I thin we work from a premise that all members are honourable. I'd like to pick up on Madame Picard's point, which goes back to the awareness level.
I really like some of the things the Senate does, as listed on page 4, to help reconfirm and remind everybody in the meeting that this should be taken very seriously. I really like the numbering of the report. I like the fact that there's a number assigned to each individual, and I like the fact that they may sign for them. I think all of that is worthwhile putting into practice as a good reminder to all of us that this is not something to be taken lightly.
To answer Mr. Lukiwski's point about someone saying, “Oh, I forgot it was in camera” or “I didn't know”, one can plead ignorance, but it doesn't ameliorate the damage. I'd be interested in hearing from Ms. O'Brien on whether the Senate does it. I'm wondering what costs would be associated with that and if that would be particularly onerous.
But I have to tell you that we're also becoming judge and jury here in ascribing motive, because anyone can come in and say, “Gee, you know, I just lost my head.” As I said, I think we all assume that we are honourable members, but let's face it, from time to time people do things very politically, but I would underscore that it's not just leaking documents--a point that's already been made. Regarding a subcommittee of this committee, I've heard from individuals, from non-government people, that they know exactly how everybody on that committee voted. I tell you, I find that highly damaging. I find that disrespectful of that subcommittee. I'm not about to point fingers, but that action was clearly motivated by politics, and I find that incredibly egregious.
None of this is going to cover that off. They're not going to tell me who told them that, but they know who raised their hand and what arguments were made in that in camera subcommittee meeting. I find that a real affront to this place, to this establishment.
I question how anything could happen automatically, and maybe that's been clarified by the chair. It would seem to me that any sanctions or menu of sanctions would really have to be dealt with by the House as opposed to just by a committee. I would be interested in hearing from Audrey about some of the things suggested at the Senate.
Do you have any idea if that would be onerous or a financial burden in any way?