Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2007

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

There is a minute left, if Ms. O'Brien wants to respond. Otherwise, we'll go to Monsieur Godin.

[Audrey O'Brien]

I think that you must bear in mind that the deliberations of Parliament are privileged, they fall under the umbrella of privilege. So witnesses already benefit from protection. Perhaps one way of simplifying the task would be, as some of you have suggested, to have strict procedures for going in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

If I could draw the committee's attention to the rules and practices in other jurisdictions, you probably have this. As we continue our questioning, which we'll do in one moment, I think we're leaning towards having a look at Australia. You may find the majority of the discussions around the table so far are very similar to those in Australia. In particular, I tend to like the last point on the second page.

Having said that, while members read it, we'll move to Mr. Godin.

If you're ready to proceed, Monsieur Godin, you have five minutes.

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

Mr. Chairman, I would just like to make a comment.

While I often support my colleague, Michel Guimond, in many respects, because of his wisdom and knowledge, this time, I do not agree with him on the last point he raised. I do not think that going in camera should be just to protect the witness. It applies to the entire meeting. We don't even allow the public to attend in camera meetings for those reasons.

For my part, as a member, it could be a matter of privilege for me, depending on the question I ask. So I would be freer to ask my questions and to say things in camera. So as a member, I want to be protected too. Everyone should be protected, not just the witness. If the witness says things outside of the room, he must be reminded that he appeared in camera.

I don't know what we can do with an outside witness, but I want to make sure everyone understands that the in camera applies to us as well. It is an in camera session for everyone.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Mr. Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Like my colleague, Mr. Godin, I disagree with your last comment, Mr. Chairman. In fact, in Australia, it says: Witnesses testifying in camera are told prior to their appearance that the committee may subsequently render the testimony public. If witnesses have been given assurances that their testimony would not be disclosed, their written consent is required before any portion of their testimony my be made public.

The first part of what I just read is unacceptable for me. As for the second part, as Mr. Godin said, and contrary to what Mr. Guimond was saying, I think personally, that the in camera status must apply not only to witnesses, but to the entire committee meeting, or the committee itself.

For example, if we go to the trouble of conducting a meeting in camera when the committee hears from a witness to discuss national security or even security on the Hill, as has already been the case, it is because we do not want the information to be made public, or published. If a witness tells us that there is a potential danger of a bomb exploding in some way and we want to keep that information confidential and secret by holding the meeting in camera, the witness must not be allowed to leave the room and make public any evidence he has provided to the committee.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, point of order.

Why wasn't action taken against Nathalie Simard? I simply want to—

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

It wasn't a committee.

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Precisely.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I want to continue with the questioning.

Is that a point of order?

[Michel Guimond, Bloc, Montmorency—Charlevoix—Haute-Côte-Nord, QC]

Mr. Chairman, point of order. I want to clarify something that I mentioned earlier.

I gave the example of a witness, in a criminal setting, who accepted to go public with information, when the witness was the victim. In the case I mentioned earlier, Nathalie Simard was the victim, and she publicly disclosed her name. No action was taken against her.

A distinction must be made between a parliamentary committee like ours... When the committee meets in camera, that must be respected. I would not want to suggest otherwise.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I don't see that as a point of order, but point well taken.

We'll go to Monsieur Proulx.

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

That is a very important clarification, Mr. Chairman. The example did not apply to us, and that was the point I wanted to make. Therefore, I thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

We're back to Mr. Hill. Mr. Hill, we are on our third round.

I should have reminded you, colleagues, that we're down to three-minute rounds. I have Mr. Hill, and Mr. Reid wanted up. You might want to consider that, or we can do a fourth round.

We'll have Mr. Hill first, please, for three minutes.

[Jay Hill, Conservative, Prince George—Peace River, BC]

Thank you.

I just want to follow up on Mr. Godin's earlier comments. When the restraints of in camera sessions are not honoured, it's a reflection on the members as well as on witnesses. I think that was the point he was trying to make. I strongly agree with that. This disrespect for confidentiality is one of the very reasons we have to be able to trust one another at committees. I think most members, if not all, would agree with that. That's why I think, when there is a question of privilege raised in the House about a premature leak of a committee report or something like that, the vast majority of members, if not all, take that very seriously.

Of course, raising that it actually happened because it's in today's newspaper is quite separate from actually proving who did it. You get into the whole area of whether you can prove it and then what sanctions there are, which is one of the issues Mr. Guimond was trying to address earlier.

I wonder, Mr. Chair, if our witnesses wouldn't have some thoughts on the procedure we have to try to prevent it. And I'll just use that as an example, because it goes on quite regularly. It's not a real anomaly to have the premature release of a committee report by someone, obviously, who has access to that report, in musing with a journalist. It does show a disrespect for the institution and for the colleagues who sit around the table. I wonder if the witnesses believe that we have an adequate procedure in place.

I know that one or two of the committees have, over time, grappled with this. They have their members, after a committee report or some information considered in camera--confidential--has been leaked to a journalist and has appeared in the press, in the public domain, swear an oath that it wasn't them. They take an oath, as you would in a court of law. But of course that's in camera, and if somebody refuses to take an oath, that in itself can't be released. I'm just using that as an example.

Do the witnesses have some suggestions, not only for this committee but, by extension, for all parties and all members and for the House itself? Is there some way we can change the procedure to try to tighten it up, as it were, so that all members take this a little bit more seriously, perhaps? I think the vast majority do take it extremely seriously, and they do reflect upon it from time to time. It's incumbent on their own personal integrity that they honour that commitment to keep stuff confidential. Obviously some don't, because we're confronted with this from time to time.

I'm not pointing fingers at any one party or any one member. It happens. And I wonder if we shouldn't have some tighter rules and potentially some sanctions in terms of what would happen if you could prove who it was, or if somebody refused to take an oath, for example. I suggest that it would obviously point towards at least some suspicion of guilt if every member didn't take an oath and say, “It wasn't me. I don't know who did it, but it wasn't me who talked to the journalist.”

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

I wonder if I could interject, Mr. Hill. Thank you.

We're a bit over time here. I think we're reaching into different subject matter. We have a motion coming before the committee that deals with leaked in camera information.

Ms. O'Brien, I'm happy to let you answer the question, but you weren't prepared to deal with the leaking of in camera information versus making in camera information public. It's a very grey definition, but I see the difference. I'm happy to let you answer the question, if you want to take a minute. If you're not prepared, I see that the motion, Mr. Hill, dealing with this particular matter is before the committee. We can deal with it at a future date. I'm open to the committee answering it; it just deals with a different area.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Are you prepared?

[Audrey O'Brien]

I didn't address this particular aspect of in camera, notably the leaking of information, and particularly reports and information relating to the discussions on reports, so I don't have a lot of the background.

But I would certainly be able to say to you that the worry I have there is that as soon as you start.... On the one hand, I think better education of members may be needed, so that they have some idea that this is not a trivial matter, that it's not something they can treat in a cavalier fashion, because I think you're absolutely right. If I may, Marie-Andrée is famous for reminding me from time to time--many, many times--to never attribute to malice what you can explain by stupidity. And it may well be that that little adage might go far, and that in fact members are just treating things as cavalier because, well, after all, “Everybody knows this; it's an open secret, you know.” Maybe by doing a better job of educating members, that can help.

The other thing is that if you get to the point where you have a member who is known to have done this, perhaps the fertile imagination of the whip in a given party can be applied to sanctions. One would venture to say that maybe that person is not worthy of sitting on a committee for six months.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Could I interject? Thank you very much, Ms. O'Brien.

I think what we'll do is defer this discussion to a future meeting in the near future. I'm pretty close to hearing a consensus from the committee, so I'd like to stay on point, if I could.

I have only one more name on my list, and that's actually Mr. Reid. If we're going to start a fourth round, I'd like to give other members opportunity. Seeing no other members, then we're on our fourth and likely final round.

Mr. Reid, three minutes, please.

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

Thank you.

And thank you both for coming here.

With regard to the discussion that Mr. Proulx was having, following up on the earlier discussion we had about how Australia handles things and his comments on that, I don't think I'm wrong in assuming that if someone has given testimony in camera but has resisted the release of that testimony, but it's the judgment of the committee that the testimony ought to be heard, they could be compelled to give the testimony again in public.

Am I not correct that that could be done?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

That's true.

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

Is that true?

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Yes, that could work. The committee would have that.

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

Yes, so if that's the case, that would overcome the concern that I think Mr. Proulx was expressing—