Committees / In Camera Meetings

Disclosure of confidential information; confidential nature of draft reports; leak; recorded division–disclosure of results; respect for confidentiality; disclosure of information to the press–Members' role and responsibilities; reprimand; practice in the British House of Commons; practice in the Canadian House of Commons; prima facie question of privilege

May 14, 1987

Debates, pp. 6108–11

On March 25, 1987, Mr. John Parry (Kenora—Rainy River) rose during "Statements by Members" to object to the rejection, during an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, of a draft report.^[1] He then named the Members who had voted to reject the report. On April 28, 1987, the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development presented a Report to the House regarding the incident.^[2] Later that day, Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk—Interlake) rose on a question of privilege regarding the same matter. As Mr. Parry was absent from the House, Mr. Holtmann agreed to postpone making his substantive arguments until another sitting.^[3]   On   May   5, 1987, Mr. Holtmann argued that the unauthorized disclosure of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting could be damaging to Members and constituted a breach of privilege.^[4]

On May 13, 1987, the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources presented its Sixth Report to the House.^[5] This Report dealt with the issue of the alleged disclosure to the media of in camera proceedings of the Committee. Later that day, Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South), the Chair of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources, rose on a question of privilege to allege that the leak of information had impeded her in the performance of her duties, both as a Member and as the Committee Chair, and had jeopardized the proceedings of the Committee, and by extension, of all other Committees of the House. Other Members also participated in the discussion. The Speaker thanked Members for their interventions and indicated that he would be returning to the House with a ruling the next day.^[6]

On May 14, 1987, the Speaker handed down a ruling which dealt with both questions of privilege. The ruling is reproduced in extenso below.

Decision of the Chair

Mr. Speaker: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake on April 28 and May 5, as well as the question of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Calgary South yesterday, May 13.

I will first briefly recapitulate the sequence of events underlying the first question of privilege, as I understand them.

For the benefit of those honourable Members who were unable to be here yesterday, as well as the public, let me say that this ruling relates to alleged leaks of information from committee meetings held in camera; that is to say, in absolute privacy.

There have been several incidents over the last few months involving such leaks brought to the attention of the Chair. The Chair considers such leaks a very serious matter.

As was pointed out by the honourable Parliamentary Secretary to the Deputy Prime Minister and the President of the Privy Council (Hon. Doug Lewis) a few days ago, when this place operates at its best, it operates on the basis of mutual trust. When honourable Members take part in what is an in camera meeting–and it is not for the Chair to say when and under what circumstances such meetings are held; that is a decision for the respective Committees–they have to be assured that what takes place in confidence will be held in confidence.

That, I am sure, is a sentiment shared by all honourable Members, and it is that which the Chair intends to address in its ruling. I invite all honourable Members, some of whom were unable to be here when the arguments were given, to reflect upon that, and I also want the public watching the proceedings of this place to understand exactly what it is the ruling relates to.

To briefly recapitulate the sequence of events, on March 24 last the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development met in camera to consider a draft report to the House. The committee resolved–and remember, the committee was in camera–following a recorded vote, not to report the draft report to the House at that time.

On the following day, the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River, a distinguished member of that particular committee, and an individual for whom honourable Members have high regard, made a statement under Standing Order 21 criticizing the decision of the Committee. In the course of his statement, he said:

In an anonymous office tower, behind closed doors and safely tucked away from probing microphones, four Members of Parliament abrogated their responsibilities to Aboriginal people.

He then went on to disclose the names of four members of the Committee who, in his words, "voted to block the report".

On April 1, at another in camera meeting, the Committee considered a motion to report the action of the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River to the House. The report was adopted on April 7 and later presented to the House. On the presentation of the report the House was formally seized of the matter.

The matter raised by the honourable Member for Calgary South yesterday concerned the publication in the press of certain proceedings which took place at an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Energy, Mines and Resources. In this case, as well, the matter was formally reported to the House by the Committee. The honourable Member provided the Chair with the relevant press reports, which constitute the only available evidence. The Committee did not attempt to identify the source of the leak.

On April 28, the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake raised the matter arising from the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development as a question of privilege. Because of the absence of the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River, who was engaged in other parliamentary business, argument was postponed until May 5.

The presentation of the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake was very straightforward . He argued that the unauthorized disclosure of the proceedings of an in camera meeting of a committee could be damaging to Members and constitute a breach of privilege. He supported his argument with an apposite citation from the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice.

The honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River, in a defence of his action, claimed that he did not violate the intent of the in camera meeting and that a clear distinction should be made between "votes" and "proceedings". He argued that with the taking of a recorded vote, the in camera meeting was in essence suspended.

I noted at the time that the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River, who I have commented is a well–respected Member of the House, did not take the position that a Member was entitled to reveal anything which goes on at an in camera meeting just because he or she did not happen to agree with it.

It is important for the Chair to make it very clear that that was not the thrust of the defence of the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River. He was not saying that a particular Member ought to be able to reveal anything that happens in camera if he or she feels strongly about it; that was not the honourable Member's position.

As I say, the position was that there was a difference, as he argued, between the substance of the discussion which had been taking place in the in camera meeting and the vote which took place in the in camera meeting. However, there is no doubt on the facts, the vote took place within the in camera meeting.

He argued that with the taking of a recorded vote, thein camera meeting was in essence suspended. As I say, I noted at the time that he did not take the position that a Member was entitled to reveal anything which goes on at an in camera meeting just because he or she did not happen to agree with it.

The honourable Member was supported in his argument by the honourable Member for Cochrane—Superior (Mr. Keith Penner) who is a senior Member of this place and enjoys the respect of all honourable Members. The honourable Member for Cochrane—Superior requested the Chair to rule "that the revelation of a recorded vote under any circumstances at all is not the same thing as the publication of a committee's proceedings." He also expressed doubt that such a revelation could damage the reputation of the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake in any event.

We had two Members arguing that there was a distinction between the substance of what took place–the discussions and the vote. Again I reiterate that neither honourable Member was in any way, as far as the Chair is concerned, taking the position that in camera proceedings ought not to be respected just because a Member does not agree with what goes on there or, as I suppose could be implied in this case because both honourable Members are very concerned about native matters, depending upon the seriousness of the discussion and the nature of the issues involved.

The Chair first had to decide, therefore, whether a recorded vote taken at an in camera meeting of a committee was not, as the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River and the honourable Member for Cochrane—Superior claimed, a part of the in camera proceedings.

I must say that the two honourable Members argued their points very effectively. However, the Chair has been forced to the conclusion that when a committee resolves to meet in camera, the intention of the committee is that all deliberations which take place at that meeting must be confidential unless and until it resolves otherwise. It is clear that the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development did not resolve that its sitting should be resumed in public for the purpose of taking the recorded vote. The committee did in fact resume its sitting in public subsequently, but not before the vote was taken. I cannot therefore accept the argument that there is a distinction between votes and proceedings in this context and in the manner argued by both honourable Members.

The next question to be decided by the Chair is whether this particular disclosure of what took place at an in camera meeting constitutes prima facie evidence of a question of privilege.

The honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake quoted a sentence from the Nineteenth Edition of Erskine May, which is repeated in identical terms on page 154 of the Twentieth Edition. The citation reads:

The publication or disclosure of proceedings of Committees conducted with closed doors or of draft reports of Committees before they have been reported to the House will, however, constitute a breach of privilege or a contempt.

In the British House of Commons, this principle has always been strictly enforced. As recently as 1968 a British Member was ordered by the House to be reprimanded in his place by the Speaker for having revealed to a journalist confidential evidence received by a committee of which he was a member. In 1976, The Economist was censured by the Committee of Privileges for having published the confidential report of a select committee.

Canadian practice in this area is less easily defined, although Citation 628(1) of Beauchesne Fifth Edition indicates that the publication of the proceedings at an in camera meeting of a committee would be an offence with which the House could deal upon receiving a report from the committee.

There are two rulings of October [22], 1975^[7] and [June 23], 1977^[8], dismissing complaints arising from the disclosure of confidential proceedings of Committees. These are two Canadian rulings of this House. I should point out that the circumstances of these two cases were not unlike those of the case raised by the honourable Member for Calgary South, but rather different from those of the one raised by the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake. In the 1975 case the complaint was dismissed because it was not directed against any specific individual or group.

In the 1977 case the complaint was directed against the press, and Mr. Speaker Jerome said the following in the course of his ruling:

It concerns me, however, that the motion appears to attack the press for publishing a confidential document but does not attack ourselves as Members of the House for our own attitude in respect of our own confidential documents. Since it misses that point it misses something, I think most important with respect to the privileges of the House.

The honourable Member for Windsor West (Hon. Herb Gray) referred to this ruling when he was speaking to the question of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Calgary South. I must agree that it does not become the House to attack the press without reviewing the part that some of us as Members of the House have played in revealing the confidential proceedings of certain Committees. One can hardly blame the press for publishing leaked information. It is far more important that we, as Members of Parliament, should address our own responsibilities in ensuring that such leaks do not take place.

I believe it is my duty on your behalf to state in categoric terms that when a committee resolves to meet in camera, all the deliberations which take place at such a meeting, including any votes which might be recorded, are intended to be confidential. All Members attending such a meeting, together with any members of the staff assisting the committee, are expected to respect the confidentiality of proceedings which take place at that meeting. This place can only operate on the basis of respect for its rules and practice and of confidence and trust among its Members.

At this point I am prepared to rule that I do not feel I can accord precedence over other business to the question of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Calgary South. My reasoning, as I think honourable Members will have divined, is the same as that which inspired Mr. Speaker Jerome's ruling of May 6, 1977. We should not attack the press before determining the measure of responsibility that attaches to ourselves as the possible source of the leaked information.

The question of privilege raised by the honourable Member for Selkirk­ Interlake involves other considerations. The elements which influenced the Chair in dismissing the two complaints raised on October 21, 1975 and May 6, 1977 are not present in this case. The complaint of the honourable Member for Selkirk­ Interlake is directed at a Member of this House on the basis of undisputed facts.

The Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development was meeting in camera and a recorded vote was taken before the committee resumed its sitting in public. The honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River made a statement in this House under Standing Order 21criticizing the decision of the committee and revealing the names of four members who participated in the vote. These facts were duly reported to the House by the Committee. In these circumstances, it would be very difficult to dismiss the complaint of the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake. I, find, therefore, in view of the evidence which has been presented to the Chair that this matter should be accorded the necessary precedence.

I should explain, in case the practice is not generally understood, that the Chair is not judging this issue. Only the House itself can do that. The Chair simply decides on the basis of the evidence presented whether the matter is one which should take priority over other business. For those who may get lost in these procedural terms, it just means that this matter is now deemed by the Chair to be sufficiently serious to be put to the House in precedence over anything else the House might be doing at this time. That is all it means. The point is that it is the House that is to make the decision.

The next step is normally the introduction of a motion by the Member raising the complaint. Such motions usually propose the referral of the issue concerned to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure; not back to the committee from which the complaint came, but to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure. The House might then decide to take no further action until the Committee has reported. However, I point out that the motion is debatable, and the effect of my ruling is to allow it to be taken into consideration immediately, with or without debate. I might also point out that the usual practice has been for the House to allow the matter to go to the appropriate committee without debate but, as I say, I am saying that if any honourable Member feels compelled to enter into debate, then that is the right of any honourable Member.

Again, so far as the Chair is concerned, the vigorous arguments put forward by the honourable Member for Cochrane—Superior and the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River strove to draw a distinction between the vote which took place in camera and the substance of the discussion. I want to emphasize once more that if the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake proposes the motion and it goes to committee, that is the question which the committee is to decide. It has been the sense of the Chair that you cannot divide these two, but it is also important for all honourable Members to remember that in the vigorous arguments put forward by both Members in defence of the application neither of them at any time was advancing the notion that in camera meetings are not to be respected. I ask honourable Members to keep that in mind.

It is important that this matter be considered in the context of the position taken by both honourable Members, but it is also very important, in the view of the Chair, that this serious principle be addressed because it goes beyond the question of any one particular individual Member; it is a matter of grave importance for all of the Committees that are operating in this place.

I therefore invite the honourable Member for Selkirk—Interlake to move an appropriate mot ion.

The following motion was moved immediately:

That the matter of disclosure by the honourable Member for Kenora—Rainy River of a recorded vote taken at an in camera meeting of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, as reported to the House by the said committee on April 28, 1987, be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.

After comments by Mr. Penner and Mr. Lorne Nystrom (Yorkton—Melville), the Speaker put the question and the motion was adopted.

The Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure tabled its Seventh Report on December 18, 1987.^[9] The Committee agreed with Mr. Pany's own view that his actions were intemperate and, further, that they wilfully went against the legitimate order of the Committee to keep its deliberations confidential.

Following the presentation of the Report, Mr. Parry rose on a question of privilege and apologized to the House for his actions. The Speaker commended the Member for his attitude and his acceptance of what had been for him, a difficult matter.^[10]

F0904–e

33–2

1987–05–14