Information & Ethics Committee on May 17th, 2007

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

What I mean is this. I would be prepared after this to introduce a motion to hear from Mr. Esau today, but not from the professor today; to summon back the professor at a future meeting—indeed, to summon him back, if necessary, before the Information Commissioner comes here.

But I have to find out whether, if this motion is voted down, I'd then be able to introduce that motion. I don't know that, and that's why I'm asking this question.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

If this subamendment is accepted, its acceptance does not prevent you from making an amendment to the amendment as amended. If the subamendment is defeated, you can bring your own subamendment.

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

Which would include—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Which would include whatever you want, and we'll determine whether or not the committee would pass it.

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

I was supposing this could be considered revisiting a decision and would therefore be out of order. That's why I asked that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

No. You've made your point, and you've explained why. I wouldn't allow you to do it again, but I would rule your subamendment in order. Okay?

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

Okay, thank you.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Does anyone really want to speak any more to this, or can I call the question?

Let's make sure we understand exactly what the subamendment by Mr. Stanton says. It proposes to switch the order of calling the witnesses, so that the witnesses would be heard in the following order: Jeff Esau and Professor Amir Attaran now, followed by Mr. Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail, followed by the Information Commissioner “and such other witnesses” etc., followed by Jocelyne Sabourin, followed by “such other witnesses as the committee, as a whole”, etc.

Am I stating that correctly, Mr. Stanton?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

You're pretty close, Mr. Chair. I don't think we had a consensus to put the “now” in—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Did we not?

[Bruce Stanton, Conservative, Simcoe North, ON]

—because essentially, Mr. Chair, the way you described it, it would have that effect anyway. I'm not trying to get into trickery, but we also expect that there are some other steps we have to take before we go on to the second order of business.

I don't want to presuppose, but the way you've laid it out, we have an amendment, then there'll be a question on the main report, and then we presumably go from there.

So I think the effect of it was there; at least that's the way I understood it. I thought you spelled it out.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I misstated, then, I guess. So we're voting on the amendment as I stated it, except for the word “now”, presumably with the explanation put forward by Mr. Stanton.

We will have a roll call vote. Does everybody understand what we are voting on?

Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

I feel I have to take the floor just before we call the vote.

Mr. Stanton has just served notice that if the word “now” is in there, they don't want to support this motion, because essentially there are more items to be dealt with before we move on to the second part of the agenda.

Mr. Wallace just walked in here with his Marleau and Montpetit, a big fat volume of 400 pages, ready to launch another attack on democracy in this—

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I can't allow you to continue, Mr. Martin.

[Pat Martin, NDP, Winnipeg Centre, MB]

We should be extremely aware and keep our eyes open, because these guys clearly have mischief on their minds, and any level of cooperation now is just going to get thrown back in our face.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

You're out of order, Mr. Martin. Thank you. You're out of order.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, I have a point of personal privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There is no point of personal privilege. That's out of order.

Call the recorded vote. The vote is on the subamendment as moved by Mr. Stanton, as I stated it, without the word “now”.

(Subamendment negatived: nays 8; yeas 2 )

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We are back to the amendment that Mr. Reid moved. I'm going to ask if anyone has any comments that are relevant and non-repetitious.

I have Mr. Van Kesteren on the list. Did you want to speak to the amendment in a non-repetitive and relevant manner?

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

I guess I have a question, Mr. Chair. Should we vote on this amendment, and if it were struck down, would I have opportunity to make another amendment?

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Yes.

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

Thank you. That's all.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Peterson, did you wish to address the amendment?

[Jim Peterson, Liberal, Willowdale, ON]

No.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

All right. Then I'm going to call the question.