Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Dec. 9th, 2010

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Then why do you think, Speaker, that in past cases where there have been leaks, privilege was not found to have been breached? Where is the distinction between this case and previous cases?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The fact that the committee came to the House and asked for it I thought was the thing that determined it, from my perspective. The committee members felt their privileges had been breached by this, and they reported it to the House. I agreed that they appeared to have a valid question of privilege as a committee, from that perspective. Rather than have them do the study on it, because it's not technically their jurisdiction, it was sent here via the motion that was adopted by the House.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

In other words, if I'm hearing you correctly, you are saying that if there's been a leak of a report from a committee, but the committee itself does not ask the House to deal with it, the probable ruling would be that there's been no breach of privilege.

What would happen if a member of the committee stood up, as Mr. Mulcair did—obviously quite within his rights—and called upon the chair to rule on privilege, but the committee itself had not written a report?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Oh, I don't know. I haven't thought that through. I guess it would depend on what he had to say in his argument and what the arguments against him were. I didn't consider it from that perspective, so I don't know what I would do.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Okay.

Lastly, Speaker, one of the things we will be charged with, as you noted in your opening comments, is trying to come up with, at the end of the day, some procedural protocols to ensure that this type of thing doesn't happen again. Would you, in your position as Speaker, be able to offer advice if we asked for it on that protocol side of things?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

You might get it from the clerk or some of her officials. I think they're probably more technically knowledgeable than I am on this stuff. I'm not a computer whiz at all.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

No, but you've been in the institution for many years. You might have some observations, at least.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

Well, I might be able to pass on observations on what they recommend.

If we're going to have rules governing transmission of computer stuff, or storage, and that sort of thing, I'm not a technical expert in this. So I don't think my opinion would be worth much on that subject. But from hearing what they say, I might be able to say “Well, I don't think that will work, because somebody like me wouldn't understand it and wouldn't get it right”.

[Tom Lukiwski, Conservative, Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, SK]

Thank you, Speaker.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you, Mr. Lukiwski.

Monsieur Paquette, welcome today.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you for your presentation, Mr. Speaker.

A little earlier, my Liberal colleague asked a crucial question. It is important to know exactly what direction the committee will organize its work in. When I read what you presented, I sense that, in your opinion, the committee's mandate, in response to the question of privilege, should be to find ways to prevent leaks like the one we have seen from happening again. Everyone sees that the leak happened. So there was a breach of privilege. The question it raised is therefore important.

You said that the committee is master of its own procedure, but should the committee spend more time on this particular case of the leak from Ms. Block's office, when she has admitted there was a leak, the employee responsible has been dismissed and she has apologized to the House? Do you think the committee might go further in its recommendations to the House, to sanction the member in question?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I have no opinion on what the committee may recommend. It is up to the committee to decide, after the questions and the testimony of all the witnesses. That is really the committee's decision, not the Speaker's. The committee is master of its own procedure.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

I am not closed to the idea of finding ways to collectively express that what happened is extremely serious, but I find it hard to see how we could go further in this situation, since the member has apologized. However, if there are other avenues, I am prepared to explore them.

You made an extremely serious decision by recognizing the question of privilege, which has rarely happened. It has happened only twice in the last year. That is certainly a Guinness record. To your knowledge, are there precedents where members have been sanctioned more severely after apologizing?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

The committee will make its own recommendations. It may make recommendations relating to the actions of certain persons, it may suggest changes to the Standing Orders of the House, and so on. It is up to the committee to decide. I referred the question to this committee, but I did not express my opinion on what the committee should do. You have the power to decide and you must do it as a group, as a committee. Your report will be presented to the House, it will undoubtedly be acceptable and the House could adopt it. You will decide.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

You have suggested only one concrete avenue, looking at it in light of the new technologies and seeing how we could make sure that confidentiality is maintained.

Might there be other areas that you think should be considered by the committee, in response to this incident?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

There were comments made earlier, this morning. There may be some investigations into what is happening. As I said already, it will be up to the committee to decide that.

[Pierre Paquette, Bloc, Joliette, QC]

Thank you.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

Is there any time left, Mr. Chair?

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

You have one minute, if you'd like to take it.

[Claude DeBellefeuille, Bloc, Beauharnois—Salaberry, QC]

I am going to take over for Mr. Paquette, who has to leave us temporarily.

Mr. Speaker, you say this is an excellent opportunity, if we can put it that way. This event may give us an opportunity to prevent this from happening again. In your document, it says that some committees have already adopted rules to prevent this kind of event. Do you think the committee should propose a rule that would apply to every committee? It would be a new, mandatory rule for every committee, and would deal with the management of confidential information, particularly consideration of reports in camera.

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

I simply suggested that consideration be given to a way of preparing and distributing reports, because there have been changes in this practice with the advent of computers.

That may not be the only question that should be considered. It is up to the committee to decide, not me. I said there was another method before and things no longer worked that way.

Is it difficult to do it as before? Probably not, but what should be done to protect the confidentiality of reports and draft reports? It is up to the committee to make that decision.

I hope that after considering this question you will have recommendations, or at least ideas that the other committees should consider when they are preparing something important like the report of the Standing Committee on Finance.

[The Chair, Conservative, Joe Preston]

Thank you.

Mr. Mulcair, welcome today.

[Thomas Mulcair, NDP, Outremont, QC]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Mr. Speaker, Ms. O'Brien, I am pleased to have you here with us.

This is a somewhat unusual situation for everyone. It is rather like winning a judgment and being able to ask the judge to clarify their thinking a little. It is a very good thing for us.

If I may, I would like to draw an analogy. We are considering two very different things. First, as you put it so well, if what was done was the result of an order or the conduct was repeated, it could lead to a question of contempt. That is where the aspect of a sanction arises, of a punishment or penalty. We have to consider another approach, however, that being the remedy.

I would make this analogy. If someone breaks into my house, it may be because my lock isn't strong enough. But it isn't the lock's fault, it's the fault of the person who broke in, right?

We can certainly also consider the question of the remedy and think about what we could do in future to prevent this. But part of the committee's job is to get to the bottom of the problem to find out what really happened. Was Mr. Ullyatt, whom we will have the opportunity to meet with next week, told never to do this? Did he do it anyway? Had this happened before? This kind of information will help the committee decide whether to go in another direction. As you say, there is the possibility of contempt.

When we consider this aspect of things, we are considering it in relation to the member; that is an internal matter. But can we impose sanctions on people on the outside? Can the charges we might make against the member be made against lobbyists too?

Let me explain. If, for example, we were to learn that a lobbyist had asked Mr. Ulyatt to send it to them as soon as he received it, could there also be a sanction against the lobbyist? Is it limited to members? Can a person on the outside breach privilege? Is that limited to members?

[Peter Milliken, Liberal, Kingston and the Islands, ON]

That is a difficult question, we never know. The House can decide what constitutes contempt of the House. It is possible to decide that a person who asks for something by telephone has committed contempt. I think it is also possible that a decision of the House on a subject like that could be appealed to the courts. We never know. There may then be a decision by a judge calling on the House to do something it can't actually do. It's possible. I don't know. There are not a lot of...