I think the Clerk of the Privy Council testified to that more eloquently than I could, in terms of why the government acts and feels the way it does. What I can say is that the government has, the public service and the clerks of the Privy Council, consistently defended cabinet confidences, irrespective of political party and power. We have a neutral, non-partisan public service in this country. They serve the interests of the executive branch in a non-partisan, impartial way, as my office serves the interests of the legislative branch.
In terms of cabinet confidence, as I said, the testimony from the clerk was eloquent and talked about the necessity for ministers to be able to speak frankly and to have discussions in cabinet. Once the decision is made, cabinet solidarity requires all to defend the decision, and that needs to be protected. That's the basis for the government's....
The court quite rightly noted that cabinet confidences have been recognized by the Supreme Court of Canada, so it is not something to be taken lightly. My point here today is that, in my view, the House, as the grand inquest of the nation, does have the power to request all information but should give weight, and perhaps significant weight, to some of those public policy considerations.