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.