HAFF 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]

Thursday, June 8, 2000

• 1133

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): We're back in order and we're in open session, colleagues. Before we go to Mr. Bergeron, you'll recall that earlier on an in camera basis we adopted the report of the Sub-Committee on Private Members' Business dealing with the 100 signatures.

Mr. McCormick is present at the committee today. There is, of course, no need to speak to the report because we've adopted it, but I did want to acknowledge the hard work of Mr. McCormick and all his committee members from all parties, including Mr. Godin and Madam Tremblay, who beavered away at this subcommittee, dealing with tough political issues as they dealt with private members' business. We're very grateful for their study of that issue. It meant the main committee was free to pursue the other issues, and they provided a good report. Our thanks to them.

Mr. Larry McCormick (Hastings—Frontenac—Lennox and Addington, Lib.): Thank you very much, Mr. Chair. On behalf of my colleagues, who have made it a very interesting challenge and opportunity, thank you.

The Chair: While I'm at it, I'll just acknowledge the existence of another subcommittee that is beavering away on the issue of financial reporting to Parliament. We should have a report from that subcommittee, I understand, fairly shortly.

Now we'll go to Mr. Bergeron.

• 1135

I should say, Mr. Bergeron, that normally a privilege matter is taken up in the House, because it is only the House that would be in a position to provide a remedy, but there's no reason to not hear you at this point in time if it's your desire to have the committee hear you.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): Mr. Chair, I would like to make two comments on your comment, which is quite relevant.

First, I decided to raise this question of privilege because it is a situation that happened in this committee, more specifically when we were studying the whole matter of confidentiality, on the one hand.

On the other, the object of the motion is that, in the opinion of this committee, the matter should be referred to the House. I thought it appropriate for all the members of this committee that we to examine the matter together, amongst ourselves first, before raising it on the floor of the House.

Mr. Chair, my intervention shouldn't be a very long one. I have in hand a written text that I will read as intelligibly as possible so that we don't waste any time.

Mr. Chair, I would like to draw to your attention a fact that troubles me quite a bit. You will allow me, first of all, to put the problem in its context so that the scope of this question of privilege is properly understood. As we all know, a motion tabled by the Member for Roberval, seconded by my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis, who is with us today, was passed by unanimous consent of the House and this committee was given, by the House, on March 16 last the following terms of reference:

That the issue of the confidentiality of the work of the legislative counsel be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs; that the various possible solutions, namely

a) the restructuring of the service to ensure confidentiality; or

b) the reallocation of current resources to the various political parties to allow them to have their own legislative counsel services

be reviewed by the Committee, and that a report proposing concrete solutions be tabled in the House by June 1, 2000.

So we got a referral from the House enjoining us to examine the two solutions mentioned in this order to re-establish the credibility of the principle of confidentiality in the relationship between the members and the legislative counsel.

Mr. Chair, by passing this motion unanimously, all the members acknowledged that the matter of confidentiality had to be examined seriously, as it is fundamental to the exercise of our duties as parliamentarians. It would be difficult to imagine how Parliament could function adequately without the necessary confidentiality.

As for the seriousness of this study, the Government House Leader even said in the House, concerning the motion I have just read, and I quote:

Mr. Speaker, [...] I am ready to ensure full co-operation on the government side for the committee to report on this matter on the due date, which is June 1.

Later on, Mr. Chair, after a suspension of sitting, the government leader added, and I am quoting again:

Mr. Speaker, the honourable member asked earlier if the government were prepared to co-operate in a way to produce the report by June 1 to improve the Parliamentary Counsel services as described in the motion that was just read on the two different points. I am willing to give the commitment that the government would do just that.

In view of this demonstration of good faith, it was possible to believe in the seriousness of this study. Never, ever would I have believed that at the very moment we were examining a breech of confidentiality in the legislative services, at the very moment we were trying to re-establish the integrity of this bond of trust between the members and the legislative services, someone would have had the audacity and the recklessness to defy this committee and the House of Commons by unequivocally revealing information until then confidential on the legislative work of the political parties recognized in the House.

Here are the facts. We all know that during the meeting on March 28 last, at one point, the matter was raised of looking at the figures to fully understand the skyrocketing demand for the drafting of amendments by the different parties represented in the House.

• 1140

The Chief Government Whip clearly indicated, still during that same meeting, and I quote:

[...] I would like to have the general figures and then the more specific figures for our party, always in this spirit of respecting confidentiality.

That was a warning by the Government Whip.

I don't mind having the figures, but always respecting confidentiality and this is something you yourself, Mr. Chair, vigorously supported. You wondered, more specifically, and I am quoting you, “how far can one go without affecting confidentiality”.

Still in the context of a possible divulging of certain figures, Mr. Marleau, the Clerk of the House of Commons, stated, and I quote:

I am not sure I would be able to indicate the number of amendments we prepared for this or that party because I believe the matter of confidentiality comes into play here.

So the members of this committee were extremely cautious concerning the divulging of statistics on requests for drafting of amendments. There was a warning from the Government Whip, a warning from the Chairman of the committee and a warning from the Clerk of the House himself.

You can understand my astonishment, Mr. Chair, when, on last April 10, my parliamentary office received a table of statistics containing up-to-date figures on the amendments drafted since the first session of the 35th Parliament until the second session of the 36th Parliament. And when I say “up-to-date”, you couldn't get any more up-to-date than that.

Those figures provided by the law clerk and legislative counsel, Mr. Rob Walsh, even reveal figures for bills C-3, C-12 and C-16 which, at the time these figures were divulged, still had not yet gone through clause-by-clause in committee.

So here are the figures. For Bill C-3, it was announced that 3,073 amendments had been drafted; for Bill C-12, 23 amendments had been drafted; and for Bill C-16, one amendment had been drafted.

For your information, Mr. Chair, I will say that Bill C-3 has still not yet entered clause-by-clause in committee, that Bill C-12 has not been examined in committee and that Bill C-16 went through clause-by-clause only on last April 12 and 13.

Mr. Chair, it was very clear that, for those bills, the problem perhaps involved a matter of strategy that was totally shot down by this very unfortunate revelation. Mr. Chair, not only did Mr. Walsh voluntarily divulge confidential information, but what is more serious yet, while this committee was right in the middle of examining a reference from the House concerning the whole matter of the confidentiality of the work done by the legislative counsel for the parliamentarians, the boss of the legislative counsel—and this should be repeated so that the total seriousness of what was done is fully understood—right in the middle of the study of a referral from the House on the matter of confidentiality, put out these figures and disregarded this referral by revealing information that had remained confidential until that time concerning the number of amendments drafted for bills that had not yet been examined in committee.

This is an unprecedented act of insolent defiance, Mr. Chair, from what I have gathered from the jurisprudence, and this is a serious breech of the oath sworn by Mr. Walsh concerning the discretion he must show. Mr. Walsh has been in his position since 1991. If there is one man who should know how important it is for the House that confidentiality be respected, he is that man. Even the Speaker of the House, in the decision he handed down last March 13 on my colleague for Rimouski—Mitis' question of privilege, emphasized how important confidentiality is in the relations between the legislative counsel and the members, and I quote:

All the House staff supporting the members in their legislative functions are held to the utmost confidentiality [...]

• 1145

How could Mr. Walsh act that way as the head of the legislative services and show so little respect for the principle of confidentiality? What kind of message is he sending to his staff and employees? In this context, chances are great that we will be here again later on to discuss confidentiality again.

In order to enjoy the utmost freedom of expression, which is necessary for their work, parliamentarians must count on the total discretion of all House staff. That is actually why the said House staff must swear an oath, as I was saying a bit earlier. How could parliamentarians possibly do their work properly in this parliament if they had to withhold some information and not share it with the parliamentary counsel who advise them during the drafting of a bill or amendments for fear that privileged information might be divulged?

So it is clear, Mr. Chair, that a breech in the link of trust that exists between the legislative services and the members, the lawmakers that we are, impairs our freedom of action as well as our capacity to fully and freely do our work. This further unpardonable and unacceptable conduct undermines very seriously the credibility of our institution which is already facing a situation which at the very least could be described as delicate in the light of the whole matter we settled—or at least that's what we hope—a few minutes ago in adopting the report.

The law clerk and parliamentary counsel is held to the strictest confidentiality because of the highly confidential information circulating in his office. Today, we have the evidence that this confidentiality was not respected. That is the first point I wanted to make, Mr. Chair.

I repeat that what is even more serious is that, despite the fact that this committee was examining possible solutions to ensure the confidentiality of the legislative services, the very head of those services divulged highly confidential information. Either he does not care about confidentiality, either he does not understand the full importance of the discretion his administrative service must observe, or he has shown a carelessness that should worry us to the highest degree, Mr. Chair, taking into account the high functions he has within the administrative machine of this House of Commons. In any case, Mr. Chair, allow me to doubt the seriousness Mr. Walsh has shown for the matter the House referred to this committee.

Our privileges have been breached. As Speaker Sauvé explained in a decision in 1980 and that you will find on page 66 of Montpetit-Marleau:

Any disregard of or attack on the rights, powers and immunities of the House and its Members, either by an outside person or body, or by a Member of the House, is referred to as a "breach of privilege" and is punishable by the House.

Thus, this committee must sanction this serious breach of privilege against the members of all political parties, this contempt for the committees and the House of Commons. The very credibility of this committee and, in a broader sense, the House itself are at stake.

Mr. Chair, I have a motion concerning my question of privilege that I can table. So I would ask you, with total impartiality, to recognize that the document made public by Mr. Walsh, where the number of amendments to bills C-3, C-12 and C-16 are to be found, constitutes a breech of the members' privilege as well as contempt for the committee and the House, Mr. Chair. I am ready to table my motion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. Thank you for that.

Now, the chair would have a comment, but I would recognize members first if there were any response.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, with all due respect, could we debate the motion? May I submit my motion?

[English]

The Chair: There is nothing that would prevent you from tabling a motion at this time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So I will read it out, Mr. Chair.

• 1150

[English]

The Chair: Is it long?

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, it's not long.

The Chair: There would be no reason in the world procedurally that would prevent you from introducing a motion. What would happen to it after you introduced it is up to members.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It's up to members.

The Chair: If there's no objection, please go ahead and read your motion and introduce it.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I move:

That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee report to the House the fact that the number of amendments to Bills C-3, C-12 and C-16 was disclosed by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Mr. Rob Walsh, on April 10, 2000, so the House may decide on action to be taken in this particular matter.

I can read the same thing in English, Mr. Chair:

[English]

That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee report to the House that confidential information concerning the number of amendments to Bill C-3, C-12 and C-16 has been disclosed by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Mr. Rob Walsh, on April 10, 2000, so that the House may decide what actions to take on this particular case.

The Chair: Okay.

Now I'll recognize Mr. Knutson, and then Ms. Bakopanos.

In terms of a full debate on the motion, perhaps.... The chair perceives that we are getting into an area of significant complexity—and I'll try to address that a little later. In the meantime, we could postpone the debate on it to another time. It would be the view of the chair that we could not conclude debate on it today, because it raises a number of issues that members might wish to make themselves aware of, and I can make reference to them later.

Perhaps on a preliminary basis then, and without moving through to a...well, I'm in the hands of members, but I will speak to this.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: On a point of order, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Yes.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It seems to me that according to procedure and the Standing Orders of the House, when a question of privilege is raised and the motion carries, then it should be debated and either passed or negated, Mr. Chair.

I would point out that the purpose of this motion is only to report to the House that information was divulged and suggests that the House discuss the action to be taken. Will the House choose to refer the question to the Procedure and House Affairs Committee? That is up to the House.

What I simply hope is that we will report to the House what went on here so that the House may decide what it wants to do in this whole matter. It will be up to the House to decide what it wants to do. I believe this question is important enough for us to report it to the House.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, you are at all times, as a member of the House, at liberty to raise the matter in the House at any time. I appreciate your initiative in taking up the matter here, because the matter began here. By the same token, members may or may not wish to report the matter to the House, depending on how—

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I know.

[Translation]

I get the impression that you...

[English]

The Chair: This is an item that's been raised today, and I feel that for the conclusion of our deliberations on your motion we should allow a few days, perhaps into next week. But I did want to allow reactions from members and I did want to make a point myself, a point that I view to be of some significance. But we could go around the table quickly and receive reactions, perhaps procedurally, or in whatever way. We do have a few minutes left in our time today.

So I'll recognize Mr. Knutson, Ms. Bakopanos, and Mr. Hill.

Mr. Gar Knutson (Elgin—Middlesex—London, Lib.): Thank you, Mr. Chair.

My initial reaction when Mr. Bergeron was raising the issue was that it should be a point of privilege and be raised in the House. But as I was listening, I thought perhaps all that would accomplish is that the Speaker would hear it and then kick it back to us. Maybe we need to hear witnesses and do a more comprehensive report.

• 1155

But I'm also thinking that if all Mr. Bergeron is asking is that we write a report that says we're concerned that these things became public and that the 3,000 amendments for the youth justice bill were part of a report and should have been kept.... If he just wants us to flag it so we would use language that says we're concerned, I don't have any difficulty with voting for a report that would say little except that we're concerned, and then let the Speaker do what the Speaker feels he needs to do.

I'm not sure at this point that I want to point a whole lot of fingers without getting more facts, and point fingers without knowing whether this is the appropriate venue in which to point fingers. I agree that sometimes fingers have to be pointed, but I don't feel qualified to vote on a report that points fingers, and I'm inclined to support the gist of what you said, that we probably need to kick this over until Tuesday to resolve it. Those are my views, for what it's worth.

The Chair: Ms. Bakopanos.

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos (Ahuntsic, Lib.): Thank you.

I find it a little unusual that we just voted on a report where we have absolute faith and confidence in all the personnel of the House, and now we're reverting back to accusing one of the members of the House of actually breaching a confidentiality that we have said in our report we agreed with.

A lot of what Mr. Bergeron has raised I feel was raised during the proceedings we had on the former discussions before this committee. I think it would be doubling the work.

Unless Mr. Bergeron can be more specific as to exactly what he's out to seek, I would say—and I'll repeat myself—we adopted a report in which we have said we have confidence and there was no breach of confidentiality by the staff of the House of Commons, and we would now be saying, that's okay for that, but we're going back and again questioning the confidentiality of the staff of the House of Commons.

I would personally be in favour of having this raised in the House, and, if the Speaker decides to, then bring it back to the committee. I would like to hear the facts, but I would think we would be revisiting a lot of what we have already done in the last two months.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Hill.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): First of all, I want to raise the process that Mr. Bergeron is following—and I think it's the correct process—under the section entitled “Manner of Raising Matters of Privilege” in Montpetit and Marleau. If you look further, a subsection entitled “In Standing, Special, Legislative and Joint Committees”, on page 128, says:

Since the House has not given its committees the power to punish any misconduct, breach of privilege, or contempt directly, committees cannot decide such matters; they can only report them to the House. Only the House can decide if an offence has been committed. Speakers have consistently ruled that, except in the most extreme situations, they will only hear questions of privilege arising from committee proceedings upon presentation of a report from the committee....

So I think Mr. Bergeron is following the correct procedure in requesting that we report this matter to the House. I don't think a lot of discussion is necessary. If the events are as he states them, that this breach of confidentiality has occurred, then I think we should report that to the Speaker. He's following the correct process that I'm aware of in doing so.

The Chair: I want to get it on the record before we go further that the chair actually comes to a much different conclusion from Mr. Bergeron. It's fundamental, and of course I will be absolutely governed by what members decide, but you will recall, and you are all aware, that every witness who comes before the House or a committee is absolutely bound to answer fully, completely, and honestly every question put. That is not just a practice; that is the law. It is the law of Parliament, and it is so bedrock that it is constitutional in nature.

• 1200

Mr. Walsh was appearing here as a witness. This isn't a debating club; this is Parliament, and we are governed by those parliamentary laws. There is no impediment in the world that will prevent or allow a witness to avoid answering a question fully, completely, and honestly. So no confidentiality convention, no statutory prohibition—nothing—will prevent a witness from fully disclosing to Parliament.

An oath, a previously taken oath, an undertaking, a contract, a legislative prohibition—these are not barriers to witnesses providing answers, so much so that every witness who appears and answers truthfully is fully and absolutely protected by the House and its committees. They have a virtual immunity for what they reveal and say at parliamentary committees and in the House. The House has an obligation to protect its witnesses.

So I'm saying parliamentary law would normally show that no witness is capable of contempt by answering truthfully and completely questions put at a committee.

I ask members to consider that. That's an important paradigm, an important thing to take into consideration. No witness who answers completely and honestly at a committee is capable of committing contempt in Parliament. In fact, to do otherwise, to do the opposite, would be contempt.

It is arguable that a witness could say there are items he or she doesn't think should be made public. The decision would be in the hands of the committee to say, go ahead and make them public, take them in camera, or whatever. So I leave that out for you.

Mr. Godin had indicated.... Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, I rise on a point of order because the whole presentation you've just made, as relevant as it may be, does not apply in this case. I pointed that out in my text, Mr. Chair. I would invite you to read the blues. I would have invited you to listen attentively to what I was I was saying, but my presentation did state that Mr. Walsh did not reveal the number of amendments to Bill C-3, C-12 and C-16 to this committee while he enjoyed the protection of the committee. He sent a note to parliamentarians where he indicated the number of amendments for all kinds of bills, including Bills C-3, C-12 and C-16. This was done outside of this committee. It had nothing to do with the evidence he gave before this committee when he did actually enjoy that protection. Had he made those statements to this committee, then I would not have had to raise this matter of privilege today.

The statement or disclosure wasn't made before this committee while he enjoyed the protection of the committee. I wanted to specify that, Mr. Chair, because your presentation is correct but doesn't apply at all to the question of privilege I'm raising today. I will have comments to make to enlighten Eleni. I quite agree with what she's just said. I even made that clarification before beginning the examination of the report. I said that I had a question of privilege to raise. I explained the nature of my question of privilege and this question of privilege has absolutely nothing to do with what went on prior to the examination we've undertaken. It happened while we were examining all the questions prior to our examination. So, in effect, everything in our report is true as concerns what went on before.

What went on during the examination is something else again. We're making a new report. I even asked the chairman, at one point, if he wanted me to raise my question of privilege in the report. Everyone found it would be better to have a separate report. Well, fine. We've made our report and I'm now raising my question of privilege, but I had already announced that at the outset. There's nothing new. There are no surprises.

[English]

The Chair: Okay. That was kind of an expandable point of order.

• 1205

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay (Rimouski—Mitis, BQ): Mr. Godin wants to speak.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Godin:

Mr. Yvon Godin (Acadie—Bathurst, NDP): You're not going to get away with this one, going around and stopping and then not coming to me and going back there. It will not work today.

Mr. Gar Knutson: He raised a point of order.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I understand that he was ready and didn't go back to the other side, and you had two. If you were listening, you would have gotten it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall (Ottawa West—Nepean, Lib.): Even the chair can make a mistake.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A mistake, but not a lot of mistakes.

The Chair: Mr. Godin, you have the floor.

Mr. Yvon Godin: Thank you, Mr. Chair.

[Translation]

Listening to Mr. Bergeron, I thought it was important to establish the confidentiality. In this case, it's a totally separate point and I must find myself in agreement with Mr. Bergeron. At a point where the committee is deciding on a point, it is touching on other motions dealing with Bills C-3, C-12 and C-16. All he wants to do is to bring this before the House to look at the matter. We can't continue with these things.

Maybe you, on the government side, think you have to save things, but you may not always be on the government side. Maybe you'll wind up in opposition some day. You have to be careful what you're going to do. You might figure then that when you were on the government side you should have been more careful. It's a matter of protecting parliamentarians and Parliament. We have a role to play here. They have responsibilities and they're paid for that.

Mr. Walsh has been here since 1991 and he knows his job. He had no reason for doing that. If I had had a bill and he started playing around with my bill like that, I certainly wouldn't be happy. We shouldn't be happy with that. That's why I agree with Mr. Bergeron. This matter must be brought to the attention of the House and we're going to have to face it.

If we draw up a report and we trust the House staff and, at the same time, other things are going on, we can't let this go by. It's not because we're seized of a report today that we're going to say that we shouldn't be looking at a second one at the same time. We have had a problem and, I for one say that we have to act. That is my personal opinion. There's nothing wrong in having the committee reporting it to the House. It was referred to the committee and it will then be up to the Speaker to make a decision.

[English]

The Chair: Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I think this is an important issue. Clearly, the information that came to the committee, however it got here—and I'll come to that in a moment—revealed a strategy of a particular party or a particular member of a particular party, and that's just not acceptable.

I think the point you've raised, Mr. Chair, is an important one as well, and that is, how did this material get to the committee? Was it sent in response to a request from the committee? If so, I think it's still covered by the privilege that you referred to just now. If the committee or a member of the committee requested that information be provided, then the person who provided it had no choice but to do so.

The second point that concerns me substantially is that we are dealing with an individual here. Frankly, this is the first time since I've been in Parliament that I remember being in a position like this, where we are being asked to report to Parliament on something that might be harmful to a particular individual. Therefore, I think we should proceed with a lot of caution. As Mr. Knutson was just saying, Mr. Walsh is a big boy and he can look after himself here.

But I think we should consider what other options we have. I think resolving the question of how this information came to us, and I honestly can't remember if it was distributed at committee or sent to me following the committee meeting.... Just a minute, I may still have in my office the covering sheet that came with it.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It was following.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It was following the committee meeting. I think we do need to clarify that. Given the seriousness of this issue, I don't think we should act with haste. I don't think we should delay it either. I'd like to know very clearly how it came to us. Did we request it? Did a member request it? If so, I think we have to handle it differently than if that is not the case.

Since this is something that involves one of the personnel of the House of Commons, I'm also asking myself whether in fact this is an issue that perhaps should be referred to the board, rather than this committee reporting to Parliament. Is it a disciplinary matter almost, as opposed to a privilege matter?

• 1210

The first thing I feel we need to do is answer that question of how we got the information. I don't know if we can do that right now or if we should try to deal with it at our Tuesday meeting.

The Chair: Madame Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Mr. Chair, I think that Ms. Catterall must understand that the immunity enjoyed here as a witness is equivalent to the immunity we enjoy as parliamentarians inside the House. There are things that we say in the House that we can't repeat in the hall, in front of the reporters.

So if an employee of the House like Mr. Walsh sends information to our offices after the meeting... I'll quote Bob Kilger to you. Mr. Kilger is your Whip and he's the one who wanted the information. I'm quoting him:

Mr. Speaker, I don't insist on getting more specific information. I'm not interested in knowing the names. I just want to have the data, the figures, because I can assure you that on the government side we have exactly the same concerns as those expressed by the members of the opposition and it is in this spirit of transparency that we want to arrive at a solution that will allow the House to look at the matter in a way that will lead to a new orientation for it...

And it continues in that vein. The Speaker then says:

So, as Mr. Kilger suggested, let's see how far Messrs. Walsh and Robertson can go without breaching confidentiality.

It's the Speaker who said that. So, Mr. Walsh had a specific order.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: That was specific.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He was not to go beyond what was public. Give us the figures so we can have an idea, so that we can know whether it has increased awfully. The moment Mr. Walsh, in the report he sent our offices, tabled a series of details concerning bills that were not even yet before the House, he went beyond the limit he was given, which was confidentiality. There's a breach of confidentiality. Bill C-3 will not be put before the House before we leave on holidays. There's no reason at all for Parliament to be informed that there were already 3,000 amendments in the works on that bill. Be that as it may, we all know about them. That's where there is a breach of confidentiality.

And it goes on. We can reread them both. The point today isn't to read them over once again, but, in my opinion, the point raised by my colleague from Verchères—Les-Patriotes is absolutely important and capital in nature. We can't trust the reports we send the House...

Ms. Marlene Catterall: May I see them, please?

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Yes.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson.

Mr. Gar Knutson: To Mr. Bergeron through you, Mr. Chair, the way this reads is almost like a charge against an individual person, and just on a human level I'm uncomfortable with that. I'm just wondering if Mr. Bergeron would agree to amend the words that point the finger at Mr. Walsh. My motion would be to delete the words “disclosed by the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, Mr. Rob Walsh, on April 10, 2000”. So the motion would just read:

That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee report to the House that confidential information concerning a number of amendments to the following bills, C-3, C-12, C-6, has been disclosed.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So the House decides—

Mr. Gar Knutson: —to take action on this particular case. I'd be prepared to vote for that.

The Chair: Do colleagues believe that if we do report that as proposed, we should have some kind of factual outline to accompany it when it goes to the House? Will we rely on Mr. Bergeron's intervention here, or should we ask our staff to try to put together the factual backdrop? I think we should provide a factual basis for the report. Otherwise, it's going to go to the House and the Speaker will have to send it back to us. It will happen anyway, I guess, but...

• 1215

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: First of all, I would like to point out that we have no objection to putting in Mr. Knutson's amendment. I think his intention is most praiseworthy. That said, I appreciate the trust you're showing by not relying only on my version of the facts, but I would like to show all my confidence in Mr. Robertson and Ms. Chafe. If you prefer going by their version of the facts or the report they make, I have no objection.

[English]

The Chair: All right. We're moving towards a consensus on the wording of the motion. We haven't all formally agreed to it, but we're moving towards it.

Could we ask Mr. Robertson to create that outline of the facts that give rise to Mr. Bergeron's motion and to have it available for Tuesday? Is that okay? Do you need more direction than that? The facts are outlined pretty well in Mr. Bergeron's submissions.

I don't think we would adopt the motion until we had a.... I'm sorry; let me just read the motion. The motion essentially moves and reports to the House, but we could do that on Tuesday if the thing is brought together. So it might be premature to actually adopt the motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chair, if we have a consensus on the motion and all we have left to do is agree on the situational aspects, I think we should proceed exactly as we did for our last report. Let's adopt the recommendation and we'll adopt the final report at our next meeting. The recommendation was essentially the same as the motion as amended by Mr. Knutson, by removing any reference to Mr. Walsh. I move its adoption, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: Colleagues, Mr. Bergeron has moved that we adopt the motion he has presented, as amended.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What was the amendment?

The Chair: I'll read the motion.

That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee report to the House that confidential information concerning the number of amendments of the following bills (C-3, C-12, C-16) has been disclosed so that the House may decide on actions to take on this particular case.

It perhaps reads better en français. I don't have to reread it, but—

Mr. Marcel Proulx (Hull—Aylmer, Lib.): If we removed “the following” prior to “bills”, it would be the equivalent of the French.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: So bills C-3, C-12 and C-16?

The Chair: Yes.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I'm not comfortable voting on this amendment. I'm more comfortable with the motion. I'm not comfortable voting on it until I have a closer look. I'm reading the minutes in French and I see Mr. Kilger saying:

[Translation]

“I simply want to have the data, the figures”.

[English]

It seems to me that's what Mr. Walsh has provided. Until I read the minutes a little more in context—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: Read: “with respect for the confidentiality”.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: That's why I would like to read—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: For Ms. Catterall's benefit, your whip continued and said:

[...] I'd like to have the general figures and the figures for our party, fully respecting this spirit of confidentiality.

• 1220

A very clear directive was given to Mr. Walsh, to respect confidentiality. He was asked to give the figures on what was known. That is the directive this committee gave to Mr. Walsh. Mr. Walsh went further: he also gave the figures for what was not known.

The chairman of the committee, Mr. Kilger and Mr. Marleau himself, all three of them, exercised much caution concerning confidentiality during that meeting of the committee. I mentioned it before and I can even read the quotes for you again. They said to be careful because some information might be confidential. Despite those three warnings, there are three bills that were not yet being examined in committee whose number of amendments was revealed.

[English]

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I guess I'm just saying, Stéphane, that I would be much more comfortable if I could read the minutes myself in their entirety and satisfy myself as to that, satisfy myself that there's no way Mr. Walsh was led to believe in the committee meeting that he should provide the complete details. I'm quite happy to see direction to prepare a report. I'm not happy to say that right now I'm ready to vote on this. I take this very seriously.

The Chair: Mr. Pickard.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): I understand what Ms. Catterall is saying and I certainly understand Mr. Bergeron's point of view as well. The goal is to make sure there is concern about this issue. I think that's all Mr. Bergeron is trying to accomplish. Ms. Catterall is very protective of the system, and I understand that as well.

What would be different on Tuesday from today? I'm not sure we'd have a great deal of change. I don't feel totally comfortable with everything either, maybe because I haven't been here for all the discussions. But if the motion were put forward right now, I would have to say that I would view it as passing on division in this committee. I'm not seeing it as conclusive, with everybody agreeing. If we deal with it today, it will certainly be on division because not everybody is conclusively assured that it's the direction or the positive direction they want to go in.

If that's the way they wish to put it on the floor, then let's put it on the floor, but be realistic about it. If it passes, it will go on division.

The Chair: If it doesn't pass, it's disposed of.

Mr. Jerry Pickard: That's right.

The Chair: There might be a desire on the part of the committee to.... I'm not so sure the members of the committee want to defeat it.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: No. I don't want that either.

The Chair: So it might be better not to put the motion. It might be better to get the factual information, maybe walk through the motion a couple more times, and try to get a product on Tuesday that we can deal with. That's a suggestion.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: It would be better if we maybe had some assurance to—

The Chair: I'm sorry.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: I guess I'm raising a point of order, Mr. Chair.

The Chair: A point of order is fine. I was going to recognize Ms. Tremblay, but go ahead on the point of order.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: What I was going to suggest was that it might provide some assurance to Mr. Bergeron and Ms. Tremblay that we are serious about this if we were to provide instructions to have a draft report prepared that would support this report to the House. Then we could deal with that on Tuesday.

The Chair: Okay. There's a suggestion that Mr. Robertson draft a report that would support the motion or that would reflect the motion and that we could make a judgment next Tuesday.

Ms. Tremblay.

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: In order for Mr. Robertson to report, I think there must be a motion. I fail to see why he would feel obliged to do a report simply because that has been mentioned, if there is no motion to that effect. What I find worrisome is that the members of the committee vary from one time to the next. Nothing guarantees that you will be here on Tuesday. Some of you will be here, but the membership changes. So we are going to have to repeat the debate on Tuesday. Nothing guarantees that, Eleni. Sometimes it is Mr. Kilger, sometimes it is Ms. Parrish, and sometimes there are alternates.

• 1225

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: One, two, three, four: these members will always be present.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Proulx is a newcomer today.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: This is the first time we've seen him here.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: And we are very happy to see him.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: I find it...

[English]

The Chair: Members seem to have accepted the prima facie standard, that Mr. Bergeron has made a kind of—if I can use the term, borrow it from the House—prima facie case, and that there's an inclination to deal with it. The motion now says that the committee will report to the House. Could we adopt a motion that says the committee will now prepare a report to the House, and continue with the wording of the motion—adopt a motion now that the researcher prepare a report on this subject using the words that exist, because if—

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: On a point of order. You are throwing in a red herring, Mr. Chair.

[English]

The Chair: We don't have a report to adopt right now.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: We'd have to make a report.

The Chair: We have information, but we don't have a report. Mr. Bergeron is suggesting that we report the incident, the facts—not all the facts, but the occurrence of an apparent breach of confidentiality. That's what he is asking us to do.

Ms. Catterall, you've....

[Translation]

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: He is throwing in a red herring. They have not received any orders from the government, and they don't know what to think.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Bergeron, if you wish to move adoption of your motion as it is now, you are free to do that. If you want me to put the motion, I'll do it. It wouldn't prejudice you later.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I find myself somewhat torn, Mr. Chair. Mr. Knutson, who, incidently, is the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, told me that if I were to remove Mr. Walsh's name, he would be quite prepared to vote for the motion. Agreed. I will withdraw Mr. Walsh's name. I am told that my motion is very good, but that if I ask for a vote on it today, it will be passed on division. I agree to that, because I think it is preferable for it to be passed unanimously.

But what guarantee do I have, Mr. Chair, that at the end of our discussion on Tuesday, the motion will not be defeated outright or passed on division? What guarantee do I have of that? None. The only guarantee I have, is that the members at this table today understand the issue and are prepared, I believe, at least the majority of them, to vote in favour of my motion. There may be some dissent on the part of two or three members, but I think the others are prepared to pass the motion.

Ms. Tremblay raised an important issue. I am going to tell you a short little story that deserves to be told and concerns what happened to me during the study of a bill to implement the free- trade agreement with Israel. We heard some fairly disturbing testimony from our witnesses. It was so disturbing that the Liberal members refused to vote on the bill then and there at clause-by- clause study. So everything was postponed until the next meeting. At the next meeting, there was not one single Liberal member who had been present to hear the witnesses. The new members had been instructed to vote for the bill.

[English]

Ms. Eleni Bakopanos: That's out of order.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: No, it is not out of order. What I feel, Eleni, because I have had this done to me once, is that on the basis of your good faith today, I agree to postpone everything until Tuesday and then, I get tricked. That is my fear.

Ms. Suzanne Tremblay: What's more, you are right.

• 1230

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: I wanted to proceed properly with the committee, by presenting the question. I am going to trust you, but if you play a trick on me on Tuesday, I can promise you that I will stand up all alone on a question of privilege in the House of Commons, and that will not be the end of the matter.

According to the Standing Orders and to parliamentary procedure, I think this matter should be discussed in committee. I wanted to show respect to the members of this committee. I wanted us to discuss this matter together. I expect the same respect from you in return. We can deal with this matter on Tuesday, but please, do not pull a fast one on me.

[English]

The Chair: Mr. Knutson, did you have a sentiment that could respond to Mr. Bergeron's entreaties? No, okay.

Mr. Gar Knutson: It was never our intent to pull a fast one. We just want to make sure we get it right.

Mr. Yvon Godin: I don't blame him for feeling that way, though. It happened to me one time in committee. I don't blame him for feeling that way. It is with all respect. We are here; we know what is in front of us. If those went to offices like that outside of the committee, well, we have some concerns.

It is easy to have a motion to report it to the House. Let's make a decision. Are we going to wait until Tuesday? If we come back Tuesday, I probably won't be here. The other one coming in may not feel the same way I do. I give that as an example. That's the danger of it.

The Chair: If there were a disposition to get this out of here today as written, I think we would have reached it by now, so I don't see it.

Here I am in the chair waiting for one of our esteemed colleagues.... Please possess me of a direction. Mr. Bergeron has proposed a motion. We can either take it up and deal with it or we can instruct Mr. Robertson to prepare a report that might be adopted on Tuesday.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Once again, Mr. Chair, I would invite you to listen to me when I speak. I have just said, and I don't want to repeat it 12 times, that I was prepared to withdraw my motion so that we can debate it on Tuesday, based on my Liberal colleagues' good faith. So I will withdraw my motion and accept Ms. Catterall's, as long as Mr. Robertson's report incorporates the wording of my motion.

[English]

The Chair: Okay, thank you, Mr. Bergeron.

Is that sufficient instruction to Mr. Robertson? Ms. Catterall? Everybody seems content. We'll put the file over until Tuesday at 11 a.m.

Ms. Catterall.

Ms. Marlene Catterall: Could I add that we be sent the minutes, and I would like it on the record, too, because a couple of times it has been said that this information was sent to all members of Parliament. It wasn't. It was sent to the committee. I have the covering memo with me. It was sent only to members of the committee.

The Chair: We'll sort these things out on Tuesday.

There being no further business, we're adjourned.