Procedure and House Affairs Committee on May 10th, 2007

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

Never say “final”.

I listened to my colleague's comments and, I guess, this is almost starting to remind me of the different debates we've had on the floor of the chamber about our justice system in Canada, in the sense that if we could just educate people and do a better job of informing them of what's right and wrong, somehow that's going to solve the problem and they won't do anything wrong from now on.

With all due respect to Mr. Proulx, yes, I believe that's part of it—I have no problem with that—that members should be reminded, and be reminded with the sternest method possible, that this is serious and they should take the oath of confidentiality seriously. I have no problem with that.

But I still maintain, having been here now for nearly 14 years, that if there aren't some sorts of consequences, some of us will not take it seriously. That's certainly been my observation over the past 14 years. I think the vast majority of members of Parliament take their oath extremely seriously, and there are others, unfortunately, who don't. I do believe that some sanctions could potentially provide some deterrence to that behaviour. Yes, it's not easy to arrive at how guilt is proven; I agree that's extremely difficult.

In light of the conversation we've had around the table over the last half an hour or so, I would agree with Mr. Lukiwski and Monsieur Godin that all of us—and we have to be honest about this—could be guilty of inadvertently disclosing something that should have been an in camera or confidential conversation or discussion, with no malice at all. It happens, as others have said. That's why, in my earlier comments, I was dealing with draft reports or something in writing, or something on which there's no debate, such as, “Oh, I forgot this, and it just happened to be picked up by someone from the Toronto Star or the The Globe and Mail.” I'm talking about where people just completely flaunt the fact that they have an oath of office, and they don't have any interest in trying to maintain confidentiality with their colleagues, and they purposely leak documents.

That's not the same as a number of discussions of ours at committee, where we've been in camera and in public, and some reporter asks us about it six months later and we try to remember, “Okay, was it confidential, for example, when Yvon had said XYZ on that particular day? Was that while we were in camera, or am I free to mention that Yvon said something I disagreed with?”

That's legitimate. All of us are in a position where, even with the best of intentions, our memories can play tricks on us. There's a world of difference between that and when we're dealing with a confidential draft report that might be very sensitive, as it perhaps contains some stuff that, later on, before the final report is released publicly, we may all agree collectively to take out, such as some reference to witnesses' testimony, or whatever, given in camera. So it's still under discussion, it's still under development, and one of our colleagues decides, “Oh no, I'm upset enough about something that was said in camera, when so-and-so said something, and I'm going to get even with them and leak this damn report; I'm going to make a big issue of it on the front page of the paper.”

And there's no sanction for that. It does go on; we know it goes on. I think all of us, or certainly the majority of us, from all parties are upset about this.

Monsieur Proulx could be quite correct; maybe this discussion will just be a waste of time. And just as other committees have grappled with this over the years, it is not anything new. Maybe it's getting worse. Maybe it's getting better. Maybe it's staying the same.

Madam Clerk referred to her involvement, obviously, in a study of this very issue in a previous Parliament under Speaker Fraser. I'm sure if we went back and looked at precedents, Monsieur Proulx would be correct in the sense that parliamentarians before us have grappled with this problem.

I think Madam Clerk alluded to this, but at some point in time, if we discuss it, debate it, and in the end say nothing can be done about it, then nothing will change. The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and again, expecting a different result.

In my estimation, we won't get a different result, especially for deliberate leaks of documents, unless we find some other way. People can't come here to throw themselves at the mercy of the committee and say they forgot they were talking to a reporter, they forgot something was confidential, and they gave the reporter a draft report. What kind of nonsense is that? The person is guilty, and there should be some punishment.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you, Mr. Hill.

We have Mr. Owen, and then Monsieur Proulx.

[Stephen Owen, Liberal, Vancouver Quadra, BC]

Thank you, Chair and colleagues. I find this a very interesting discussion.

We seem to be dealing with at least three different dimensions. One is the dimension of what's in camera and what's not in camera, and are we slipping into in camera proceedings unnecessarily in some areas. I must say sometimes in the course of a two-hour meeting, we'll be in and out of in camera proceedings two or three times, and that brings up Yvon's problem of your memory of what was in and what wasn't. That's more our conversation rather than decisions that are taken or reports that are before us, and there can be some confusion.

In a certain way, that can be tightened up by making it clear why we're going in camera--when we are and when we're not and why we are. Maybe we go in camera more often than we need to. But we should understand that when we're doing it, it's for a very specific reason and we have a very specific responsibility when we do, and that's not to pass on the information.

Another dimension is the dimension of inadvertent guilt or innocence, and I think of Monsieur Proulx's comments on the importance of reminding ourselves that we did take an oath of office. And I must admit that until he mentioned it, I'd forgotten I had. I may have taken all sorts of oaths over time. But I think that type of reminder--and that includes this type of responsibility--is good education, and a regular revisiting of those responsibilities is a good idea.

Then there's the issue of where someone has clearly done something deliberate, as Mr. Hill mentions, and there's no question that it's damaging and it's something that's meant not to be done. There needs to be a sanction, because it's important and it's dangerous. To deal with that, I think we all should be going back to the education process.

If there's a document--and that's where I think it really comes out--the danger of a draft document being exposed to the public when it's not supposed to be is that people will assume it's a determined, final thing. So certainly in any event, whatever we do about sanctions or non-sanctions, we should have clearly marked on those documents that they're confidential, not for distribution. That's to remind us that this is a draft document, this is not the final decision of this committee, or whatever. It can be briefer than that, but something to say to the person in the media or whoever may get a copy that this is, if not worthless to them, certainly not worth a great deal because it's a work in progress.

But then, at the end of the day, where we have clear rules that make sense, and they relate to potentially highly prejudicial or damaging releases, then I don't have a problem with saying there should be some real sanction and bite, whether it's being shamed by the Speaker in the House or whether it's a monetary fine. Frankly, I'd rather pay a fine than get shamed in a way that reflects on your character and your professionalism.

But I think what we want to do in this committee is try to make the rules and understandings around those three dimensions sufficiently clear that we don't sit as a court on a regular basis trying to figure out if it's inadvertent or innocent or egregious. So in that sense, the more we can make it a strict liability offence, so that it's clear, there's no discussion of this, that as Mr. Hill says, it's obvious what's going on.... I think if we're going to get into sanctions, we should make them as crisp as possible so we're not sitting as a court trying to figure out and then perhaps getting into the politics of voting against each other or against someone on a political basis.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Owen.

I'll make some comments after Monsieur Proulx.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

As I've said before, I hesitate to make this committee or other committees into courtrooms. Mr. Hill is absolutely right; I think there'll never be any end to this. Was it done purposely? Was it not done purposely? Was it done almost purposely, or maybe a little purposely? I mean, there is no end to this.

However, Mr. Hill is absolutely right when we're talking of documents. If we are really serious about clamping down on this.... I don't want to show lack of respect, but we are about a thousand years behind the times here in the House of Commons as far as handling documents in a secure way is concerned. There are all kinds of electronic ways of marking documents, of identifying documents. There are all kinds of different types of papers that can be used. However, it involves time--by this I mean staff time--and it involves money, because it's more expensive and we'd have to do it the right way. But if that were one of the recommendations, I'd have no problem at all voting in favour of that, because I come from the claims investigations part of the insurance industry, and there are ways that have existed for years--and in recent years I am sure there have been huge improvements--of tracking down missing documents.

As it now is here on the Hill, we make photocopies of documents. We probably always make a couple of extra copies in case the photocopier stops in the middle of the job, then we're stuck. We're supposedly recycling enough paper on the Hill to enable us to build another building on my side of the river, and that would be nice.

Seriously, I think we can take means, we can take advice, we can take ways of making sure that documents.... Of course, whether documents are protected, whether you have disclaimers on them, whether you have markings on them, any document can be given to somebody. There is no doubt about that. But it could be one heck of a deterrent if people knew these documents were traceable.

So I have to agree with Mr. Hill that it is a problem, but we can probably solve it by having consultants or experts tell us how we could do it through a new way of handling documents or using different papers.

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, Mr. Proulx.

Madam O'Brien is running short of time, so I'll take a short comment from Mr. Godin.

Please, Monsieur Godin.

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

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

A while back, I had a good idea: we should enforce discipline and issue sanctions to those who do not respect the House of Commons. But the majority decided that this wasn't proper. However, I discussed this issue with guests from another country who came to meet with us. They told me that, in their country, there were sanctions for members who were impolite, who yelled in Parliament, etc., and that there was complete silence in their House of Commons. Here, we decided not to follow that path.

Let us come back to the case before us. Earlier, we were talking about educating and training people. I sit on various committees. I think that, at the beginning of each in camera meeting, the chair should read a document explaining the importance of sitting in camera. This is not yet being done. We have been here for years — even if some of us have just arrived — and it seems that the term "in camera" does not mean anything.

Perhaps this is a separate matter, but, in each in camera meeting, the chair read a document saying that the committee is sitting in camera, explaining why this is important and reminding members to be careful with documents that we take home in the evening to work on and not to forget that the meeting was in camera.

I think that when people understand this, we will no longer have to demonstrate the importance of being in camera.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

I will allow one more speaker.

Monsieur Laforest, you haven't had an opportunity, so please....

[Jean-Yves Laforest, Bloc, Saint-Maurice—Champlain, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I agree with what Mr. Godin just said. Earlier, you talked about new members or at least about training on the procedure to be followed, which new members need. I have been here for just over a year, as has my colleague.

You talked about respecting procedure and the need to ensure clear Standing Orders. In fact, not everything is always very clear with regard to procedure. As a new member, I sit on a committee and I replace colleagues on other committees, as I'm doing here today. I have noted that, quite often, the chairs of each committee do not apply the procedure in the same way.

Mr. Godin suggested that, at the start of each in camera meeting, the chair read a letter reminding members to respect the confidential nature of the meeting. But other than that, there are other things to consider, such as how chairs preside over meetings or the terms used. There isn't necessarily any consistency or uniformity in the way that things are said.

Earlier, an example was given regarding the terms "draft" and "final report". Each committee chair may use different terminology. Add to this the fact that each interpreter can say things differently, without necessarily changing the meaning. I think that before we consider imposing sanctions, we should first ensure uniformity among the committees. I imagine that this should come from this committee.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, colleagues. I think we'll wrap up the discussion.

If I may make a suggestion, we've had a number of very healthy conversations and a number of good ideas. I think we've reached consensus on a number of them, and yet not on some of them. I think the way to go now is to have our researchers and analysts go ahead and itemize the discussion from today, put it down on paper, and bring it back for another meeting, where we can go through it and say yes, we agree to this one; no, we don't agree with that one; or we do, but we're going to massage it up a little bit; and then we end up with a report of some nature.

I see a great consensus about—

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

Is that going to be done in camera?

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

We'll make that decision, but I do see a great discussion around restricting in camera meetings and chairs being educated. I see a lot of discussion around members of Parliament being educated. I see discussions around potential sanctions. I see all kinds of things, all good ideas. Let's get them down on paper in summary format and bring them back to the committee, and we'll finish the discussion at that point.

Madam O'Brien, did you have anything further you wanted to add to that discussion for our benefit? Otherwise, I'm happy to dismiss you at this time.

[Audrey O'Brien]

No, Mr. Chair. I think it has been a very enlightening discussion. I feel the pain of the members who were talking about the frustrations of there being miscreants about, who will simply not respect the work of their colleagues and the work that they're doing in the committee and who go off on their own agenda. We're certainly in the hands of the committee in any way that we can assist.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much.

[Audrey O'Brien]

Actually, I should say as well, given that we're also responsible for the orientation of new members, that this has given me all kinds of food for thought for graduate seminars on accountability.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you very much, and to your team as well. You're dismissed.

Colleagues, we're going to stay in public to discuss a couple of things.

I would like to draw to your attention that Monsieur Guimond had to leave but was kind enough to give to the clerk—and I believe you have it in your packages—two issues that he wishes to raise: notes on appealing decisions of the committee chairs, and the right of independent members to ask questions during a committee meeting. We're not going to deal with that right now, as Monsieur Guimond is not here to discuss it, but it's there for you to read for some future meeting.

Mr. Reid, you had brought some indication. Do you have anything to add to today's meeting?

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

Yes, I do.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Thank you.

Is it in both official languages?

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

No, I don't have it in both official languages. Therefore, perhaps I can give it to the clerk and ask for a translation.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

Can we do that and we'll bring it up at the next meeting?

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

Yes.

[The Chair, Conservative, Gary Goodyear]

That would be fine. Thank you.

Colleagues, in your packages is a letter as well. We can stay in public for this. We're sending this letter to the Chief Electoral Officer, Monsieur Mayrand. I'm hoping members have had an opportunity to read it. I need approval to send it off. It's in regard to the “bingo sheet”, and it has been circulated.

I'm going to give members a few seconds to find it. I'll then ask if it's okay that I send it.

There have been lots of papers lately. We're going to distribute another copy.

Could those colleagues who have read the letter perhaps give me an indication if they're okay with it?

Mr. Proulx, do you have a comment?

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

Yes, I have a question in regard to the translation, Mr. Chair.

Point number one starts in English with: Could you provide us with an explanation of Elections Canada’s plan for implementing this provision, should the bill pass and this provision is implemented?

In the French version, it's:

Pourriez-vous nous expliquer comment Élections Canada entend mettre en œuvre cette disposition si le projet de loi est adopté et cette disposition, modifiée?

I don't know where “modifiée” comes from, because “modifiée” means modified or changed. I don't see it in the English version.

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

Mr. Chair, as this is a fairly informal discussion, I wonder if I might comment on the same point.

Mr. Proulx has a good point. I was looking at the English version, and I had a problem with the way it ended. It makes me think they were perhaps trying to say, in the French version, “if the bill passes with this section unamended”.

It's what it should say in the English version as well: Could you provide us with an explanation of Elections Canada’s plan for implementing this provision, should the bill pass with clause 28 unamended?

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

Yes, as is.