In my view, the critical consideration here, going to your point, is not just reading the document, but asking yourself what use was made of the document.
This is not unlike the element of the Afghan detainee controversy, where one of the points of privilege was the legal opinion letter put out by the Department of Justice, which the mover of the motion argued was itself a breach of the privilege of the House. You may recall that the Speaker's ruling was that a letter of opinion is not a breach of privilege, but what use you make of that letter might be a breach of privilege.
Anybody can express an opinion. That's what lawyers do for a living. An opinion was expressed in that letter, but what use you made of that letter might then constitute an interference.
Now, you look at this document. Well, I understand the testimony that it's seen as an internal document to the agency. The CIDA officials are not complaining about being misrepresented by that document, so you ask yourself--this is the lawyer talking--who has an interest in this document? Who has an interest who might complain and say: “That misrepresents my view. That misrepresents what has been used to misrepresent my view”? Well, obviously, the officials at CIDA would be the first ones who might say that, and they aren't saying that.
Mr. Franks this morning talked about and gave great weight to the fact that the minister is responsible for falsifying the CIDA document. That was the word he used: “falsifying”. He talked about a presentation of that document in a very serious manner, a very serious representation. He talked about a presentation of the document's submission to the committee and so on. The fact as I understand it is that this document was never presented by the minister to the committee. It was never used by the minister to advance any particular point of view.
What happened, I understand--and I consulted the clerk of the foreign affairs committee this morning--is that there was a discussion in the committee about this document, at some length. They came to the end of their deliberations--they were doing a report--and somebody said, “Gee, if we're going to refer to this document, perhaps we should have it”. At that point, what was produced was the last page of the document, and the report of the committee has appended to it only the last page of that document.
So the document came into the public realm, I understand--and I stand to be corrected--through an access to information application, and as a result it has been the subject of much discussion ever since. But in fairness to the minister, it seems to me, one has to acknowledge that, to my knowledge, according to the record, she never used the document to advance some erroneous or misleading information. It simply came to the surface. It was an internal document of the government, and yes, she is embarrassed by it, and she has had to explain herself a lot ever since--much discussion about that “not”--but I don't see it as being determinative of the question of an attempt to mislead the House.