Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Order.

We're back with Mr. Tilson.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

This is the fourth report: “That, the Committee begin its study of the Department of Foreign Affairs internal report, “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights” in relation to Access to Information requests for the document...”.

That's why the two witnesses have come to us, I assume. I don't know, because I don't know what they're going to say. I trust they were going to say that the procedure hasn't been followed with respect to this report. The report says that we're going to begin the study of the report.

I believe that you and the clerk have done all you can to get this report to us this morning. It's not your fault, but it's not here. I don't know what questions to ask these witnesses until I've seen the report.

It's not part of the amendment—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Excuse me. Could you please keep it down, committee members.

I'm listening to the debate.

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

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.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you very much, Mr. Tilson.

Is there further debate on the amendment of Mr. Reid? Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

This party on the other side—whatever you want to call it: the Alliance, Reform, or Conservative Party—spoke of the importance of transparency and accountability. Here we are on this issue of great importance to Canadians, and all they have been doing in this committee is blocking, filibustering, and stalling at every opportunity they get. It is disgraceful that we have two advocates for freedom of information who have worked long and hard to get to the truth of this important issue, for access to the information about Afghanistan, and this is the issue this government would like us to lose sight of.

That is disgraceful, and it is a black mark on democracy—not on the words of the report.

I would request that all members, especially Mr. Tilson.... You have been in this committee long before us, and you should get on with it.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Just your remarks, please.

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

I'm sorry, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Chair, through you to Mr. Tilson, because he is the senior member on this committee, he should advise his colleagues to get on with it and get the transparency. They've lost this concept of transparency and accountability so soon.

I had the report. I knew who was coming to this meeting, and I'm fully prepared for it.

Mr. Tilson is saying, Mr. Chair, that he's not prepared. I don't think that is the excuse. I'm fully prepared with my questions to these fellows. I haven't met those fellows before; I haven't read what they're saying. But this is all about access to information. We cannot block this.

It is a black mark on the democracy. That's what I would say.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Dhaliwal, for the brief remarks.

Is there any further debate on the amendment of Mr. Reid?

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Let's talk about accountability. I'm glad my colleague from the other side raised it. Part of the accountability we have, especially on this committee, is to be responsible for understanding what topics we have in front of us. This is the first time we've had this report, this agenda in front of us today.

I suppose the subcommittee voted to have witnesses appear on the same day. All we have had in preparation for today's meeting is newspaper articles.

Madam Lavallée circulated the one on the topic of our meeting last Thursday, and we had another one from several weeks ago that seemed to instigate this whole series of discussions.

There is nothing more important for this committee than to get to the bottom of the issues at hand here. My hope is that as committee members, we find that the proper protocols of access to information have been followed to the T. But the fact remains, Mr. Chairman, that we do not have.... I know it's your committee.

The report here says that we'll request a copy of the Department of Foreign Affairs copy of the censored version of the report. You've indicated verbally that that report was supposed to be here today. To this date, I have not received a copy.

I'm also moved to consider the whole topic of the unredacted version. As committee members, how can we properly devote ourselves to this discussion without understanding the context of what raised the issue here, which were two points: first, there were allegations that initially the report was denied, and second, somehow a newspaper has an unredacted version.

How are we, as committee members, supposed to understand the context of our gathering evidence, as the motion says here, to consider the matter? How am I, as a committee member, supposed to consider the matter when I don't have the redacted version of the report?

To be honest, I don't know what procedures would have to be in place for us to see the unredacted version, but are we to rely on the opinions of just the journalists of our world? I mean no offence to journalists; they perform an important role in providing information to the public. But at the end of the day, our responsibilities go beyond that. We have to get to the facts around this particular issue. How are we to understand the context of this report without seeing the differences?

Perhaps I'll put the question to you: procedurally, how is that to happen? I do this in the context of the reason I say all of this. I'm supporting the amendment. I'd like to have the report in front of me, or at least have a day to have a look at it before we go and start hearing witnesses.

Second is that we have the information in front of us that we need to consider. Is there a way we can get the unredacted copy? Is this something the subcommittee considered?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'm going to answer it this way. We're debating the fourth report. There's no mention of the redacted version in the fourth report. There's no mention of the redacted version in the amendment, so I'd like you not to refer to it anymore.

From the procedural point of view, there may or may not be an opportunity for us to get the redacted version. That is not part of this debate, and it would obviously form part of decisions that we may take in the future, once we've heard evidence from other people. Then the committee would decide what, if anything, it would want to do to try to get the pure version, if I can put it that way, of the report.

There are varying legal opinions as to what the committee can get and how they can get them, but that's not the subject matter of this report, nor the amendment.

Do you have any further relevant comments to the amendment?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I do, Mr. Chair, to follow up and say that that's why I support the amendment. I believe that the amendment brings a proper and orderly course to this discussion, to this gathering of evidence, as we say.

Notwithstanding what's been said across the way, I think we need to get to the bottom of this issue. We need to get it properly done. But for the sake of what appears to be expediency on some members' parts...we have to do this right. We have to be well informed. I'll say it again: the researchers and analysts have not had a chance to take a look at this. They presented us with nothing.

Here we are called to a meeting, we see this report for the first time, and you want to send us in to see witnesses. All we've seen are newspaper reports. That's the only thing that has been available to us to get properly prepared.

Again, I say that I would be loathe to get into this rather contentious issue without having the proper background and the information that I need as a committee member to properly exercise my responsibility.

So I support the amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Is there any further debate on the amendment?

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My earlier questions to you went to this exact point, where I thought we should be listing out more witnesses we wanted to see. I appreciate my colleague putting it forward as an amendment.

Comments have been made about trying to see people in an orderly manner; and let's be frank, we're not trying to avoid anything. The witnesses we have here today are listed in the amendment, Mr. Chair, and we just want an appropriate order for them to be seen.

I was a little surprised that the subamendment did not pass, that the committee did not want legal advice on what they can and cannot receive, do with it, and so on.

So the motion goes to my earlier point, that other names have been submitted. There is a process of how an ATI request is handled, and why we're not dealing with it in the same manner, so that we have a logical, step-by-step approach to this issue.

It had been mentioned, and I think it's only fair to say, that my colleague from the Liberal Party gave us a bit of a lecture on this amendment, saying that it isn't transparent. In fact it's more transparent. It lists everybody we want to make sure we see, and it is in an orderly fashion.

Yesterday I was at a committee, Mr. Chairman, where the Liberal chair slammed the gavel and walked out because he didn't like the Conservative motion, and the committee ended. I don't know how transparent that was.

I know that last week the Liberal Senate committee passed something in 43 seconds, because they made sure it happened when the Conservatives weren't in the room. So transparency is not the issue.

In actual fact, the amendment is more transparent than what we have, because I didn't know who else we were inviting. It lists in order who we'd like to see, and why that order would be so, as explained by the mover of the motion. I don't know why we're not moving ahead on this.

I'm also going to ask for a recorded vote on this amendment, if that's possible. The recorded vote is reasonable in that it would show the members of the committee who are supportive of who's coming and those who aren't.

I should have asked for a recorded vote on the legal advice, because I think it would be shocking to most people that the committee doesn't want to see any legal advice on an important issue to the committee—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I have a point of order.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I suppose it's a point of order to clarify some misrepresentation that Rob Walsh, the chief legal counsel for the House of Commons, and Greg Tardi, his right-hand man, sat with us for the entire planning committee meeting and answered a great many questions regarding the legal aspects of interviewing the witnesses scheduled for today.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I wasn't at that meeting.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Wallace's representative was at that committee.

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

How are we supposed to know that?

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You have the lawyer who was representing you at that planning committee sitting right next to you right now, for God's sake. Don't you guys ever talk?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, please. It's not a point of order; it is a point of clarification. You did clarify it.

It's also incorrect, in my view, for Mr. Wallace to characterize a vote against the subamendment as a decision by the committee not to seek legal advice.

In any event, go ahead, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I appreciate your view on that, but one of the witnesses was for legal advice from the House. It did not pass. So if there's another way we can get legal advice that I don't know about.... As Mr. Martin knows, I was not at that meeting. I did not get that legal advice, so he can say that another committee member was there, but....

So I was not opposed to getting that legal advice. The issue is, are we doing it in the right order? That's all this is. Are we being transparent by letting everybody know who we're calling and when?

This amendment would also allow us to properly plan the panels that would come, so that we would deal with the Information Commissioner and the individual from the department, mentioned in today's amendment, in a manner where we're not pitting them off against the other. But we would allow a very professional approach to this item.

So I'm supporting the amendment that's in front of us. I'd like to see a recorded vote on it. I think it's important that the public knows where we're going.

I would like to be able to ask questions of the individuals who are listed here. Based on what's in front of us in the fourth report without the amendment, I'm not sure there is another meeting. It doesn't say anything about future meetings; it just talks about this particular meeting.

Through the amendment, this would indicate that there would be future meetings and other witnesses coming. Obviously those witnesses aren't here today. They probably would need proper notice to get here. One witness who we thought might be here isn't going to be here.

Those are my comments. I'm supporting the amendment, and I'm going to be calling for a recorded vote.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you. There will be a recorded vote, Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Thank you.