Evidence of meeting #54 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 document.
A recording is available from Parliament.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
I'm glad, frankly, that Scott brought that up, because I was going to talk about what I think is a glaring omission in this report. I think it's a factual report that the analysts have put together, but there are some omissions. The one I think is most glaring is that there's no reference to testimony from Mr. Cappe whatsoever, and he was one of our witnesses. I think that's very important to this, because he was, as Mr. Reid pointed out, the one who mentioned that he, as a former clerk of the Privy Council, was of the opinion that this document that had really caused all of the confusion should not have been--
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
It's only because I don't recall Mr. Cappe testifying on this issue at all. Did I miss something? Did I miss hearing it somewhere?
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
11:40 a.m.
Liberal
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
I can't remember whether Mr. McGuinty was in the room when the testimony was given, but what happened was that Mr. Cappe was brought in to deal with the other subject this committee had been seized with but while there he expanded his testimony to cover a number of the topics, including this one.
11:40 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Cappe never provided testimony to the committee on that subject. This is totally out of order.
11:40 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I do remember Mr. Cappe being asked questions about cabinet confidentiality and the release of documents from bureaucrats. You're right, last week is a bit of blur as to what study we were doing.
11:45 a.m.
Bloc
Pierre Paquette Bloc Joliette, QC
It was as a result Mr. Brison's motion that Mr. Cappe appeared before the committee. So, that is not relevant in the context of this report.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I was in the middle of saying that. Mr. Cappe was here on the issue brought forward by Mr. Brison, but I believe at the time--and I'm sorry I can't remember which member was asking questions about cabinet confidentiality and the affair from CIDA--Mr. Cappe did share his views. Whether he was asked to by the member or he shared them in his statement I don't remember, but I do remember it being at least testified to.
Mr. Lukiwski, you still have the floor.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
Thank you.
Again, I'm not trying to say that he was the witness who came to speak specifically on the Oda thing, but he referenced the Oda case in his testimony. I think it's very relevant, whether or not he was a witness in favour, if anyone speaks who was a witness, because we're talking about points of privilege on potential contempt motions. I think it's very relevant that a former clerk of the Privy Council, who referenced the Oda case, gave his opinion. And it supports what Mr. Reid was suggesting, which was that in his opinion that document shouldn't have been released to begin with.
I can live without having a direct reference to his testimony, because opposition members might argue that you shouldn't include it because he wasn't a witness called in the Oda case. That's fine. The point Mr. Reid made, however, is very important. That is, because Minister Oda did not think that document would be made public--and Mr. Cappe verified that in his opinion it shouldn't have been, and that if he had been the Clerk of the Privy Council at the time, it wouldn't have been--then she had no expectation that the document was going to be made public. If in her estimation the document would never have been made public, how in the world could she be considered in contempt for trying to mislead anyone, because no one would have known about it to begin with?
That, I think, is an extremely relevant point, and that isn't referenced here. I would suggest that if you're actually trying to be fair about this whole issue--and the question is whether she was deliberately trying to mislead--then how can you not put that in?
11:45 a.m.
NDP
Yvon Godin NDP Acadie—Bathurst, NB
Mr. Chairman, Mr. Mel Cappe did not appear before the committee as a witness with respect to this affair, so why should we refer to him? If we do that, we may as well refer to judges and anyone else in the country who might have said something. These people are making a federal case of this. Mr. Lukiwski himself said that Mr. Cappe had not appeared before the committee to discuss that specific issue. If witnesses did not appear before the committee, we cannot refer to them in the report. If they were anxious to have a specific witness appear before the committee to discuss the case of Ms. Oda, they could certainly have done that. But they did not. I see no reason why this is relevant here. Otherwise, we can refer to just about anyone. We're talking about the report here.
11:45 a.m.
Conservative
Tom Lukiwski Conservative Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK
I know the opposition doesn't think it's relevant because they want to find Minister Oda in contempt, just as they did with the documents. They made up their minds before they heard the first witness.
With all due respect to Mr. Godin, I don't disagree for a moment that he doesn't consider it to be relevant. I do. If you're trying to be fair and balanced in this--and I've yet to see any demonstration from the members of the opposition that they actually do want to be fair and balanced--then you should put into the report the fact that if Minister Oda did not have expectations that this internal document was to be made public, how could she possibly have intended to mislead anyone, because if it was not made public no one would have known.
11:45 a.m.
Liberal
David McGuinty Liberal Ottawa South, ON
Point of order, Mr. Chair.
For the record, I'd like to ask unanimous consent from the committee, through you, Mr. Chair, to table the document released by the Canadian International Development Agency in which you would clearly see the word “not” inserted. In the top right-hand corner of the document there is a file number. I believe it's 1402. Under that number, in bold letters, for the information of Mr. Lukiwski and Mr. Reid, who are arguing that this should never have been made public, is the word UNCLASSIFIED in bold letters and capitals. That is unclassified, which means this is a document that should be disclosed to the public. The decision had been made by CIDA officials, presumably with the minister's authorization, to unclassify the document.
Mr. Chair, through you, I'd like to table that for all Canadians to see as an unclassified document.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
Mr. McGuinty, if we're moving back into the portion of this committee where we would accept evidence, I'm happy to do so if it's the will of the committee. I thought and hoped we had finished that on Friday.
Mr. Reid, on the same point of order.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Would you deem Mr. McGuinty's item a point of order?
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
The Chair Conservative Joe Preston
I see no other reason for him to have come forward with it if it wasn't under a point of order.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative
Scott Reid Conservative Lanark—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, ON
Okay. I thought he was seeking unanimous consent.
11:50 a.m.
Conservative