Thank you, Chair. I'm not sure if I'm going to add any clarity to this discussion or just muddy the waters a little bit, but I'll make a couple of observations, perhaps.
Number one, I think there has to be a bit of a distinction. We're talking about leaked committee documents. There's also been the case from time to time where it hasn't been actually a document; someone's gone out and given a verbal description of an in camera discussion on a confidential matter. Sometimes it's been inadvertent, and we've all seen that. I think there have been examples from all parties where someone inadvertently or just through...you put the term on it...has gone out and done a media report or interview and inadvertently leaked something, said something that occurred in an in camera discussion. So I think we have to distinguish that. In other words, the level of sanction should be commensurate with the level of the offence.
As far as process is concerned, I think it would probably always be a good idea that if it has been proven that one committee member, either verbally or by giving a written document, has breached confidentiality, the first step should be that the member should be brought back before the committee--at a public presentation, not in camera, I totally agree with Jay there--to explain his or her actions to the committee. Now again, this is only if the commission of a breach of confidentiality has been established. They should have the right to tell a committee, of which they were a member, why they did what they did. Sometimes it might be just, “Look, I screwed up. I did an interview with a local radio reporter. I forgot it was in camera. It was my mistake. There was no malice intended, and I throw myself on the mercy of the committee.” Or they may be, frankly, unable to explain their actions because they were quite guilty of committing a fairly serious offence.
I think your comment, Chair, when you were saying maybe it goes back to the House for sanction.... You know, I don't want to get too bureaucratic about this or anything, but I think maybe the committee should be the one to determine whether this is considered a minor, moderate, or severe offence, depending on how that committee member explains himself or herself, trying to justify, in some cases, his or her actions. And then sanctions can be put in place.
So there may be a sort of sliding scale, if you will, of penalties or sanctions, because I think from time to time you're going to find that a member makes a mistake, an honest mistake--not with any malice intended, but just an honest mistake.
I could think of the example of when there's a confidential document. We all see them from time to time. We take them; we're supposed to protect them, file them in our office or whatever. But perhaps the committee member inadvertently leaves it on a table, a member of the media picks it up and does a story on it, and right away the committee member knows, “Oops, that was mine. But I didn't do it purposely; it was a mistake. I want to explain myself to the committee.” It's a serious offence, a serious breach of conduct, but it wasn't done deliberately. I think the committee should have an opportunity to review that, to listen to the member, and say, “Okay, I believe you. It's still serious. Make sure you don't do it again.” We're going to sanction the member, but the level of sanction is down on the minor level because it was an honest mistake as opposed to somebody who deliberately goes out there with a confidential document, hands it to the media, and says, “Report this.”
So I think there has to be something the committee does to determine the level of offence.
Thank you, Chair.