. I respect you for it, but I can only emphasize that it's another example of why we should be discussing this in camera.

The whole idea has now come out that the subcommittee had legal advice. We had two lawyers there, giving us advice on a whole slew of matters. Quite frankly, I think it's appropriate that the committee receive that legal advice. Even with your ruling, you would agree that legal advice should be held in camera and that there might be legal questions that members of the committee will ask.

Incidentally, I'm not sure I agree with your contention at the beginning of this meeting that I can go to my colleagues and talk about what went on in that subcommittee meeting. The contents of that meeting shouldn't really get out until this meeting. The minutes should be in private session, because even now we're talking about lawyers. It has now come out that we had two lawyers come and give us legal advice, which is true. Two lawyers came and gave us legal advice on a wide range of issues. I believe members of the committee should have an opportunity to ask those same types of questions.

Mr. Martin will say I can go and tell my colleagues. Well, I'm not so sure I can do that. I'm not sure you can go and talk to your caucus about those sorts of questions. There may be other questions that members of this committee may have of those lawyers. Quite frankly, they should be asked before we hear witnesses. What rights do we have to ask certain types of questions? What are the repercussions of testimony that may be coming?

We're talking about breaching the provisions of the Information Act, and those are very serious allegations. Someone may or may not make those allegations during this committee hearing, whatever number of days they're going to last. Before we get into that, lawyers should come here, and it should be quite clear to members what their legal rights are, as members of Parliament, to pose questions and to make statements with respect to these matters.

Mr. Chairman, I quite frankly believe that before any proceedings start, before witnesses such as the professor, Mr. Esau, and the person from the foreign affairs department come, we should have a whole slew of introductory briefings before we proceed with that type of hearing. That's not being done.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'd like to address some of the comments made, first of all. I think this pertains to this filibuster, as it has been alleged.

I'd like to suggest that we were involved in an in-depth study. The honourable member across the way was saying this is a very important thing. None of us will debate that. This is an important issue, and it is something that needs to be addressed.

But I'd like to suggest that the identity theft, the issue that we were discussing before this, is coming.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I was just about to ask the question. Please get to the relevant part.

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

It has much more significance to Canadians in the long run. It might not have the news splash that this particular item has, but we need to address it. We keep hearing from the opposition side that this is filibustering, but I would like to suggest that, in a sense, the opposition has filibustered that study. Again, the far-reaching consequences to the Canadian public are at least as important as what's trying to be identified here.

I think the air has to be cleared on another thing too. At the last meeting, Mr. Wallace spoke eloquently on the motion, but it was the Conservative Party that called the vote. It was Mr. Tilson who had the floor at that time—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

What does this have to do with the amendment?

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

I just need to clear the air on a few of these things.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Unfortunately, this is not the time to do it. If you have comments on the amendment, I'd like to hear them.

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

My point is that the discussion is a protest on procedure. This is what the Conservative Party is arguing: the order of the witnesses called, before we've had an opportunity to examine the article in question, as well as officials from the government who would be responsible to it. This is highly irregular.

When I came here this morning, I was not prepared for this. I would have liked to look into the background. Who are the witnesses? Who do they work for? Are there other articles that they've written? I would have liked to re-read the articles in question. I haven't had that opportunity. To sit here and to suddenly, again....

You asked me, Mr. Chair, what relevance this has in regard to my point. The point is that the rug was suddenly pulled from under us on the last item that we were talking about, and now we suddenly have this new development. It's out of order.

I don't feel we've been given proper time, and I also would argue that the way in which we're proceeding is, first of all, not fair. It's not even fair to the witnesses. It's certainly not fair to the committee members, and I feel this is something that needs to be addressed.

Those of us on this side of the House should be able to have the same opportunity as the other side. Just because they have a majority of votes, they seem to think they can force this thing through. The whole thing is creating bad will. It's certainly not going in the right direction that everybody hopes it would in terms of our coming up with a fair and honest report. I just feel this is going in the wrong direction.

I agree with the amendments to the motion. This has to be studied in more depth.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I presume everybody's in agreement that this has to be studied more in depth.

Mr. Stanton, do you have new arguments on the amendment?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes, Mr. Chair.

As our discussion has continued along here, it has become increasingly clear.... In fact, we have the revelation that the subcommittee did have legal counsel available to it. Of course, that legal counsel has not been available to this committee. I realize and perfectly accept that my proposed subamendment to the amendment currently before us did not succeed. But the fact of the matter is, Mr. Chair, that it has now come to light that there was legal counsel involved in shaping the report and the motion before us.

Mr. Chair, that's one of the reasons I certainly support the amendment to the report, so that we can have a proper order. I would say again—and it's really a question to you, sir, and this is perhaps a point of procedure—that should we get through this, for example, and should the report then be put before the committee, there will be a decision taken. Once it's taken, are the deliberations of the subcommittee, which I understand were in camera, then made available to us? I'm thinking that in terms of the context of those arguments that the subcommittee must have considered, it would really be very helpful that we have that information available to us for the course of this study. Is that something...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I suppose the committee could decide that it would be the case, but there's nothing preventing this committee, at any time it wants, from calling any witness it wants. We don't have to decide every witness today; if we don't call witnesses today, that doesn't mean they're not going to be called. We can call Mr. Walsh and his experts at any time we wish.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

So back to the amendment in terms of our consideration, I take the mover's fifth point, that the committee, acting as a committee of the whole and in camera, may wish to call other such witnesses. But what you're saying is that we just need to propose those witnesses, that it doesn't necessarily mean they're going to be following in some order.

My point is that before we hear what I would say is perhaps the more sensational end of our witnesses on this particular subject, it's proper...and this is where I go back to my whole support, the essence of my support, for the amendment. As committee members we're not properly able to deal with this, and we need to have the benefit of the background.

Mr. Chair, with all due respect to the subcommittee, we just don't have it. We don't have the report. I've made that point again. I understand that. But in my experience, and I've sat on a number of different boards, private and public, the responsibility that you have as a committee member is that you're participating in a process to get to the essence of the information that's in front of you. You have to be well informed.

The motion compels us to look for all the consideration we need to give to the subject. The fact of the matter is, Mr. Chairman, that it has not been there. That's why I support the motion. I would also say that in the course of looking at the study, it comes as a complete surprise that we move on this today. I believe the amendment that's in front of us permits us to look at this in an orderly fashion and frankly, Mr. Chair, allows us to get back to the important work this committee already agreed to with respect to the study on identity theft.

I take the point that this was said to be urgent, that we needed to proceed on this in an urgent fashion. I believe the amendment allows us to do that, and it allows us to do that in a proper and structured way, to be able to get back to an orderly business so that we can get to the bottom of these issues, and then get back to the study that we all agreed as a committee needs to be handled in due course and as quickly as we can, and also our study on identity theft.

Again, Mr. Chair, I support the amendment. I believe it would be very unwise for this committee to proceed without proceeding in the manner proposed by Mr. Reid.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Mr. Tilson, on the amendment. New points.

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

Yes, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Chairman, Mr. Reid has clarified what he believes is the more appropriate order to follow with respect to this investigation. The report says, of course, that Mr. Esau, Professor Attaran, and Ms. Jocelyne Sabourin should appear. He has suggested that the order should be changed.

You have to remember what this is all about. This is about the allegations that really came from an article Mr. Koring wrote in The Globe and Mail, in which he alleged that the government denied the existence of this report. That's how all this happened. That's why we're debating all of this today. It's because of that allegation.

Mr. Reid has quite appropriately put forward the Information Commissioner first, ahead of Mr. Esau and Mr. Koring and the professor, in order to discuss or to explain the processes. I'm not going to go into that, though, because I've already made that submission to you.

In his second point, Mr. Reid then talks about having Mr. Esau and Mr. Koring come. Mr. Koring refers to Mr. Esau in one of his articles—and he wrote several of them. But the main point we have here, as I've said, is in an article that Mr. Koring wrote on April 25, in The Globe and Mail. To quote from his column, Mr. Chairman, it stated:Initially, [the government] denied the existence of the report, responding in writing that “no such report on human-rights performance in other countries exists.” After complaints to the Access to Information Commissioner, it released a heavily edited version this week.

That one paragraph tells me that the first person we should see is the Information Commissioner, because that's where all this started, with the allegation that “After complaints to the Access to Information Commissioner, it released...”. That's according to Mr. Koring, at least, but I don't know whether this is true. That's what he says, so we'll have to ask him about it. That's the reason Mr. Reid put the Information Commissioner forward as the first individual.

The second individual is Mr. Esau, because I gather he made an application. He'll tell us whenever he comes to speak to us.

More importantly, one of the first witnesses who should appear before us, after the Information Commissioner—which this amendment addresses—is Mr. Koring. Do you know why? It's because of this article that he wrote in The Globe and Mail.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Tilson, I have to stop you there, because it's eleven o'clock.

Is it the will of the committee to continue its deliberations?

[Some hon. members]

Agreed.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Can I have a show of hands by all those who wish to continue the deliberations?

[An hon. member]

I'd like a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It will be a recorded vote.

(Motion agreed to: yeas 12; nays 0)

It's unanimous.

We are suspended for a few minutes until we go to room 253-D, and then I'll reconvene the meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Colleagues, I'm reconvening the meeting in room 253-D, and we're carrying on.

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

I'm sorry to interrupt you, Mr. Chair, but on a point of order, in the interest of transparency, I think we should allow cameras into our hearings. I would therefore move to allow the media to bring their cameras in here too.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Just so that I'm clear, this is a room with cameras, but I don't believe there's a crew ready. You're referring to the journalists other than the House of Commons television crew, is that what you're saying?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

Yes, I am.