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.
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
We're trying.
On that topic, while we're waiting, we'll go to Mr. McGuinty.
March 21st, 2011 / 9:15 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Mr. Chair, thanks.
Mr. Lukiwski, I know you read a direct transcript, but just in simple, plain English, what is the purpose of adding this? If the researchers and analysts didn't consider it material in the draft, what are we trying to say here?
9:15 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
The discussion was originally about what constitutes a cabinet confidence. There was much discussion about how cabinet confidence should be protected and should be kept confidential. Mr. Cappe was quite clear on that in his opinion that cabinet confidence should not be disclosed to any committee. He had never done that once in his tenure as Clerk of the Privy Council during the Chrétien years.
What I'm saying here is that I think there's a clear delineation. There is information contained in a cabinet document that should be kept confidential, but the information that flows from that is the information that should be made available and public to the committee. And I think that's a distinction that has to be observed.
So in future, if any government says it's sorry because it can't forward the information because it's a matter of cabinet confidence, it would be on record that while that may be correct, the information that's contained in there--if it can be drawn out and presented--should be made available to the committee.
I'm not sure if that distinction has been included in any other area of the report.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
On a point of order. I cannot take part in the debate because I did not clearly understand what Mr. Lukiwski is proposing. Could you allow the interpreter to provide a translation so that I can take part in the debate and understand what is being discussed properly before we continue, please?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Thank you.
I was just getting that intervention in, and now let's see if we can get that. Do we have it to read?
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Mr. Chair, I think the interpreters have the section I quoted, so they should be able to do it en français.
9:20 a.m.
Bloc
Claude DeBellefeuille Bloc Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC
The text is available in English and so you will have to translate it yourselves. I see no other solution.
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Marcel Proulx Liberal Hull—Aylmer, QC
The interpreter is asking if we have the translated text in French because what she has now is the English text.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Right. I know it's in the blues. The interpreters have the evidence in hand now. We would ask them to give an interpretation and to read that evidence.
Madame DeBellefeuille, did you want to make an intervention at this point?
9:20 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
On Mr. Lukiwski's point, in the discussion, Mr. Cappe said, “I'm not passing judgment on whether that's the right information”. He was recognizing that there is a legitimate case for cabinet confidence in certain cases. I don't think anybody at the committee disagrees with that, but on more than one occasion during his testimony, Mr. Cappe—and the researchers included this—also maintained that the government's decision to invoke cabinet confidence had been unfounded. Further, Mr. Cappe affirmed that he considered the decision to not provide this information to be unjustified.
We all agree with the principle of cabinet confidence, but in this case, which is what we're dealing with, Mr. Cappe said on more than one occasion during his testimony that cabinet confidence in this case had been unfounded. He also said that using cabinet confidence to protect this specific information was “unjustified”.
I'm being constructive; I'm just not certain of the pertinence of it.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Mr. Chair, could you tell me where this is in the testimony? I have Mr. Cappe's testimony here. I'd like to find that.
9:20 a.m.
Conservative
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
I'm reading from the report from our researchers:
18. Mr. Cappe also maintained that the government's decision to invoke Cabinet confidence had been unfounded.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I thought you were referring directly to the--
9:25 a.m.
Liberal
Scott Brison Liberal Kings—Hants, NS
No, I am referring to the report. I think we all remember Mr. Cappe saying that.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I actually don't remember it, but I don't doubt that the analysts have looked through the blues in compiling this.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Let's go back to our speakers list and see if we can handle it in the normal fashion.
Monsieur Godin.
9:25 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I remember that that was said. Moreover, it is included in paragraphs 17 and 18, in that context. I think that Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion is a red herring. What Mr. Mel Cappe told us was clear. He insisted on the fact that confidential cabinet documents must be protected, without necessarily depriving parliamentarians of the information necessary to their decision-making within the context of their duties. Yes, cabinet has the right to decree that certain documents are confidential, but parliamentarians must not be deprived of the information necessary to their decision-making. That is indeed why our committee is examining what happened. A good government must show openness. We all agree that a good government needs certain documents to be kept confidential, but a good government must show some openness as well. Waiting four months before acting is not showing openness; being pushed to act by the Speaker is not openness either. The Speaker's decision has brought us here. The government, left to its own devices, would not have been very transparent.
I support what Mr. Brison said regarding paragraph 18, which reads as follows:
Mr. Cappe also maintained that the government's decision to invoke cabinet confidence had been unfounded. In his view, once a bill has been introduced, the costs of that bill cannot be considered a cabinet confidence and must be provided to parliamentarians to enable them to arrive at an informed opinion.
I think that what Mr. Mel Cappe said is very clear. Documents may be protected, but in this case the bill was tabled and there was no further reason to do so. I think that this really reflects what Mr. Mel Cappe meant when he spoke here. I think that we should leave the text as is.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Thank you.
I've had a chance to go through the blues and find the exact wording. There was an exchange between Mr. Brison and Mr. Cappe, which is no doubt why Mr. Brison remembers it so much more intimately than the rest of us. Mr. Brison is asking Mr. Cappe some questions, Mr. Cappe is responding, and then Mr. Brison says:
And using cabinet confidence as a reason not to provide those costs to Parliament once the legislation is tabled is wrong?
Mr. Cappe responds:
I've let you put words in my mouth up until now; I'm going to back up on this and say that I think it's unjustified.
There are two things here. First of all, I think the word “unfounded” is not the right word. If you want to use “unjustified”, that would be a more accurate statement. So I might suggest that.
The second thing is that I think it's reasonable to point out that Mr. Cappe did not think it was wrong, and when that word was suggested to him he specifically rejected it. I think there's a very important distinction to be made there. I do think the text should reflect that. I don't think we should have a big fight over that, but I do think that's a significant point--unjustified, but not actually wrong.
9:25 a.m.
Conservative