Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 21st, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I understand that's what the speakers list is: it is to debate option A. I assume that in debate you would also hear the opposite side of what you're suggesting. I will give some leeway to the members to suggest that option A is incorrect, I guess. You're speaking in the positive; others will speak to it in the negative.

Mr. Reid, carry on.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

In order to demonstrate that option A is not the preferred option, from the point of view of this member--and I'm hoping, of course, in all good faith, to convince members opposite, including Mr. Godin, of the alternatives that may be there--I'm simply referring to what I regard as being a superior option among the four that were listed here.

I'm recommending that this be considered as preferable to option A. Option C says:

Following the tabling of additional cost information before the committee on March 16, 2011, and the statement by the Minister of Public Safety on March 17, 2011 that no further information was being withheld as a cabinet confidence, the committee finds that the government has now provided the committee and Parliament with its best available departmental cost estimates. The committee therefore finds that no further action with respect to this question of privilege is necessary.

I think that is a superior motion, which I think more accurately reflects the actual situation. If there is a concern that we need to adjust our practices.... And this is why I was so interested in the testimony of Professor Franks when he was here. I asked a number of questions based on his testimony. He is pointing out that there appear to be some inherent problems. They don't exist because of this government; they don't exist because of the previous government. They have been around for a long time, and they should be corrected in the interests of having a more open process.

So you could look, potentially, at option D, which speaks to the need to actually, in the future, look toward a more open process of government budgeting, system-wide, systematically. Let me just look at what that option suggests, because I think it is a very powerful option. The option the analysts have written down here is:

In a parliamentary democracy, it is incumbent upon the government to balance the need for transparency and openness in operations with the need, in some circumstances, that it withhold certain important information from the public. The committee finds that no further action with respect to the matters reviewed here is necessary, and tables its findings in this matter so they form part of the parliamentary record. The committee hopes

--and this is the important and I think constructive part--

that its observations may serve in future as a source of information and reference for other Commonwealth jurisdictions, future incarnations of this committee, and future Parliaments, should this complex issue arise once again.

This would of course suggest very strongly that we ought to take into account the proposals that have been put forward by those who testified before us on the system issues that are involved, and that means primarily by Professor Franks, and that we look toward correcting the situation so that in the future these kinds of situations simply can't arise. What would happen in the future would be that in the event a bill is tabled in the House at second reading and doesn't have a list of documents attached to it, then it simply can't proceed. It goes back and there is a very clear objective list--not a shifting list, not a list that is unclear, not a list that is manipulative for partisan reasons by any of the parties, government or opposition, but a simple, clear, objective set of costs that can then be challenged if there is to doubt as to the actual veracity of those costs.

One of the things we haven't done in all these hearings is actually ask if we think that any of the documents provided are problematic, that they are using the wrong inflation figures, the wrong figures as related to the amortization of costs and so on. We didn't get into any of that stuff. The committee that is actually responsible, the finance committee, never had a chance to get into that sort of thing. That would be very helpful in the future on all kinds of legislation, whether it's a Conservative government, a coalition government, or whatever.

I strongly suggest that we consider option D as the preferred option. I would suggest option C is the second choice. But option A is really the option that least reflects any kind of attempt to do constructive work, and moreover least reflects in any way the testimony, as one would expect, given the fact that it was tabled before we had finished hearing all the testimony and in fact appears to have been pre-written at some point before that.

Let's do the right thing and actually try to have this report help to build a constructive and more open interaction between the Government of Canada and the Parliament of Canada.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Albrecht is next.

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

No, I'm fine.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You're fine.

Mr. Lukiwski is next.

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

Thank you, Chair.

Obviously, I oppose option A, for the reasons Mr. Reid just finished illuminating, and also for many of the reasons I spoke to last week. It was pre-written, before the witnesses. This is just something that primarily the Liberals, but other opposition members who seem to support it, want to do to help buttress their political agenda. For that reason, if we were truly trying to find information, if this was an information-gathering session and we wanted to come up with recommendations or try to make Parliament a better place, option A, to me, fundamentally.... I profoundly disagree with option A.

I would even be prepared to support option B. Option B is critical of the government, option C less critical, and option D less critical yet.

I would even add to option B. I would even make it stronger by adding a line at the end of the paragraph or at the end of the option that says “FINA”—or the finance committee—“should undertake a further study and call all necessary witnesses to ensure that the documentation is received.” Option B is critical of the government. It says they haven't received all of the information, and that's what's required. So my sentence would actually strengthen that by saying fine, let the finance committee deal with it; call more witnesses until they're satisfied they've got the information.

In fact, if that's what Mr. Brison and members of the finance committee were after to begin with, one would think that option would satisfy their request. It would ask for all relevant information to be brought forward through examination of witnesses until the finance committee was satisfied they had received the information they wanted. And if you listen to them, that's apparently what they wanted to get to begin with, rather than just come in with a predisposed intention to find the government in contempt.

On the one hand, we've got a purely political option--that's option A--not looking for further information, not looking to satisfy the finance committee, just merely making a political statement that they find the government in contempt; or option B, with my addition, would actually make the information they requested become a reality.

I would certainly say that we would support option B, with that additional line that I've suggested, which is still critical of the government--it says we haven't given the committee the information they want--but it would make it so that the committee could get the information they desire. If they're truly interested in getting the information, finding a method by which to gather information to help them, they shouldn't have a problem with that.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

All right.

Monsieur Godin, you're next on my list.

[Yvon Godin, NDP, Acadie—Bathurst, NB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

I do not share the government MP's point of view. Let's look at the motion. It was presented last Thursday, which was not before we heard witness testimony, but after. The first point states the following: “That the government has failed to produce the specific documents ordered to be produced by the Standing Committee on Finance and by the House.”

We received this draft report at the beginning of the hearings, Mr. Chair. It was not presented to the Standing Committee on Finance. The second point states the following: “That the government has not provided a reasonable excuse.” That's exactly right. We asked for those documents. We were even told that the confidentiality of documents would not be affected, while just the opposite was being claimed in the House of Commons.

The draft report states the following:

3) That the documents tabled in the House and in Committee do not satisfy the orders for production of documents; nor do they provide a reasonable excuse;

4) That this failure impedes the House in the performance of its functions; and

5) That the government's failure to produce documents constitutes a contempt of Parliament.

Let's now consider Mr. Page's testimony. Following all the testimonies, even the one in the latest report, and after we asked him to study it and send his answer to the committee, he wrote the following:

There remain significant gaps between the information requested by parliamentarians and the documentation that was provided by the government, which will limit the ability of parliamentarians to fulfill their fiduciary obligations.

The questions asked are about such considerations as the cost to provinces. We were told that this was unknown. How much will it cost in other cases? We were told that the amount would be minimal. We never got any answers. We cannot draft a report to congratulate the government.

This does not mean that, after a report is submitted to Parliament, the committee won't be able to make other suggestions for the future. However, we have to follow up on the Speaker of the House's request. What was the prevailing situation? He did acknowledge the fact that we were not receiving the documents. This was also confirmed by all the testimonies we heard, excluding those from government representatives. Government ministers told us that they provided us with everything they had. That is absolutely not what the report said. That's why I think that option A truly reflects the recent events.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Blaney.

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

Thank you very much, Mr. Chair.

Contrary to what Mr. Godin just said, it seems clear to me, after reading the report, that the government has a responsibility to balance, on the one hand, confidential information held by Cabinet and, on the other hand, information that can be provided to parliamentarians. That's its responsibility.

We have seen that the government must be mindful of striking this balance. We have also heard testimonies, such as the one from Mel Cappe, who recognized that it was the responsibility of the government to protect Cabinet confidentiality. He was very clear on this, and I believe that this is plainly stated in the report.

As Mr. Lukiwski was saying, it is important for information arising from decisions made by Cabinet to ultimately get to parliamentarians. That's exactly what the government has done. We saw this in the report. A great deal of information has been provided. On reading the report and given all the information that the government has provided us with, we even wonder whether there are actually any issues that remain unresolved. Clearly, documents were submitted over a four-month period.

Regarding this issue, I share the opinion stated in my colleague Scott Reid's excellent speech. I would also add that Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion is interesting. He said that parliamentarians should continue trying to help the government strike a balance and provide it with guidance for striking this balance between Cabinet confidentiality, on the one hand, and the need to provide parliamentarians with information, on the other hand.

I would go along with what Mr. Reid said. I think option C is legitimate. However, I also like Mr. Lukiwski's suggestion to continue with this initiative to clarify this rule for our government and for future governments.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Lukiwski.

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

Let's make it perfectly clear. Personally, without question, I prefer option D. But knowing how the opposition appears to be headed towards option A, I'm saying, if nothing else, as a friendly suggestion to try to actually make it look as though this committee is relevant, instead of just rubber-stamping a political motion brought forward by the opposition, I was suggesting that we could live with option B if you added the line I put in to actually strengthen it, to give the finance committee the ability to go even further and call witnesses to try to satisfy the committee's original request.

I'm not suggesting that I think option B is the best one there and accurately reflects what happens, because it talks to the fact that in the opinion of the committee the government has not given sufficient information, and I disagree with that. I believe that we have, and in my opinion we have fully complied. I'm just saying that option B is better than option A, because option A is such a blatant political statement, and it has nothing in it that even comes close to asking for further information to deal with the finance committee's requests. That's why I'm suggesting that option B would be something we could support if we strengthened it, but it's clearly not my option.

I believe that we, as a government, have fully complied with all of the requests of the committee, and I would certainly think that option D is the best of the four.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Young.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Thank you, Chair.

Chair, this option A is obviously a product of the coalition motion, and it's basically Politics 101 in a box. I don't in any way blame the analysts--I think they've interpreted it relatively accurately--but it's the politics of ambition in a box, actually.

I have to tell you that I don't think the coalition members are particularly proud of this motion. We've seen them ignore the minister's testimony. They tried to have it deleted off the record repeatedly, in various ways. They went in camera to make a motion to take, I guess, what would be 20 pages of information down to two pages.

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

A point of order, Mr. Chair. Is he talking about the in camera part?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

I haven't got there yet. We should let him make his statement and see what happens, but I'll caution him to be sure about talking about what we voted on in public and what we voted on in camera.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

They did everything they could do to exclude the very information that they demanded this week, with four ministers appearing at length, two of them coming back the next day. They've taken a very odd approach. In one case they've even asked their staff to investigate the religion and the faith of some of the government members on this side. I wonder how Canadians feel about that.

I appreciate that Mr. McGuinty apologized for that. Nevertheless, that's how far they've been prepared to go to get off the topic of the information, which is what they wanted and what they demanded of Parliament.

[David McGuinty, Liberal, Ottawa South, ON]

[Inaudible--Editor]

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

I think we received the information the motion asked for. This big thick book, I guess it was about four or five pages of information--

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

A couple of hundred pages.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

Was it a hundred pages?

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

You're talking about the minister, so it's 700 pages.

[Terence Young, Conservative, Oakville, ON]

It's 700 pages. Sorry. And it was quite adequate.

So option A is obviously not realistic at all. I wanted to say that I support Mr. Lukiwski in his position on option D, if it is possible, but otherwise option B as amended.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

I have no other speakers on the list, so we're on the motion to accept option A.

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

Recorded vote, Mr. Chair.