Proceedings of the Standing Committee on
Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament
Issue 2 - Evidence - April 12, 2016
OTTAWA, Tuesday, April 12, 2016
The Standing Senate Committee on Rules, Procedures and the Rights of Parliament met this day at 9:36 a.m. to examine the case of privilege relating to the leaks of the auditor general's report on the audit of the Senate.
Senator Joan Fraser (Chair) in the chair.
[Translation]
The Chair: Good morning, everyone. May I remind everyone that this concerns a question of privilege raised on two occasions by Senator Hervieux-Payette, last spring and again during the new session of Parliament. On two occasions, the Speaker ruled that there was a prima facie case of privilege, and on two occasions, the file was referred to this committee.
Senator Hervieux-Payette appeared last spring to discuss the question of privilege, but it seems appropriate to invite her here again, since we are in a new session. The members of the committee are not exactly the same as they were during the previous session.
Senator Hervieux-Payette, I invite you to explain your position. We all have, of course, the transcript of what you said the last time, but for the purposes of the committee and the record, we would like to hear you a second time.
Hon. Céline Hervieux-Payette: Dear colleagues, I did not expect that we would review all of the dialogue I had with my colleagues, some of whom are still here. The first reason for my intervention is the fact that the reputation of our institution has been adversely affected. This weighs on our shoulders. Some of my colleagues said that we should turn the page and that the case is closed. I am sorry, but I think we have to establish guidelines and ensure that the incident will not be repeated. There are people who worked closely with Senator Housakos who even testified that they were aware of the situation and had advised Senator Housakos against releasing the documents. So although I can only rely on hearsay, these are people who were close to him. These people have not been named, but various media published their testimony, and they said that they were outraged by this action taken by our colleague.
I must say that the whole situation and the way it played out has been very damaging, and the necessary clarifications have not been made. As I told you, I wrote to the Auditor General regarding the document he sent us, especially concerning the reply he had prepared for us. I mention it because at the time I questioned the confidentiality of the report. In his statement — and this is in the public domain — that is to say in the letter of the Auditor General, it says that all of the documents in the file or the information he intended to send us would not be made public, unless it was included in a public report on the results of our audit. I said to myself: "Either the information is confidential, or it is not". Once made public, it is no longer confidential.
As far as I am concerned, I think all of this matter has to be fully aired by the committee. You must look at the definition of a confidential document, and the consequences of releasing such a document.
The last time I was invited before the committee, we did some research, and we asked the Library of Parliament to do some research. I do not know if the results of that research were given to the committee, as to whether there were any precedents concerning this question. For my part, I think it is extremely important, first, to maintain a certain tradition, and I am talking about parliamentary tradition, be it in the House of Commons or the Senate. I think that when it comes to confidentiality, Canadians are quite capable of understanding its definition.
When I appeared on June 16, I said that to my mind this was comparable to attorney-client privilege, and this privilege is rarely waived, even at the Supreme Court. The same applies to journalists. As you may remember, in certain cases, even in very grave cases of murder, terrorism or the like, reporters were not forced to reveal their sources. And so confidentiality is to me something extremely important.
If I agreed to come back before the committee, given that we had reviewed the question rather thoroughly before the elections, it is because I believe it is important that the file be closed within a reasonable time period. I know that this will not be done in 15 days, but I think it has to be settled before the end of the session. We have to propose a policy that will be adopted by the committee, one that will adequately define the elements as well as the sanctions.
In my opinion, all documents do not have the same importance. The fact remains however that when we are dealing with the Auditor General's report. . . Unfortunately, there have been leaks in the past of the Auditor General's report, several years ago. In this case it would seem that the Senate was at the origin of the leak of the report, even though I have questioned the level of confidentiality on the part of the Auditor General; the leak ultimately caused enormous problems for my colleagues and me, even though I was not mentioned, since we all bear the title of senator. As an aside, I want to specify that I am still a sénateur, and not a sénatrice. So that you may understand this, in my culture, as in France, a sénatrice is the wife of a sénateur. So when one travels, it is useful for people to know what position one occupies here, and I am very proud of it.
In my opinion, this incident has had an adverse effect on the entire institution and on all senators. Even though we are anxious to turn the page, I regret that the process is not yet complete, and that it is taking so much time for our colleagues who have to face different problems in this context. It is as though we were living in a democracy that is not quite well organized.
Stretching out complaints made about certain colleagues over years, colleagues who are reputed to have done things that were not acceptable, affects the entire institution. I ardently hope that as colleagues, you will bring pressure to bear so that this whole matter will be cleared up as soon as possible. It makes no sense; this goes back to 2011-2012, and we are in 2016. I cannot believe that this will be stretched out until 2020. This is not the Hells Angels' trial, and we should make sure that this matter is dealt with expeditiously.
I am simply proposing that the term "confidential" be well defined, well explained, and that related penalties be much more precise, because at this time, the vagueness around this whole issue has caused me to come back to tackle this again, despite the fact that the committee was dissolved. To get to the bottom of the matter, you already have the documents I have filed, and you will probably have the research done by the Library of Parliament, which could enlighten you on this question. I have nothing else to add; I think that my testimony in June was complete.
Senator Fraser: Thank you, and I will not say sénatrice — and I too have always preferred sénateur, but I comply with Senate formalities. Good for you! May I remind senators that we have no proof as to the persons who are behind the leaks. As Ms. Hervieux-Payette has just reminded you, journalists are entitled to keep their sources confidential. As a former journalist, I think this is an extremely important element in our democratic system. So we need to look at the question differently. However, that does not mean that there are not some issues that have to be studied very seriously by this committee.
[English]
Senator White: Thank you very much to the witness for being here today. Having listened to you over the last few minutes, I am left with a little understanding that there's a belief that not everyone fully understands the importance of confidentiality when it comes to a number of things we see here. Would you agree with that?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: When you say it is confidential and it's related to a letter between you and your mother- in-law, I do not think it has the same weight as a report from the Auditor General dealing with the expenditures of a public institution. There are various degrees. I know that very often, as I mentioned before, we receive notice when a report from a committee is to go out that we should keep the report confidential. Often we have a numbered copy to ensure that it's not circulated.
In fact, it is based on the honour system. Even if we talk about "honour," there is a degree of evidence, which you should know from your past experience. In this case, we were dealing with a most sensitive matter. We were dealing with the reputations of dozens of people, something that in fact has damaged our reputation as an institution and, of course, the face of a democracy.
I guess there should be some guidelines so that we know where we are to go. I tried to find a set of measures that could be taken against people who violate these rules, depending on the quality of the report, but I didn't see any. As far as I am concerned, we should be able to say that when someone does something that damages the whole institution, and is clear and evident, there might also be a case for asking the senator to resign. As far as I am concerned, when you are not loyal to your colleagues and your institution, you have betrayed everyone.
I think people have suffered a lot. Some people were "in the ditch" for over a week. I do not accept that kind of treatment of anybody. I remember that you supported going ahead with examining the questions — questioning witnesses. There are many people around that could be questioned and should be part of the inquiry. As far as I am concerned, it is a very serious breach of trust.
Senator White: As a number of people have expressed with regard to the opportunity to provide clarity and education, we came here at different times, and the level of information provided to everyone as they arrived is important. We have to get to that level of clarity so we do understand the weight of the breach. I think you would agree that that should be one of our focuses as well.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Sometimes it could be something that hurts one person. Now it hurts everyone.
Senator White: I agree.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is where I stand. It has to be addressed and a way found so that it is not repeated in the future. Those who would be tempted to do it in the future should know the consequences.
Senator Batters: Senator Hervieux-Payette, I want to return to the day that the first leaks really came into our purview, and that was the day that I think I referred to before as having media, on Thursday, June 4, 2015, perched everywhere we were that day — outside the chamber, outside every meeting room. Everywhere we were, they were all trying to elicit confidential information, things about which we had signed confidentiality agreements with the Auditor General because they had information. This all occurred even before the report was received at the Senate. The Auditor General hadn't even deposited this report at the Senate.
When you testified here in June of last year, I asked you if you recalled whether you were in attendance in the Senate chamber that day. You indicated that you were. I did check the Senate attendance register online for that day, and it doesn't have you listed as attending the Senate at any point that day. There were votes later that day, and you weren't there to vote either that day. I'm just wondering if that's an error. Were you in the Senate Chamber that day, or did you leave particularly early that day.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I would share the same record as you because where I was on June 4 of last year, I cannot tell you. I don't know. I haven't checked, first of all, and, if I was not questioned, there might be a possibility that I was not there, too.
Senator Batters: Do you recall being there earlier that day? Perhaps you were just in your office and left earlier that day?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No, no, I don't recall.
Senator Batters: I am assuming you went home to Quebec that weekend. When did you return to Ottawa the next week? Do you remember?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Normally I'm here on Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday. This is my routine. Because of personal problems at home, I have had to reduce to two days since the beginning of this year, and I am coming here, I must tell you, always very anxious because things have not been cool at home. So just to say that, last year, it was not paradise; now, it's worse.
Senator Batters: I'm sorry to hear that. Would you mind just checking that?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I will check, but, as I say, the record is available to all of you.
Senator Batters: It is, and that is what it indicates.
Many of us had reporters contact us that day and ask about this confidential information that we were not allowed to release. I'm wondering if you could tell us which particular journalist contacted you to ask about that issue that week.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I don't remember either.
Senator Batters: Would you have notes that could refresh your memory?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: You know that they are in the corridor, and they don't wear a badge with their name. So most of the time, especially the English speaking — the French speaking I know more — but most of the English speaking I don't even know their names, so it would be hard for me to tell you.
Senator Batters: So if any of them contacted you, it was just a matter of seeing you in the corridor. It wasn't other contact with your office.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: That is it.
Senator Batters: Could you refresh your memory by looking at your notes from that time frame?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I don't take notes when I have a phone call. As far as I'm concerned, for over twenty years, I have answered — I am probably one of the most open people in this institution, so normally I don't hide anything. You have probably known that for some time. I am one that in fact is not only proud but transparent about what we are doing and where we are going.
Senator Batters: So it doesn't bring to your mind any particular reporters that you did speak to about this issue?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No.
Senator Batters: The last time you were here, you spoke about how you wrote to the Auditor General to express your displeasure about how the Auditor General had commented to the media about this report prior to the report being released. At that point, the chair asked you to provide the documents that you spoke about in these proceedings that day, and you agreed to do that. Did you provide those documents to this committee?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I presume, but I would have to ask the clerk if they received them. If not —
The Chair: Colleagues, you will notice that we have a wonderful but substitute clerk, so we will take that under advisement. I know we did receive some documents, but I can't give you chapter and verse as we speak, senator.
Senator Batters: If those documents weren't yet received by the clerk, could you provide them?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Yes, no problem.
Senator Batters: Thank you.
Senator Wells: Thank you, Senator Hervieux-Payette. While you suggest that this committee or the Senate clearly defines what confidentiality means, I think in general we all have an idea or perhaps know what it means. I know that if I have a confidential document, I may share it with my staff in an advisory capacity, but I won't necessarily share it with the media. So I think we all have a general idea of what confidentiality means.
In a forward looking way, how would you suggest we stop people from speaking or sharing confidential documents? What are some measures? Some of this is human nature in a political environment. How would you suggest we stop people from sharing information, whether by voice or by document?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Maybe we should look at other parliaments as well, what they are doing when people are not complying with the most basic rules. Maybe the House of Lords has a way of dealing with this.
As far as I'm concerned, I've mentioned before that there is a level of confidentiality and a level of, I would say, damages that could be created. If you are on a committee and a report is issued that has an impact on the stock exchange, I think it would be very damaging to release that document. If the other one is about subject matter related to sickness or whatever, it is important, but maybe it is not having the same type of damage to society. So we have to think in terms of the public being hurt by releasing these documents.
I feel that we have bright jurists working for us. We probably can do research and have some kind of two or three levels in terms of the consequences for releasing a document, which is related to the damages. Just think of our colleagues who were falsely accused of this and that, and at the end, after the discussion and so on, they were finally told that they were complying and settling the matter. Well, their reputation has been attacked quite dramatically. As far as I am concerned, in any other trade in society, when you damage the reputation of someone, you are liable.
I can tell you that, last summer, on the last days of the Senate, there was a false report that was released to a newspaper in Montreal, page 7, the whole page, with my picture that big. It took me 30 or 40 hours with a lawyer to reply to that, and it was essential for me to correct the situation. I had to hire a lawyer. I was attacked.
There was a complaint that was filed to a Senate committee on this question, and I felt very hurt about that. Of course, I was totally exonerated, but I can tell you that, when your reputation is at stake, you have to take the means to correct it. These people will never have and will never take — because do you see all of our colleagues who were quoted in that report going to civil court trying to sue whoever has done the release?
So the damage can also be quantified because — the same thing with the confidentiality — it could hurt the family. It could hurt the person. In what we are doing here, I think we should not be exempt from the same rule as any other citizen in this country.
Senator Wells: Do you have specific measures that could be taken to prevent this? Correct, there could be numbered documents, but that won't prevent anyone or can't prevent anyone from, in the corridor, saying, "Look, this is what I have. This is what I've read. This may be politically damaging, and, therefore, I will tell you." That's the hard reality of what we are dealing with.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It is as if you are giving a blank cheque to everybody to tell anything. I don't say that we don't have people lacking judgment sometimes, but their lack of judgment should have some consequences. For me, it is a lack of judgment to do something for political gain and, at the same time, attack other colleagues, which is a reflection on the institution as well. Every time we do that, the Senate is being hurt. As far as I am concerned, we should all be proud to be here and should not bear the consequences of somebody who is not reasonable and doesn't have the right judgement to say that you cannot do that.
Senator Wells: I agree with that last statement.
Senator Jaffer: Senator Hervieux-Payette, thank you very much for appearing today. This is certainly not of any benefit to you but to our institution. I would personally like to thank you for being so persistent, especially with the challenges that you're facing at this time. I really admire your persistence.
Senator, I want you to clarify that you're not saying this leak came from the Auditor General, but that there was a leak. Am I correct in what you're saying?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: During the course of the whole process that the Auditor General went through, we knew that some information was released, and we were all very uncomfortable about the release of that information. It may not be addressed to one specific person, but we felt that the communications team around the Auditor General was not doing their work properly.
I'm the first one to defend this institution. As I say, I didn't come here to get rid of this place and make sure to do it by damaging its reputation. I've worked on several committees. I've been here for over 20 years, and I'm very proud of my track record. I came here knowing that my family, my husband and everybody around me had to support me, and I also missed them. We all do that. We are leaving our homes, staying in a different town, and we make sacrifices to be here to serve the Canadian public.
As far as I'm concerned, we have to have that protection, and confidentiality should be a major item to protect us and the institution. I think there can be some kind of a definition, depending on the scope of the damages. But at the same time, there should be rules that bear some consequences. No consequences — so far, this is what we have seen.
If you work for a large company and you release information — there aren't many people who would keep their jobs for long if they released information that is sensitive to their companies.
In our case, I don't think we should be allowed to damage the institution, damage the reputation of other colleagues — more than one — and have no consequences. As far as I'm concerned, you will have to dig into your brain to figure out how it should be dealt with.
Senator Jaffer: Senator, if I remember clearly, the report of the Auditor General was given to the administration or our leadership on a certain date, and then there were four or five days — I forget; I may be wrong on that — but there were certainly several days before it was released to all of us.
In other news, there is the suggestion that Senate resources were behind some of the leaks. Do you have any comments in this regard?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I just read the report in the media, like any one of you, except that after one report, there was another report and another report.
[Translation]
It was like a house of cards. Things just went on and on, and we were in the dark during all that time. If we had all received the report the next morning, that would have minimized the damage, but in this case, people saw their name being bandied about publicly even though they had seen no official document that concerned them. That is totally unacceptable. We supposedly had a flawless process, we had taken all kinds of precautions, and I am not talking about the period that preceded the production of the report, but about the moment when the report was produced. And I did not, in fact, agree that we should send the Prime Minister a copy. The Senate does not report to the Prime Minister, I am sorry. It was an error at the core of the process.
[English]
Senator Jaffer: You've been a senator and a member of Parliament before that for a very long time. I also agree with you that the Prime Minister should not have received this report before we did. Have you, in your experience, ever seen that happen before?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No.
[Translation]
Senator Joyal: Thank you, Senator Hervieux-Payette, for your presentation this morning.
[English]
I have two points. In June when we heard from you the first time, I raised the issue of a Public Accounts Committee report of May 2007. The report was titled The Premature Release or "Leaking" of Reports of the Auditor General to the Media Before Their Presentation in the House of Commons. The chair will remember that, at that time, the committee took upon itself — and I quote the chair on page 14 of the transcript:
I noted that the library clerk will take that under advisement as well and will gather up the information from 2007.
It seems to me that this report from the Public Accounts Committee of the House of Commons makes specific recommendations in relation to leaks. I'll read that recommendation again:
The Treasury Board of Canada, in consultation with the Auditor General of Canada, adopts a strong policy regarding security requirements for ending draft audit reports of the Auditor General, including, but not limited to, sanctions . . . .
It seems to me that if the library has taken up the recommendation of the chair, we should be able to get some kind of information on the policy was that was put in place by the Treasury Board following leaks that happened from the Office of the Auditor General in relation to reports in the past.
I want to remind members of the committee that when leaks happen in the Office of the Auditor General, when Sheila Fraser was the Auditor General of Canada, she called in the Mounties. That was very serious in relation to a breach of trust that was felt to exist between the Auditor General and the administration that is under investigation.
As all senators will remember, our audit was not a performance audit; it was a forensic audit. I stood up in the Senate and stated that plainly and clearly to all senators that they were under a forensic audit. We know what happened with it.
So my first point with you is to help the committee move forward and come to a conclusion with this issue. I think we should look into the policy that was put in place by Treasury Board, imposing some guidelines to deal with the confidentiality of reports issued by the Auditor General.
My second point is in relation to sanctions. As Senator White has said quite appropriately, there will be 27 new senators. I would be very surprised if any of them would be familiar with the responsibility that they have and the task they are entering into when they have access to privileged information in committees or in other capacities in our Senate functions.
It seems to me that, in relation to breach of privilege, the Rules of the Senate should be amended and there should be sanctions specifically mentioned in the Rules. I have reminded honourable senators that in the Ethics and Conflict of Interest Code for Senators, we have added sanctions. The list includes a reprimand and an apology. A senator could be excluded for a period of time, either from a committee or from the Senate Chamber itself in the most serious breach.
So it seems to me that one of the issues we could deal with in our report is the issue of sanctions, and that it should be clear that a person who does that is susceptible to being found wanting and be the object of a sanction by the institution. Otherwise, it's too easy to hide behind the curtain and just run away with impunity of breach of confidentiality. Especially in the case Senator Hervieux-Payette has raised, it is very serious, because it's the reputation of an individual senator.
I will quote Voltaire, that famous French philosopher: "Mentez, mentez, il en restera toujours quelque chose. " To paraphrase, it means you can lie and lie but always something will remain in people's minds about you. In fact, the reputation of a senator is his greatest asset. It is the credibility. When you intervene, it's on the basis of your credibility. When a senator intervenes, the first thing that comes to mind is, "Is he honest? Is she honest? Is he grabbing public money? What is he doing? I heard his or her name somewhere." We live in the age of electronic media. I see it on the table all around the place here. It's easy to put down, "Senator X, the press has mentioned something; we don't know, but the press has mentioned it," and the damage is done.
We live in an age where the rules have to be very stringent on how to protect confidentiality, especially with the case at hand, where the reputation of some senators were at stake; there's no doubt about it.
Those are the two points I wanted to raise to try to help the committee move forward with this issue.
[Translation]
The Chair: Thank you, Senator Joyal. Did you want to comment?
Senator Hervieux-Payette: This aligns with the suggestion I made earlier, regarding the fact that there is no specific measure on the books to protect the institution and individuals. I would say that it is almost useless to talk about confidentiality if any confidential document can be disclosed and there are no consequences for doing that. That makes no sense. In my opinion, that would be the first element.
There is also another element that seems important to me, and I would have a suggestion to make to you. In order to examine the issue in depth, I suggest, Madam Chair, that you get the help of people who are used to conducting this kind of inquiry. It could be people from the RCMP, or other experts who are used to this type of investigation. There is a question, from the legal perspective, as to the validity of evidence. I am not only talking about this case, but about all of the other cases as well. The committee has to call on technical assistance if necessary, because basically, this work cannot be done by amateurs. None of us here has the training to conduct investigations and get to the bottom of things. We have very good journalists in Canada who do this type of work, but the investigation has to remain within our group. So, if we go forward with my motion, I suggest that the committee authorize you to obtain some expert assistance.
[English]
Senator Tkachuk: Senator Hervieux-Payette, as you know, because of you raising this issue with the Auditor General we've had quite a bit of discussion on this. This is not new to the Senate. It's sort of like the broken window theory: If you let them get away with the little stuff, then it's no problem doing the big stuff.
We've had leaked reports, Senate reports, since I've been here the last 23 years. We've had them many times. I don't know who's leaking them, but it's always to someone's advantage or they're personally ingratiating themselves with the media or some reason like that.
In my experience with Internal Economy, we had leaks on confidential information on Senator Wallin. We had leaks on confidential information on Senator Duffy. In camera Internal Economy meetings were leaked to the press. I didn't see anybody getting up, except me, complaining about it. I certainly didn't see anybody on your side complaining about it.
I agree with you that this is a problem, and I'd love to see a solution. I'm not sure whether I want to spend my time trying to investigate a leak — because this has happened before — that's never going to be resolved or whether we should get on with the process of finding a way. I think we should have a Senate debate and a Senate committee, all the Senate, talking about this issue so that we come to some resolution on it, because it is problematic and it makes it very difficult to do our work. What happened with the Senate report was a horrible thing.
I'm not sure how you'd like to see us move forward, but I'm going to allow you the opportunity to tell us.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: It's very easy. Those who are permanent members should — as I say, if you don't know where to start, maybe have some people who have more expertise on this. I guess there is a big legal thing behind that because how do you determine that something is confidential? What would be the consequences? As I say, every day you have people going to court to protect their reputations because this and that ended up in the public arena and they are being damaged.
Just think of the people who appeared before the Charbonneau commission in Quebec. I can tell you that some of these people will never be charged with anything, but I can tell you, they hardly go out in the street anymore and they have damages for the rest of their lives. They were part of the public inquiry even though they were charged with nothing.
The consequences, as I say, are not the same for everything. In some cases it addresses the public confidence in general and sometimes it's individual. You start with that, individual and the public in general.
I remember when Banking Committee held coast to coast consultations and made major changes to the Bank Act. It was a very comprehensive exercise. I'm telling you, when we did that, if the report had been released before, there could have been a lot of damage to financial institutions.
In this case, if we could find one senator giving up the said report to the media — and there are ways of finding it. I'm not an expert in that, but maybe we can consult Senator White and he may know how to do it. I think some actions could have very wide public negative consequences and some others related to individuals.
As far as I'm concerned, to come back to your assessment, I haven't name a percentage of people who would address this question and say it's important. I'm here; we are all here. Of course, now we are independent, but I've been independent all my life. I always say that we have a duty to protect this place and we have a duty to protect documents that we produce. It's part of our responsibility. If you are not a responsible individual, I don't know what that person is doing here.
It's never fun to come and raise a question that is so sensitive. Why do I do that? I've done that all my life. I've done that in the house, I've done that under a Chrétien government and I've done that under a Harper government. I'm here to serve the public, and as far as I'm concerned, I am dealing with my conscience.
Yesterday, on the first page of the Globe and Mail, there was a degrading picture of Mr. Mulcair that was absolutely offensive. I saw the pictures and I just couldn't accept it. He went through a democratic process, but you don't have to hit somebody on the head. I reacted. I went to Facebook and to Twitter and said, "You don't hit somebody when he's on his knees. You treat them with respect."
Sorry to go around the question, but just to say that you have the conviction that this place is very important and is of the utmost importance to the democratic system.
Senator Tkachuk: I'm sure we all feel that way, senator.
The Chair: Senators, we are running short on time. I have two senators left on the list. After that, the list will be closed. They are Senators Ogilvie and Cools. I'm going to ask the questioners and Senator Hervieux-Payette to be as concise as they can be. The subject is extremely important, but brevity is also very important.
Senator Ogilvie: Senator, I want to acknowledge your sense of responsibility in bringing this important issue before the committee. I agree with the thrust of most of your comments. Many of the things I would have said have been covered by what Senator Joyal said earlier, and I want to associate myself with his comments.
I disagree with you on one point, however: The issue is the privilege of Parliament and not the quality of the violation of that in the first instance. There should be some very clear penalty for an identified deliberate breach of the privilege of Parliament, regardless of the severity of the issue. The consequences may lead to other damages that can be dealt with separately. It's my opinion that the privilege of Parliament is paramount and that all privilege in respect of the issues of Parliament is absolutely critical.
I can give you a recent situation of a committee I co-chaired. It was agreed and the committee at the outset had been advised of the privilege of Parliament and that there should be no leaks from the committee whatsoever. The night before the committee was going to introduce, through its co-chairs, the report in the two houses of Parliament at exactly the same time, I was called by a journalist from a major Canadian national newspaper who was able to quote items directly in the report and, indeed, even referred to the individuals who had provided the information. Of course, I was incensed internally but said absolutely nothing and could not comment at all.
The next morning, the news, well before the 10 a.m. introduction of the report in Parliament, had quoted three committee members in different quotes with regard to what was in the report. There was probably no national damage to the finances of the country, no ex-communication of individuals or loss of life immediately, but I would say that I consider that an absolute serious breach of the privilege of Parliament, in this case two houses of Parliament.
The next day I pursued this issue with some relatively high authorities in the Parliament of Canada with regard to what action could be taken, given that the individuals were quoted and appeared in the national media. I was told that nothing could be done. I was personally offended by that situation. I accepted it as being real, given the sources I was inquiring of. However, I consider it an absolute tragedy in terms of my view of the privilege of Parliament and the responsibility of individuals within Parliament in respect of any confidential matter prior to the agreed time when it would be released.
I'll just end by saying that this is a very important issue. I compliment you for having the courage to bring this forward to the committee. I want to repeat that I associate with a number of your comments and those of Senator Joyal.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: I totally agree with you.
Senator Cools: I'd like to thank Senator Hervieux-Payette for her good work in general and also her good work on this particular file.
The question I want to ask Senator Hervieux-Payette is respecting my recollection. Could you confirm or tell me I'm having wrong memories? My recollection was that the Auditor General was busy doing media commentary on the information reported in the newspapers on these leaks. I'm wondering if you recall that or if you have any newspaper clippings to help me with that.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: Well, I don't remember that. If he made comments about the report that did not reach us, it would be very strange for somebody who is releasing a confidential report. I cannot confirm that he talked to go the media about the report. He sent it to four people, including the Prime Minister. We were talking about the representatives: Senator Housakos, Senator Cowan and Senator Furey.
Senator Cools: Finally, I want to make the point that the interception of communications intended for parliamentarians and Parliament has always been treated as a question of privilege. There's no doubt about that. It has always been a breach, and there is a lot of precedence on that. I think we should move ahead with this study in the confidence that we're standing, I believe, on very sound ground. That is a bundle of principles and a bundle of law that we should begin by having our researchers look at.
I would like to concur with the senator in one regard. It seems to be the fashion nowadays that because a person is in public life, anyone or many people can simply curse them, violate them, ridicule them or shame them. I've noticed everywhere that this notion of naming and shaming individuals seems to be taking the form of being a right. We're all open and available for good and fair criticism, but there's no principle whatsoever that any human being has to put up with being violated. In addition, the common law has always assured us that human beings have a right to their lives, their security and their reputations.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: When we adopted the Charter of Rights, the right to reputation was in there. It's a fundamental right of all Canadians, and I suppose also of all senators. I start with that.
These were questions of privilege, and I have raised more than one during my term in the Senate. When I was aware that something was breaching my privilege, I did not make an inquiry to see if all other senators agreed with me. I just proceeded to denounce it.
All of you who were offended under certain circumstances should be proud now that this question will be addressed. The chair will make sure that some homework will be done so that something can be presented to the committee and, of course, some kind of procedure so that this will not fall away. Otherwise, it will continue forever. As Senator Joyal said, the other committee dealing with individuals is proceeding with measures, and it should be the same here. In this case, the whole institution is at stake.
I wish you inspiration in the second step.
The Chair: Colleagues, I remind us all that this is the last occasion we shall have to have a discussion with Senator Hervieux-Payette because unfortunately she is retiring.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: No. It's not unfortunate.
The Chair: Perhaps from our point of view it is unfortunate. I would like to thank her very much for her dedication to the public interest on this matter and on so many others through her long parliamentary career. Thank you very much.
Senator Hervieux-Payette: My pleasure.
The Chair: Colleagues, we shall suspend for a few moments to prepare for a brief in camera discussion of future business.
Senator Tkachuk: That hopefully will not be leaked.
(The committee continued in camera.)