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.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Yes, and the committee has an opportunity to examine it.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
All right. Then we have to be very careful. It would read:
and that the witnesses' evidence be taken in camera and that the evidence would remain confidential until the censored version of the report is made available to the committee and
What was the last part?
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
It would be before the witnesses' evidence is released, but I think we've covered that in the first part, so that would be the end of my amendment.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Yes, but you said something about the members having an opportunity to--
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I meant until the committee has had opportunity to examine as such.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Okay. I'm going to state the motion as I think I have it. It is that the motion be amended by adding after the word “report” in the last line:
that the witnesses' evidence be taken in camera and that the evidence would remain confidential until the censored version of the report is made available to the committee and the committee has had an opportunity to examine it.
Am I correctly stating the motion?
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Okay, that's pretty clear.
I'll call on you, then, to explain, and in a relatively quick form, if you don't mind.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Very quickly, we all want this thing to move forward. We all want to get to the bottom of it. What we find objectionable is the fact that certain witnesses have been lined up so that the initial reporting wouldn't be fair to the government side. It's much the same as a court case in which there is prejudice.
I believe our biggest objection to this whole process is the fact that the very opening is one-sided, and there's evidence to that. There's evidence to that, because at the very time that we decided we were going to steer off from our privacy identification theft and we suddenly changed course, we objected to that as well.
Through the course of objection, it wasn't long before the opposition had the press here. They've taken this opportunity to embarrass the government, and we have not had a fair chance before the evidence has been revealed .
We all agree on the same thing. The biggest objection here is that we have not had ample opportunity to prepare for these witnesses and the fact that they're going to be reporting on something that we have not had a chance to look at.
I think this is a compromise and I think it's a fair compromise. It's my own; I've not had opportunity to talk to my colleagues about this. I think this could possibly be a way to get out of this, and we could go forward.
Did you hear that, Mr. Chair? I didn't think so.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I'm sorry, committee members. I had to take care of some urgent business there.
Mr. Martin, do you have your hand up to be recognized in debate?
Thank you. I'll put your name down.
I'm just going to make one observation, if I may, Mr. Van Kesteren. Perhaps you could think about it. It's about the last words: “and the committee has an opportunity to examine it”.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
We'll have opportunity to debate that. We'll have an opportunity to talk about those things, and those are the issues we might just have to fine-tune. But as I stated before, I feel that this—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
So really, your intent is that once we have that report, then the committee will discuss that report and decide where we want to go from there, and until such time as the committee makes such a decision, the evidence of these two witnesses would remain in camera and confidential.
Is that the gist of your motion?
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
That has been my motion. However, I stated that this was something I put on at the end, and I understand that it was causing consternation, and so—
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
That's why I'm bringing it to your attention. We're trying to come to some conclusion, and that pretty well leaves it open-ended. I'm not asking you to draft on the fly. Maybe you could consider what I've just said.
Conservative
Dave Van Kesteren Conservative Chatham-Kent—Essex, ON
I have considered it, and I would consider the other members' comments to the motion. If there needs to be an adjustment, I'm sure it can be made.
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Chairman, this fourth report, as it says in the preamble, was the consensus of the members present, but not unanimous. You, sir, knew that it was not unanimous, that there would be some concern expressed about this report.
I can tell you, I have maintained from the very beginning, maintained in the subcommittee—since I'm being forced to talk about what was talked about in a subcommittee meeting—and have maintained throughout all this meeting, an argument that we should have the report.
The fourth report says “begin a study of the Department of Foreign Affairs internal report”, and it describes what it is.
Bloc
Carole Lavallée Bloc Saint-Bruno—Saint-Hubert, QC
Point of order, Mr. Chairman. He has used that argument many times. He should talk about something else.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I'm going to rule the point of order not well taken, only in this sense: that the amendment talks about the committee receiving the report, and I was waiting for the honourable gentleman to tie his remarks into how that relates to the amendment. I'd ask him to do that now.
Conservative
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Yes, I'm coming to it immediately.
Mr. Chairman, since you knew that, these witnesses were called today. With due respect to you, I don't believe they should have been called today, because you knew—
Conservative
David Tilson Conservative Dufferin—Caledon, ON
Mr. Van Kesteren is trying to provide some sort of compromise with that concern: that the witnesses be heard at in camera proceedings, that their information be kept confidential until the appropriate time.
You knew that this fourth report would be debated. You knew it because it was not unanimous—you knew I was opposed to it—and yet you insisted on calling these witnesses. I'm saying, sir, with due respect to you, that you shouldn't have done that. You should have waited until this committee approved this report.
Mr. Van Kesteren—if you're asking me to tie this in—is trying to reach some sort of compromise with this thing, and I congratulate him for it. What he's trying to say, to satisfy some of the arguments that have been put forward by me and others, is that these witnesses are here—they shouldn't have been called today, but they're here—and that we'll hear their testimony in camera, and that such information would be released at a later date.
That's essentially the gist of his amendment, and I think therefore I would support it.
Mr. Chairman, you're going to have to wear the fact, with due respect to you, that you called these witnesses inappropriately. You should have waited until this report was approved. If it was going to be unanimous, you would have had a pretty good indication that it was going to be unanimous. But it was indicated that it wasn't unanimous. You knew there was going to be some dispute. You knew that I, for one, was upset with the report.
I'm sorry to take you on like this, sir, because I think you're doing as good a job as you can under the circumstances. I'm simply saying that Mr. Van Kesteren is trying to reach some sort of compromise to cooperate with the witnesses so that they can be heard today and not have to go away and come back again. I congratulate him for coming up with that suggestion.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Okay, thank you.
I am, of course, happy to wear what you expect me to wear, because the fourth report calls on the witnesses to be heard today. If we had not called the witnesses or if I had not called the witnesses and the report had passed, the witnesses would not be here, and the report would be irrelevant.
The witnesses were told that there would be a fourth report and that there was a possibility that there would be debate. But it makes no logical sense, given that the fourth report specifies a date upon which to hear witnesses, to then entertain not having those witnesses invited, and then try to pass this report--and if the report is passed, everybody says, “Well, where are the witnesses? We passed the report; Mr. Chairman, you should have invited them.”
In an abundance of caution, we invite the witnesses. If the report passes, we hear from them; if the report doesn't pass, the chairman apologizes for the witnesses being here unnecessarily. That's the rationale, and I'm happy to wear it.
Is there any further debate on the amendment proposed by Mr. Van Kesteren?
Go ahead, Mr. Martin.