Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think the amendment put forward by Mr. Van Kesteren is fatuous. I think it's frivolous and I think it might even be malicious and vexatious, because it's designed, clearly, to be an obstacle and a barrier to getting down to the business of this committee.

I question his motivation and I challenge it, because he, of all people, should know as a government-side member that the report everybody's making reference to is in the public domain. A stamp on the front page says, “Document released under the Access to Information Act”--a long time ago.

They're the government, Mr. Chair. For them to say we have to delay or even put a shroud of secrecy over the testimony because they haven't seen this document that everybody and their grandmother has read a dozen times--except for the government-side members--is atrocious.

Mr. Chair, this is in the public domain. Everyone should have a copy if they're paying attention to this issue. It's stamped clearly “Document released under the Access to Information Act”--.

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

Who gave it to you? Where did you find that?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Excuse me. Order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

So I would speak against Mr. Van Kesteren's amendment. I'm embarrassed somewhat that our witnesses have had to witness this debacle here today, but it was the culture of secrecy that allowed corruption to flourish in Ottawa for too long. This government billed themselves as the most open government in history, ever, and now they are trying to put a shroud of secrecy over an issue that they're embarrassed about.

While I have the floor, I will explain a bit about that. What they're really embarrassed about.... I suspect that this filibuster is being orchestrated by the PMO for the following reason: the Minister of Foreign Affairs has stood up a number of times in the House of Commons and denied that their government had any knowledge of maltreatment of detainees during the war, yet this document puts the lie to that statement.

It is not only this document, Mr. Chair; the parallel documents from 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005, and now 2006 all caution the Government of Canada that extrajudicial executions, disappearances, torture, and detention without trial are taking place among detainees in Afghanistan, and then they deny the existence of these reports. Well, we have these reports here, and we have people who are willing to give sworn testimony as to the nature of the reports and the fact that the Government of Canada told them these reports didn't exist. This is a bombshell, Mr. Chair, and that's what they're trying to avoid--embarrassment to themselves.

Without even getting into what was censored and what was not censored from the documents, the fact that they denied the existence of these documents is, in and of itself, staggering in its dimensions. With a straight face Mr. Van Kesteren and all these guys are trying to throw obstacles in the way of our committee in doing our work.

I resent it profoundly as a member of Parliament. The general public is watching this. They are running roughshod over the democratic process--not only at this committee but also, as I said, at two other committees at this very same time. All over Parliament Hill democracy is being ground to a halt.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Let's keep it relative to this motion, Mr. Martin, please.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, I'm speaking against this motion in the strongest possible terms.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Understood, but let's keep it on the terms we're discussing.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

This amendment should be voted down on the basis that it is a thinly veiled ruse to avoid the truth from breaking through and to avoid embarrassment. What they're really trying to do, Mr. Chair, by this amendment is stall and delay, hoping they will wear us down, because in two or three more meetings this Parliament will adjourn or even prorogue and this issue could be swept under the rug forever.

We have a responsibility as the freedom of information committee to ensure that does not happen. We have a profound duty. I firmly believe this is one of the most important committees in Parliament. It is a new committee. Its mandate was misunderstood and perhaps it was vague and people didn't pay too much attention to what we were doing, but freedom of information is a cornerstone of our democracy. It's fundamental and it's quasi-judicial in its importance.

Here we have the most egregious violation of the freedom of information laws in this country in history, that I've been made aware of. It is so rare to see the redacted version and compare it with the uncensored version and see just what they're eliminating. It is so rare for the government to be caught so bald-facedly denying the existence of a document. This government is clumsy in the way they treat these access to information requests.

I don't know how much longer we're going to tolerate the mischief, but it's a filibuster plain and simple, and I fully respect the right--

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, I'm sorry. There is a point of order.

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

Mr. Martin is having a good old time here taking shots at us and he's free to do that, but I don't think this is the time to do it. We're discussing a motion that has absolutely nothing to do with what he's talking about.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

I rule your point not well taken. He was addressing the issue of whether it should be in camera or not, I believe. I think there was relevance. Carry on.

I'll listen carefully, Mr. Tilson, but I can't call him to order for criticizing the government. That's just the way it is.

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

Mr. Chairman, I simply submit to you that it has absolutely nothing to do with this motion.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Wait your turn and say so in debate.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'll keep an eye on it.

Go ahead.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

You don't have the floor, I have the floor.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You do have the floor, but you address me.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Yes, Mr. Chairman, I have the floor and I'm glad to have this opportunity. I've used a lot of restraint, believe me. I have had to bite my tongue all morning, as these guys clumsily bumble along through one of the most inept filibusters I've ever had to witness.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Excuse me, Mr. Martin. There is a point of order by Mr. Reid.

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

I see Mr. Martin is referring to his own expertise at filibustering and the fact that he's had the longest filibuster, I believe, in parliamentary history.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

That's not a point of order, but an interesting point of information.

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

My point was simply, Mr. Chair, that we should oppose the amendment put forward by Mr. Van Kesteren because he's calling for a shroud of secrecy to be put over the proceedings of this committee--and that secrecy should be used minimally. We of all people, the access to information, the freedom of information committee, should be allergic to secrecy. When the word “secrecy” comes up, we should recoil with horror. We're opposed to secrecy.

The sunlight is a powerful disinfectant, Mr. Chair, and freedom of information is the sunlight of government and democracy. I've heard it said that freedom of information is the oxygen that democracy breathes--the very root, the very cornerstone, of our democracy. To hear these guys suggest that, for no good reason other than to save themselves from being embarrassed, we should put this testimony under a shroud of secrecy to buy time so that the summer recess can come along is appalling to me. I think that's reprehensible, and we should not entertain it. We should go ahead and vote in favour of the motion to adopt the fourth report and hear the testimony from these decent people who have come to give sworn testimony before us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Martin.

I have Mr. Stanton, followed by Madame Lavallée, for debate on the amendment.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

That was quite a dissertation by my honourable colleague. These were all baseless allegations. He talks in terms of upholding the important ethics and the mandate that we have been given as a committee. Mr. Chair, as I looked at the very mandate of this committee, I see we are the one committee that has to uphold those important aspects of ethics, being able to address and monitor, in fact, access to information as it relates to public office holders and the job of ensuring that access to information is provided.

The point is that Mr. Martin's allegations here are groundless. In fact, he's speaking to the point of potentially bringing insinuation on important departments of the federal government. His point is that there are departments.... We've heard significant testimony that has said it's the access to information departments that actually go through the motions of providing information that has been requested of them. They make the decisions about how that information is put forward. That process has been followed. The subject of debate here is to whether it has been followed properly.

The point of the matter here is that because of the spectacle the opposition has made of this whole process, we are taking our time to make sure this committee.... We're delving into potential issues around legality, around people's jobs and important positions in the public service, so we need to be careful. I would support my colleague Mr. Van Kesteren's motion for this reason.

My colleague across the way here in opposition suggested some shroud of secrecy. Look, all we're talking about with Mr. Van Kesteren's motion is that for the time being, and despite these suggestions that there are somehow excerpts of this report floating out in Internet space, if you will, we still don't have the darn report in front of us.

We're saying now that we're going to get this report tomorrow at Friday noon. We could have testimony here today, and Mr. Chair, correct me if I'm wrong, but I understand that when we have testimony in camera, once this threshold that has been proposed by Mr. Van Kesteren is met--and I think it's a sensible one--that the testimony provided is done in camera and we then have the information in our hands, that testimony in camera would become available. It becomes available to the public once we carry on as a committee.

This is in the same fashion, Mr. Chair, as you would undertake when we're in committee, for example, and we're considering a report. We've gone on, in some cases, for several meetings all in camera. Once the report is tabled in the House of Commons, all of the information, as I understand, that was part of those considerations becomes public, as it rightfully should.

So this nonsense about a shroud of secrecy is merely words--I was going to say words on a page--offered here in committee. It's nothing much more than editorializing, because we're talking here, Mr. Chair, about 24 hours. This time tomorrow we will have that report. Mr. Van Kesteren's proposal allows us to move ahead. I suggest that we take it in the spirit of goodwill with which it's been provided, and I support his rightful suggestion that we do just that and hear the witnesses who have come before us today.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Stanton.

I have a point of information for the committee, because Mr. Stanton used the example of our deliberations with respect to PIPEDA.

Our deliberations with respect to PIPEDA are in camera and they are never made public. The evidence of the witnesses, of course, was public from the beginning and we haven't had a circumstance yet in this committee, while I've been chair, when we've agreed to hear witnesses' evidence in camera and then to release it later. That's not to say it can't be done. I just want you to be clear that the deliberations that a committee takes in deciding the form of its report are not made public, generally. It has happened, but it's only when a committee decides that it will do so. That's just a point of information.

The other point is, as I mentioned before to Mr. Van Kesteren, that the latter portion of his amendment could be seen to be indefinite, virtually. That may not be the intent. So there may be some suggestion that there be some definitiveness to it. Perhaps members could, in their own minds, address this: if the report were to be received by the committee in both official languages on Friday, what would the mover have intended? When would the in camera evidence be made available? For example, would it then be made available at the next meeting of the committee? Or was the mover's intention then to get into a debate about the actual report and not be able to release the in camera evidence until the committee made a decision with respect to that particular report?

So I'm merely pointing out that there's some different and possible interpretations of the mover's motion and I just want members to be clear that this at least is out there. But I did want Mr. Stanton to know that we do not release the deliberations that we ourselves undertake when we're doing a committee report. Those remain private.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

We could undertake to do that if the committee so chose.