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.