Evidence of meeting #48 for Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics in the 39th Parliament, 1st session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was amendment.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I believe it went in on the day of the passage of the motion or the day after.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
That was last Thursday. The clerk was advised last week—on Friday, I believe—that the document was only in one language but that they were translating it and would provide it to us as early as possible. It was my belief that we would have it by Tuesday.
Liberal
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I cannot answer that, Mr. Peterson; I know you're asking a rhetorical question.
There were other methods we could have used, but we were assured by the department that it would provide the translated report. Now we're assured that it will come by Friday at noon. I can only assume that the committee would be very upset if, by the time we return a week from Tuesday, that document is not before us in both official languages, and we might decide to do something else. But that's a different issue.
Can we get back to dealing with this amendment and then move on, so that we can deal with what we need to deal with?
Mr. Reid, do you have any further relevant and non-repetitious arguments with respect to the amendment you moved?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
You're quite right to try to keep order here, Mr. Chair. I want to point out that Mr. Peterson's intervention when I had the floor was not really in order.
I thought his point was not inappropriate, by the way. I think—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
He was asking for a point of information. Other members have done that in the course of this debate, and I provided it.
But you have the floor, sir, so please proceed.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
He actually has a good point. I'm not sure why it takes so long—it's a good question—to translate documents. I gather it's a short report, because he's holding what looks like a copy of the entire thing in his hand.
Liberal
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes, I do.
I also have to be clear that in asking the question the way I did, and looking through it, I was not suggesting that the clerk was acting inappropriately. I think it was quite appropriate for him to go out and seek it ahead of time.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes.
We have now a situation in which, with reference even to the English-only redacted version of the report, the only documents that would provide us with—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
He hasn't even finished his sentence, Mr. Martin. I would really appreciate it.... I'm listening very carefully. Please don't interrupt, because it just drags things out.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Even for the version of the report that is currently requested by the committee, there's a copy of it that appears to be around. I'm not trying to raise the issue of whether Mr. Martin distributed it. I'm going on a different tack here, just before I get interrupted again. The—
NDP
Pat Martin NDP Winnipeg Centre, MB
You've brought him back to order half a dozen times to speak about the amendment, the amendment to the motion to concur in the fourth report of the planning subcommittee, etc., which would open the door to finally putting the concurrence motion to a vote so that we could finally hear our witnesses.
Every time you correct him, he goes back to the phantom report—and he seems to be the only guy in Canada who hasn't seen it. But that's irrelevant; that is not the subject of the debate today.
The debate is on concurrence in the report to hear these two witnesses, who have been waiting for three hours now while these guys make a mockery of Parliament. These guys are running roughshod over everything that is decent and holy about this institution, and they should be brought to task.
How much longer will we tolerate it?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I'm going to call you to order, because that's not a point of order; that is debate.
This gives them an opportunity to caucus.
I'm going to move to the next person.
Mr. Tilson.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I'd like to specifically refer to the second item of the amendment, which says that Mr. Esau and Mr. Koring appear before others; that the Information Commissioner appear first, and then those two witnesses.
I think there's sound reason for that. Mr. Esau may have written a number of articles, but the only one I can find is one he wrote way back on November 13, 2006, for the Ottawa Business Journal, which really has nothing to do with this. But he is referred to in Mr. Koring's column of April 26, where he says: At least two other complaints will be filed with the Information Commissioner. Jeff Esau, a journalist and researcher retained by The Globe and Mail, will complain that he was told in writing that “no such report on human rights performances in other countries exists.”
It's most appropriate that he come as a witness. However, he is here now, and it's most appropriate that we hear him. The only reason I can see why he's called is that he's referred to in two articles, one article of Mr. Koring's and a subsequent article.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Tilson, I'm sorry, the fourth report calls him and the amendment calls him, so it's very good that you're speaking—
Conservative
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
— but it's not relevant and it's not new, since everybody's in agreement that he should be called. The only issue is when.
We don't care how many articles he wrote. Everybody on the committee is in agreement that he should be called. The issue of the amendment is when he should be called.
Do you have anything new to say about that?
