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.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
You want a recorded vote. Okay.
The question is, shall the ruling of the chair be sustained?
(Ruling sustained: yeas 9; nays 2)
12:20 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
The chair is sustained, so I think your remarks, Mr. Reid, about anti-democracy were premature.
You have the floor. Please be very relevant.
12:20 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you, Mr. Peterson.
What I was addressing earlier, and I realize it was the wrong place to do it, so you were quite right to—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
No, but it was the wrong place to do it, and now it's the right place to do it, to talk about looking at the individuals we're suggesting come forward. They would allow us to determine which aspects of the access to information law might have been violated, and also which aspects of the law we might ourselves, if we're not careful, violate in the process of engaging in this discussion. That is really what I'm trying to get at—and also the process by which the revelation is required to take place.
There are a number of points in the access law itself that.... It doesn't deal just with what the government is required to reveal. The law also deals with things that may be revealed under certain circumstances, and primarily that is what it is dealing with: things that can be allowed in certain circumstances, and not in other circumstances. It also deals with issues you're not permitted under this law to reveal.
Mr. Chair, I now want to get to—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Reid, I'm sorry, I'm going to stop you there, because you moved the motion; you've pointed all of this out in support of your motion with respect to why you were calling other witnesses necessary to establish which sections of the Access to Information Act may have been violated. You've made the point.
Is there anything else?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Well, I'm referring to what I didn't refer to earlier, Mr. Chairman. You can't know that without hearing what I'm going to say.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
I haven't heard anything new. That's why I'm calling you to order. Is there anything else?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Well, Mr. Chair, I'm trying to address this. What I'm pointing out here is that it actually says you are not permitted to reveal certain information. I have not said that previously.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
We haven't said this previously, Mr. Chairman. It's not old information that I've said before; it's new information.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
It's in support of the argument you've already made in so many other words. Can we get something relevant?
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
There's no rule, Mr. Chairman, that says I'm not allowed to present arguments in support of a point I have made.
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
You know what, Mr. Reid? I decide what's relevant or not, and I'm finding that your comments are not relevant to continuing the rational debate we were having—if I can call it rational. So unless you have another point, I'm moving to the next speaker.
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As we follow the course of this discussion, it becomes very clear that the opposition are not interested in seeing this order carried forward. We think we've dealt with this in a practical way to try to get the right order of witnesses, so that we can be properly informed going forward.
We've also talked about the report. You've said that we now hear we're going to have the report tomorrow. I'm also cognizant of the fact that through the course of our elongated meeting today there are excerpts of that very report being circulated, which government members certainly don't have access to. If we were going to move along here and get this amendment through and proceed with today's business, I think it would only be right that we at least have the same information in front of us as other honourable members are privy to, especially if it pertains to the topic that, as we get through these procedures, we'll be considering.
My suggestion is this. Since the point of contention is that we have witnesses here today and that we would like to see them come forward, I wonder if honourable members might consider that we move the order, such that we would put “Mr. Esau, and Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail” in first order; that we move them to the front of the pack in terms of the order of the amendment that has been suggested, followed by all the rest.
I'm cognizant of the fact that the other proposals around subamendments have not been fruitful and have not been adopted, but if we put “Jeff Esau, and Paul Koring of The Globe and Mail” in first position, that would be, I suppose, a proposed amendment to the order, a subtle change in the order of this amendment, that honourable members consider.
I would just say one other thing, Mr. Chairman. If we do this, and if we get to the point that we're going to hear witnesses today on this important matter, the government members, or any member, for that matter, who doesn't have excerpts of this report in front of them...that at the very least we all have the same information in front of us before we hear witnesses today at committee.
That's my suggestion. I indulge all honourable members, in the interest of trying to move this along. I hear the complaints from the other side, but the fact of the matter is that this is an important piece of business. There are, as we've said before, people in the public service whose reputations and whose—
12:25 p.m.
Conservative
Bruce Stanton Conservative Simcoe North, ON
Yes, I know I have, and I'm happy to remind everybody of it, but the fact of the matter is that's why it's so important.
Let's get the order right. Let's get this amendment passed and move along, with Mr. Esau and Mr. Koring in position number one, in terms of the witness order. That's my—
12:25 p.m.
Liberal
The Chair Liberal Tom Wappel
Mr. Stanton, thank you very much for your considered comments.
I can't conceive that the meeting will be orderly if members are going to be throwing out suggestions left, right, and centre and asking other members to consider them. We have an amendment in front of us with an order. If you wish to make a subamendment to change the order, such an amendment would be in order.
I remind you, though, that Mr. Koring is not here, although Mr. Esau is here and Professor Attaran is here. If you want to make a subamendment, we'll see whether it's friendly and we'll see whether people are interested in it. If you're just throwing out a suggestion, I'm afraid you'll have to have backroom talks, or whatever the case may be, because I can't just allow people to start making suggestions on the fly.
If members in general think it would be appropriate to have a two-minute or three-minute recess to see whether people could caucus and come to some reasonable conclusion—
