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
Jim Peterson Liberal Willowdale, ON
Mr. Chair, it's now been more than half an hour that we have been debating or talking about procedure. We have two witnesses here. It is absolutely unconscionable that we would not pay them the respect, because they've disrupted their lives to be here, of hearing them. In the ideal world, maybe you would have something before another, but this is still something that we can deal with. I'm ashamed to be a member of a committee that is acting this way--fighting on small procedural issues that don't go to the heart of the matter. To me, that type of bickering is nothing more than filibuster. I don't want to see that, so let's get on with the work of this committee.
Mr. Tilson has said that he wants to get to the bottom of what happened. I take him at his word. Let's see it happen.
Bloc
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
In that case, I just want to give Mr. Tilson a quick reminder.
At least three times, during the steering committee meeting, I told Mr. Tilson that the purpose of the motion was not to study the report. Yet he still claims that it is. The motion seeks to have the committee immediately consider the issue of the internal report, that it examine the issue, that we hear testimony and that we shed light on this apparent violation of the Access to Information Act.
Mr. Tilson, it is unfortunate that you are not listening to me, because I am speaking mostly to you. Since you are not listening to me, I can tell that I will have to repeat myself. In any case, you can read the “blues”.
Thank you.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I will carry on with what Mr. Peterson said, because he has life-long experience here, probably more than anyone else.
Liberal
Sukh Dhaliwal Liberal Newton—North Delta, BC
I've only been here a year and a half.
I come from a small business background. If the Conservatives ran their businesses the same way as they run this committee, I can tell you they would go broke overnight. We are running the country and we are representing Canadians.
As Mr. Tilson said, we want to get to the bottom of the report. We have two respected witnesses, Mr. Attaran and Mr. Esau. They might have some context to provide that input to us. Why don't we just leave this bickering and filibustering technique they have in every committee and get on with the work, get on with serving Canadians in a very honest and respectable manner?
Thank you.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I had asked—of course, I didn't ask as such, but I indicated my preference—for us to go in camera. Had we been in camera, I'd be able to say this with greater comfort, but I don't have that option, so I now have to say it in an open hearing with everybody here.
I'm very disturbed with the way in which the subcommittee has acted. I don't want to suggest ill will on anybody's part—I don't think that's involved—but the way it's been acting, I think, is extremely problematic. It is in effect, although I'm sure not in intention, abusive of the rights of the committee as a whole, and certainly of me as a member.
I will explain what I mean by that.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
He should be talking about the fourth report and not about what we should be doing, the way that we should be acting or what happened last week. Is he in agreement with what is written in the fourth report and with its recommendations? If he wants to speak to this, I am prepared to listen. However, if he's going to go off topic and talk about things that are not related to item 1 on the agenda, in other words, the fourth report, I would like you to call him to order.
Thank you.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I want to thank Mr. Vincent.
It was my view that he was speaking to the fourth report and indicating that he felt it was breaching members' privileges, or however you want to explain it, when he was interrupted. The more times the speakers are interrupted, the longer it will take to get through this painful exercise.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I am trying to explain the context for my concerns and therefore for why I think it would be appropriate to change the report.
The problem here is this.
Bloc
Robert Vincent Bloc Shefford, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chair. At the risk of being irritating throughout this meeting, I must clarify that it is not up to us to change the perspective of the report or explain it. I think that is clear. Is he opposed to studying the report? That is what we want to know. If he is not in agreement, that is his own business; what we need to decide today is whether or not we are going to study the report. He is entitled to disagree; in that case, he need only express his disagreement when he votes. He is saying that things haven't been done properly and they should be, that he does not feel respected and so forth, but that is only his opinion. Does he want to vote on the report? If he is opposed, he need only say nay. That's all.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I recognize that people are frustrated by the process, but the process has to be respected. And the process is that Mr. Reid has the floor. In fact, I took it that he was beginning an explanation of a possible amendment to the motion, which he has every right to do.
So let's hear what Mr. Reid has to say. I'll listen very carefully and I'll rule him out of order if I consider him to be out of order. I have done so in the past and will continue to do so when I think it's appropriate.
Mr. Reid.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
There are two basic problems here. I think we have a conflict between the two pressures that are upon us. That's not quite the right term, but one is the pressure of urgency, which is actually stated right in the motion itself—that we ought to act urgently. That means it's appropriate to try to move expeditiously.
I believe that's why, at the last meeting, I interrupted the speaker with a point of order asking about what was going on. You explained it and mentioned that there were to be witnesses here at the same time as the report.
I believe what you were trying to do, or I guess it would have been what the committee as a whole was trying to do, was cause us to move urgently and quickly. That's one thing we are trying to accomplish.
The second thing is to try to establish a clear respect for rules of order. I guess the rule of law”is not, strictly speaking, applying here, but the rule of precedent and order: doing things in an orderly manner that is going to allow us to proceed in a manner that is not an abuse of process, including an inadvertent abuse of process.
I think there is an abuse of process going on here. I think it is inadvertent and I'm trying, because we're not in camera, to emphasize that I think it is inadvertent.
But here is the problem. The first problem is the whole in camera thing: discussing something in camera and then moving to the larger committee, coming out of the in camera situation and presenting us with a report.
Mr. Peterson pointed out that we're being disrespectful of the witnesses by asking them to come here and then discussing the report. I think, with all respect to Mr. Peterson—I don't know whether he's on the subcommittee or not—the decision to invite the witnesses here, where they might find themselves unable to proceed about their normal lives, was a decision made by the steering committee, and not by a group I participated in. So I can't share in whatever guilt there is in that respect. But I think it's important to establish and move in a manner that is respectful of the rights of all involved, and of establishing a clear, coherent process.
The first problem here is with the in camera rule. The in camera rule says that what we discuss in camera cannot be divulged when we are not in camera.
I'm in another committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, which right now is discussing the problem of information that is dealt with in camera coming out when a committee is not in camera. The very act of doing what we're doing now means that information is coming out in public. There are disputes as to what went on, and there's no proof one way or the other, because we only have the word of one committee member against another committee member. We've already seen at least one dispute of that nature.
I find that very problematic. I would like to see us deal with all such future matters as the whole committee. I recognize that's—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Reid, I'm sorry. I do have to call you to order now, because I want you to address the fourth report and not the procedure of whether or not we're in camera. You've made your point clearly.
Move on, please.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
You're quite right, Mr. Chair. I've mentioned that concern. You're right; I think I've made the point there.
This is the first occasion today on which I've seen the report. When I raised the question of seeing the report at our last meeting, I was advised that it was unavailable. I think the reason was that it hadn't been translated into both official languages yet. I think that was the reason for it, although I—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Is the report you're talking about the report on DFAIT?
Is it this report?
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Yes. I didn't get a chance to see this before today.
