Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 16th, 2011

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

In your correspondence with the government, Mr. Page, in your efforts to wrestle information from them--now you've established a pattern over four years of not being able to get what you need--I would proffer to you in your negotiations with the government a quote from Mr. Harper, which I'll read again into the record for you: “Without adequate access to key information about government policies and programs, citizens and parliamentarians cannot make informed decisions, and incompetent or corrupt governance can be hidden under a cloak of secrecy”.

[An hon. meber]

Who said that?

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

We agree with Mr. Harper's statement. We offer that to you in your good works and in your negotiations in trying to get the information you need to do your job so that Canadians can have more confidence in how the money is being spent and in Parliament.

Thank you very much, Mr. Page.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski, for five minutes.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thanks.

I'm just going to make a comment on something and not ask for your response, since we only have five minutes. It goes back to a discussion we were having earlier about costs of prison construction. You talked about whether the assumptions are for single bunks, double bunks, triple bunks, and things like that.

One of the things that came into account here was the estimation that the Correctional Service of Canada and prison officials had. They estimated that over the course of the last fiscal year approximately 1,280 new inmates would be incarcerated. The actual number was 519. So there are more than 700 inmates who were projected to be incarcerated and were not, at an estimated cost by your office of $340,000, at least for female inmates. Clearly that would result in projections being way out of whack. So again, I put that to my colleagues opposite. But my question for you is not on that--that's a fact--because there were differences between forecasts and actual numbers.

I want to go back to follow up a little bit on what my colleague Mr. McGuinty was talking about. I find it quite incredible. He keeps going to the same well again. Let me just ask you: what statute specifies what information your office is entitled to?

[Kevin Page]

Sir, the Accountability Act created that. Again, the legislation that created this position, the position I hold...it was created through the Accountability Act. It amended the Parliament of Canada Act--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Right.

[Kevin Page]

I don't have the statute in front of me, sir, but--

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

That's fine. I'm not asking you to give chapter and verse. But it's the Parliament of Canada Act, right? Now, did all Parliament approve that act? Yes...? That statute?

[Kevin Page]

Actually, I don't know what the voting structure was on the Accountability Act.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

It was approved by Parliament. The reason I bring that forward is that while you are entitled to information, without question, there are exceptions. I think you understand that as well. The exceptions talk about subsection 79.3(2), which says “does not apply in respect of any financial or economic data...that are information, the disclosure of which is restricted under section 19 of the Access to Information Act...”.

We heard about that earlier, from former Clerk of the Privy Council Mel Cappe, and also that exceptions are made to information “that are contained in a confidence of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada described in subsection 69(1)” of the act.

So my point is, there are exceptions, and at any time has your office been requesting information that might be included in one or more of these exceptions?

[Kevin Page]

I'd like to talk about the first point, in terms of the facts and the numbers as they've come in so far. In terms of information on exceptions, actually, sir, I worked for Mr. Cappe at the Privy Council Office. I spent more than 25 years in mostly central agencies. I've been in cabinet rooms with both this government, including this Prime Minister, and previous prime ministers in different governments.

It's clear to us that with that kind of background we should not get real cabinet confidence information, and we should not be given personal information on Canadians, their financial states, what have you. I think we have a pretty good sense of where the line is.

We've been told on multiple occasions that corporate profits projections were cabinet confidences, even though we know that in fact they were shared in the past. Having worked many, many years in finance at Treasury Board and the Privy Council Office doing the same costing work I'm providing to you, sir, I don't understand.... I've been in cabinet rooms. Those conversations and those methodologies and those assumptions, like corporate profits, are not associated with a cabinet discussion. This is information that's the normal course of business. We have lots of people working on methodologies. It cuts across multiple departments in many cases. It's not really a small circle of people who work on it.

For me, the extension of this information as to a cabinet confidence we've challenged on multiple occasions. I think there is a debate that needs to take place as to what is truly cabinet confidence.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Mr. Cappe also stated this morning that in his opinion, and I don't know if it was a recommendation perhaps or just an opinion, he didn't believe there should be an Office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer, which was an interesting comment coming from someone who was a former clerk of the Privy Council.

[Kevin Page]

Sir, I had to be pretty much forced to take the job in the first place. Nobody was really keen on being Parliamentary Budget Officer, for multiple reasons.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

I want to go back to the statute again. You talked about what is defined as a cabinet confidence and what is not. You would agree, however, that information that would be contained in a cabinet document would be exempted from any request from your office, yes?

[Kevin Page]

Again, there's information that's contained within the actual memorandum of cabinet. There's information that sometimes could be attached to a cabinet document. Again, the question is was this information presented just to cabinet, or was this information circulated widely? Was there an effort to keep this information truly secret?

Most of the costing that I've done, sir, and in fact we see here--and my staff as well have worked at these central agencies--this information is broadly circulated in order to generate estimates.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Madame DeBellefeuille, for five minutes.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.

Good afternoon, Mr. Page. This is the first time we've met.

I want to say right away that although I did not study either finance or economics, I have everything I need to understand exactly what is going on this afternoon. From what I understand—and you'll tell me if I'm mistaken—on the one hand, we are being told that the government gave all the necessary information to parliamentarians to allow them to accurately assess its law-and-order bills. On the other hand, some people—including you—are questioning how anyone can say that the government is right when we are unaware of its working assumptions, methodology, analytical models or scenario. We cannot compare your analysis with the government's because we don't know where the government got its figures or what analysis it is basing itself on. In financial or social research, the working assumptions are very important in terms of understanding the results you're seeking to achieve or believe you will achieve.

Earlier, Mr. Lukiwski told you that under your mandate, there are some exceptions when it comes to documents. There are documents that you are unable to access from the government or Privy Council. Do you believe that the government's assumptions and analytical models are part of the documents that you are unable to access because of the various exceptions identified for us?

[Kevin Page]

Madam, estimates were prepared for the crime bills and the F-35s. They are important documents which explain methodologies, all the assumptions, elements of risk and confidence in the numbers. I can hardly believe that these documents were included in the memorandum to Cabinet. It is possible, but it's difficult to believe.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

According to what you're saying, the government's working assumptions and analysis should not normally be Cabinet confidences. In that case, they should be released or made public.

As I see it, if the government believes in its bills, feels it is on the right track and is truly anxious to secure the unanimous support of the House for its bills, it is in its interests to be transparent and make its working assumptions public, in order to convince us that it is indeed on the right track. However, it is doing exactly the opposite. It is keeping its assumptions and methodology under wraps and failing to provide us with the tools that would enable us to develop an informed opinion about the tables and figures.

Since this morning, they would have us believe that we have in front of us everything we need to make a proper assessment. I'm sorry, but I do not share the opinion of Mr. Lukiwski, who seems so positive and optimistic, because you have convinced me that neither you nor we have the analytical grid used by the government that would allow us to compare figures. It seems to me it would perfectly normal for the government, in order to convince us that it's on the right track, to make its figures and scenarios public in order to make Quebeckers and Canadians aware of its approach to crime law.

Do you agree, Mr. Page?

[Kevin Page]

I believe it's absolutely necessary to have a good understanding of the methodology, assumptions and estimates.

I should also say that in other situations, the government has been transparent. On the security costs for the G8 and G20 summits, the government was transparent. It also was very transparent about questions surrounding the stimulus program, in its 2009 budget, in terms of economic estimates, jobs and outcomes. However, in the cases connected to this motion, on questions relating to corporate profits, crime bills and the F-35s, it has not been very transparent.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have 30 seconds.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Do you agree that it is perfectly normal for people to have doubts about the government's good will when it voluntarily holds back information? If it's holding back information, it has something to hide. If it was very transparent on other issues, why is it holding back information with respect to its law and order agenda? The Opposition is absolutely right to be wary of a government that hides this information.

[Kevin Page]

You definitely need that kind of information and analysis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Monsieur Godin.