Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 16th, 2011

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

What that means is that, initially, the government had a far broader conception of what a Cabinet confidence is, and changed its position along the way according to what it felt was necessary. If parliamentarians need to have access to all the information, but the government, by virtue of the fact that it represents the Crown, does not wish to provide them, it seems to me that it could take a different approach. For example, it could have taken a responsible attitude by inviting the Opposition to sit down to see if there was some way all the information could be made available without compromising the public interest. In a way, we forced the government to do that with the Afghan documents. I admit the process is rather lengthy and cumbersome, but we know it will yield an outcome.

In your opinion, had the government been acting in good faith, should it have proposed to make all the documents available to the Opposition and agree on some mechanism that would ensure that any information that could constitute a threat to the public interest or national security would remain confidential?

[Rob Walsh]

That question deals with parliamentary relations—in this case, between the government and the Opposition parties. That is really a political issue. It is up to the government to decide whether it should seek a solution with the agreement of the House of Commons. The government sometimes decides not to seek a solution with the Opposition parties, and in other cases, it does decide to do it.

In the case involving the Afghan documents, the government ultimately did seek a solution with the Opposition parties to allow them to be released. This may be an opportunity to do the same thing. It's up to the government to determine that.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Let's just say that this is what the Speaker suggested in his ruling regarding the Aghan prisoners. It seems that, under the current circumstances, one year later, the government could have considered the fact that there are mechanisms whereby the confidentiality of certain information can be protected while at the same time making the documentation available to parliamentarians.

As you know, on an Opposition day, a Liberal Party motion passed that presented a list of all the documents that Mr. Brison had requested at the Standing Committee on Finance, along with my colleague, Daniel Paillé. Based on the documents tabled by the , Government House Leader is it your opinion that the government complied with the order issued by the House?

[Rob Walsh]

Yes, but according to the Speaker, the government complied without actually explaining why it had not released all the documents and why some of them had not been provided. The Speaker indicated that an explanation had to be provided to the House of Commons, to members of Parliament. I believe that is the reason why he decided to accept the prima facie question of privilege and allow the committee to look at the issue more closely. At the various sittings of this committee, the government may provide a more detailed explanation of why it decided not to release the documents.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I believe that, according to this principle, parliamentarians have access to all the information they require when they are examining a piece of legislation or holding the government to account. That is the rule. However, if the government wants to break the rule and not disclose that information, it has to convince the Opposition that national security or the public interest is at stake. If Parliament insists on receiving information, government members then have to sit down with the Opposition to find a mechanism whereby both principles are observed.

Is that an accurate summary of what should—

[Rob Walsh]

Yes, it is.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Perfect.

My colleague would like to raise a question.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Walsh.

You already provided some answers with respect to the matter of confidentiality, but could you tell us, in French, who has the authority to determine whether this or that document should or should not be released? When you read the Minutes of Proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance or of the House of Commons, it's clear that, in a way, that is the sinews of war. We are fighting about documents or a definition of confidentiality. But our interpretation and the government's are completely different.

Who has the power to decide the matter?

[Rob Walsh]

Who has that power? Well, no one, specifically, because as soon as the Clerk of the Privy Council determines that this or that document is confidential, it's all over from a judicial standpoint, given what is provided for under section 39 of the Canada Evidence Act.

However, as far as parliamentary affairs are concerned, it's completely different: it is up to you to decide. We are aware of the nature of these documents; they deal with financial issues, I believe, and the costs associated with bills that deal with prisons. You could say that a member of Parliament decided that some things are Cabinet confidences. However, as Mr. Brison stated earlier, you may be able to argue that what was discussed before a bill was introduced in Parliament does in fact constitute a Cabinet confidence. I imagine the issue was discussed and that it is a confidence.

However, as soon as a bill dealing with that specific subject is introduced, logically, members of Parliament will be asking to have access to all the information in support of that initiative. It is up to members of Parliament to decide whether they have received all the information or not. In fact, members of Parliament could decide not to support the bill. Discussions in committee might prompt members of Parliament to vote against the bill, rather than simply seeking to censure the government for contempt of Parliament. You have the option of voting against the bill.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

To members, please, very complicated questions, with about two seconds to go, will lead us well past time. This is a seven-minute round, so let's try to keep to our seven minutes. That one went almost two minutes over.

Monsieur Godin.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. Walsh, thank you for being here.

For how many years have you been working in Parliament?

[Rob Walsh]

Twenty years.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

So, I guess you've pretty well seen it all.

[Rob Walsh]

Is that enough, Mr. Godin?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

In your opinion, is there a difference between a majority government and a minority government?

[Rob Walsh]

There definitely is in terms of numbers.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Maybe someone should tell Mr. Harper.

[Rob Walsh]

There are fewer MPs on the government side than on the Opposition side.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

If the Opposition holds the majority of seats, normally, the Opposition, because of the number of votes it has, should be in a position to decide certain things in Parliament.

[Rob Walsh]

That's correct, if the Opposition is not divided.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

We're talking about finances here. I can understand that there could be a difference when security is involved. It could be argued that if certain security-related information is disclosed, that might put our country and our citizens in danger. That is absolutely clear, decisions have been made and action has been taken in that regard.

Now we are talking about the cost of prisons. Supposing that the government says that cost of building a prison will be $8 million, and yet we hear rumours to the effect that it will cost more like $20 million, and we ask the government for the figures and the documents. Do you think that releasing those numbers to us could compromise public safety?

[Rob Walsh]

It's up to the committee to answer that question. Is it important for the committee or for the House of Commons to have those figures when it reviews the bill?

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

You have 20 years of experience. If the government tells us it's going to cost $8 million but does not give us the documents—nothing at all—is that government being transparent and cooperating with Parliament; is it being transparent if it hides all the documents?

[Rob Walsh]

Do you want me to comment on the honesty or transparency of the government? Those are political issues. It's up to the government to determine under what circumstances it will release information.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

The government includes the Privy Council, the Cabinet, and so on. The government says it won't provide the information and hides behind the Privy Council or the Cabinet. The Minister of Finance obviously had to have a costing done. He prepared a bill. He was told how much it would cost. People in power don't have to try and hide; they can simply say how they arrived at their numbers and be transparent.

We are members of Parliament, elected members of Parliament. I was elected in the riding of Acadie—Bathurst. The people sent me here. They want me to represent them. My mandate and my responsibility are to vote on behalf of the people of Acadie—Bathurst whom I represent. Is it not perfectly normal that I have actual information in front of me before I vote?