Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right. It may be useless, but it might give some reassurance to members who otherwise think this would not be the case.

I hear unanimous consent, so there is unanimous consent that Mr. Walsh be called.

What Madame Lavallée says is quite right, that the fourth report deals only with the witnesses for today. That's also true.

Do you have any comments, then, on the amendment?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

No. That's all I had, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your indulgence on it. I don't have anything more on the amendment at this time.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Are there any other comments of relevance to the amendment?

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Mr. Chair—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, this committee is clearly being filibustered for the second time recently.The official languages committee has now shut down because of government mischief. There is another committee, procedure and House affairs, that is being filibustered and shut down.

In other words, democracy is grinding to halt all over Parliament Hill. This Parliament is out of gas.

My point of order is this. I need to ask the clerk for his legal opinion, but at what point does this become a constitutional crisis needing the Governor General to intervene? If the government refuses to let Parliament do its work in a consistent pattern all across Parliament Hill, are we not in a constitutional crisis, where we're being denied our right to govern as the Parliament of the day? it's a technical question to our clerk.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, it's not a question to the clerk. It's not a point of order. It's a point of debate, clearly.

We are exercising democracy, because we are following the rules of the committee, and every member is entitled, subject to limitations on irrelevance and repetition, to address the motion.

I've already warned people that I'm going to be very strict on relevance and repetition on the amendment.

Mr. Van Kesteren.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I think this is relevant. I beg the committee's indulgence. In our haste in moving, I left the amendment.

Can you please repeat the amendment and repeat it slowly, so that I can at least pen this down? I don't know whether others have had the same problem.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The amendment moved by Mr. Reid is to insert—you have the fourth report in front of you—after the word “appear” in the fifth line, the following, and I'm going to ask my researcher and clerk to correct me if I'm misstating it, please:

in the following order:

(1) the Information Commissioner and such other witnesses as are necessary to establish which sections of the Access to Information Act may have been violated;

(2)—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Mr. Chair, on a point of order, for the record, I want to formally object to this delay, this obvious delay, in that this is an amendment put forward by his own colleague, who is sitting right next to him. Why should he have to burn up the time of this committee while we dictate, agonizingly and painfully slowly, letter by letter, the amendment that they moved?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Martin, that's not a point of order.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

Well, it's a point of frustration.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It's a point of frustration, but it is true that—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I don't know how much more of this I can take, frankly.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I guess you'll have to decide that yourself.

It was moved today. It was handwritten today. It was only in one official language. And I did read it.

If you don't mind, let me.... By the time I finish my remarks, I could have read it to him.

It continues:

(2) Jeff Esau, and Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail;

(3) Professor Amir Attaran;

(4) Jocelyne Sabourin from the Department of Foreign Affairs; and

(5) such other witnesses as the committee, as a whole and in camera, decides to call.

[An hon. member]

Can we add to that—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No, that is the amendment that has been moved.

I have read it. This is the second time I've read it in full. Do you have any relevant and new commentary on it?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Just as a point of clarification again, Mr. Chair, at this point can we make amendments to this...?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You can move an amendment to the amendment.

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

Okay. I'd like to follow up where Mr. Tilson was going. He and I were discussing it beforehand.

It's obvious that we have a disagreement as to the procedure. We feel on the government side that this was sprung on us. We also feel that we have no objections to looking into this matter, but obviously the outcome to any conclusion, or at least reporting to...whatever that procedure is, is very important. Thus we have argued, right from the beginning, that we take issue with the fact that if the witnesses who have been called have not, at the least, been called according to a wrong procedure, we haven't put proper protection in order.

When I say “protection”, I'm talking about the fact that we're dealing with something that, as far as we know, is alleged. The reason I needed to have this thing read to me again was to see at what point we can interject the suggestion or the amendment that we first of all have before us the documentation.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We're not going to go there again. I've already told Mr. Tilson he can move an amendment. I do want to say that the most recent, up-to-date information I have on this is that the committee would have the censored report in both official languages by noon tomorrow. That's what we're told. That's all I can tell you.

Whether or not it's worthwhile doing that motion is another issue. Do you have any comments on the amendment?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I do. I think if that's the case, if we cannot have that information, then I would like to see—and perhaps I can just talk to some of my colleagues before this—some type of interjection into this amendment, so that witnesses, or information brought forward by the witnesses, reflect what the committee finds after we have a chance to study this report.

I just don't think it's fair that witnesses—not only is it not fair, but it's not prudent—can make statements without at least having the very basis of those statements in front of committee members.

So is there a possible way that we can interject—

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

On a point of order, Mr. Chair, on the matter of relevance, there is absolutely no precedent that we have to have circulated to the committee documents outlining what a witness is going to tell us in advance of that witness giving testimony.

Mr. Van Kesteren is making stuff up to stall and delay this committee. Show me any committee where we anticipate what a witness is going to say and then don't let him testify until such time as we've circulated everything he's going to say in both official languages to this committee. It's laughable.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Again I rule your point not well taken. I think what Mr. Van Kesteren is saying is that in his view it would be prudent to have the report before we proceed with any witnesses.

But then, that's not relevant to the amendment, because it's not mentioned in it.

By the way, witnesses do not have to provide a written statement or any statement before they come, and they can say what they want. I don't think it's fair to the witnesses to presuppose what their evidence will be. We'll hear what their evidence is and we'll decide at that time whether it's relevant. We can assess what weight we want to put to hearsay, or whatever the case may be.

So I ask again, are there any comments relevant to the amendment, Mr. Van Kesteren?

[Dave Van Kesteren, Conservative, Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON]

I will be speaking to my colleague beside me. I really think we can make an amendment here that even members on the opposite side could agree to too. Although we've been accused repeatedly of filibustering, we really feel that we have a legitimate case here—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You may feel that way. It will be decided upon through a vote. And yes, you can have discussions with colleagues. I'm asking you if you have any specific comments on the amendment that you have not already addressed.