Procedure and House Affairs committee  Under the Canada Evidence Act—and I believe you're referring to section 39—there's no definition of what is a cabinet confidence, I don't believe. If memory serves, the act does not actually define it because it doesn't have to define it. It simply operates on the certification by the Clerk of the Privy Council.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  By usage or by tradition. The court has had occasion to talk about cabinet confidence. There was a case in the Supreme Court of Canada—I'm not sure what the year was; I think it was 1992, but I'm not sure. But it's tradition, practice. If you go to the oath that persons entering the Privy Council, i.e., cabinet, take, that's an indication of what might be a cabinet confidence, where the person taking the oath says, “I shall keep secret all matters committed and revealed to me in this capacity”, as a member of Privy Council, “or that shall be secretly treated of in Council”.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Well, I would respond, Mr. Chairman, by saying that this information, whether it ever is or is not covered by cabinet confidence, is information of a kind, as the Speaker indicates in his ruling, that the House is entitled to receive. It may well be covered by cabinet confidence in earlier stages or continuing at the same time, even if legislation were never introduced.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I don't know that that's a question the law clerk is competent to answer. It's a judgment for every member of the House to take according to his own understanding of what the legislation is about and whether it deserves to be approved or not approved.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I can only speak generally in saying that it is in the public interest that we have a responsible form of government where the government is accountable to the House and, for that purpose, the House seeks information from the government from time to time to enable it to carry out its constitutional function.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  I think as the Speaker himself indicates in his report on this occasion and on the decision of last April pertaining to Afghan detainees, Parliament has the right to receive whatever information it requests from the government as part of its constitutional function of holding the government to account.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Fundamentally, I don't believe there are differences, if by that you mean where in this case the element of cabinet confidentiality is being invoked, whereas on that occasion the element of national security was being invoked. That difference doesn't, in my view, affect the outcome.

Procedure and House Affairs committee  Thank you, Mr. Chair. I don't have an opening statement because it wasn't clear to me what specifically it was that I was being asked to address today. In the circumstances, I feared I would waste the committee's time going on a tangent that wasn't of interest to the committee.

Public Accounts committee  The service could be effected upon her through her lawyer. If her lawyer has instructions from her to accept service on her behalf, then delivery of the summons to her could well be taken--again, in the usual practice, from the context of the courts--as service upon her. But he would have to have instructions from her to authorize him to accept service for her for that to be the case.

Public Accounts committee  Well--

Public Accounts committee  --in other contexts, as you know, there's a difference between avoidance and evasion, a very significant difference. I don't know, in this case, whether it's proper to characterize the facts as being...one of avoidance or evasion. All I can say is that it is the committee's call as to how it wants to characterize the facts so far.

Public Accounts committee  I don't believe it's a matter of constitutional rights as such. If you're thinking about the charter, the charter does not apply to the House proceedings and committee proceedings as such.

Public Accounts committee  Mr. Chairman, it's a hypothetical question, of course, but it has some relevance to the facts, as I understand them, before this committee. It is difficult, in my view, speaking as a lawyer who is accustomed to the process in the courts. That's not determinative of the issue by any means; I don't mean to say that the courts are your model, but it is out there, and the public expectation is somewhat informed by the usual practice in the courts.

Public Accounts committee  All right. In terms of natural justice, that really is a principle that might apply to what I just said. It's a sense of natural justice that you don't do something against someone--against the person of someone, certainly--by going out to arrest them or apprehending them without having afforded them an opportunity to get notice that they were required to do something, failing which they may be arrested.

Public Accounts committee  Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I think the question is of a general nature, and I'm quite comfortable answering it, hopefully adequately for the member's purposes. Let me first say that I am in virtually 100% agreement with Madame Bernier regarding the position of this committee relative to the Privacy Act.