Mr. Speaker, in spite of the matter of privilege I raised in the House on December 3 concerning leaked committee documents, in particular the one that occurred on December 2 concerning the report on the pre-budgetary consultations of the Standing Committee on Finance, I must unfortunately again today submit to you another case of contempt for the House.
This morning's Le Droit and Ottawa Citizen gave the key recommendations in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on the future of the Canadian financial services sector. This is the sixth committee report leaked in the past two weeks and, in the case of the Standing Committee on Finance, the second leak in five days.
Once again, I must remind you that this disclosure betrays the spirit and the letter that must guide us in the tabling of committee reports. It is also an affront to democracy, which suffers from the lack of dissenting opinions by the opposition parties, implying unanimity or unconditional support for the government positions reflected by the members of the Liberal majority on committee.
This action shakes the faith of all parliamentarians of all parties who agree to abide by the rules of confidentiality and the parliamentary traditions based on the honour and dignity incumbent on them through their public responsibility and democratic mandate.
Need I remind you that this action diminishes parliamentary privilege, interferes with the work of the Standing Committee on Finance and does not augur well for the future, creating a climate of distrust that is both unproductive and discouraging. There is no doubt that this leak constitutes contempt of the House.
Allow me once again to quote from Maingot's parliamentary procedures, chapter 12, at page 240, on the definition of contempt:
Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his parliamentary duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent for the offence.
Mr. Speaker, on December 3, at the time of the first leak by the Liberal majority on the Standing Committee on Finance, you ruled that there had been contempt, and you asked the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to submit its recommendations post haste so that there would be no recurrence. I am very grateful for your response and wish you to know that you have our support.
But on December 3 you also said that you did not have the power to curtail this sort of thing immediately because, in the case then before us, no member of parliament could be identified, charged and sanctioned for leaking in-camera proceedings of the Standing Committee on Finance.
The case that concerns us today is different. In the article by Éric Beauchesne, on page A-1 of the Ottawa Citizen , two MPs who are members of the Standing Committee on Finance are quoted, the Liberal member for Niagara Falls and the Progressive Conservative member for Kings—Hants.
The article quotes the member for Niagara Falls, who explains the difference between the Liberal caucus report and the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, as follows:
“There is a difference. I cannot tie the hands of business, but as a representative of consumers I think that if banks need to merge there ought to be some conditions”.
For his part, the member for Kings—Hants was critical of the fact that Liberal members could support both their caucus report and contrary proposals in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, and I quote:
“What this basically indicates is, they didn't know what they signed onto on the Liberal task force and then probably don't know what they are signing onto now”.
Moreover, the member for Kings—Hants disclosed the content of the Conservatives' dissenting opinion before that opinion was tabled in the House, along with the committee report.
In so doing, the two members confirmed the content of the leak and commented on the in camera discussions of committee members.
I therefore accuse the Liberal member for Niagara Falls and the Conservative member for Kings—Hants of showing contempt for the House by releasing and discussing the content of the report of the Standing Committee on Finance, before that report was tabled in the House of Commons on Thursday, along with the dissenting opinions.
This contempt is all the more serious and disturbing since these two members, along with the other members of the finance committee, supported a motion which I moved yesterday morning in committee, seconded by the hon. member for Sherbrooke, stipulating:
That the members of the Standing Committee on Finance solemnly pledge on their honour not to disclose or discuss the content of the committee report on the future of the financial sector before its tabling in the House, including the dissenting opinions of the opposition, as the case may be.
As Victor Hugo said “There are people who observe the rules of honour the way we observe the stars, from very far”.
Mr. Speaker, I very respectfully submit this to your attention. If you find there is a prima facie case of contempt for the House in these disclosures by the member for Niagara Falls and the member for Kings-Hants, I am prepared to move in the House a motion that would allow the Committee on Procedure and House Affairs to investigate the matter.