PRHA Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Tuesday, February 16, 1999

• 1116

[English]

The Chairman (Mr. Peter Adams (Peterborough, Lib.)): Colleagues, we will begin. The agenda today is consideration of a request received pursuant to Standing Order 106(3) concerning the leak of committee reports prior to tabling in the House.

Our witness today is our colleague Bill Graham, who is the chair of the liaison committee.

Bill, I'll introduce you in a moment, if I might, because I have two or three things to do.

Colleagues, I draw to your attention that there were requests for briefing notes. You have two sets of briefing notes. One is for today. The other is a very extensive report on leaks from committees in Australia, which strikes me as very relevant to the circumstance. Leaks are particularly important in Australia because they're short of water; there's a large desert there.

I also would note, and we're very grateful for this, that one of our witnesses at the previous meeting, Diane Davidson, has submitted to me in writing some of the opinions she expressed to us orally. This opinion is being translated, and we'll circulate it at the next meeting, if that's okay.

I asked if any of the members or parties had suggestions for future witnesses. I've not received any yet, except that someone who is not on this committee suggested to me that our colleague Derek Lee might be interested in coming. I do see in the Hill Times that he has expressed his views strongly on this, and if you wish, I can certainly invite him. Of course he's allowed to come if he wishes. I would urge you, if you have suggestions for witnesses, to please submit them to me.

On Thursday of this week, we have Doug Fisher, representing journalists in general and representatives of the parliamentary press gallery.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Jules Richer?

The Chair: Yes, that's right. It's Jules Richer, Mr. Bergeron.

[English]

I'd like to introduce Bill Graham to you, and because we have some guests, Bill, if it's okay with you, I'll explain in which capacity you are here.

At our previous meeting, one of the witnesses was Rob Walsh, who was representing the clerks of our standing committees, and we greatly appreciated his input.

Bill is the chair of the liaison committee, which is the committee of chairs of standing committees. Bill himself is a chair of the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Trade, but he also chairs this committee of chairs.

It is in that capacity, Bill, that you're with us. We're very grateful to you for taking the time. Would you like to make a few remarks, and then we'll proceed to discussion.

Mr. Bill Graham, M.P. (Toronto Centre—Rosedale, Lib.): Yes, thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you for inviting me today.

Perhaps as background I could say that—and you will be familiar with this because you attended our meeting—at the request of the chair, we had a meeting of the liaison committee where this issue was discussed amongst the other chairs who were there. So I'm really here to try to share with you not just my own personal views but those of the other chairs of the committees.

• 1120

If I could very quickly summarize what I would say was the sense of our meeting of the chairs—and some of you in the room were at that meeting as well—I think we were all agreed that this is an extraordinarily important subject, that there are times when it is very important that the parliamentary committees be able to meet and have discussions in camera, in private, but nobody was too sure what they could do in the event that someone breached that.

I think everybody is agreed that the integrity of the system requires that from time to time we set aside our partisan differences to enable us to share ideas amongst ourselves in order to come out with something for the common good. But that integrity of the system is sometimes lost, and sometimes there's a willingness or an attempt to take partisan advantage, and that's when the leaks occur.

So, really, to make the system work, it requires that everybody is buying into the integrity of the system, and as I read the transcript of the last meeting, I think that's what Mr. White was talking about when he said he felt that the system had lost its integrity and so they weren't going to play in it any more. So it seems to me we have to look at a way in which we can get that back if it is important.

I would suggest to the members of the committee that there are three very different times when the issue of public sharing of information about work of committees takes place, and each one of these requires a different approach.

The first is the question of when there is an in camera meeting of a committee just in the normal course, and for reasons of privacy, for delicacy, or for some other reason, the committee decides to have evidence in camera; and then someone decides to leak, if you will, or share that evidence with the public.

I will say that in the case of our committee, the foreign affairs committee, recently we have pretty well clearly adopted the practice that we rarely have any meetings in camera. We would only agree to do a meeting in camera if it were an issue of national security and it could be shown to us that we should not share it with the public.

To give you an example, a foreign minister recently requested to come before the committee, and this person wished to be in camera. The committee voted on the grounds that we should have our hearings in public, and if that foreign minister didn't wish to be in public, then we wouldn't hear that person before the committee.

There's a trade-off there. The committee lost the opportunity to meet with that person. On the other hand, it was felt that this was an important principle to adopt.

I don't know to what extent other committees adopt that principle. I can say it certainly would be very important in the case of Mr. Lee's committee, the CSIS committee, or when you're considering issues like that, but it would be a special case.

For the chairs, I think probably the most important issue we discussed and would urge you to look at is the issue of leaks during the course of negotiating a report. I don't think it matters in this case whether the report is—I know you discussed this—one where the committee has decided to do a study or one where the government has asked the committee to do the study. The point is this: if we're going to have a successful report and a report that has an opportunity to be a unanimous report and bring all parties of the House together—and my personal belief is that those reports have more clout than if we just have a government report and four minority reports—if we are going to have a report that enables the public of Canada to get the benefit of the consensus of all parties in the House, there has to be a moment when the members can share among themselves certain views and, as we constantly say in our committee, one member is willing to put water in their wine to get a consensus.

That is much less likely to happen if we have those deliberations in public; it's just the nature of it. If we held those discussions in public, it would more likely work out that in fact members would come in with their decisions already made and stick to them, and there would be less likelihood of being able to craft a compromise.

For that reason, then, it's in the interest of the system, in the interest of arriving at such a report, that we, the committee chairs, urge you to look at ways in which we can preserve that aspect of the system. I would urge the members of the opposition that in fact this is very much in the interest of the opposition members, because if all discussions of reports are going to be in public and each party sticks to what their position is when they come in, we will end up always with a government report and four opposition reports, and the opposition won't have an opportunity to get the government to move on issues.

• 1125

I don't know how other chairs operate, but I operate in my committee where I get my researchers to give me their draft. I don't show that to the parliamentary secretary any earlier than to anybody else, and everybody gets to share it at once. I consider it the committee draft, and then everybody has a chance to discuss it.

But if in fact it's going to be all in public, I don't think the system could work that way. It would have to work in a way where the draft would have to be a government draft, and then the opposition, and I think we'd lose that opportunity of the committees actually having an opportunity for the government to exchange.

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron, if I recall our experience in connection with Canada's foreign policy correctly, you and I had a lot of discussions. It's because these exchanges of information and points of view took place in complete confidentiality that we were able to have them without fear of being criticized or attacked for having adopted such and such a position. So I believe that confidentiality, when reports are prepared, is very important,

[English]

and that is why we would like to impress upon the committee that you should study the way in which we can deal with that.

I think everybody around here would probably agree with that sentiment. But nobody is too sure of what we do about it, and we're not a lot better than you are about what we could do about it.

I think one thing we could do about it is make the deliberation time shorter. I think there's an aspect of leaks that frankly takes place around here. I know that in the last report we had there was a great deal of debate. I rose in the House to complain about a leak. Mr. Strahl supported me on that occasion. We were very upset about it at the time. With reflection, I think that report was being discussed for something like a month and a half. There were probably 20 copies of it out. The thought that 20 copies of any document in this town would remain confidential for a month and a half is naive or dreaming, to be quite frank.

So I think committee chairs will have to be conscious of the fact that if they're going to have these types of meetings, they have to be brief enough to allow members to get the business done and move on. If it's going to sit around for a long time, that won't work.

Apart from that, we have no specific recommendations, but I do believe the committee could urge chairs and the staff... I had a case in the last report where a staff member of one of our committee members phoned up and asked if that person could have two copies of the report. She was asked why by the clerk, and she said because there were reporters who had phoned and would like to see it and she was going to send it out. We said, “Wait a minute, this is still confidential.” This was one of our own staff members in one of our own offices. I'm not putting blame anywhere, I'm just saying we have to be conscious that people understand the rules of the game we're playing under.

The third point then would be, once the the negotiation of the report is completed, should it be completely private until presented in the House? Our practice is usually to try to present it in the House as quickly as possible. My own view of course is that this is an historical issue, because, as was mentioned by Mr. Marleau in his presentation, there is a sense that the committee is doing the work of the House so the House has the right to see it first, and that this should be continued. I agree with that, but I do not think it is as important a period of time as the earlier period of time.

The important issue is how we work as members of Parliament in a collegial way to function in the best interests of the citizens of Canada in getting good reports out of this Parliament. For the integrity of that, it seems to me we need a system that enables us to discuss them in a way that gets the best results, and it seems to me it has to be discussed in private. After that's completed, then it should be presented in the House as quickly as possible. But if there's “a leak”, I don't see that as being a threat to the integrity of the system in the sense that I do if during the process of negotiations it all comes out in public.

Those are my thoughts, and I think they reflect fairly clearly the thoughts of my colleagues on the liaison committee.

The Chairman: Bill, thank you very much.

Colleagues, since we began Derek Lee has arrived. I mentioned his name before. If I might, Derek, I'll add you to the speakers list. Is that a suitable procedure for you?

• 1130

Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.): Sure. That would be fine.

The Chairman: Okay. You're on the list.

I have a list now. I have Chuck Strahl, Stéphane Bergeron, Yvon Charbonneau, the chair, Joe Fontana and Roy Bailey so far, and then Derek Lee. So we'll start with Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl (Fraser Valley, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you, Mr. Graham, as well.

I think back, Bill, to when you and I, along with Stéphane, worked on that first joint Senate-Commons committee on the review of foreign affairs. It was a huge report. It went on for months, and as far as I can remember, we didn't have a real problem with leaks. It was a wonderful process to go through.

What we're dealing with now, of course, is the fact that a high percentage of the reports are not so favoured. It's as if in the last five years the wheels are coming off this wagon. In fact, the last time we sat together, as you know, in a foreign affairs committee it was to deal with a leak. The National Post had been running columns on a regular basis quoting from the report in progress. And of course that's why we're here, to find out, if we can, what has happened to the integrity of that process. It has devolved badly in the last five years, and I have to say that for the opposition parties our tools are limited. We can't always respond in kind. We don't want to releak the report again.

So we sometimes get annoyed and have to fight back in whatever way is possible. As you know, I sent you a letter the other day talking about a tool of the opposition parties, Standing Order 106(3), which allows us to call witnesses at the request of the opposition parties. In other words, we can force an issue onto the table. And I mentioned in that letter to you that right now, again, the committees are poking the opposition parties in the eye by saying that as soon as those come to the committee we just move in camera.

In other words, your committee might not do that, Bill, but the committees in general are taking a bit of an antagonistic approach to the opposition parties instead of working with us. That's the first thing.

So I agree with you in the sense that you should have a short time of deliberation, and I believe the government side should not deliberately provoke the opposition, because most of these leaks have come from the government side and that's unfortunate.

The second thing I wanted to mention is that again today—and this is kind of tangential—I got these brief clippings of the budget we're going to have today. The government has leaked the dollar figures, the amount, what they're going to do, the amount of money for health programs, how they're going to adjust the transfer payments, how they're going to—

The Chairman: Chuck, that's not a committee matter.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: It's not a committee matter, but my point again is that it's a change in the culture. It is an evolving change in the culture. Barbara Yaffe, in the Vancouver Sun, says, “Senior finance officials came to my office the other day to tell me about the budget”. How can Parliament be respected if the senior finance committee officials just say Parliament is now irrelevant?

I'm just saying that the culture we're developing has, in the last five years, gone from an ability to hold things secret for months on end, which we did in the joint Senate-Commons foreign affairs committee, to a flagrant attitude of “I don't care what you guys do, because we're going to leak it anyway”. If it comes from the top—this is the senior portfolio here, this is finance—I don't see how on earth we're ever going to hold the committees together, because obviously this is now the way of doing business.

I fret for it. I share Mr. Graham's concern as to how we are going to work together when we get a message, not so subtly, right from the finance department that the way to do business now is to leak all you can. I would be interested in your opinion as to how we're going to maintain that integrity at the committee level when at the government level, the departmental level, it's seen now as the way to do business. I don't see how we're going to put this genie back in the bottle, because it basically now has the blessing of the highest ministry and minister to do exactly that.

That's a real problem, I think.

The Chairman: Bill Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: There are two things, Mr. Strahl.

First, I totally agree that there's a total change in culture. For those of us who've watched what's taken place south of the border and Mr. Clinton's business in the last year and a half, one of the articles about it said we now live in a world where everything is on the Internet and there is no privacy and there is nothing any more... I totally agree with you.

• 1135

So specifically, if you're looking at the issue of whether one can control the press or suggest there should be some limits on what the press can do, I don't think that would be a reasonable way to approach it, because I don't think that's the culture in which we are currently living. We'd be asking to impose restrictions on them that wouldn't make sense. It's like the MAI affair that we had here. Those documents were supposed to be private over there in Brussels, but they were in everybody's hands the day after.

So that seems to be the sort of world in which we're living. I think the only thing we can do is have the culture within our own group that we're willing to say there's a trade-off for the integrity of the system at the end. And the result we will get is going to be better both for the government and the opposition, because the opposition, by virtue of this process, will have an opportunity to have their input and make sure they can get a weight into changing the nature of the report, and the government will have the opportunity of having a consensus in the House.

But we have to believe in that ourselves to make it work. I don't see how we can say, well, okay, if somebody is found leaking... What would you do? Would you say you can't sit on the committee? How would you do it? I think chairs are going to have to be more sensitive, to try to organize meetings around getting things too. I think that's one thing.

I think the other thing is that you say most leaks are from the government side. I have no idea where you would get that statistic. Going back to the committee you sat on, the foreign affairs committee on the nuclear report, it certainly was not in any way in the interest of the government to leak what was going on, because they were the ones who were getting lambasted for it. So I would have thought it was in the interest of somebody else.

But if we end up pointing our fingers on that, we'll be here all day doing that.

The Chairman: Chuck, very briefly.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Just briefly, the problem from an opposition party's point of view—and I can speak from that point of view only—is that the government seems to hold an awful lot of the tools of communication. For example, when a report is tabled from a committee, it's tabled in the House. That may or may not get a headline, but it's an event. Then the government gets to respond to the report, which is another event. That's another communications event for them—not for the opposition; it's restricted to the government. Then individual ministers may bring legislation forward, which is again an event for them. And they announce initiatives, which is another event.

So to use the nuclear report example, the Reform Party...maybe everyone was lambasted in that one, I'm not sure. But for several days running our foreign affairs critic was offered... This is what you get offered from the media: “We'll give you two front-page stories, guaranteed, if you'll just leak us a report.” This was early on. We said, “No way, we're not going to do that.” So eventually what happens is they write a report—I question their wisdom on that—saying here's where the government's heading; in other words, here's where the report's heading. And where's the Reform Party? It's silent.

So from an opposition point of view, I just point out that if the game's not being played... I don't want to blame it all on the government side, but when things are leaked, it's not going to be to our benefit to say, well, there's another leaked report, but we'll zip our lips and we'll be good boys and girls, because we'd just get crucified over it. Once it gets to that stage where fully—what is it—38% of the substantive reports have been leaked, then we may as well do our leaking with them, because at least we get our oars in the water.

The Chairman: Mr. Graham, briefly.

Mr. Bill Graham: It seems to me what you're describing is a problem, obviously—what we're all describing. But I don't think the solution to it would be more leaks. I don't think that's the solution because in the end that is going to destroy the ability to have these discussions and work out this issue. So I don't think more leaks are the solution.

Again, I don't like to use the most recent report that I was involved in as an example, because every one tends to be different, but in that particular case, you're right, there was a great deal of public interest. What annoyed me, as a member of Parliament, were the suggestions that were being drawn out that this was the way the committee was going, when in fact it wasn't. It was just that this was what was on the table for the committee to discuss, which is a totally different proposition. That was where the misunderstandings arose.

The Chairman: Colleagues, we can go around again if it's necessary, but I do want to keep moving because I have a long list.

I have Stéphane Bergeron, then John Solomon, then the chair, Joe Fontana, Roy Bailey, Derek Lee, John Richardson, and Lynn Myers.

• 1140

[Translation]

Mr. Bergeron.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, I agree with Mr. Strahl when he says that we are starting down a bit of a slippery slope. We can see what's filling the newspapers now about the budget, which will be tabled this afternoon in the House. Let's go back a few years. I'm sure that Don Mazankowski or Michael Wilson would have lost their jobs over similar leaks. But it seems to have become a quite acceptable standard for everyone.

What seems to me to be even more worrying, Mr. Chairman, is that this established rule about leaks affecting reports did not come with any sanctions, as I said last week. Consequently, the parties or individuals ended up thinking it was to their advantage to reveal the contents of a report, because there was no disadvantage in doing so. As a result, the practice has expanded to such an extent that consideration is now being given to changing the rule to make it consistent with this new situation.

Such a tendency might seem to hold an implicit invitation to break the rules and to do so often enough so that eventually the rules are changed to match the new situations.

Of course, the meeting we had last week was very interesting because it was the first in this series of studies and people's already very clearly defined positions were revealed. Among these clearly defined positions, there is one proposal, quite legitimate, to demonstrate greater transparency by no longer holding in camera meetings. Thus we would no longer have to worry about leaks. This is one way of looking at things, which has its merits.

Nonetheless, and this must be admitted straight off, there would still be committees and reports for which we would absolutely have to have in camera sessions. Committees dealing with either national security or budget issues would then have to, no matter what, hold in camera sessions.

So are we going to maintain the current casual approach, which is giving rise to this unhealthy trend? I don't think so.

I would add that I agree fully with Mr. Graham. When we have in camera sessions involving various political leanings, we witness what's called give and take. We find ourselves in a situation in which we say we're ready to yield a bit of ground on such and such an issue, if someone else gives in a little on something else. If all this were open to everyone's eyes and ears, everyone would stick to their position, and there would no longer be any way of reaching a consensus.

In any case, we must reach the conclusion that we have to have a certain number of in camera sessions. And then what do we do? Do we stick to the current practice, which seems to encourage repeated infringement or do we have to make the rules more stringent so as to deal with this new reality for committees that will want or, because of circumstances, have to, hold in camera sessions?

What can you suggest to us, Mr. Graham, or what measures do you have in mind for tightening the rules? Should we provide for an investigation procedure? Who should conduct this investigation procedure? Should it be the committee affected or the committee which is actually the victim of leaks? Shouldn't it be, rather, the committee normally responsible for studying matters of breach of privilege in the House, since of course when a leak occurs in a committee, it is a breach of privilege of all Members and the House as a whole?

I'd like to know your opinion about that, Mr. Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: Thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

I agree with you completely; we are caught in a sort of vicious circle right now. Because there are leaks, the system that gives rise to the leaks and that creates all the advantages we have talked about has to be dropped. Nevertheless, some meetings absolutely must be held in camera. So a solution has to be found.

However, as soon as we talk about solutions... You asked what solution the Liaison Committee is proposing and what its point of view is, that is, the point of view of the other committee chairs. We have discussed it without really coming up with a solution. Indeed, if we want to discipline leaks, we first have to determine who is responsible for them.

• 1145

Every time there's a leak, are we going to hold a sort of judicial hearing conducted by the Speaker of the House to identify who's responsible? Is it even able to identify the person responsible? Leaks quite often occur by chance, while others are deliberate. I say they happen by chance to the extent that, even though they are deliberate, as soon as a large number of reports are in production, it becomes inevitable that a leak should occur.

So it seems to me that we're not concerned with seeking a way of identifying those responsible and disciplining them, because it's not practicable. The problem occurred in your own caucus. Mr. Fontana knows about it. We always talk about leaks in caucus, which should theoretically be completely private, but from time to time, there are people who talk to the media. We definitely must try to stop that. But that stops if a sense of collective responsibility is established among members, who recognize that the general interest comes ahead of individual interest, in a given case. This is the only solution I can propose.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's a marvellous principle, Mr. Graham, but it already exists and, despite its existence, we are witnessing a new, very unhealthy trend, as we've agreed. Maybe this trend exists because we don't have a rule accompanied by sanctions.

The consequence is that, when a member or a political group sees an advantage in leaking something, knowing perfectly well that in any case no one will ever track down the source, and that, even if the source were tracked down, there would be no sanction possible, everyone can see that the list of advantages is longer than the list of disadvantages. As a result, the trend is growing.

Mr. Bill Graham: Yes, but there is a sanction. Those responsible for leaks end up being found out and lose their credibility among their colleagues on the committees. That's what happens now. It's very harmful because at some point, the other members of the committee state they no longer wish to work with irresponsible people.

I imagine, for instance that if I asked the members of my committee, the next time, if there is anyone who does not wish to promise not to leak anything, I could suggest that the members of the committee who really wish to work together could do so in parallel. The committee would hold formal meetings and it would completely lose its ability to work together.

So there is a sanction. The sanction is that eventually we lose all credibility in the eyes of our colleagues and the Canadian public, which concludes that nothing serious takes place around here.

[English]

The Chairman: Mr. Solomon, then the chair, Joe Fontana, Roy Bailey, Derek Lee, John Richardson and Lynn Myers.

Mr. John Solomon (Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre, NDP): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I appreciate your remarks, Mr. Graham. The suggestions you make, as I understand, are that we should have a little more self-discipline and a little more understanding of the implications of these leaks.

There are two issues with respect to leaks that I want to raise. One, when it comes to the Minister of Finance leaking documents pertaining to the budget, this is government policy and could profit individuals in our country, one way or the other. The integrity of that system is very important, and we've seen, in example after example in this country, that when a minister of finance has had his budget leaked in advance the solution has been resignation. That's an example in many jurisdictions, provincially and federally in this country. I'm anxious to see what the budget actually says today, because if it says what the newspapers have been reporting, the Minister of Finance has one solution and that's to resign.

With respect to committees, it's different because we're making recommendations with respect to government policy and how it should be manipulated, changed or formulated to address the concerns the committee is looking at. It's not as cut and dried. It's not as clear as government policy through the budget.

My example and experience has been on the subcommittee on the study of sport in Canada. This was an interesting experience, because the day after we had undertaken our in camera sessions, the whole bloody report was in the newspaper, and I was one of the parties who was not represented in the story.

• 1150

I was called by these journalists and asked for my view on the report. I said it was a confidential report until released. They said, “Everybody else has commented on this issue, so what do you think about it?” I said, “Well, I guess if they've commented, my view is to wait for the report. But if it's in the report, this is what I think.”

So how do you address this, Mr. Graham, when it comes to a committee report? Do you think a leak is okay with respect to marketing the report that's coming out—here are some hints—or if journalists have picked up this information from the witnesses during the course of the hearings? Is there a leak that's not okay? Would you support the Australian example, where there are significant and specific penalties for leaking these reports?

Mr. Bill Graham: Let's talk first, Mr. Solomon, about my position here as chairman of the liaison committee, representing the chairs collectively. I don't think we, the chairs, have any authority in the system to be able to deal with that. I'm not sure whether you could give to the chair of the committee the authority to sort of control the leaks in a way that would somehow make the system run better. At least, I can't at the moment envisage such a role for the chair.

So you would have to then move to, as you say, the Australian model, where the House would have to adopt this as a matter of the Speaker of the House administering some sort of justice over the members of the House.

Mr. John Solomon: Would you support more stringent—

Mr. Bill Graham: I don't know enough about how it works in Australia. I'd certainly support looking at it. I think the situation is serious enough that we should be looking at ways of dealing with it. Mr. Bergeron's point is that if there's no sanction there's no way you can stop people from doing it. As he sort of suggested, my idea of a moral sanction out there is very nice, it's a very good principle, but it's so vague that it's not going to apply in the heat of the partisan moment of the day. That's the problem we've come into.

I don't have an honest solution for you, because I haven't had an opportunity to look at the Australian model and understand how far they go. I think it would have to be approached with a great deal of caution.

Mr. John Solomon: Mr. Graham, would you give some consideration to or support—I'd like your thoughts on this—some code of ethics for committee members based on the fact that we as members of Parliament all have certain rights, but we also have certain responsibilities if we breach those responsibilities? Would there be fewer leaks or more control over releasing the reports by the committee, as opposed to the chairperson, if there were a code of ethics members had to understand and adhere to?

Mr. Bill Graham: I think a code of ethics would be helpful in the sense that it would have helped me when I was first elected to this House and didn't understand the nature of the way the system works. Every institution in life is run by traditions and understandings, and those change over time as membership and politics change. I think it would be helpful because it would help a lot of people understand the reason for this.

It would have to be carefully framed. It would not be a code of ethics, but it would be helpful to have some form of code that would set out an agreement amongst the present five parties in this House that “We as parties recognize that these are the important principles we wish to stand by”. At least, the members of those parties would say they subscribe to those rules. I'd be all in favour of it.

Mr. John Solomon: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The Chairman: Thank you, John.

Colleagues, I don't very often insert myself into the order, so I hope you won't mind. This has to do with chairs and committees, and I thought I would comment in this case. I'll set an example by being brief.

Bill, we pointed out that we've produced 55 or 56 reports this year and there hasn't been a single leak, the reason being that although our work is very important, there's absolutely no interest in it.

[Translation]

Mr. Bill Graham: We don't care in the slightest.

[English]

The Chairman: Bill, do you know of any significant jurisdictions where there is no in camera rule? For example, in my riding the township council, city council, county council, and the school board all have them for various reasons—personnel matters, production reports in some cases and so on. Do any come to mind where they don't have it?

• 1155

Mr. Bill Graham: I don't know of any political institution in Canada where occasionally they don't move in camera, for exactly the reasons you suggest. There's always a reason—

The Chairman: I would say again that locally from time to time they all have their problems—and I've been on some of them—and we're facing some of those now.

Mr. Bill Graham: Right.

The Chairman: As you know, we have a standing order in the House of Commons called “Notice of Strangers”, which is Standing Order 14, where we can in fact go in camera in the House of Commons. But to my knowledge, it has been many decades, perhaps going back to the Second World War, since that was invoked. In this jurisdiction the in camera provision is actually at the committee level. Effectively, the House of Commons can't do it. I noticed that the Senate of the United States went in camera the other day, but it's a very rare thing there as well.

Mr. Bill Graham: I noticed that some of the senators read the speech they were going to say in camera and talked to the press anyway.

The Chairman: There were some leaks there too.

I wonder if you could address this business of the in camera meetings representing government control. I can imagine a situation, for example, on this committee where we are developing a report—and nowadays and for many years possibly a minority report—and at that stage we normally would go in camera. If you took that away, could you imagine a situation where after the hearings the parties would go away; the government side would produce a report; the opposition side, if they wished, would produce a report; they would both come in; there would be a vote; and that's the way the report would be produced?

Mr. Bill Graham: That would be my concern, Mr. Chairman, if in fact we lose the ability to have meetings where we can discuss things in a totally frank atmosphere, where everybody is sharing and, as I say, willing to compromise on positions. There has to be a willingness on the government side as well as on the opposition side, because there have to be trade-offs, and those trade-offs are generally made in the atmosphere we've discussed. I think if we don't have that, what will happen, as you suggest, is that the government will come in and say, “Here's our position”, and everybody else will come in with their position. I'm not saying that nobody will ever budge, but the chances of getting people to come together will be reduced, so we won't get unanimous reports.

Mr. Strahl says that the whole system is kind of rigged in favour of the government. To some extent that may be true, but that's the nature of the political game in which we're engaged, which is that in a parliamentary democracy the government controls the House of Commons. We're not a congressional democracy, we're a parliamentary democracy, and we have to realize that we live within the nature of that. One of the consequences of that is that the government does have these advantages. Without a constitutional change, we're not going to change that.

But that doesn't mean that within committees we won't have a situation—as happens in my committee all the time; you can ask your colleagues and Mr. Turp—where the opposition will say, “If you agree with this, will you take this down?” The government will say, “Sure, we can do that.” I can't speak for other committees, but there's a genuinely good working relationship amongst the members. But that depends on that sense of trust that they're not going to go out and stab each other in the back in the next minute. If we lose that, that good working relationship will be gone, and the benefits of that will be gone with it.

The Chairman: We'll now turn to Joe Fontana, followed by Roy Bailey, Derek Lee, and John Richardson.

Mr. Joe Fontana (London North Centre, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I think Bill's testimony has been very important.

I think it's wishful thinking, really, that in the political arena, especially with five political parties, you're ever going to get unanimous consent. I don't have the statistics in front of me, but I don't believe there's an awful lot of reports where in fact all political parties buy into the same vision. If that happens, it's a rare occasion. I'm sure that white smoke would come out of the Peace Tower and citizens would say, holy cow, something is happening in the House of Commons when all five political parties... So I would agree that's the exception. The more confidential reports there are, the more political currency. It's everybody's political currency.

I'm just wondering, Bill, if you would agree—and I think we had this discussion last week—that the rule ought to be that everything is in public. In fact, if you look at what happens at committee hearings now, most of the work is done in public until it comes time to sit down and try to negotiate a unanimous position. Ultimately, the best thing for the institution and for the people of Canada is to see all their political parties working together. In certain reports, as you know, you could agree on 99% of the contents, and if there's one difference, that's where we beg to differ, and that's where we'll have the debate. I'm not afraid of the fact that the public would see the differences in approach of the five political parties.

• 1200

Bill, do you think the rule should be that everything should be in public and that the exceptions could be issues involving the national security of the country; the budget, which is obviously a very apparent one; our security arrangements; CSIS; foreign affairs; or as you indicated in your submission, where a witness for some reason said, “I don't want this to be in public because I have some very sensitive material and therefore I want to go in camera”? In those cases one could determine that. So shouldn't the rule be everything in public save and except some very strict criteria as to what should be confidential, recognizing that we're in a political institution where in fact there will be differences, and so what's wrong with the public understanding those differences?

I would agree with you totally. I think going after the media is wrong, because they're going to get whatever they can. That's their job. To be able to punish someone for leaking something that might be primarily in the public domain for most of the things, because we have enough to do around here without going after...

It was reported that 38% of these reports have been leaked. An awful lot of them came from George's committee. I don't know why the fishery was so important at the time. It might have had something to do with the chairman being flamboyant, interesting, and so on.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Leaks, water; leaks, fishery.

Mr. Joe Fontana: Again, the point is that the less we try to do in private, save and except some very strict criteria, the less we need to worry about who is leaking, who has the political advantage, and what we should do if in fact there is a leak. Is that the approach we should take?

The Chairman: I wouldn't want the chair of the liaison committee to think our committee always forgets its chair, Joe.

Mr. Joe Fontana: It's not like the liaison committee, of course not.

The Chairman: No, that's right. It's okay. Carry on.

Bill Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: We feel like chairs without legs some days, but anyway...

Joe, I totally agree that unanimous consent is rare. Perhaps my committee, the foreign affairs committee, is one of the rare committees where you are more likely to have an opportunity to do that, because we don't have the contentious materials Mr. Baker has to deal with when it comes to fish, which evoke emotions that perhaps run higher than for foreign affairs.

I don't have any problem with the rule. I think most of the chairs would support a rule that everything should be in public except for very clear national security and other issues, but with the proviso, as you said, about when you come to doing the report. At that point, it seems to me, we have to be able to get together and agree that we are going to work at that level.

That may deal with Mr. Strahl's problem about these witnesses. But again, a word of caution. I think the system requires a certain amount of trust in the way the committee system works and it has something to do with the chair. I always suggest to my committee—because they quite often vote down the idea, and we try to operate on a consensus basis—bringing in somebody in camera when it's the witness who has requested it. If a foreign ambassador says they want the meeting to be in camera, and the committee says they don't have hearings in camera, then they don't hear that ambassador. There's a trade-off. You either get it or you don't get it.

So the committees are always going to have to be able to say that in some cases they're willing to give up the publicity or the public hearing in order to get information they wouldn't otherwise have. You have to have the freedom to do that. That's on the information side.

As I say, in our committee we've pretty well adopted the rule you've proposed, which is that everything should be in public except in very rare circumstances where everybody is agreed that this requires it. But the alternative is that the members of the committee recognize they may be denying themselves the opportunity of hearing certain information, because they won't get it.

The Chairman: Colleagues, I'm going to have to keep the pace moving. On my list I have Roy Bailey, Derek Lee, John Richardson, Lynn Myers, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, George Baker, and then Chuck again.

Mr. Roy Bailey (Souris—Moose Mountain, Ref.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Mr. Graham, for your comments.

• 1205

Just to show you the significance of this, about a year ago I had made a statement prior to the budget—and I don't even remember the reporter's name—that sooner or later we would have to address the salaries of our military because they simply weren't keeping up, and I didn't have any idea whether it was going to be in the budget. That reporter phoned me this morning. He said I had finally got my wish. I said, “Who are you?” He said it was on the front page of the Toronto Sun that $500 million was going to salaries.

Mr. Joe Fontana: You have an awful lot of influence here, Roy.

Mr. Roy Bailey: I don't have any; I'm not even on that committee. It was a little bit of a setback. First of all, I'd forgotten I'd made that statement, but the point is that this information is getting out.

Can I just make a response to your comments, Peter? I have sat on many councils, boards and so on in which you go in camera. They have been smaller, but some were as large as our committees. On the secrecy of the in camera, because of the nature of the committees the chances of leaks occurring were virtually nil, because eventually they would catch you quicker than they would here in Ottawa.

The penalty of some of the organizations on which I have sat, at both provincial and local levels, was that you would no longer be a member of those particular organizations. As a matter of fact, Mr. Graham, the health boards in Saskatchewan are a very sensitive thing, as I imagine they are across Canada right now. The boards in Saskatchewan are partially elected, partially appointed. Each member who goes on the board signs a statement giving the board the right to sue if they divulge confidential information.

I'm not suggesting we go that far, but what does the public now think of the leak system? The public is telling me it's deliberate. They really believe it is deliberate. I'm hearing them say this is the manner in which the government or whatever gets attention. They get press, and on the political side they get to test the political waters to see how this particular thing will sell.

It also appears that the press is really enjoying this; it's a heyday for them. The press is a competitive thing, and you're one up on the next guy and so on. But you are really destroying the integrity of what committees are supposed to be. I know we call it a new culture, but maybe we should get back to the old culture. If this continues, the real work of a committee and what it's truly designed to do in the historical sense will be completely ruined. There will be no point in sitting, because each individual will become a source of information for a blurb in the paper, and so on.

I think we have to solve this. You cannot go on at this rate, because not only do you destroy the committee but you destroy the parliamentary procedure from the top down. We don't need to get into that in Canada. God only knows they don't think too much of us down here in the first place.

Those are my comments, Mr. Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: I subscribe 100% to the comments. I agree entirely with the member. I think that's it. Unfortunately, he's like me. Apart from your Saskatchewan example, which may be helpful to us, it's difficult to determine how to put some teeth into it.

Mr. Roy Bailey: Is it all or nothing, then?

Mr. Bill Graham: Apart from persuading our members on what you and I have agreed on, I certainly think there's a public education process. If the parties could persuade their members—if Mr. Fontana and all of you would be willing to announce in caucus that we have to try to bring some order to this, it might help, I don't know. Maybe your ethics idea—something all the parties agree to—is moving in the right direction, to at least remind members of the importance of it. I think we've lost the sense of what we're losing, because we get the immediate hit of the day. I got my name in the paper, great. We've lost the sense of what we gave up for that immediate hit.

The Chairman: Derek Lee, John Richardson, Lynn Myers.

• 1210

Mr. George S. Baker (Gander—Grand Falls, Lib.): I have a point of order, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lee is perhaps the only expert I know of on the literature behind the British parliamentary system concerning what happens in committees as far as confidential reports and what the committees' powers are. He's about to publish a book on the subject. I think only his index remains to be—

The Chairman: This is a fairly long point of order, George.

Mr. Joe Fontana: He's leaking the fact that he's going to publish a book. I like that.

Mr. George Baker: We don't want him to leak what's in the book, but believe me, I know this is the only publication of its kind on what happens internally in a committee and what their powers are where the control of reports and so on are concerned. I would suggest we have him as a witness at a future meeting and allow him to ask a couple of questions.

The Chairman: That's the end of the point of order.

Colleagues, that's something I mentioned at the beginning, and I'm not sure we need a steering committee to do it. I have Derek on the list now in the same way as the rest of us. In other words, I recognize he has a very special position. He's here now just as a member, but if there's a wish, I would be glad to hear what he has to say. Then we can decide, and if the committee members wish, he can be a witness.

Derek, you'll excuse me for doing this. We appreciate your being here. As far as we are concerned, you're a visiting member of the committee.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. That sounded like an infomercial. I had nothing to do with it.

The Chairman: Your press agent did a good job.

Mr. Derek Lee: Thank you, Mr. Baker.

Just before I ask a couple of questions, Mr. Graham, I thought I would try to distinguish between the budget and the budget leak, and a committee report and a leak of that. I would think the formation of the budget is not a parliamentary exercise; it's a government exercise. But the presentation of the budget is certainly a parliamentary event. The creating of the committee report is not a government exercise, it's a parliamentary exercise. Its submission to Parliament is a parliamentary event also. So on leaks of the budget, while we would want to protect the parliamentary event and the process out of respect for Parliament—and I gather the Clerk of the House has discussed that—we want to protect the parliamentary event of the budget speech.

We in Parliament really don't have much control over the government exercise of creation of the budget. That's like any other government white paper or report, I guess. So I'd like to focus on the committee report rather than the budget, which is a government exercise, although the parliamentary event is certainly important.

Would you as a chairman, Mr. Graham, be in agreement—and I gather there is a consensus on this—that the concept of in camera meetings, whether it's used a lot or a little, has to be protected and we as parliamentarians need it?

Mr. Bill Graham: Yes, there are occasions when we need it.

Mr. Derek Lee: Would you then, as a committee chair, be prepared, whenever the committee thought it should, to embrace the in camera protection or mechanism? Do you think it would be useful at a committee meeting, as the meeting begins, as it ends, as it deliberates or prepares a report, whenever the committee as a whole believes it should adopt it, to actually select the in camera option?

Mr. Bill Graham: I'm not too sure I understand.

Mr. Derek Lee: Right now, the in camera proceeding and mechanism is out there. It's in the standing orders, and it applies in certain circumstances because the standing orders or the traditions say it applies. But that doesn't necessarily mean that as the meeting begins, all members are aware of that. Some of us stumble into in camera scenarios. So do you think it would be useful, as chair, for your committee members to actually adopt the in camera mechanism in an overt way as the meeting begins, as the process begins?

• 1215

Mr. Bill Graham: Yes, I think that would be helpful. Of course, don't forget that the sign says “In Camera” when you go in the room. It's usually right there when you walk in, so you know that it's “À huis clos”—or you should know if you pick it up. But you're right, the chair should draw it to your attention.

I think you've adverted to something that is complicated, though. Obviously there are situations in which some members of the committee want it to be in camera and others do not. It's at that point that the leaking issue becomes more difficult. Those who do not want it to be in camera are naturally more inclined to discuss what went on, without respecting the privacy matter, particularly if they feel their rights have been overtrodden by having it in camera when it logically shouldn't be.

I think the chairs, and I think we as a committee, have to look at making sure we use the in camera process extremely cautiously, as suggested by Mr. Fontana. The principal rule is that it's in public, and you therefore have to at least get onside the members who agree to it being in camera. I think that's very important. If everybody hasn't bought into it, the ones who feel it has just been cooked up, who feel a committee is having an in camera meeting because it is going to try to hamstring them from discussing this issue, are going bridle against it and are going to make it not work.

Mr. Derek Lee: Your committee was victimized by one leak—the foreign affairs committee report—and you brought it to our attention. Do you think it would have been more helpful to the House if your committee itself, having the powers that it does already, had taken a look at the issue before it was raised in the House? Should you have made an attempt to find out as a committee where the leak occurred and then reported it to the House as a matter of privilege?

What I perceive is that MPs see a breach of privilege because of the leak, they rise in the House, but the House doesn't know what it wants to do. On most occasions the Speaker would refer it to this committee, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. But this committee isn't sure what it wants to do either, so it has to reinvent the wheel every time this comes up.

Presumably each committee cares about the in camera circumstances and the breach of privilege. Don't you think it would be more useful for all committees, having the full powers that they have now, to investigate matters themselves? If they really care about and are concerned about the issue, why wouldn't those committees deal with it themselves? Why wouldn't they call witnesses on the subject, use their powers, and then report to the House with a recommendation: either we can't find who leaked or we did find who leaked. If it's important enough to complain about, isn't it important enough for the committees to do their homework?

Mr. Bill Graham: There are two points there. When I raised this matter as a matter of privilege in the House, I said to the Speaker at the time—I have the transcript of it right here—that I was raising it at the request of all members of the committee. We had discussed it in our committee, and Mr. Strahl will recall that. I said it was hopeless. We were trying to get a report done, it wasn't working, it was just really crazy. Everybody agreed that, yes, it was crazy.

You can say we could exercise the powers of the committee to get to the bottom of it, but it was one of those situations in which everybody was pointing a finger at everybody else and was saying, “I didn't do it. Somebody else did it.” Others would respond, “What do you mean? I had no interest in it. Someone else did it.”

Mr. Derek Lee: Who else would? If not the committee, who?

Mr. Bill Graham: We had a debate within the committee about who was responsible, and we couldn't get to the bottom of it. We therefore agreed that it was very unfortunate, and I was authorized by the members of the committee to raise this as a matter of privilege in the House. I did that on behalf of the committee, not just of my own personal volition. I raised it on behalf of every member of the committee.

The Chairman: Bill, thank you.

Derek, thank you. I think you've raised a very interesting angle. There is agreement that you should be called as a witness, but I have to be fair to my colleagues here.

Mr. Derek Lee: I'm with you.

The Chairman: It is a different slant. The parties agree that you should be invited, and we thank your press agent for that.

I'll discuss with you when it would be, Derek, if that's okay, but it likely would be the Thursday of the week we come back. Just keep it in mind, and I will discuss that with you.

Bill, I'm sorry.

Mr. Bill Graham: Could I just say one other thing?

The Chairman: If it's very short.

Mr. Bill Graham: It's very short.

Could Mr. Lee tell us what powers we have as a committee to deal with this? I just might have some members taken out in chains. I want to get my gavel going.

The Chairman: He'll have to give his answer very briefly.

• 1220

Mr. Derek Lee: Mr. Chairman, under the standing orders, the committee already has full powers to call persons, papers and records. It's fully within the mandate of the committee to take care of all of its own procedures and to enforce them. Where any coercion or punishment is required, that matter is referred to the House, and the House itself then has the full range of parliamentary coercion or punishment, powers of report, admonishment, suspension, expulsion and imprisonment.

The Chairman: Sentencing them to the galleys and that the kind of thing.

Mr. Derek Lee: Some people regard imprisonment as a pretty old idea, but the Australians did it about two years ago. They imprisoned a witness for a breach.

The Chairman: Okay, that's good.

As I said, I think it's a very different line, Bill, so we'll leave it at that. However, you should know that this committee, the procedure and House affairs committee, theoretically has even greater powers than that.

Mr. Joe Fontana: We all get a whip.

The Chairman: That's right, we all get a whip. It's true.

In order, we'll hear from John Richardson, Lynn Myers, Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, George Baker and Chuck Strahl.

Mr. John Richardson (Perth—Middlesex, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. I look forward to hearing Derek's exposé on the committees' powers. That will enlighten us all.

There was a very powerful committee headed up by a fellow about 1999 years ago. It was a powerful committee, but there was one big leak in it. That leak proved to be the downfall of that leader, and he lost his life over it. That issue was Judas Iscariot leaking the whereabouts of Jesus Christ and his apostles. If that tight group, at that high level of thinking, couldn't hold a tight rein there, we have a problem everywhere.

Mr. Bill Graham: Yes, but who got the thirty pieces of silver?

Mr. John Richardson: I don't know. That's one thing I don't have an answer for.

Mr. Bill Graham: Where is the silver around here?

Mr. John Richardson: Well, certainly it would be all right, Bill, if it was compound interest.

Anyway, I think I'll back off. I think I'd be better off listening to what Derek has to say than bringing out small points at this time.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Billy Graham is the right guy to ask if the issue is religious.

Mr. John Richardson: Bill Graham is the guy.

The Chairman: It's Lynn Myers, and then Madeleine.

Mr. Lynn Myers (Waterloo—Wellington, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I wanted to say that I thought you made some very strong points this morning. Certainly I think there is a necessity for in camera meetings. I don't think there's any question that they're required. I reject out of hand the notion that you'd be able to have everything open all the time. I just don't think it's in the cards.

Not unlike Mr. Bailey, I come from municipal experience. I had twenty years in that, actually. Certainly in my jurisdiction the sanction for breaking those confidences was actually to be booted off, to be thrown off committees and/or councils. That may be extreme, but I'd be interested in what Mr. Lee has to say further about the kinds of things committees have in terms of their powers.

What I did want to report, Mr. Chair, had to do with public accounts. It's chaired by the opposition's Mr. Williams, and I'm the vice-chair. We go in camera for all the draft reports. Quite frankly, it works very well. With the exception of maybe one time, I can't recall a minority report. We do in fact get all the parties coming together and reaching a consensus when it comes to the report, so there's an example of where there is a system that's working. In my view anyway, it works very effectively.

I did have a quick question, Mr. Graham, and I'm interested in your response. There has been some talk about maybe imposing sanctions on the media. I'm not sure how we could do that. In fact, maybe we wouldn't want to. For that matter, maybe we shouldn't. Anyway, is that something this committee could explore, or is it so far out in left field it's not even worth pursuing?

Mr. Bill Graham: Well, since the media are here, I would suggest that we go in camera to discuss that issue.

Some hon. members: Oh, oh!

Mr. Bill Graham: Mike's back is big enough to take the whip.

Frankly, I think I tried to express at the beginning that sanctioning the media wouldn't work in the end in today's world. I think we have to address it at the source end. I don't think you can address it at the recipient end.

As I say, it's difficult to make a generality. Let me go back to Mr. Lee's comment. If it's a national security issue—one in which there are very serious consequences either for an individual or the nation—and there has been a breach, it seems to me that this is a circumstance totally different from the normal one that the normal committees and chairs are faced with, that normal circumstance being making the committees work to the best advantage of everybody. It's a very different situation. But I would generally say no. There might be very rare circumstances in which you'd deviate from that.

How we try to apply sanctions definitely is the problem, and I'll be very interested to hear what Mr. Lee has to say. I think it would be interesting to know whether or not the committee itself could afford to take the time to get into this. I know in our committee we're already so busy that if we said we were going to set aside two weeks now to figure out what we did about the last report, everybody would say, “Oh, that's water under the bridge; let's move on to the next thing.” You might have trouble dealing with it.

• 1225

But that's a problem. I don't think sanctioning the media would be the right way to go.

The Chairman: Thank you.

Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral, and then George Baker.

[Translation]

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral (Laval-Centre, BQ): I think that everyone around this table will agree with me that the reputation of parliamentarians, among most of the public, is certainly not a very enviable one. So I wonder if, as a parliamentarian, I see myself as a professional and what level of professional. Basically, this may be the question we have to ask.

If we conducted a really careful survey, including a number of questions to find out which elements, in people's opinion, demonstrate a lack of professionalism, it seems to me quite clear that the leaking of information regarded as confidential would be one of them.

I think that we do indeed have to examine our consciences. A number of thoughts have been expressed. John Solomon talked about a sort of code of ethics. The Reform Party member referred to what was taking place at the municipal level.

When we become members, we sign a commitment. Wouldn't it be possible in that commitment for it to be clearly written that we undertake to observe confidentiality whenever it is required?

I have a recent recollection. In the former legislature, I ended up sitting on the Board. There you swear confidentiality about what is debated. Subsequently, in the new legislature, I had to replace Mr. Bergeron. Mr. Marleau told me that he didn't need to swear me in since I'd already been sworn in. That shows that when I promised on my honour, like anyone else, to observe confidentiality, it was a major commitment. So maybe there's something to be followed up here.

I'm sure that we've all, one or another of us, sat on a committee, whose report was leaked in full or in part. It happened to me a very short while ago, last fall, on the Joint Committee on Child Custody. I acknowledge having received calls from journalists who were really laying on the pressure. I was asked for my opinion. My response was very clear: a committee report is confidential until it's tabled in the House, and I don't care if you call 40 times, the answer will still be the same. God knows that, on the Joint Committee on Child Custody, what appeared in the newspapers didn't come from some backbencher or a member of the opposition.

There's also this aspect. It's a bit disturbing as far as the trust that's supposed to develop among us parliamentarians is concerned. I mean it also has an effect on this trust.

Maybe this sounds like wishful thinking but, since I'm not too old, I think that we can still make some headway if we give it some thought and exchange our thoughts.

Mr. Bill Graham: Madam, I share your point of view completely. I think that Mr. Solomon's suggestion about a code of ethics or a code of professional conduct... I think the difference between a code of ethics and a code of professional conduct lies in the matter of sanctions, right? So maybe we should talk about a code of ethics rather than a code of professional conduct.

But I think we have to try and remind our members of the advantage of the trust that existed in the past. By losing trust, we lose the ability to do a given job.

I'd say that I fully share your point of view, that it's a matter of professionalism. In the process, we lose the respect that the Canadian public has for us. The ones of us who are here, who are doing a serious job, we don't always accept an immediate benefit at the expense of the long-term benefit, which is the overall well-being of the people. I completely agree with your point of view.

The Chair: Have you finished, madam?

Ms. Madeleine Dalphond-Guiral: Yes, that's fine.

• 1230

The Chair: All right.

[English]

Our researcher, who is providing us with excerpts of notes, gave us some information on the oath of confidentially the members of the Board of Internal Economy sign, and also some commentary on the oath we all take when we become members of Parliament.

George Baker.

Mr. George Baker: Mr. Chairman, 25 years ago there was a committee of the House of Commons with Stanley Knowles representing the NDP, Walter Baker representing the Tories, and Mr. Réal Caouette's assistant at that time from Quebec representing the Social Credit Party. I represented the Liberals. We went to London, to Westminster, to study the rules.

One of the recommendations we brought back was that we copy the standing orders of Britain. One of the standing orders we recommended—I didn't recommend it, but it was unanimous in the end—was one dealing with leaks, in that the standing order would have to read the same way all the standing orders read under the former British parliamentary system—Australia, New Zealand, Norway and so on—“the disclosure and publication of”.

When you look at each one of those nations today, you discover that the people who have been charged under that standing order were journalists. If you look at the British or the Australian cases, you have the Sun case that was won by the Library of Parliament, the Daily Telegraph case, the telecommunications cases of 1973, 1983 and 1993. But the writers and the editors of the newspapers concerned were charged. So you would have an automatic fine when they were convicted of contempt, if the House judged them to be in contempt, of $5,000 or $10,000 for the writer and $25,000 or $50,000 for the newspaper involved.

So if we're going to follow the advice of the Clerk of the House of Commons, who appeared before the committee at the last meeting, and have a standing order that is similar to all of the other systems, the two words have to be there, as I see it—I don't know if you can leave one out—the “disclosure” and “publication” of material.

In view of what you said a moment ago to Mr. Myers, you wouldn't be in agreement with fining the media or the writers. Are you suggesting we have a standing order that only says it would be illegal to disclose the material from the committee, and leave out the publication of the material?

Mr. Bill Graham: I wouldn't say that, because it would be far too simplistic. But I think you would agree with me that when you have a sanction as important as that, which is equivalent to a criminal sanction that would be applied by Parliament, one would have to exercise a great deal of caution in terms of the circumstances that would be used. It would be one thing to threaten or ultimately even try to seek to prosecute journalists or editors for publishing highly sensitive information that is detrimental to national security, which is shared with the members of the CSIS committee because they must have that information if democracy is to function, as opposed to a leak coming out of the fisheries committee about whether something went wrong and what some bureaucrat did or was saying. Those are so different in their nature that we would have to craft rules that recognize that distinction if we were going down that route.

• 1235

I would be happy to work with the members on that, but I don't think any of the members here is going to agree that those are the same circumstances. And I think we'd make ourselves laughing stocks if we were to seek to protect the second situation with the sledgehammer of the first. So we are going to have to craft solutions that are appropriate to the circumstance, as you must always do in the criminal law.

Mr. George Baker: I have one further question, Mr. Chairman.

The opposition parties are all united on one thing, that this is a terrible thing that's happening, that there have been all these leaks, and each opposition party in the House of Commons here today says that something has to be done to stop it. Since there is that unanimity, would you suggest, as the Clerk of the House suggested, the bringing in of such a standing order to solve the problem?

I don't know whether you've thought of this, or maybe Derek might be able to answer this since I imagine he's delved into it a lot, but the accompanying legislation that would be required to perhaps enact specific fines and so on... What I'm asking you is do you agree, since all the opposition parties are saying we have to do something—and I imagine what they're suggesting, in agreement with the Clerk, is a standing order that says you can't leak—that this is the solution to our problem?

Mr. Bill Graham: I can't answer that. I haven't looked at it in sufficient detail. I certainly think it's something that should be canvassed by this committee, because the problem is serious enough that it requires we look at it. I would be more than happy, at your request, to take that back to the liaison committee and ask what the other chairs think about this.

I think I've been greatly enriched by being here and talking about this issue with you. I've come back with a lot. I know a lot more about it than I did when I came in here, and I'd like to go back with some of that. But I'd like actually to sit in and hear what Mr. Lee has to say, because I think he clearly has more direct experience in dealing with committee powers that I don't think, frankly, any of us have ever given any serious thought to.

Mr. George Baker: No, that's true.

Mr. Bill Graham: You were an experienced committee chair. I've been a committee chair now for almost four years. I've never really seriously given thought to the types of powers we have. I tend to try to operate on consensus, and that seems to be the most powerful way—

Mr. George Baker: And you do it quite well, Mr. Chairman.

The Chairman: George, I think that first of all we will be hearing from Derek. Secondly, on Thursday we're dealing with the media, so I might put you a little bit higher on the speaking order.

Thirdly, Bill, of course you're welcome to attend our meeting, but I would suggest that we do in fact advise, in a more formal way, the other committee chairs that we're having these hearings. I know they know we are, but perhaps one or two...they would be more than welcome. You would be more than welcome.

Chuck Strahl.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Far be it from me...

[Editor's Note: Technical Difficulty]

...through this whole process to sum up, but I just feel I need to get back to the idea of the culture that has been created. And the culture, although Mr. Lee has mentioned that the parliamentary events are different from... whatever the other part of it was...

Mr. Derek Lee: The parliamentary exercise.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: Yes, the parliamentary exercise. I believe it's both the parliamentary events and the exercise that create a culture.

It was raised over here that public accounts has never had a problem, because the culture of that committee is still sacrosanct and still seems to be working. But I have to say, from an opposition point of view—I don't speak for all the opposition but from my point of view—the unanimous reports don't mean what they used to mean either. It used to be that a unanimous report given to the government was a pretty heavy and weighty document that swayed everything from legislation to the budget.

But as we've seen in recent times, you can have a unanimous report from the fisheries committee and it may not only not get ignored, it may even have repercussions shattering right through to the chairman of the committee. You can have a unanimous report from our committee on the televising of committee hearings, and what happens is that it gets deep-sixed because somebody in the government doesn't want it. We all agree, everybody here agreed, but it's not happening because somebody over there said “No way”. There was unanimous consent on Lifting Canadian Mining Off the Rocks in natural resources. There was unanimous consent on all recommendations. It went to the minister, and not a single recommendation of the 14 was ever acted on.

So I have to say that I suspect the efficacy of unanimous reports is also in decline. That's why I think that unless something is done—and I'm going to pin it on the government a little bit—to take unanimous reports more seriously, Mr. Chairman, the people on the backbench who people these committees are going to start saying, “We worked our guts out on a unanimous report on televising debates, and the government gets it and says no? I don't think so.”

• 1240

So I would just say that when the liaison committee, in their discussions—and I've never been to one of your meetings—

Mr. Bill Graham: Count yourself lucky.

Mr. Chuck Strahl: In their discussions, I would encourage that committee to discuss the new culture.

In my opinion, the new culture is upon us, and as I said before, I don't think the genie can be put back in that bottle, because people have come to the conclusion, on both sides of the committees perhaps, that all the work we do is for naught. If I can get a hit out of it in the media, some people would say, that's the best I can do, because the government is going to ignore the damned thing anyway.

The Chairman: Mr. Graham.

Mr. Bill Graham: Very quickly, I think there are two points, one coming out of Mr. Lee's rather philosophical but important observation as to the distinction between parliamentary work and governmental work.

When people say to me, “Well, you're a member of the government”, I often say “I'm not a member of the government; I'm a member of Parliament”. The members of the government are the cabinet ministers and the parliamentary secretaries in our British parliamentary democracy system, as I understand it. Therefore I feel I have a certain freedom and a certain responsibility, as a member of Parliament, to be collegial with the other members of Parliament. Obviously there's a partisan interest and I want to move the government agenda forward, but at least on our committee, I think that quite often...

I'll give you an example. We unanimously recommended to the government that they compensate the Hong Kong veterans, and that came from opposition members and government members. It took a long time, but eventually the government actually stepped up and did that, and I was very pleased when the minister agreed to do it. But it helped a great deal when we were discussing it with the ministry, the two ministers involved, to remind them constantly that this was an all-party recommendation in the House.

I think we lose sight sometimes...we lose the opportunity to have that leverage. I don't suggest to you that I haven't been disappointed in some recommendations made by the committee; I'd be disingenuous to pretend that I haven't. I can think of one report that kind of disappeared, and I was disappointed in that. But on the other side, there are successes as well, and I don't want to throw the baby out with the dirty bathwater.

The Chairman: Bill, on behalf of our colleagues and I think everyone here, this has been a very useful discussion for us all, and we hope it has been useful to you. If in fact you can take some of this back to the liaison committee and feed us with some more information, that will be fine.

As I mentioned, we will formally invite all the committee chairs to our meetings, in addition to their routine notification, and you would be most welcome. We greatly appreciate it. Thank you very much.

Colleagues, our next meeting is Thursday, February 18, 1999, on the same topic, with Doug Fisher and with Jules Richer, president of the National Press Gallery.

Then, after the break, Joseph Maingot will be here on the Tuesday, likely, and if we can arrange it, Derek Lee would be here on the Thursday of that first week.

Thank you very much. We meet again in Room 112-N at the end of this week.

The meeting is adjourned.