Mr. Speaker, I am rising on the question of privilege that I first raised in the House three weeks ago. At that time, I advised you that the government's refusal to provide all of the information requested by the finance committee in its motion of November 17 constituted a breach of this House's privileges. I also advised you that the government's refusal to provide a reasonable excuse as to why it could not provide that information also constituted a contempt of Parliament.
Mr. Speaker, I now wish to draw your attention to some significant developments that have taken place, in some ways, since I first raised this issue with you on February 7. I will also draw to your attention the lack of significant developments in other instances.
The first development I would like to discuss is the supply motion from the member for Wascana that was debated by the House on Thursday, February 17. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, the motion stated:
That, given the undisputed privileges of Parliament under Canada's constitution, including the absolute power to require the government to produce uncensored documents when requested, the government's continuing refusal to comply with reasonable requests for documents, particularly related to the cost of the government's tax cut for the largest corporations and the cost of the government's justice and public safety agenda, represents a violation of the rights of Parliament, and this House hereby orders the government to provide every document requested by the Standing Committee on Finance on November 17, 2010, by March 7, 2011.
Despite the hours spent by the House debating that motion from the member for Wascana and the repeated questions from members of the opposition, the government has still failed to either provide the requested information in whole or to provide an explanation as to why this information cannot be provided.
The government House leader did on February 17 rise on a point of order to table some information that supposedly was meant to respond to the order for documents made by the finance committee in its November 17 motion.
Shortly after noon today, the parliamentary secretary to the House leader did rise in the House to provide the government's response to some of the issues I raised on February 7 in this question of privilege.
However, the government's response remains woefully inadequate. The parliamentary secretary suggested that no order to produce documents existed in the finance committee's 10th report and therefore there was no prima facie case of breach of privilege. I would like to quote from the committee's 10th report to the House, which in turn quotes from the November 17 motion. They both state:
That the committee also orders that the Government of Canada provide the committee with electronic copies of the following documents...
The motion, as quoted in the finance committee's 10th report, then goes on to order the government to provide the committee with the following documents in relation to 18 of the government's justice bills. This order for documents includes:
the incremental cost estimates broken down by Capital, Operations and Maintenance and other categories
the baseline departmental funding requirement excluding the impacts of the bills and Acts broken down by Capital, Operations and Maintenance and other categories;
the total departmental Annual Reference Level, including all quasi-statutory and non-quasi statutory items, including Capital, Operations, Maintenance and Other Categories, including the incremental cost estimates;
detailed cost accounting analysis and projections, including assumptions, for each of the bills and Acts conducted in accordance with the Treasury Board Guide to Costing;
The committee's 10th report concludes by stating:
—the Committee wishes to draw the attention of the House on what appears to be a breach of its privileges by the Government of Canada’s refusal to provide documents ordered by the Committee, and recommends that House take whatever measures it deems appropriate.
The government's response to the matters raised, both in terms of the information tabled in the House on February 17 as well as the parliamentary secretary's response in the House earlier today, is an insult to Parliament and an affront to Canadian taxpayers and citizens.
On February 17, the government only tabled rudimentary cost projections for just some of the bills and it failed to provide the House with any explanation as to how it arrived at these figures.
The government continues to deny us the information we need as parliamentarians to do our due diligence and to determine whether or not the assumptions behind the government's cost projections for these bills are reasonable.
The Treasury Board “Guide to Costing” explicitly states on page 7:
Departments should document all assumptions, processes and calculations used to produce the cost information.
These are some of the documents the finance committee has ordered, but instead of providing these assumptions, processes and calculations for the costing of these bills, the government has simply stated that the ordered documents are covered by cabinet confidence.
On February 7, I explained why these background documents related to the justice legislation are not covered by cabinet confidence. I argued that even if they were covered by cabinet confidence, this does not restrict Parliament's authority to order the production of these documents.
Furthermore, I argued that it was in fact in the public interest for the government to provide these documents to Parliament, but today, once again, the government has failed to address any of these arguments. It has failed to provide an explanation as to why it believes these documents are covered by cabinet confidence or why they should be kept hidden from Parliament.
By simply repeating its line that the documents are covered by cabinet confidence, the government is failing in its duty to provide this House with a cogent reason or reasonable excuse for its actions or inactions with respect to this question of privilege.
The other significant development that has taken place is the report from the Parliamentary Budget Officer that was provided to the finance committee last Friday. This report is in response to the finance committee's motion of November 17, 2010 and the information provided to this House and that committee by the government, up until and including the information tabled in the House by the government on February 17. In its report, the office of the Parliamentary Budget Officer acknowledged that the Government of Canada “has not provided FINA”, the finance committee, “with most of the information it requested.”
The office of the PBO also discussed the relevance of the finance committee's order for documents. The parliamentary budget office wrote:
1. Is the information requested by FINA [finance committee] relevant and necessary to parliamentary decision-making?
A. Yes. It is required for parliamentarians to fulfill fiduciary obligations under the Constitution.
2. Is it collected regularly by the GC [Government of Canada]?
A. Yes. The information is collected, analyzed and challenged as part of the GC's [Government of Canada's] expenditure management system.
3. Does Parliament have a right to the information?
A. Yes. The Parliament of Canada is under a constitutional obligation to review any information gathered during the EMS [expenditure management system] process that it views as necessary for the discharge of its fiduciary duty to the Canadian people to properly control public monies.
The government has had three full weeks, which is more than adequate to address the issues I raised on February 7 in my question of privilege.
The government has failed to do so. It has failed both to provide all the documents or provide any reasonable explanation as to why these documents cannot be provided.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I respectfully ask that you provide the House with a ruling on my question of privilege at your earliest opportunity.