Information & Ethics Committee on June 12th, 2007

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

As I understand it, your motion does not include a date. First we are going to vote on the principle and then we will talk about dates and about what we will do if the House is sitting and if it is not. Is that correct?

In that case, I am voting for your motion, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Okay.

Of course I can't move anything, but let's deal with Mr. Wallace's motion. Can we agree that we will invite the deputy minister to appear at our next meeting? And we're talking about the Deputy Minister of DFAIT.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

I'll move that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Thank you, Mr. Wallace.

(Motion agreed to) [See Minutes of Proceedings]

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

So that takes care of that.

Mr. Pearson will move, and I'm going to repeat it for the record:

That Gwyn Kutz, Francine Archambault, Gary Switzer, and Jennifer Nixon be summoned and required to appear at Ottawa, bring all relevant papers and documents, and give evidence before the Standing Committee on Access to Information, Privacy and Ethics of the House of Commons of Canada on matters relating to its study of Access to Information Requests for the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade internal report entitled “Afghanistan 2006: Good Governance, Democratic Development and Human Rights”, pursuant to Standing Order 108(2), at its next sitting, at a time and place to be determined, and to remain in attendance until duly discharged.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

The next subject matter is then our next meeting. I think we're agreed, given Mr. Edwards' timeframe, that we can't have a meeting Thursday, unless someone suggests some other topic. In that case, the question is will we have a meeting Tuesday? The answer is, if the House is still sitting, yes, obviously. Do we want to make a decision now that we will sit on Tuesday of next week, whether or not the House is sitting?

Madame Lavallée.

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

Mr. Chair, I was going to suggest that this notice to appear be for next Thursday's meeting. I am sure the people that we want to call have known for some time that we want to see them because they have read the “blues”.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Excuse me. Next Thursday, did you say?

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

Why would it not be Thursday afternoon? Give me a good reason why it can not be Thursday.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

I'll give you one good reason. Because we've agreed that we would hear the deputy minister first, and he's not available until next week.

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

I am sorry, perhaps I misunderstood, but I do not believe that the motion specifies that we are receiving the deputy minister first.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

It's not in the motion. I heard a consensus of the committee that since the deputy minister has volunteered to attend, that as a courtesy to the deputy minister we would hear from him first, while having the witnesses here so that if for some reason he isn't here the witnesses would be here. That was the general idea.

If the committee wants to change that, that's fine. I really don't see that there's much difference between proceeding on Thursday and Tuesday, with the exception that the deputy minister cannot appear on Thursday because he's not here.

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

Mr. Chair, with all due respect, there is a big difference between Thursday and next Tuesday. First, it is almost certain that we will still be here on Thursday, but there is some doubt as to whether we will be here next Tuesday.

Second, if the deputy minister of an important department in an important government—I do not know where he is exactly—really wants to come and appear ahead of the people who work for him, he can quickly get on a plane and be back in Ottawa by Thursday morning. At the moment, we are wasting the time of the 33 people here in order to accommodate the agenda of one person—the deputy minister—who has elegantly given us the runaround in a letter. I say that he has given us the runaround and your words, Mr. Chair, were that it was a slap in our faces.

In my view, the deputy minister has to accommodate the agenda of the House. It is extremely likely that the House will wrap up its work this week; you said so and we all know it. If he wants to appear ahead of the people who work for him, he should get over here on the double. The choice is his. He either gets here on the double, or he appears after his people.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

But, Madame Lavallée, whether or not the House adjourns is irrelevant, if this committee agrees that it will meet next Tuesday. If this committee agrees that it will meet next Tuesday, it doesn't matter if the House adjourns, because we still have authority to meet while the House is in adjournment.

The deputy minister will be here, because that's what he told us in his letter, and if he isn't, we'll have four witnesses here who will be able to answer our questions in his absence. With the greatest respect, I think it's somewhat unfair to expect that the deputy minister should interrupt what undoubtedly is, we hope, very important government business—because the deputy minister is on that business—with less than 48 hours' notice.

I think I'm getting the feeling that the members of the committee would be prepared to be here Tuesday whether or not the House is in session. If that is so, I would urge Madame Lavallée to agree that we postpone further consideration of this matter until next Tuesday.

I'll give you the chance to think about that, Madame Lavallée.

We'll go to Mr. Dhaliwal.

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

The only suggestion I had, Mr. Chair, was that if the House doesn't sit and if those fellows don't want to appear here in Ottawa, we can welcome them to British Columbia.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Mr. Van Kesteren.

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

I think we should just go ahead with a motion for Tuesday, and if the House is adjourned, we'll just have to come back. It's as simple as that.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Your turn, Mr. Vincent.

[Robert Vincent, Bloc, Shefford, QC]

Mr. Chair, I find your talk of courtesy a little strange. I am not very religious, and if someone slaps me on the cheek, I am not turning the other one.

You say that we should let the deputy minister appear first out of courtesy. Given the letter that he sent to us, why would we be showing this man any courtesy? He can appear last as far as I am concerned.

It is Tuesday today. We have already wasted our day, and we are also going to waste Thursday “out of courtesy”! I do not agree, I do not want to waste a day “out of courtesy”, especially courtesy to a man who sent us his letter late yesterday afternoon so we would only find out about it this morning. I do not think that we should be so courteous to these people and I do not do not believe that the committee should be wasting another day. We have a list of witnesses and we can have them come on Thursday. If we come back next Tuesday, we can hear from the deputy minister. There is no way that we are going to waste two days because of Mr. Edwards' inaction and be courteous as well.

I can take a slap on the cheek, but I am not turning the other one, you can be sure. If you keep me waiting until next Tuesday, and you make me waste another day, I swear that, when the deputy minister arrives, he will get what is coming to him.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

There are, of course, two arguments, and it will be up to the committee to determine which of the two arguments prevails. Either way, I suspect that the appearance will be less than comforting to the deputy minister, whether it's on Thursday or on Tuesday, because I have no doubt, Monsieur Vincent, that you are going to express your views in your usual strong manner.

Mr. Wallace.

[Mike Wallace, Conservative, Burlington, ON]

Mr. Chairman, the schedule, to be fair to everyone, actually shows this Parliament sitting until June 22. There is speculation around the table that we're adjourning earlier than the 22nd, but as far as I know, I have committee meetings in my schedule for next week and I have other things in Ottawa for next week. I think we will be having a meeting here, one way or the other, next week.

I think it's naive to think that we ask him—we're not even summoning him—to appear on Thursday. He's going to say he's sorry, but he already told us he's out of town, out of the country, and is not coming back. It's still going to be next Tuesday, whether you want it or not, and I think, rightfully or wrongfully, we agreed on a consensus basis, not by a vote, that it would be appropriate to see the deputy minister first and then the staff members after that.

I'm comfortable coming on Tuesday; I just wanted to let you know that, and whether we're in session or not, I will be here.

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

Can we have a motion from someone that the next meeting of this committee will be at 9 a.m. on Tuesday, June 19, whether or not the House of Commons is in session?

Mr. Dewar will move that.

(Motion agreed to)

[The Chair, Liberal, Tom Wappel]

We do not have a meeting on Thursday. We will meet on Tuesday, whether or not the House is adjourned. Mr. Edwards, we expect, will be here. If he's not, we'll proceed with the witnesses we've summoned.

Is there any other business, ladies and gentlemen?

Thank you very much. We'll see you next Tuesday.

The meeting is adjourned.