Committees / Committee Proceedings

Transcripts of in camera proceedings: motion to render transcript public argued to exceed authority of committee

April 1, 2004

Debates, pp. 1968-9

On April 1, 2004, John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast) rose on a point of order with regard to a motion moved by Marlene Jennings (Notre-Dame-de-Grace–Lachine) in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts which had proposed to make public the in camera proceedings of a meeting in the previous session at which a former public servant, Chuck Guité, had appeared as a witness.^[1] Citing a relevant precedent, Mr. Reynolds argued that in camera testimony could only be made public by Order of the House and that, in considering the release of the testimony, the Committee was exceeding its authority. He added that the Speaker needed to rule before the Committee voted on the motion. After hearing from another Member, the Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2] (Editor’s Note: At its meeting on Thursday, April 1, 2004, the Committee resumed consideration of and adopted the motion, whereupon the Chair of the Committee ruled that the release of the testimony would be delayed until the Speaker had rendered a decision on the matter. The ruling of the Chair was challenged and overturned.^[3])

Later during the sitting, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that he had no power to substitute his judgement for that of a committee prior to any decision being taken by it, anticipate its decisions or intervene in the internal deliberations of a committee. He concluded that, as he was unable to cite any rule to prevent a committee from releasing that kind of information, it was up to the members of the Committee to decide on the proper course of action. However, he added that, should Members feel that the Committee required direction on the matter, they might wish to consider having the House provide an instruction to it.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on a point of order raised by the hon. Opposition House Leader earlier today concerning proceedings in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts.

I would like to thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for presenting this issue to the House, as well as the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader for his comments.

The Opposition House Leader stated that the Public Accounts Committee had before it a motion concerning the making public of in camera testimony delivered before the Public Accounts Committee in the first session of this Parliament. He pointed out that the past practice with respect to in camera testimony indicated that it had only been made public by Order of the House, and he relied on a precedent I believe cited to him concerning the year 1978, as I recall. He argued that the proper course for the Committee would be to seek such an Order and that, in acting on its own initiative in this matter, the Committee would be exceeding the power delegated to it by the House. In support of his position, the Opposition House Leader cited a letter from the Clerk of the House to the hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce–Lachine, in which the Clerk indicated that it would be prudent for the Committee to seek such a House Order.

The Opposition House Leader also stressed that, if no preventative action were to be taken to prevent the Committee from making the in camera testimony public, the harm done would be irreversible and that it was therefore necessary for the Speaker to rule as soon as possible in order to forestall that eventuality.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Government House Leader in his intervention, stated that it was contrary to our practice to intervene while a matter was before a committee. He indicated that the proper course procedurally would be to wait until the Committee reports to the House. At that time, any potential procedural irregularities that had occurred could be raised and the Speaker could deliver an appropriate ruling.

I would like first to indicate the extent to which the Chair views this as a question of the utmost importance. The Standing Orders accord to committees considerable powers in order that they may carry out their work. Committees are also accorded extensive freedom to organize their inquiries as they see fit and to control their own proceedings.

At the same time, they remain creatures of the House. They are bound by the applicable provisions of the Standing Orders and may not exceed the powers they are given or conduct themselves in a manner that is contrary to the practices and traditions of this place.

It is, however, precisely on that basis that, in the first instance, it is the Public Accounts Committee that must take responsibility for its actions. I certainly agree with the Opposition House Leader that there are important procedural questions at issue here. It is evident, by their seeking advice from the Clerk of the House, that the members of the Committee are aware of those issues.

The Speaker is however not empowered to substitute his judgment for that of the Committee prior to any decision being taken by it. The members of the Committee will, mindful of the rules of the House and the precedents in matters of this sort, decide on what they consider to be the proper course of action. The Speaker has no power to anticipate such a decision, nor to intervene in the internal deliberations of the Committee. I have stated that on many occasions.

While I appreciate that the subject matter before the Committee is of considerable interest both to Members of the House and indeed to all Canadians, that does not change either the Speaker’s role or his obligation to refrain from intervening in the Committee’s business. If Members feel that the Committee requires some direction in this matter, beyond the advice that has already been provided, they may wish to consider having the House provide an instruction to the Committee.

Once again, I would like to thank the hon. Opposition House Leader for having raised this matter. I am sure that we can rely on his continued vigilance with respect to proceedings in the Committee and to any issues raised by its reports to the House. That is my ruling on the matter today.

Mr. John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast, CPC): Mr. Speaker, I have full respect for your ruling. I would ask you, based on what the Government’s Parliamentary Secretary said, will this Committee have to report to the House before this document is released to the public? My great concern is that the Committee could do something that is against the rules of the House before we have a chance to rule on it.

Could I get some understanding as to whether it could release a document of this effect, based on the comments made by the Clerk that this would be improper?

Yes, I agree that committees have the power to do what they want to do. However, if the Committee is going to do something that will embarrass the House of Commons, what can we do or what assurances can we have that they cannot just go and throw something to the wind and then the rest of us have to take the blame for that?

The Speaker: The hon. Member for West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast knows that we are unable to cite any rule that prevents committees from making decisions to release this kind of information. That is not in the Standing Orders. We have had the Clerk explain the past practice. The Committee is free, as I have indicated, to make its own decision in respect of this matter.

If the House wishes to give directions to the Committee, by either changing the rules or by issuing a specific order by way of a motion to the Committee, that is fine, but it seems to me that the Committee is master of its own proceedings. If, for example, something happens that is clearly wrong in a committee and it takes place there, it is a little late for the House then to take action to stop the action from taking place.

These things are raised in the House from time to time, as hon. Members know. Sometimes Members have raised complaints about what a committee did and asked the Speaker to fix it. The Speaker, as I have indicated, is not in a position to interfere in the workings of a committee. The Committee is master of its own proceedings. The House can issue directions, but if the directions are not followed explicitly, what does the House do, is always an interesting question.

Perhaps it is for that reason that the House does not often issue instructions to committees except for directing them to go and study something, but it does not usually tell them exactly how the study will take place. The Committee is master of its own procedures and makes its own decisions in that respect.

I think if the hon. Member reviews the words of my ruling, he will see that is exactly what I said in the ruling I gave, perhaps not in exactly the same language, but very close.

See also a related ruling on May 4, 2004.^[4]