Committees / Committee Proceedings

In camera meetings: disclosure of work; member’s staff accused of media leak

April 9, 2019

Debates, p. 26889

On March 19, 2019, Lisa Raitt (Milton) raised a question of privilege concerning an incident that had occurred at an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights. Ms. Raitt stated that the text of a motion that was to be debated in camera had been circulated to the media by a Liberal member’s staff. In her opinion, this was a breach of privileges of the House. While Ms. Raitt acknowledged that it is normally committees themselves that must regulate such issues, in her view, the circumstances were exceptional enough to warrant the Chair’s intervention. In response, Kevin Lamoureux (Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) argued that making public a motion not yet moved in committee was well within the rules. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[1]

Resolution

On April 9, 2019, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He noted that committees are the masters of their proceedings and that it is up to committees to report to the House if a possible breach of privilege may have occurred in their work, unless and until the circumstances are serious enough to warrant an intervention by the Chair. In the present case, the Chair was not satisfied that the complaint raised as a question of privilege was an exceptional situation requiring an intervention in the absence of a committee report.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on March 19, 2019, by the hon. member for Milton, concerning an alleged leak of proceedings at the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights.

I want to thank the hon. member as well as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, and the members for Essex, St. Albert—Edmonton and Cariboo—Prince George for their comments.

In her intervention, the member for Milton alleged that earlier that day the text of a motion that was to be debated in camera by the Standing Committee on Justice and Human Rights was leaked to members of the media by Liberal staff. While the member acknowledged that it is normally committees themselves that must regulate such issues, in her opinion this disclosure of the work of the committee was egregious enough to constitute a breach of privilege that requires the Chair’s intervention.

In response, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons insisted that no rules were breached in making public a motion not yet moved in committee since this act is not part of a committee’s proceedings.

To begin, the Chair would like to confirm that, despite what has been reported in the media, it has not been clearly established when exactly this motion was shared with the media. To that end, it is my understanding that the chair of the committee has committed to investigating this issue.

Nonetheless, both the member for Milton and the parliamentary secretary were right to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, at pages 1089 and 1090, which states:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

Of note, though, is that the sentence that follows, on page 1090, is equally instructive. It reads:

However, if a committee does not report a divulgation of in camera proceedings, a Speaker has ruled that there are no procedural grounds on which to intervene.

It seems to the Chair then that these two principles must be considered together, rather than separately. For to consider only one could very well lead to a misinterpretation of what the House has accepted as its principles and practices. In ruling on a question of privilege concerning an alleged breach of confidentiality of in camera committee proceedings, Speaker Milliken stated on February 25, 2003, at page 3986 of the Debates:

In the absence of a report from the committee on such an issue, it is virtually impossible for the Chair to make any judgment as to the prima facie occurrence of a breach of privilege with regard to such charges.

The message is simple and steadfast: Committees are the masters of their proceedings. The Speaker must not supersede their judgment unless and until the circumstances are serious or extreme enough to warrant an intervention by the Chair in the absence of a report from a committee.

This in no way diminishes the importance of confidentiality of in camera committee proceedings. In fact, it is this insistence on confidentiality that breathes life into and sustains the very nature and value of such proceedings. Members and staff alike who are privy to these confidential discussions must assuredly continue do their utmost to respect and protect this important obligation.

From the evidence presented and studied thoroughly, the Chair could not find any indication, nor reasonably conclude, that this was an exceptional situation requiring an intervention in the absence of a committee report. Accordingly, in my view as Speaker, there is no question of privilege.