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.”