Procedure and House Affairs Committee on March 24th, 2011

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

We are now in public session for consideration of the draft report on this matter of privilege.

I'm going to suggest that we move in a fashion that's similar to how we've moved on other reports: that we start at the beginning and look at clauses maybe not one by one but page by page, wherever it's appropriate, and we vote on them.

First of all, I'd like to thank the analysts for a very detailed report and a good review of what evidence there was, the testimony from witnesses. Thank you very, very much.

[An hon. member]

Hear, hear.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

With lack of guidance, they did a good job.

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

Mr. Chair, just one clarification, if there is such a thing—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Let's try that one out, because a point of information is allowed.

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

Well, Marcel got away with a point of information, so I thought a point of clarification--

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

No, I agree with you, Tom, it does exist.

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

Yes. I'm just trying to find--

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

We just have to find it.

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

At the last meeting we were discussing a motion by Mr. McKay.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Right.

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

Is that—

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Gone.

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

It's gone now...? We're just discussing this?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

It could of course be brought back, but it is right now off the table--

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

All right. Thank you.

[An hon. member]

You never know....

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

--and the amendments to it.

All right, let's take a stab at this. We'll take pages 1 through 4.

Mr. Reid, on any of those. Please identify which one.

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

Paragraph 2 is the one I'm thinking of. This explains how the internal document came to light. This is a document that is, by definition, a cabinet confidence. Advice to ministers is specifically excluded under the access to information legislation. It's one of the grounds on which information is not revealed.

The material came forward by means of, as I understand it, either an access to information request that had been filed by Mr. McKay or someone giving the material to Mr. McKay, someone who passed it on to him, or else through an order paper question, which is, as I understand it, treated as using the same criteria that are used for access to information. Either way, it was sent to Mr. McKay's office by means of a process that.... Well, first of all, it was an item that would not under normal circumstances have been revealed. It was revealed as a matter of administrative error within the department, as Mr. Cappe noted in his testimony. He stated that this should never have been revealed.

That's point one, which I would like this paragraph to reflect, because that makes the very important point, which will be relevant to us later on as we're coming to our conclusions, that in adding in the word “not”, the minister had every reason to believe that this would never become public.... I should correct myself. It wouldn't become public for 20 years or 30 years or whatever it is that applies to documents that are considered cabinet confidences, thereby demonstrating that it could not have been altered by her or by her staff in a way designed to deceive either the public or Parliament.

That's a very, very important point, which isn't captured in this paragraph, but this is--

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Can you suggest wording, Mr. Reid?

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

I just have one more point to make.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Quickly, sure.

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

The wording would have to deal with this.

The second thing that has to be reflected here is that the nature of access to information requests—this is done with very good reason—is that when they are brought forward the minister doesn't have any access to the fact that this is going on. This is to prevent ministers and ministers' staff from interfering, and I think we all understand why the law was written that way quite a long time ago. So she would have been unaware that this document potentially was going to be made public, even by administrative error.

So there are two different bases, neither of which is reflected in the report, which demonstrate that this document could not have been altered by the minister or her staff for the purpose of deceiving either the public or Parliament, and it is that alleged deception that is the entire basis of the argument that she is somehow in contempt of Parliament. I simply want to have a paragraph that reflects that, and I can't think of where else to put it. Paragraph 2 is where the discussion occurs as to how this came to light.

For those who have the contextual information, it speaks for itself, but because the world doesn't have that contextual information, I think that should be added to the paragraph, Mr. Chair.

[An hon. member]

It could be in two or three.

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

Well, it could be.... Frankly, it probably should be a 2.1 or a 2(a), and we'd renumber or something like that. But I would suggest that this be incorporated before we go on and get into the discussion of what's actually contained in the document itself, which is done in paragraphs 3 and 4.