Committees / Reports

December 3, 1998

Debates, p. 10866

On December 3, 1998, Yvan Loubier (Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot) raised a question of privilege alleging the disclosure, by members of the Liberal Party, of some information contained in the report of the Standing Committee on Finance on pre-budget consultations before the report was presented in the House. He indicated that this constituted a contempt of the House. Randy White (Langley—Abbotsford) added that he had risen nine times in the House to talk about the issue of premature disclosure of committee reports since the election and had concluded that the reports were public before being tabled. After hearing from other members, the Speaker ruled immediately.^[1]

The Speaker stated that he was losing patience with these incidents. Since complaints were aimed at parties and no individual members were identified, he repeated that he did not have the power to curtail such problems. He strongly suggested that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs address the matter and make recommendations to the House as soon as possible.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I wish to thank all the honourable members who spoke today, especially the honourable member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot, who has raised the question: What about the integrity and honour of this House?

I must admit that I am becoming less patient by the day. This is the second time this week that the same issue has been raised. Today, neither the honourable member for Saint-Hyacinthe—Bagot nor any other member named names; they just referred to members of this or that political party.

I would like to make a suggestion, which is more than a suggestion really.

I would like the House Procedure Committee to address this matter as soon as possible. I would like some kind of recommendation to come forth to the House.

I have said on so many occasions that I do not have the power needed to curtail this type of thing. Collectively members of Parliament have this power.

As a first step, and I would like this done urgently, I want the Procedure Committee to deal with this issue and I would like some suggestions. I do not like to go to the next step right away, but unless there are some suggestions forthcoming for the protection of all of us, then at that time I may consider just to have a debate in the House to find out what we will do as a House.

One honourable member brought up a very strong point. I do not know if this is possible at this juncture, but the question is in my mind, as it must be in yours.

If a court of law can put a ban on publication on certain materials and it is upheld, why can the highest court in the country not do something? I put that as a question, only as a question. But I wish that first the Procedure Committee would have a look at it post haste and we will wait and see what the outcome of that is.

But my patience, like yours, is wearing a bit thin, for all of us as members. We do our work and I think that in honour we should have the decency not to leak these papers for one-upmanship. I do not like the word undersold. I do not like the word scoop. We are parliamentarians and we are going to do our duty as we see fit. I want this to be done as soon as possible.

The Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs presented its 73rd report to the House of Commons on April 29, 1999.^[2] It made the following recommendations: “That committees and subcommittees continue to be able to meet in camera, but that they exercise discretion in doing so. It is appropriate to have an in camera meeting where certain types of issues are being dealt with, or where the purpose of the meeting is one that has traditionally been dealt with in private, such as the consideration of reports to the House. That the Chair state in public the reason for a meeting being in camera, unless the notice for the meeting has already indicated that the meeting will be in camera and the reason therefor. That the Standing Orders be amended to reiterate that committee reports adopted at in camera meetings are confidential until the reports have been presented to the House, and that the evidence and documents at in camera meetings are confidential.”

No further action was taken on the report.

P0911-e

36-1

1998-12-03