Evidence of meeting #50 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 chair.
A recording is available from Parliament.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
--and I'm sure the other members would like to get information from these ministers.
Conservative
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.
The ministers yesterday provided us with some information: binders that tried to respond to 72 pieces of information requested four months ago. They did not even come close to responding to those 72 pieces of information requested in my motion, and they failed to respect the Speaker's ruling.
Yesterday, Mr. Chair, the minister said he had responded to all the questions. But he left out many of the costs of these bills, including new prison costs, because he said our motion didn't require him to provide all these costs.
Mr. Chair, I'll draw to the attention of the committee the fact that my motion specifically said to provide all costs “in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing”, which requires all direct and indirect costs to all departments and requires all the costs to stakeholders, including provinces.
Mr. Chair, yesterday the ministers parsed their words. It reminded me of the Bill Clinton defence on the Lewinsky affair, when he said there was some confusion as to whether or not he had been asked specifically about sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky. His response, having been caught, was, “It depends upon what the definition of the word is is.”
It also reminded me of Mulroney's defence at the Oliphant commission, when Mulroney said he had not been asked the specific question by investigators as to whether or not he had received funds from Karlheinz Schreiber. I'll also remind the committee and the ministers that Justice Oliphant dismissed this defence as “patently absurd”.
Mr. Chair, these two ministers are acting like two crusty old lawyers trying to game the system instead of two cabinet ministers with a responsibility to tell the full truth to Parliament and to Canadians about the full cost of their prison bills. Canadians and this Parliament deserve better.
Mr. Nicholson, the finance committee set a deadline of November 24, 2010. That deadline passed without even an acknowledgement by your department, which showed contempt to this Parliament.
A week later, on December 1, you gave your first response: you couldn't provide any of the information because of cabinet confidence.
Do you still believe that to be true, or were you misleading the committee?
Conservative
Rob Nicholson ConservativeMinister of Justice
We have been as forthcoming as possible, Mr. Chairman. You will see, in the information provided for you with respect to the 18 bills, a very detailed breakdown of all the details, all the expenses.... I mean, they are very difficult to project, as you can imagine, but a great deal of analysis has gone into that. This follows up earlier this year, when we indicated the various costs of the bills, when that was able to be determined.
I don't think the honourable member, or anybody, is looking for cabinet confidences.
Conservative
Rob Nicholson Conservative Niagara Falls, ON
If something is a cabinet confidence, of course it continues to remain. We have an obligation on that.
But in terms of getting information with respect to these bills, I think the committee members, as they go through all the material that's been put before them, will be very, very impressed.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Mr. Chair, I'll repeat my question, because the minister ignored it and continued to show contempt to this committee and to Parliament.
Mr. Chair, the minister said--
Conservative
Liberal
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I defer to your judgment, Mr. Chair, but asserting that a minister is in contempt, that a member is in contempt, would seem to me effectively unparliamentary. I may be incorrect in that, but I think that is unparliamentary language.
If that is the case, then I would invite the member to withdraw and to find some parliamentary way of expressing the same thought.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I would wish that the member would use language that was more appropriate to us being here and asking ministers questions on this piece of legislation.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
On December 1, Minister, your response to our motion--