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.
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
10:50 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Yes. Thank you.
The Speaker's ruling was that there was not enough justification or evidence or enough of a rationale for not providing more detailed information. That's what it was regarding.
I hope Mr. Brison is not suggesting that we abandon cabinet confidentiality, because we heard from a lot of witnesses how important it is. In fact, we heard from one witness.... I asked the question, “What would the penalties be for any cabinet minister that breached it?” He said they would be forced to resign, which is the ultimate punishment around here.
Mr. Mel Cappe, a former clerk of the Privy Council, indicated that he was a great defender of cabinet confidences, and that cabinet confidences were specifically excluded from the Access to Information Act and the Canada Evidence Act, for that reason. And then he also said that good government requires openness but also that good government sometimes requires secrecy. There's no question that cabinet confidence is very important to protect ministers and to help the government go forward with an agenda without it falling apart in the middle of a process.
So the Speaker's ruling was that there wasn't enough justification.
This section here I can't possibly agree with, because I agree with the Speaker that when Parliament wants documents and they're not cabinet confidences, it should get them, but we have to clarify it.
Thank you, Chair.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Okay.
Mr. Brison.
I will remind the group that we are against the clock today.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I understand.
I just draw the attention of the committee and Mr. Young to the Speaker's ruling, wherein he says specifically:
...procedural authorities are categorical in repeatedly asserting the powers of the House in ordering the production of documents. No exceptions are made for any category of government documents....
Therefore, the Chair must conclude that it is perfectly within the existing privileges of the House to order production of the documents in question.
I just wanted to draw his attention to that.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Chair, there were conditions, and the conditions are that the committees handle the documents responsibly. That's why three members of this Parliament spent the entire summer going through 10,000 pages of Afghan documents, finding, to date, absolutely no evidence of wrongdoing by Canadian troops.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great information, but let's deal with this report and try to finish it before noon.
We have an amendment by Mr. Young on the floor.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
A recorded vote on Mr. Young's amendment.
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
All right. Without that amendment, paragraph 30 now....
Sorry, you have another?
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
Yes. In that same sentence, if we want to be consistent with what we've done previously in that same paragraph 30, that last sentence should be changed. Instead of saying “Some members of the committee also stated”, we should say “They also stated”.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
To make each thing go the same way as the change under Mr. Lukiwski.
Thoughts on that? Are we okay with that change?
Seeing none, okay, we'll make that change. Does everybody agree with that?
10:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
10:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Good.
On paragraph 31, seeing no hands up, can we accept 31 as written?
10:55 a.m.
Some hon. members
Agreed.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Great.
Now paragraph 32 as written...?
Mr. Brison has a point to make.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, the last sentence--“The Minister of State noted, in respect of this information, that business tax revenue for the government had increased over time despite the reductions in the business tax rate”--is not pertinent to this committee's decision on contempt of Parliament, so I would move that we amend that paragraph by striking the last sentence.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
Mr. Chair, this is another example of excluding the evidence. We already dealt with the amendment earlier. We said unanimously that the committee did not support the idea of not including a summary. This is clearly a summary of the evidence. I'm opposed to the amendment. We have to be transparent with the information that was provided.
10:55 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Chair, in terms of transparency, the hearings were televised. It's also reflected in the Hansard of the committee in terms of actual testimony. I'm saying in terms of pertinence to the report and the findings of the report, it is not germane; it's not pertinent, and it ought not to be there.
10:55 a.m.
Conservative
Terence Young Conservative Oakville, ON
Thank you, Chair.
You didn't say anything at the time when the minister provided that evidence. Through you, Chair, if Mr. Brison assumes that because something's been on television it doesn't have to be on the record...why don't we just cancel all of Hansard? It costs a lot of money to produce Hansard in French and English, every word that's said. Why have it at all? Why don't we just televise everything and we won't put anything on the record?
This statement here is--