Committees / Reports

Disclosure of committee report: Members accused of divulging contents prior to presentation in the House

February 13, 2003

Debates, pp. 3505-6

On December 12, 2002, Réal Ménard (Hochelaga–Maisonneuve) rose on a question of privilege to allege premature and unauthorized disclosure of parts of the Report of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. He charged that two members of the Committee, Randy White (Langley–Abbotsford) and Carole-Marie Allard (Laval East), had given media interviews which revealed the Report’s contents before it had been presented to the House. After hearing from other Members, the Speaker took the matter under advisement and stated that he would not rule until the Members involved had been given the opportunity to speak.^[1] On January 27, 2003, John Reynolds (West Vancouver–Sunshine Coast) argued that matter was out of order as there was no report from the Committee regarding a breach of its privilege. Mr. White also intervened on the same day.^[2] On February 6, 2003, Ms. Allard spoke to the matter after which the Speaker again took the matter under advisement.^[3]

The Speaker delivered his ruling on February 13, 2003. He explained that, although committees are masters of their proceedings, special committees cease to exist once their final reports are presented, and so the only way in which such a committee can consider procedural questions after the presentation of its report is further to an Order from the House re-establishing the special committee and empowering it to do so. He therefore concluded that the matter must be considered in the House. Having examined the media reports, he declared that, while it appeared that confidentiality had indeed been breached with respect to the Committee Report, none of the remarks by Members quoted in the media reports had constituted a direct disclosure of the Report nor did the media reports claim that a member of the Committee provided the information. For this reason the Speaker concluded that he did not find that the media reports provided prima facie evidence of the disclosure of contents of the Report by the Members identified by Mr. Ménard.

Decision of the Chair

The Speaker: I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve on December 12, 2002, concerning the premature disclosure of the Report of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs.

I should explain that the unusual delay in returning to the House in this case is due to the adjournment and is a result of the Chair waiting to give an opportunity to all Members involved to intervene on the question.

I would like to thank the hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve for having raised this matter as well as the hon. Member for Brossard–La Prairie, the hon. Opposition House Leader, the hon. Member for Langley–Abbotsford and the hon. Member for Laval East for their contributions.

The hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve claimed that newspaper reports published prior to the tabling of the Special Committee’s final Report on December 12, 2002, revealed premature disclosure of parts of the Report dealing with the Committee’s recommendations related to the decriminalization of marijuana. He alleged that the premature release of information could be traced to the hon. Members for Laval East and the hon. Member for Langley–Abbotsford.

As the hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve rightly noted, this is contrary to our practices and is a breach of the privileges of the House and of all Members and, as he went on to point out, past Speakers’ rulings have consistently indicated the need to include the source of the leak in raising any charge of this nature.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice sets this out clearly on pages 884 to 885:

Speakers have ruled that questions of privilege concerning leaked reports will not be considered unless a specific charge is made against an individual, organization or group, and that the charge must be levelled not only against those outside the House who have made in camera material public, but must also identify the source of the leak within the House itself.

The hon. Member for Langley–Abbotsford acknowledged that he had discussed the topic of decriminalization in the media, but contended that he had not done so in the context of the Special Committee’s Report. He stated that the topic of decriminalization is one that has generated considerable public interest in recent months and that his remarks were directed at the position of the Government made public by the Minister of Justice.

The hon. Opposition House Leader, citing House of Commons Procedure and Practice, pages 128-9, argued that our practice has clearly been to have such questions dealt with first by the committee concerned so that the House is seized with the question of a leak only upon receiving a report from a committee raising that issue.

I will deal with his latter point first. While it is true that committees are masters of their own proceedings and have primary responsibility for dealing with their own questions of order, the situation is somewhat more complicated for a special committee. While a special committee, like any other committee of this House, should deal with procedural matters as they arise, it is unable to take the initiative in this regard once it has presented its final report.

House of Commons Procedure and Practice makes this quite clear at page 812, “Special committees cease to exist with the presentation of their final report”.

So, while it is true in general that committees are responsible for their own procedural matters, in a case such as this, the only way in which a special committee can consider the question is by receiving an Order from the House re-establishing it and empowering it to do so. Out of necessity, then, in this case, the matter must be considered here in the House.

I would like to say to the hon. Member for Hochelaga–Maisonneuve that I view this matter very seriously since the confidentiality of committee reports has been a constant source of concern to your Speaker and to the House itself. On that basis, I have examined all the press reports submitted to me with particular care. Taking them at their face value, it does appear that confidentiality has been breached with respect to the Report of the Special Committee on the Non-Medical Use of Drugs. I know that all hon. Members will share my disappointment and frustration at such an occurrence.

However, with respect to the charges levelled against the hon. Members for Laval East and Langley–Abbotsford, the situation is somewhat different. In addition to the general interest in the subject of how marijuana is to be treated, there enters the further complicating factor that on December 10, 2002, the hon. Minister of Justice made statements concerning the Government’s position with respect to decriminalization.

I would further point out that there are many similarities between the views expressed by the Minister and those contained in the Committee’s Report.

My examination of the press reports shows that several Members made comments concerning decriminalization of marijuana. None of these remarks actually quoted in the media constitutes a direct disclosure of the contents of the Committee’s Report, nor do any of the stories allege that a Member of the Committee provided the information they contain.

I am therefore not inclined to accept that these press reports can be accepted as prima facie evidence of the involvement of the hon. Members for Laval East and Langley–Abbotsford in the premature disclosure of the Committee’s Report.

At the same time, as I have said, it appears that at least parts of the Report were provided to the media prior to its tabling in the House. I would urge all hon. Members to remember their responsibilities in this regard to their colleagues and to the House.