Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2011

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Chair.

In response to Monsieur Godin, frankly, I'm not sure why, Yvon, you're not agreeing with him. I'm not trying to pull anything here. What you were saying is exactly what I had just suggested. What Mr. Cappe said was you don't reveal cabinet confidences—we all agree with that, as you pointed out—but you do disclose the information that comes out of the cabinet confidences and you do disclose what went into the decision-making. Right? I'm basically just saying that we should ensure that that's on the record, so that if a future government refuses information to Parliament because of cabinet confidence, it's on the record that a previous report stated, that's fine, we respect cabinet confidence, but you still have to give us information about the issue; you don't have to give us the document, you don't have to give us the MC that went to cabinet, but you have to give us the information that is contained in the document that's relevant to the request by Parliament. That's all I'm saying.

That sets it out pretty clearly, because nowhere in Mr. Cappe's testimony in this report that I see does it really set it out that distinctly. It talks about the right to refuse cabinet confidence. Whether or not one is justified or unjustified is an opinion of Mr. Cappe's, but it doesn't really talk about the bigger picture, which is that nobody wants to reveal cabinet documents, but information that is contained in there, if it's germane to the issue at hand, could and should be released.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Madame DeBellefeuille.

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

I understand what Mr. Lukiwski means, but when I read the French version of paragraph 17, I really think that he shouldn't worry too much. Indeed Mr. Cappe said very clearly that the government needs a certain degree of confidentiality. It must however show judgment in determining in which situations it can deprive Parliament of certain documents.

I find that paragraphs 17 and 18 really reflect Mr. Cappe's testimony. In fact, he is quoted verbatim in paragraph 17: “Good government requires openness [...], but good government also requires secrecy.” I think that he agrees that a government also needs to be able to keep certain things secret. In paragraph 18, he qualifies his statement, saying that when a bill is made public, secret and confidentiality no longer apply.

I am of the opinion that paragraphs 17 and 18 really reflect the spirit and nuances of Mr. Cappe's testimony very well.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Mr. Brison.

[Scott Brison, Liberal, Kings—Hants, NS]

Yes, to that point, Mr. Cappe is very strong in his defence of the principle of cabinet confidence, and the researchers have reflected that in the report. I would view it as constructive if Mr. Reid wanted to replace the word “unfounded” with “unjustified”. I wouldn't quarrel with that at all, because the word that Mr. Cappe did use was “unjustified”, and that's fair. But again, I don't think Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion actually fortifies in any way the researchers' wording of Mr. Cappe's robust defence of cabinet confidence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Brison.

Mr. Blaney.

[Steven Blaney, Conservative, Lévis—Bellechasse, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Since I was not present for the debate, I thought that the discussion this morning on paragraphs 5 and 6 was relevant and instructive. It is in that context that I consider Mr. Lukiwski's addendum to be constructive.

I would say to Ms. DeBellefeuille that a distinction is made with regard to information and documents; information related to a cabinet secret may be made public and accessible, as opposed to cabinet documents that remain secret. I found that interesting because this clarifies paragraphs 17 and 18. In fact this improves paragraph 18. Paragraph 17 stresses that it is important that cabinet confidences be protected, without “preventing parliamentarians from obtaining the information they needed to make decisions.” However, what Mr. Lukiwski's comment adds is that this may be information derived from a cabinet decision and document, but it still may be information that is accessible to the public. I find that constructive. I think that it reinforces and better explains the importance for Parliament of having access to information while ensuring, of course, that this does not involve cabinet documents. In my opinion it reinforces members' rights to have access to information that derives from cabinet decisions. In that way, this appears to me to be a constructive proposal.

I would add that there could be issues more in the “buildup”, or in putting forward the information necessary to arrive at the opinions that must be formed.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Blaney.

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you.

Mr. Reid is right, I think. Using the word “unfounded” makes it sound like Mr. Cappe had made a decision on the issue, some sort of final judgment, whereas I think what he was saying was, “You haven't convinced me, and you haven't convinced me because I haven't seen enough evidence that it should have been a cabinet confidence.” So maybe it should say “not justified” instead of “unfounded”.

Parliamentary colleagues, you may remember that I asked the law clerk a question: how do you tell a parliamentary committee why something should remain an issue of cabinet confidence without revealing the cabinet confidence? I don't have the blues here, and I don't remember his exact answer, but it was a very sympathetic answer. He said something like “That's the challenge”. If you're going to tell them why you can't tell them.... I think he even made reference to that old joke, “If I told you, I'd have to kill you”, but there's an essence of the truth in that. If I tell you why it has to be a cabinet confidence, I'm revealing a cabinet confidence.

So what they do in the Privy Council Office is simply quote the section of the act. This has been going on for decades. It's nothing new in this government; it has gone on forever. So what he was saying here is not a conclusion: “You did the wrong thing.” He's saying: “You haven't convinced me.” So I think the term “not justified” would be more appropriate and of course more accurate.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I have Monsieur Proulx, but if he's--

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

It's just that I'm wondering what line he is talking about, because in paragraph 18, in the English version and in the French version, we have injustifiée, “unjustified”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Well, in the English version it says “unfounded”, in line 2 of number 18.

[Harold Albrecht, Conservative, Kitchener—Conestoga, ON]

With what Mr. Cappe said, you need the word “unjustified”. In line 5, we have that. In line 2, it's “unfounded”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Are we suggesting we change the “unfounded”, in line 2, to “unjustified”?

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

No, “not justified”.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Well, “unjustified” is the word he used, actually.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

He used “unjustified”--

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

He used “unjustified”.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It's his language.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

Yes.

[Nicolas Auclair, Committee Researcher]

The first sentence.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Yes.

Okay, so if we smoothed that—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON]

We know what comes after that, so let's call the whole thing off. So bear that in mind.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

If we smoothed that word out, Mr. Lukiwski is still asking to add a paragraph, and we have the language for that.

Maybe I should do it this way: 15, 16, and 17 are all fine the way they sit; 18 with the word change; Mr. Lukiwski's added paragraph.

[Marcel Proulx, Liberal, Hull—Aylmer, QC]

We're changing the word to “unjustified”?