Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

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

That's why I'm asking for your assistance. I quite frankly support the order, and I'll try to translate it without looking at any pieces of paper.

What I'm trying to say, Mr. Chairman, is that in addition to this order that Mr. Reid has suggested, I believe that before those witnesses appear, or before that order or procedure that he has suggested, the committee members are able to receive and consider—and I use those words—the report.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Given that, I don't think I can logically fit it into the amendment, because the amendment talks about people who are to appear. Your amendment would suggest that we consider something before people are to appear.

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

That's exactly what I'm doing.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Right, so I think you will have to bring that as an amendment, not as a subamendment. There's no problem with your doing that.

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

I will abide by your wishes, Mr. Chairman, but I hope you will give me an opportunity to make that amendment at the appropriate time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Certainly. Yes, I shall. Thank you.

We're still talking about the amendment. I'm asking if there is relevant further debate that we have not heard from members who have already spoken on the amendment.

Mr. Dhaliwal, do you have any comments that we have not already heard?

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

I've already mentioned everything.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm sorry, but I just had to come here in the same process as we all did. I wound up having a chat with the media, and it's left me a little befuddled. I apologize for that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I can come back to you a little later, so that you can have a few minutes to think.

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

Actually, I'd appreciate that, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I do have two other people.

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

Yes, let's do that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Again, I'm reminding everybody: relevant and not already stated.

Mr. Stanton.

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I'm going to talk around a topic that I have already broached, but I'm going to propose this in the form of a subamendment to Mr. Reid's amendment.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is it a subamendment to the amendment?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Perhaps you can help me to achieve this. I'm perfectly cognizant of the subamendment to Mr. Reid's amendment.

You mentioned the information that's available from the subcommittee, with respect to the legal context that the subcommittee was privy to but we were not. In consideration of that, I would propose that we add to the list of witnesses, after the fifth point, which reads, “and such other witnesses as the committee, acting as the committee of the whole and in camera”, in that we express the notion that the committee should also have available or distributed to it the text, the blues, or the minutes of the legal context that the subcommittee had access to in respect of these discussions.

In other words, we've heard that Mr. Walsh and one other representative of the House of Commons legal counsel had that. I respect the fact that the committee has decided it doesn't want legal counsel as part of our group of witnesses. Moreover, we've left that option open to us in the future, but not in the order that I proposed earlier in a subamendment.

Granted that, would it be possible that, at the very least and in addition to the order that has been proposed, we compel the subcommittee to release to us the information that was available to it from a legal point of view? I would say again that I believe it is important for us to have that proper context. Could we therefore add that as an additional item?

The amendment, in fact, is basically mapping out for us a course or a direction, if you will, as to how we're going to proceed on this important topic in order to get to the root of the issue. I believe that's an important piece of the puzzle. If we don't need a witness in there or if the committee doesn't want a witness in that order, then let's have the information available to us, at the very least.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Before I get to your subamendment, let me just speak to the committee as a whole. First of all, there's nothing preventing this committee from calling Mr. Rob Walsh at any time they want. Of course, if we pass this amendment and we subsequently pass the motion, we'll have to follow the order, but that does not preclude our calling anyone the committee wishes to call at any time.

So I don't think committee members should be concerned that they're not going to hear from the legal counsel if they don't deal with it today. That's just, in my view, a straw man.

I want to assure the committee that as the chair, at the request of any member of the committee, I would be very pleased to seek the unanimous consent to call Mr. Walsh, and if it were not forthcoming, then we'd get into debate about it. But the point is that there should be no fear on that score.

The clerk advises me that the normal procedure of in camera meetings—this is the normal procedure, but we of course are the masters of our own home—is that any members who wish to review the in camera evidence of the subcommittee can go to the clerk's office and review that evidence at their leisure, but they are not allowed to make copies or notes. That's the normal procedure.

Now, if the committee were of the view that they wanted to distribute the minutes of the subcommittee meeting to the regular committee, then the committee could agree to do so. I would urge that if we do it, we all agree that the evidence remain in camera. If the committee wishes then to agree to the contrary—that the evidence of that meeting will no longer be in camera—the committee has the power to do that, but I don't think that would necessarily be wise.

What I'm saying is, first, that it is already within the purview of members of Parliament of this committee to visit the clerk and review the evidence that was heard and the discussions that took place and the statements that were made by the parties who were there; and second, that there is nothing precluding the committee from calling witnesses who perchance aren't listed here. Mr. Reid was very careful to craft his motion in such a way as to allow other witnesses to be called, in at least two of the five points that he has listed.

Given that, I'm going to say that your suggestion for a subamendment would not be in order, because the amendment talks about witnesses, and calling witnesses in a particular order, and looking at the evidence of the subcommittee is not witnesses.

I make that comment to the committee as a whole, hoping that we can move on with the understanding that there's nothing secret from the committee. If the committee wants to see what happened, they can go to the clerk's office and take a look at it.

Do you have any further relevant comment on the amendment?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

I would say, Mr. Chair, that I appreciate the clarification. I think it comes as important information that we know we can at least have access to that information.

I don't know whether this would be in order, then. I know we're in the midst of discussing an amendment, but can we ask, then, for unanimous consent to have Mr. Walsh or legal counsel from the House of Commons appear as a witness at this committee?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Normally I would say yes, but we had a subamendment by you to put his name into the amendment, and it was defeated, for whatever reason. So I'm going to suggest that we not.... I suppose I could ask.

Is there unanimous consent to have...? What was it you were asking unanimous consent for?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

It was that legal counsel from the House of Commons, namely Rob Walsh, appear before the committee as one of our witnesses.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Is that at any time, and not at a specific time?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

Yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Would there be unanimous consent of the committee to have Mr. Rob Walsh appear at some point during our deliberations before our committee? Is that clear?

I don't want to get into a big discussion about it; either it's yes or no. I guess Mr. Stanton is seeking assurance of the committee that Rob Walsh, our legal counsel, would be a witness before our committee. Is there unanimous consent that at some point during our deliberations on this issue we will call Mr. Rob Walsh?

Is anybody opposed?

[Carole Lavallée, Bloc, Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC]

I just want to make one comment. Naturally, I will be voting in favour of this motion, but the fact remains that if we have witnesses... According to the spirit of the fourth report and the deliberations of our steering committee, we would begin by hearing from these witnesses, but there would others. The word “begin” is important, in the text of the fourth report. We know how it works. When we want to hear from witnesses, we need only give the name to the clerk. We don't need to get unanimous consent. I will be voting in favour, but I find this procedure useless.