Evidence of meeting #52 for Procedure and House Affairs in the 40th Parliament, 3rd Session. (The original version is on Parliament’s site, as are the minutes.) The winning word was information.

A recording is available from Parliament.

On the agenda

MPs speaking

Also speaking

Nicolas Auclair  Committee Researcher
Andre Barnes  Committee Researcher

8:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I call this meeting to order.

I will give a couple of minutes to the reporters to give us a chance to hold our meeting.

8:30 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

Mr. Chairman, I believe this gives the wrong subject for this report.

8:30 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you, Mr. Reid. You're right. The cover report of the draft document is for a different study, and we will get those cover pages changed. It was to make sure they got out to the right members.

First of all, we will start our meeting. Welcome. It's good to see you all back from your weekend.

I would like to suggest, since this report was just handed out, that we actually give ourselves 15 minutes to read through the report. Is it appropriate that we suspend for 15 minutes and then come back and look at the document?

Is there any discussion on that?

Seeing none, we will suspend for 15 minutes.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Let's call the meeting back into session, please.

We've all had a chance to read this, or at least have had a good start. I'm going to recommend, since we allowed the time for each member to review the documents, that we not have the analysts start off with a summary. They're here to answer your questions as we get to each piece as to how the document was developed, so we'll just go that way.

I'm going to suggest that we start at the beginning and work our way through to the end. These documents usually are easier at the beginning and may grow tougher at the end. I don't want to presuppose how we'll do this, but let's start there.

On the first page, we have paragraphs 1, 2, 3, and 4.

Mr. Proulx.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

In paragraph 3 of the French version, two extra words could be taken out of the third line. In the French version,

it says: “[...] of the following information within seven calendar days [...]”. If we remove the word “following”, the sentence would read as follows: “[...]a second motion [...] ordered the government to provide FINA with electronic copies of the information within seven calendar days [...]”

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Is everyone all right with that change in the French version?

9 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Okay.

Is there anything else in paragraphs 1 through 4? We recognize that paragraph 4 carries on to the second page also.

Seeing nothing, can we accept paragraphs 1 through 4?

9 a.m.

Some hon. members

Agreed.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Great.

Let's take 5 and 6 next.

Mr. Brison.

9 a.m.

Liberal

Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS

Both 6 and 7 lack pertinence to the report. Mel Cappe, Rob Walsh, and the Speaker all affirmed Parliament's right to know as overriding and consistent with the Constitution, so I'm not sure that 6 and 7 add anything new or pertinent to the report.

I would propose that we strike 6 and 7.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Reid, on that point.

9 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

First of all, just to keep this orderly, could we go back and deal with number 5? I assume that part of what Mr. Brison is saying is that number 5 is okay.

We were doing 5 and 6, and now we're doing 6 and 7.

9 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I am doing 5 and 6.

Do you have something on 5?

9 a.m.

Conservative

Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON

No, I have nothing on 5. My point is that it's very hard to deal with this when we suddenly arbitrarily shift from what we were discussing to some other thing here.

Let me go to number 6. It deals with the issue of cabinet confidences and what they are, and gives some explanation. I didn't hear Mr. Brison express any concern that the information here was incorrect, so I assume he doesn't have any problem with that.

This does stress that “it is essential that ministers be able to speak freely with the assurance that their remarks will be protected.” That is, they can speak in cabinet privately. As well, “It is specifically the private nature of their proceedings that is protected by the privilege associated with Cabinet confidences.”

This is the key part in paragraph 6 that is highly relevant: “The fact that ministers take the Privy Council oath, which obliges them to keep secret every matter discussed in their meetings, illustrates the importance of this principle.”

Lest we assume that it is the obligation of ministers to wantonly reveal everything or to respond to every request for information provided, they are actually under a legal obligation. They've taken an oath to speak of nothing unless it is precisely requested from them. I don't think anybody doubts the idea that Parliament has the right to issue demands for a wide range of documents and to demand that, when a minister is brought here, they provide oral responses to questions that are asked, but in the absence of such a specific request, they are bound by an oath to keep these things secret.

Paragraph 6 specifies that “The privilege associated with the confidentiality of Cabinet proceedings is established in three...separate federal statutes: section 69 of the Access to Information Act, section 70 of the Privacy Act and section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.” I think this is highly relevant to the discussion, because it explains what laws the ministers were attempting to conform to.

So actually, Mr. Brison, this is highly relevant and highly germane to the subject matter at hand.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Mr. Young, I think I had you next and then Mr. Albrecht.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

Thank you, Chair.

What we have this morning is the same as what we had last week, which is the opposition coalition trying to hide information from the media and the Canadian public, information that is really critical to this issue.

When they went in camera and tried to pass a motion limiting this report to two pages, they had no evidence. Now they come back here after the weekend, it's Monday morning, and they're trying to eliminate essential evidence. Cabinet confidence really goes to the essence of what we spent three days doing last week; that is, trying to find a balance between what should be a cabinet confidence and what information committees should be able to have. That's what we're supposed to be deciding, and it should be an open process.

The opposition is trying to eliminate the very essence of what all these hearings have been about. We had two ministers come. We had Minister Nicholson and Minister Toews. They spent two hours, and then the opposition complained, so they cancelled their plans and came the next day for more time. They had Minister Oda for two hours. We've given them everything they want. We gave them a book this thick with factual information that they didn't want to hear, as evidenced by their questions and their speeches, which went on and on. They didn't listen to the answers.

I want to thank the analysts for this report. Thus far, I've zipped through it quickly in 15 minutes. These sections are absolutely of the essence. What is a cabinet confidence? There's a reference in the report to Madame Sauvé, former Speaker of the House of Commons, who said it's the government's prerogative to decide when documents are of a confidential nature. That's of the essence as well. I go over to paragraph 17, in which the former Clerk of the Privy Council--

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

We're on paragraphs 5 and 6 at the moment.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON

There's a reference there to “good government requires openness...but [sometimes also] requires secrecy”, and the opposition knows that. That's what we're talking about. I assume that's why the analysts put it right up front in the report--because it's so important to this report. To try to eliminate this section is mischief on behalf of the opposition. They're trying to hide information from the media and the Canadian public. I guess they're going to try to hone this report back down to two pages so that it says only what they want it to say to accommodate their coalition plans. It's outrageous to try to take these paragraphs out, Chair.

Thank you.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht.

9:05 a.m.

Conservative

Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Perhaps if we just step back, Mr. Brison may be thinking that we're still dealing with the original motion they presented, which did limit the report to two pages and did specifically exclude any summary of evidence. I need to remind Mr. Brison and the committee that the committee unanimously adopted an amendment to remove those two sections from that original motion. We need the summary of evidence that was given to the committee. Definitely, this paragraph 6--and 7, if we get to it later--gives a great summary of some of the evidence that was given. Mr. Chair, I think it's critical that this find its way into the narrative of the report.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

Thank you.

Mr. Godin.

9:10 a.m.

NDP

Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB

Mr. Chairman, I know that Mr. Young always likes to talk about the coalition. I would like to ask him to respect our work, as a member of Parliament and member of a political party. We are independent from all other political parties. I don't know if it amuses him to do that, but he can't speak for us.

We see that the motion as presented to the committee last week was amended with the support of the opposition. That is why today we have a thicker document, which contains a report.

Mr. Chair, I am not worried about those paragraphs. They do define cabinet's responsibility quite precisely. I think that all of this has been well explained here. Cabinet has the right to keep the minutes of its meetings, and certain documents, confidential. However, it was clearly said that when a bill is introduced, members have the right to have all of the information so as to be able to vote. They must know what they are voting on. They must be able to debate the bill in the House of Commons. That is the responsibility of members, of the opposition.

I don't see why we should remove that part. I read the report and that is very clearly explained. There will be other testimony in this report stating that we did not receive the information that we should have received within the prescribed timeframe.

It only says that cabinet has certain rights. Parliament may express positions on certain things, and if we want information to be disclosed, there is a process that allows for that. Clearly we were not given the information that we should have had as representatives of the people. We had to wait four months before receiving the documents. Mr. Young is trying to make us believe that cabinet gave us a nice package last week and that we should be satisfied with that. However, even as we look at this big package that he gave us—someone even said that it would take us until July to read all of it—we see that we still have not received some of the information we wanted regarding costs.

It only says that cabinet has certain rights. I have absolutely no problem with that. Yes, it does have rights, but we have rights too, and that will be mentioned in the document.

9:10 a.m.

Conservative

The Chair Conservative Joe Preston

I have Madame DeBellefeuille, Mr. Brison, and then Mr. Lukiwski.

9:10 a.m.

Bloc

Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Firstly, like Mr. Brison, I think that paragraphs 6 and 7 do not necessarily provide information that might enlighten us in the report. However, they are very instructive. The committee discussed the issue of cabinet confidentiality and cabinet secret at length. That was the topic of a lot of discussion. We tried to apprise ourselves of the definition, and so on. Since we devoted a lot of time and debate to this, I think it is important that these points remain in the report.

Whether paragraphs 6 and 7 are included or not does not really make any difference to me, since I took part in the debate. However, I think it is important that they stay in the report for those who will be reading it.