Evidence of meeting #52 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 information.
A recording is available from Parliament.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Yes, we're changing the “unfounded” in line 2 to “unjustified” to follow the exact words Mr. Cappe used.
So we're okay in where we are.
Now to Mr. Lukiwski's added paragraph 19. I see shaking of heads. Should I just call for a...?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Harold Albrecht Conservative Kitchener—Conestoga, ON
One technical suggestion. Would it be better to have 18(a) and 18(b), so we don't need to renumber the rest of the document--just for now?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Yes, okay. I'm just calling it Mr. Lukiwski's added paragraph at the moment.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
When we get there, we'll get to the numbers.
Would you like it read again?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I'll give wording, and I'll hopefully speak slowly enough so the interpreters can get it.
What I had said was the exact quotation from Mr. Cappe, but if we wanted to add something, one of our analysts has sort of put the wording in that reflects what Mr. Cappe said:
In his testimony, Mr. Cappe insisted on the fact that cabinet confidence shall not be communicated; however, certain information contained in these cabinet confidences could eventually be released and communicated to the public.
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
That's the addition following 18.
Those in favour of that addition following 18.... Sorry...?
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
9:35 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
A recorded vote on this. Wow. Okay.
Is everyone clear about the insertion of that paragraph?
(Amendment negatived: nays 6; yeas 5)
So that is not inserted.
We're at 18 with the change accepted.
We'll go to the next page, page 6. Let's take 19 by itself.
Mr. McGuinty.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm not sure if it's relevant or not, but I just wanted to raise it.
During her testimony I think a few of us--I know I did--asked Madame Legault a question about a forthcoming report that's to be tabled today, Mr. Chair, I understand. I asked her not to get into specific cases but to confirm media reports that she would be announcing a government-wide investigation into the political interference of access to information requests. My recollection is that she confirmed that. I don't know if it's something that ought to be here or not, Mr. Chair.
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm told that report is coming out today, but I'm not sure if it's something we should insert here. I raise it as a point of information.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
My recollection is she said in her opening statement and as she went on that she couldn't speak to that, but I'm willing to hear from others as to whether they would like what Mr. McGuinty is asking for.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Chair, once again, I have the blues here, and I'm just trying to find it. Mr. McGuinty is saying that this was in response to a question he had raised. Is that correct?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
From my recollection, yes. It might have been me or perhaps another member of the opposition. I don't recall if it was exclusively me. But it was about helping Canadians understand. The reason I raised it is it is important for Canadians who will be ultimately reading this report to understand that there's a distinction between this process, referred by the Speaker, and her individual independent investigation. I remember raising the RCMP investigation into Sebastien Togneri and her report that I'm told is coming today, Mr. Chair.
It might be important to make a reference to the fact that she confirmed that these two matters were separate and distinct. That was the purpose of having raised that. There was a lot of confusion, and I think there still is, about what she's doing and how this links or doesn't link to these breach of privilege hearings.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Perhaps, Mr. McGuinty, in response to a question you raised, as I'm flipping through this stuff--and I would do a word search if it was a soft document, but it's not. It's in response to your questions, I believe you said.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I just don't think it's relevant. I think all of the commentary we should have in the draft is relevant to this particular question of privilege. I don't think the commentary by Madame Legault is relevant to this question of privilege.
9:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
Mr. Reid is still looking, but is there any other comment?
Are we accepting 18 as written?
9:40 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
I'm not going to die on this hill at all. Even from a government perspective, I would want to make sure this was clearly disassociated and distinguished, but I'll leave that for the government's consideration. I just thought that in the interest of clarity...but I'm not going to push this.