http://cmte.parl.gc.ca/cmte/CommitteePublication.aspx?SourceId=205894&Lang=1&PARLSES=391&JNT=0&COM=10945
The Chair:
Colleagues, we will recommence.
The next item on our agenda is the consideration of the Burton report. As our regular members know, this is an ongoing drama at this committee. In effect, as a result of our various motions, we were all provided early on with the public version of Burton's “Assessment of the Canada-China Bilateral Human Rights Dialogue”, dated December 31, 2005. There was a confidential annex consisting of supplementary materials that had been excised from the public version of the report.
Pursuant to our various protestations, the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade has furnished us with an excised version of the confidential supplementary materials, which you have before you. You've all been sent copies, at least regular members of the committee have.
Originally we were told that this would have to be considered in an in camera meeting for 10 minutes, with no note-taking, but apparently the department has now furnished us with copies, so I'm advised that we're not required to review this in camera.
A voice: Is that correct?
The Chair: Could the clerk please say something about that?
The Clerk of the Committee (Ms. Bibiane Ouellette):
I received an e-mail saying that the report would be available and the committee didn't have to look at it in camera.
The Chair:
So we're in a public session. I don't think there's anything to discuss here. We have what we have.
As I said at the last meeting, in terms of the process, this committee has already reported three or four motions to the main committee with respect to this issue. It is now up to the main committee whether they want to make any reports to the House of Commons on this. It's out of our hands, and this is what we have before us.
I would suggest that it would not likely alter any of our recommendations or the content of the report that we submitted to the full committee last Tuesday.
Mr. Sorenson, perhaps you could elucidate for us.
The full committee has received our report, is scheduled to review it, and hopefully adopt it on...which date?
Mr. Marcus Pistor (Committee Researcher):
On May 10, next week.
Ms. Denise Savoie:
Chair, can I get a clarification?
The Chair:
Yes, Madam.
Ms. Denise Savoie:
Our purpose was to compare and make a determination as to whether information was withheld. From what I read last night, it seemed like these two reports were comparing apples and oranges. There are blacked out portions that do not reappear in the last version, so you really have no point of comparison.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
The only point of comparison—
Ms. Denise Savoie:
Was the purpose to compare? If it was, then it seems like a pointless exercise.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
The only point is that now you see and know how much is blacked out. You're right, it does not disclose what's in there, and they have made that clear.
The Chair:
Yes.
Denise, the point is that this committee has had an ongoing dialogue with the Department of Foreign Affairs. This goes back to when Professor Burton appeared before our committee and revealed that some information had been excised from the public view of the report, which had been made available to us by the department.
Pursuant to a motion moved by Madame St-Hilaire, the committee unanimously requested the unexpurgated version of the report, and then this became a complicated matter.
At the end of the day, the committee decided to ask DFA to send us whatever they would reveal, and that's what's before us. It's the position of the department that the blacked out bits are classified. The committee has adopted a number of motions on this matter that have been reported to the full committee. So I think it would not be fruitful for us to spend more time on the matter; the committee has expressed itself clearly on this.
Madame St-Hilaire, you look perplexed or concerned. If you would like to suggest anything, perhaps a discussion, it's in the committee's hands.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
I hope you're not allergic to the committee.
Ms. Denise Savoie:
Bless you.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
I want to make sure I have understood correctly. I received two reports: one with some blacked out bits and another marked "confidential".
The Chair:
This is a public report that the committee received at the start of its study.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
It now has blacked out bits.[English]
The Chair:
There are blacked out bits here too.
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
There are some other omissions.
The Chair:
Are these blacked out bits blacked out in the public version?
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
No.[Translation]
That is the version of December 31, and it contains additional information. So it is Mr. Burton's first version.
[English]
The Chair:
So it's not the version we received.
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
That's not the public version. The public version was dated April 2006.
The Chair:
All right.[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
Then what is this one?[English]
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
According to page 4 of the December version of this report, “Findings based on the classified materials consulted are given in a classified appendix to this report”. I assume that's what this is. So these are some additional findings that are not integrated in its first draft, in the December version of the draft.
He told the committee that about 1,200 words had been deleted or taken out. Some of them are blacked out; some of them aren't blacked out or taken out. So I don't know.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
You know, we know even less than you do. You say that you don't really know, but neither do we. I am having trouble following.
Mr. Chairman, you seem to be saying that we are turning the page, that it is over. But I see that Mr. Sorenson has changed his mind; he wants to have the report. He said that he would not be present to avoid leaks to the media, but I see that he is happily present today. In the end, there is nothing in this report.
[English]
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
That's why I said that if we were going to continue, and then the department was going to come with the report, with their concerns that there is classified information here that may be a security risk, I wouldn't be here. I don't have to be privy to that information; I don't want to be privy to it.
If the department says that it's intelligence or something else that can hurt something, I don't have to be here. But they've come with the report and with those segments still omitted.
[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
Are most committee members satisfied with that?
The Chair:
I don't know.
Ms. Denise Savoie:
That was the purpose of my question.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
We were given five censored pages, but we are continuing without any problem. Is that it?
The Chair:
It is up to the committee to decide.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
You can influence us somewhat, Mr. Chairman.
The Chair:
No. I was very clear on that point. The committee did the same with four or five motions.
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
There was a lot of discussion, but there was only one motion.
The Chair:
Fine.[English]
I take from what you're saying that you're not satisfied.
I'm the chair; I'm in the committee's hands. We have been around this several times. We have what we have. We've expressed our concern about this matter through several unanimous motions. I'm speechless; I'm just a procedural referee here.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
I don't think we can jeopardize our complete report by waiting, fighting, or trying to continue this debate on whether we can have the classified information.
Our standing committee is prepared to look at this report on May 10. I would hope that we aren't going to drag it out here. It might jeopardize going ahead with that report on May 10. We've been given what we've been given. There may be avenues where we can voice our frustration, but let's not let that jeopardize the report.
The Chair:
Let me remind you, Madame St-Hilaire, just to be clear, that as you know, the deputy minister kindly appeared before the committee to discuss this matter. At the same time, we received legal advice from parliamentary counsel on the prerogatives of Parliament with respect to production of papers. The deputy minister then kindly sent us a letter last week indicating that his department was prepared to furnish excised versions of the report. We adopted a motion to respond to the deputy minister by way of letter, which I signed and sent last week, accepting his invitation for the members to receive original excised versions of the report, with classified elements excised.
We also discussed last week the fact that we had reported several motions to the main committee, chaired by Mr. Sorenson, requesting unexpurgated, unexcised versions of the report. Those are now at the main committee.
The Clerk:
They've been returned.
The Chair:
Oh, they've been returned, including the last one?
Oh, it has.Thank you for correcting me.
These have been returned, back to this committee.
This committee, as I say—
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
I think we brought that out at the last meeting, didn't we, that it had been returned here?
The Chair:
My view on this, Caroline, is that insofar as the full committee has the power to report to the House and we do not, this matter is effectively now in the hands of the full committee, now that they have the report. If you're concerned, you're free to talk to your counterpart on the main committee about this to raise these concerns when they come to consideration of the report on May 10.
As legal counsel advised us, Parliament has certain powers, but subcommittees do not have all the delegated powers of Parliament, so the committee is quite limited in how it could respond if it chose to do so. I'm just giving you the factual basis of where we are.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Madame Lalonde and Madam McDonough and the Liberals are very aware of the frustration at not seeing the report. We brought it forward. When we were continuing with asking them to go to the Burton report, that is why they brought it back.
That being said, it's back here, and we still have those dates for the study of this report, as long as it gets back to us.
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
Which report?
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Are we talking about the draft?
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
The draft report is before the...that's been sent; it's done.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
It's there. So what are we...?
Mr. Marcus Pistor:
This is the Burton report.
The Clerk:
We're talking about the subcommittee report asking for—
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
For a look at the Burton report?
The Clerk:
Yes.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
And that's been sent back?
I would suggest that we have the dates on the China report, but.... I'm just speaking as chair. I have no idea what the others may say. They may want to continue with a look at that report. But if this thing is still before us here, where we're going to drag this out on the Burton report, there is a bearing on the China report. There very well could be a bearing on whether we're going to continue, seeing that the subcommittee is still fighting this fight.
That's why I'm hoping that we can say we're done with it, and we're going to lodge our complaint with the standing committee, but there's our report.
The Chair:
I'm in the hands of the committee. As always, as chairman I'm here to make sure the procedure is fair and followed. If the committee wishes to express itself to the main committee yet again on this matter, that's the committee's decision.
My personal view is that we've been amply clear on this point à plusieurs reprises, and at some point I think we reach a point of diminishing returns on this issue.
As I said, the full committee will be seized of the China report, one related issue of which is the Burton report, obviously. If the full committee wishes to take up this issue, the full committee is obviously free to do so.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
As long as we aren't still taking it up here.
The Chair:
No, we've reported the report out.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Yes, you've reported the report, but as long as this issue is before.... It may not play; we may go right into it. But as long as there's still some dissatisfaction on this Burton thing—because at one point in time, Madame St-Hilaire said that she was not prepared to sign onto that report until she had seen the complete Burton report, unless I've missed something since then.
The Chair:
Madame St-Hilaire.[Translation]
Ms. Caroline St-Hilaire:
Let's calm down a little, sir. That is what I said, however the report was adopted and it was sent to the main committee. Let's not take statements out of context. Let's leave this up to the main committee.
The Chair:
Last time, I believe we decided [English]
not to let the procedural issue here hold up the substantive advancement of the report.
Is that right, Mr. Cotler?
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
That's what I understand.
The Clerk:
Yes, it's out of our hands.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
If it's all been signed off, then what are we talking about?
The Chair:
Madame St-Hilaire is sort of asking the question, what should be done? I'm saying the committee decided.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
It's signed off, yes. Burton was part of China.
The Chair:
Monsieur Cotler.
Hon. Irwin Cotler:
It seems to me that the full report, our report, has gone forward, with our concern about the procedural matter.
Now the full committee can have both of those aspects before them; they can determine both aspects. They can deal with the main report, or they might even refer the procedural matter back to us, or I don't know what. But both of those issues should now be cleared before the full committee.
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
Okay. Then there will be no holdup on May 10, plain and simple.
The Chair:
I certainly hope there's—
Mr. Kevin Sorenson:
In fact, I'll be honest with you; I wish it was long before May 10, because the whole point of speeding up the reports was so that we could use this as leverage with the Celil deal.
The Chair:
All right. So we have what we have. I hear the frustration from Madame St-Hilaire; it's been expressed by this committee. But we're where we are and we will proceed.
We all have this. Can I suggest that we move now to our last item of business, the motion on Iran?
Okay. Then we'll move to committee business.
Mr. Cotler has given notice of a motion with respect to Iran.
Mr. Cotler.
