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.