Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 1st, 2007

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Ms. O'Brien and Ms. Lajoie, thank you for coming here from such a distance. It was generous of you.

I want to talk about in camera meetings. We all know the answer to the following question, but we want to hear it from you. What penalty is imposed on someone who reveals information obtained at an in camera committee meeting?

I want to come back to the example Mr. Godin gave earlier. At that time, I believe that it was Mr. Guité who had testified in camera, and some of the information was disclosed. It had to have come from an employee of the House or a member of Parliament on that committee. It could not have come from another witness, because there were no other witnesses in the room.

What is the penalty or the stick, if you like, in cases where information is disclosed?

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Chairman, to answer Mr. Proulx's question, I would have to say that there are currently no sanctions at all. People give their word, and everyone relies on that.

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

I think that Mr. Godin raised an important point with respect to voting. Information can be communicated so quickly now that if MPs do not vote in the House, people think that they are not in Ottawa. This is something that is not talked about very often, but it is the reality. This is part of our responsibilities.

I agree that we should change the standing orders of the House in order to add a provision on this. I also agree with Mr. Guimond that there should be absolutely no exceptions allowed by the chairman, the members of the committee or committees by way of a resolution, an amendment or any other means. Generally speaking, the standing orders should dictate that when the bells ring, people have to be allowed to leave their committee.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Chairman, there is no doubt that the realities of a minority Parliament focus our minds much more clearly on situations such as the ones that you have experienced and described.

That said, it is important to keep in mind that cases in which committees have not suspended or adjourned their meetings in order to enable members to go to the House have been very rare. That does not mean that it could not happen more often, given the current circumstances in committees. On our side, we have identified, I believe, four occurrences since the 1980s. I understand that this does not mean that the issue should be put aside and treated as if it were unimportant, but we are not seeing a revolution in this area.

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

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Proulx, thank you very much.

Mr. Hill, you had a follow-up from the first round. You have five minutes as well, sir.

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

It won't take me that long. I have a suggestion and then a question. Then I'll turn it over to my colleague Mr. Lukiwski.

I note that in your remarks you suggest it could be problematic if we changed the Standing Orders to dictate or force an adjournment, even a temporary adjournment, of any committee when there's a division, because what would happen in the future if one party were to use that rule to try to prevent a committee from dealing with something controversial? In your notes you used the example of a quorum call, which obviously wouldn't be that important. In remarking about my earlier intervention, you used the example, “That the member be now heard”.

In drafting the new standing order, to ensure that members are afforded the opportunity to return to the House to vote, could we fashion it something like “for a previously scheduled division”? Then it wouldn't be something spur of the moment that necessitated the committee suspending.

[Audrey O'Brien]

If I may say, Mr. Chairman, through you, I think that if the Standing Orders are amended so that what you're dealing with is a suspension of committee activity to handle the division bells, that will address the danger. In fact, all you're doing is buying whatever half hour it is.

I would counsel against the idea of an adjournment of committee proceedings to answer the division bell. Again, that's with an abundance of caution, obviously. If the Standing Orders provided that the work of committees had to be suspended to allow members to answer the division bell and then return, obviously, to their work, I think that would succeed in doing what you want.

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

You only raise the issue of a quorum call or a member's now being heard in the context of a definitive adjournment of the committee. That was your only concern?

[Audrey O'Brien]

Yes. It would seem to me that—

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

As long as it says “suspension”, you're comfortable that it won't be used or that there won't be unintended consequences?

[Audrey O'Brien]

There are no unintended consequences that I can think of offhand. Even if one were to do a quorum call or “That the member be now heard”, you would only gain a certain amount of time, so it wouldn't be a very effective weapon, if you will. My own feeling is that it looks as if that would resolve the anxieties that have been raised this morning without going overboard in the other direction.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Mr. Lukiwski, you have two minutes.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Thank you, Ms. O'Brien, for being here.

I think what I've been hearing around the table, on the subject of adjournment or suspension of committee meetings to attend votes, is that there's some unanimity around the committee here. Perhaps at the conclusion of this meeting, we can take a motion forward. I agree with your analysis that if it's a suspension rather than an adjournment, that should take care of any particular problems of someone trying to manipulate votes to affect the committee outcomes. That's my opinion on that.

With respect to the other opinion on in camera proceedings, I tend to agree with Monsieur Godin and Monsieur Guimond that in camera means in camera. However, I think what also should be noted to all, particularly committee chairs and committee members, is that perhaps they should take extra time to view any requests by a witness to appear in camera with a little bit more due diligence. For example, if there was a demand by a potential witness to a committee that he or she would only appear under an in camera agreement, I think the committee should take a hard look at that to determine exactly why that request is being made.

In the example that we've used before, that of Mr. Guité, clearly there was a conflict between testimony in camera and testimony before the Gomery commission. That could have been very useful to Justice Gomery, but of course, he was prevented from hearing any of the in camera testimony. I think the committee originally should have had enough prescience to understand the fact that the testimony could be relevant at a later date in a more formal setting.

I think it begs the question of who determines that there should be an in camera setting. If it's the committee that determines that, then that's certainly their prerogative to do. I think that all committees would be wise to proceed with some caution if in fact there ever came a time when a witness only agreed to appear under an in camera setting.

I guess that's my only comment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Would you like to comment, please?

[Audrey O'Brien]

On a point of clarification, Mr. Chairman, through you, regarding the question of the testimony of Mr. Guité before the public accounts committee, I believe there was also the question of privilege. This was privileged information because it was testimony before committee, and that, in a sense, was the key issue rather than it simply being an in camera situation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

Madame Picard, go ahead, please.

You have five minutes.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

I agree with my colleagues that to avoid compromising the privileges of members and witnesses when we go in camera, we should have a very strict rule. If the content of a discussion held in camera must be made public, we should have to obtain the unanimous consent of all committee members who participated in the discussion as well as the witnesses.

Now, I would like to ask you a question. We have talked about not respecting the in camera rule and we have heard that there were currently no penalties possible. Do you think that we should have penalties for someone who breaches the in camera rule?

[Audrey O'Brien]

Mr. Chairman, the tool available to committees in cases where information is disclosed or leaked is the possibility of reporting to the House or raising a question of privilege in the House. However, even if that leads to further discussions and the issue comes back here, to your committee, that nevertheless leaves—

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

There is a void.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Exactly, there is a void.

[Pauline Picard, Bloc, Drummond, QC]

Thank you very much.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Monsieur Guimond, please. You have three minutes.

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

For the benefit of the group, I would like to explain that the only person who can lift the in camera status is the one benefiting from its protection.

I am going to give you an example that was in the news in Quebec. It will not mean anything to colleagues from other provinces, but it does, nevertheless, clearly illustrate Canada's two solitudes.

A young singer, Nathalie Simard, was sexually assaulted by her manager, Guy Cloutier, when she was between 8 and 10 years of age. During the legal proceedings, her name was never mentioned. There were rumours, discussions in the hallways, but no one ever mentioned her name. It was the singer herself who "came out of the closet", to use a popular expression, to discuss that she had been the victim. So in that way, she was the one who lifted the in camera status.

The possibility of going in camera exists first and foremost to protect witnesses and evidence, and only those witnesses can say that they do not require that protection and state it. For example, a witness may appear here in camera and upon leaving grant an interview to Tim Naumetz. Technically, if the witness does not need the protection he or she has been provided, the committee could not be held responsible. The witness may repeat publicly what he or she said in camera, but the in camera status is ultimately there to protect the witness.