HAFF Committee Meeting

STANDING COMMITTEE ON PROCEDURE AND HOUSE AFFAIRS

COMITÉ PERMANENT DE LA PROCÉDURE ET DES AFFAIRES DE LA CHAMBRE

EVIDENCE

[Recorded by Electronic Apparatus]

Thursday, June 15, 2000

• 1108

[English]

The Chair (Mr. Derek Lee (Scarborough—Rouge River, Lib.)): I call the meeting to order, colleagues. I see a quorum. We're continuing our consideration of a matter raised by Monsieur Bergeron. In accordance with the wishes of members, we have asked Mr. Rob Walsh, the law clerk and parliamentary counsel, to appear as a witness.

Order. I fear that colleagues may not have the full benefit of my words of wisdom as we embark.

Mr. Rob Walsh is here as a witness to enlighten us on the facts that are relevant to the matter raised by Mr. Bergeron. Colleagues, you have already received what research has put together as a synopsis of facts. That is in front of you. I think the best thing to do now is welcome Mr. Walsh back and ask him if he has an opening statement. He might, because I'm sure he has followed the draft proceedings of the committee on the record. He may have a statement, and then we can go to discussions or questions, and hopefully a disposition. If that's agreeable, colleagues, I'll ask Mr. Walsh to begin.

Mr. Rob Walsh (Law Clerk and Parliamentary Counsel, House of Commons): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

• 1110

Mr. Chairman, I trust you will understand if I do not begin by saying it's a pleasure to be here, because on this occasion it distinctly is not. But it is right and proper that I be here today, in view of the concerns expressed by some members of this committee at its meeting last Thursday, June 8, regarding the disclosure of confidential information by me when I provided to this committee some statistics on private members' bills and amendment motions relating to government bills and private members' bills.

Let me first assure members of this committee that I fully respect their concern about confidentiality. I acknowledge that some of the statistics I provided to this committee on April 6 were of a confidential nature, or confidential information could be inferred from them. These statistics ought not to have been included in the information package, and I apologize unreservedly to this committee and to each of its members for this.

Mr. Chairman, if I may explain, two days after the committee's request for statistical information, on March 28, I was shocked to hear the testimony provided to this committee by two of the legislative counsel who worked for me—shocked and dismayed, to say the least. I anticipated being recalled to this committee to respond to their allegations. Needless to say, I was anxious to do so and began to prepare my response.

It was during this period that the statistical information was being prepared. In hindsight, I recognize I was preoccupied by the need to quickly prepare a response to the lawyers' charges against me, to the extent that I did not pay enough attention to the statistics that were being prepared for this committee.

Nonetheless, I accept responsibility for the breach of confidentiality caused by the inclusion of some of these statistics in the information package provided to this committee.

I then appeared before this committee for a second time on April 6, as the fact pattern you provided to me a moment ago indicates. I gave the information package to the committee's research officer, Mr. Robertson, at the end of that meeting, if memory serves.

When I addressed the committee on that occasion, however, I found myself more disturbed by events than I had realized, as you may recall. You may also recall the testimony of the Clerk of the House, Mr. Marleau, on that occasion, when he spoke about the three loyalties of House staff: the first loyalty was to the institution, the second loyalty was to the institution, and the third loyalty was to the institution. That has been the fundamental premise of my commitment to my responsibilities as general legislative counsel since 1991 and now as law clerk and parliamentary counsel. I share this commitment with the legislative clerks, the committee clerks, and the journals clerks with whom I have the privilege to work.

We are a team, in service of this House, its committees, and its members. We carry no brief for or against a particular member or political party; for the government side, against the opposition side; or for the opposition side, against the government. I have never been advised by a member or House officer that he or she doubted my competence or integrity, that is to say, my commitment to my duties in support of the institution. Now, for the first time, I hear a member call into question my competence and my integrity because of this particular incident. I do not make light of confidentiality, nor am I suggesting that this incident need not concern members.

If I do not have the confidence of members, generally, as to my competence and integrity, then I cannot do my job as law clerk and parliamentary counsel. I recognize this, regardless of what might be said in my defence in respect of this particular incident.

Accordingly, yesterday, with some reluctance in the circumstances, I offered my resignation to the Speaker and urged him to accept it if he felt this would serve the interests of the House and its members.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be pleased to answer any questions the members may have of me.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh. I'll resist any comments from the chair. We'll go right to members' comments or questions.

I'll recognize Mr. Hill first.

Mr. Jay Hill (Prince George—Peace River, Canadian Alliance): With all due respect, I hope the Speaker does not—I want to be clear on this—accept your offer of resignation.

I for one, on behalf of the Alliance Party, would concur with the earlier statements of the witness, in which he said that a mistake was made, an unfortunate error. He unreservedly apologized. I think that's where the matter ends.

• 1115

Everybody should be able to understand that we make mistakes; we're all human. People sitting around this table—politicians—seem to make mistakes every day. I'm not saying that in a partisan way. I'm saying people of all parties, politicians of all parties, sometimes have to say they're sorry. Sometimes it's hard to say that. Mr. Walsh has come forward and done that, and I respect that. I think the matter is done; it's finished.

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Hill.

Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron (Verchères—Les-Patriotes, BQ): First of all, I would like to say that I am sorry that Mr. Walsh had to appear before us this morning to make what must have been a difficult presentation; I suspect Mr. Walsh shares that feeling. I would have preferred to do without this morning's meeting. We decided, during an extremely secret in-camera session, to call Mr. Walsh to appear this morning. That is what the majority decided. I believe it was premature, both in terms of procedure and in terms of the individual's situation, to put him in such a difficult position.

I have already stated this in committee, but since we were sitting in camera, I will reread what I said because I believe it is important that this be recorded. My colleagues will forgive me. Moreover, I am doing this for the benefit of the colleagues who were not present on Tuesday. I know that many of the colleagues who are here today were there on Tuesday, but I would like to read a citation from House of Commons Procedure and Practice which deals with the situation that we are facing today. This is what is written on page 130, and I quote:

The Chair will then entertain a motion which will form the text of the report. It should clearly describe the situation, summarize the events, name any individuals involved, indicate that privilege may be involved or that a contempt may have occurred, and request the House to take some action.

That is what we should have done, Mr. Chairman. Information was revealed and to my mind, this constituted a breach of Parliamentary privilege. I simply wanted us to report this disclosure of information to the House so that the House, if necessary, could act upon the committee report. We chose to do otherwise, which is contrary to procedure. But what is even more difficult is that the committee, in deciding to call Mr. Walsh this morning, has ipso facto decided that there was a prima facie breach of House privilege, which could have been avoided if the chair had not himself decided that there had been a prima facie breach of privilege. Otherwise, the story would have ended there and we would not have had what I believe is the premature appearance of Mr. Walsh before the committee this morning. We would not have had to put him in such a sensitive and uncomfortable position this morning.

I emphasize that my aim was not to put Mr. Walsh in such a position, at least not now. I agree with my colleague Jay Hill that it is perhaps premature for the chair to accept his resignation and I don't want that to happen now. Will he have to do it later? It will be up to the chair to decide, as it is up to Mr. Walsh to decide whether or not he wants the letter of resignation that he has submitted to the chair to stand, in the light of facts that will be produced during the committee's work, the question of privilege that I raised, the decision that will be made here and any comments that are expressed.

• 1120

Having said that, Mr. Chairman, I can understand, and I have always felt, that the release of information by Mr. Walsh was accidental and not intentional. If the information had been voluntarily made public, this would have been a more reprehensible act, but when we see the type of man that Mr. Walsh is, with his experience and his credentials, we cannot claim that he voluntarily and intentionally disclosed this information. I cannot believe that.

Having said that, let us put our emotions aside. When a breach of privilege or a contempt occurs, this might have been done unintentionally and accidentally. It might also have been willful, which would probably make it more reprehensible. However, once there is a breach or a contempt, what is done is done, regardless of the motives or the intent. I might remind members of the committee that, not so long ago, we examined a matter relating to the Canadian Union of Public Employees, which had, probably unwittingly, been responsible for contempt of the House and a breach of Parliamentary privilege. The question was raised by our friends from the Reform Party. Our friends from the Reform Party raised this question of privilege in the House and maintained that the Canadian Union of Public Employees had breached Parliamentary privilege by refusing to allow members to cross their picket line. We examined the matter and decided that there had been a breach of privilege even if the Canadian Union of Public Employees did not know it. We realize that there was no malice intended by the Union. We decided then that there should be no consequences nor sanctions, but we did admit that there had been a breach of privilege, albeit unintentional.

I believe we would be negligent in our responsibilities if we were to say today: “Oh, Mr. Walsh has apologized and admitted that he made a mistake.” I think the committee must take that into account. I don't believe anyone around this table has had a moment of doubt about Mr. Walsh's integrity when he disclosed the information nor does anyone think this was done maliciously. No one has ever said that. I have never said that. I never thought that Mr. Walsh had done this maliciously or intentionally.

But when a man like Mr. Walsh makes such a basic mistake, when a man who has such important responsibilities in the administration of the House of Commons makes such a basic mistake, on three occasions, three times instead of once, the Chief Government Whip, the committee Chair and the Clerk of the House all warned him, all raised red flags and told him to be very careful because confidential information could be disclosed... The Government Whip even went as far as to ask for only the figures concerning his party.

• 1125

According to this relatively specific investigation by the committee and through all of the events that have taken place here, Mr. Walsh made public, unintentionally, and I repeat—I sincerely feel that that is the case and all committee members feel the same way—some very sensitive, very strategic information...

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg—Transcona, NDP): I have a point of order.

The Chair: Excuse me, Mr. Bergeron. Mr. Blaikie has indicated he has a point of order, and, though maybe not on the same issue, I did want to give the view of the chair that Mr. Walsh has been invited here as a witness, and if you have any questions, I would ask you to put them. If you want to suggest the committee debate any of the issues that come out of the evidence, then we may do that later. We may wish to excuse Mr. Walsh.

The format we have here now is one of an extended discussion from one party alone, and perhaps the format of the committee meeting now isn't appropriate for that.

So I'm going to recognize Mr. Blaikie, and then we'll get back to you.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: Mr. Chairman, this is along the same lines. We have a witness. If people have questions for the witness or they want to engage the witness about some element of his testimony, then that should be done. If no one wants to do that or has any questions, then Mr. Walsh should feel free to leave. If we want to have a debate about what our response is to what Mr. Walsh has said to us, we should have that debate. But it's highly inappropriate, as far as I'm concerned, for people to go on and on in that vein when we're not at that point in our proceedings.

The Chair: The chair has a similar view.

Back to you, Mr. Bergeron. If you have questions of Mr. Walsh, I would ask you to put them. Otherwise, I will move on to another member, and further discussion of these issues can await a later time.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, with respect, I acknowledge the point of order raised by my colleague Bill Blaikie, the point of order that you anticipated, as you often do in committee, Mr. Chairman.

However, I believed it was appropriate under the circumstances, since the last meeting was held in camera and since Mr. Walsh has told us here, under very difficult conditions, that he has tendered his resignation, that I should let him know, first of all, why he is here, and then explain why I raised the question of privilege that has put him in such a difficult position.

That said, Mr. Chairman, a number of committee members, last Tuesday, expressed their wish to invite Mr. Walsh so that he might explain his point of view and so that we might ask him some questions. I was fully prepared to allow committee members to ask questions, but no one seemed interested in doing so. I am surprised because that is why we asked him to appear.

I thought I should make that clear, with respect...

[English]

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I thought you were going to ask a question.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: ... for Mr. Walsh and that's what I did. I will wait until later to ask questions. I will add them to those that I hope will be asked by my colleagues in a few minutes.

[English]

The Chair: Okay.

So I'll recognize members.

Mr. Blaikie.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I may just participate in the debate then, briefly.

I think it's wrong to suggest that somehow there was a monopoly on anyone's part in terms of concern for not putting Mr. Walsh in a difficult position. There was a disagreement about what would put him in the most difficult position; that is to say, whether or not the proposal to send a motion back to the House in the way that had been suggested would put him in a difficult position, whether he was named or not, or whether it would have been better and more in accordance with the principles of natural justice—I think were the words that were often used—to give Mr. Walsh an opportunity to come here and account for the events that took place.

That disagreement as to what might have been the better course of action can continue, but I don't think it should continue in the context of suggesting that only one party or one member of the committee was concerned about not putting Mr. Walsh in a difficult position. We were all concerned about that. It was simply that we couldn't come to an agreement about how best to be sensitive to the difficult position Mr. Walsh would be in, regardless of whether we dealt with it in committee or in the House.

• 1130

So I just wanted to say that, for the record, and I'm trying to abide by my own suggestion, I don't think we should get into debate about what our response is now to what Mr. Walsh has said to us.

I don't have any particular questions for Mr. Walsh. I think he's given an account of what happened, which, on a factual basis, I'm prepared to accept on the face of it. If people have questions to him about the facts he's put before us, then let there be questions. If not, let's let Mr. Walsh go, and then we can have our own discussion about what we have to say in the matter.

I would add, though, that I don't think this is, in any case, grounds for Mr. Walsh to offer his resignation. If mistakes—and this is not mistakes, this is a mistake—were grounds for resignation, the whole Hill would be empty.

The Chair: Okay,

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: If we don't have any questions, why did we call him? Why did we put him in this position?

The Chair: Okay, now—

Mr. Bill Blaikie: You're the one who put him in this position.

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Oh no, no.

The Chair: I'm going to recognize Mr. Kilger.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: A point of order, Mr. Chairman. I will not accept that type of comment from Mr. Blaikie.

[English]

The Chair: Order. None of that of which you speak was on the record, and if you have some issues you want to discuss with Mr. Blaikie, you can do it after the meeting. But whatever you two were discussing was not on the record, as far as I know. So there's no point of order necessary.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is not because I express, as a parliamentarian...

[English]

The Chair: If we could avoid any disorder—

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Mr. Chairman, it is not...

[English]

The Chair: Just a moment. I'm not recognizing anyone at the moment. I simply want to have order, and seeing no further interventions, unless there is a point of order, I would....

Okay, if it is a point of order, Mr. Bergeron, I'll recognize you. If it's not, I won't be listening too long.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: It is incorrect to state that I have no right, as a parliamentarian, to express my concerns about something that I feel is a breach of privilege. I want that to be known here. Any accusation of that type seems to show a true lack of respect, it is a totally inappropriate intervention, especially when it comes from another member of Parliament. The day when you feel, Mr. Blaikie, that your rights as a member of Parliament have been thwarted and when you are told that you have offended someone and that you have put that person in a bad situation...

[English]

The Chair: Order.

I don't think too many members will disagree with the general thrust of your remarks, Mr. Bergeron, but whatever transpired previously was not on the record, as far as I could tell. So can we move on from that?

Mr. Jay Hill: Just as long as you don't jump to the conclusion that we disagree.

The Chair: All right, let's go to Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Kilger.

Mr. Bob Kilger (Stormont—Dundas—Charlottenburgh, Lib.): Mr. Chairman, colleagues, particularly Mr. Walsh, I know the decision to call Mr. Walsh as a witness was not arrived at easily for any one of us.

I still believe it was the right thing to do, fully recognizing the difficult situation we had and particularly how it affected and concerned Mr. Walsh. I deeply appreciate Mr. Walsh's short and succinct intervention, in terms of his apology to the committee, accepting full responsibility for the document in the form it was submitted and circulated to committee members.

But also, while in the confines of that isolated incident, which I would refer to as nothing short of human error, under circumstances that I at least, personally.... Maybe I have certain insights, having been one of those chair occupants. As I look at the events that surrounded our committee in a previous matter, which, while different from this one, was referred to the committee by the House, and looking at the succession, and everyone taking on new, added responsibilities, as Mr. Walsh has, and has earned.... He has always fulfilled all of his other duties with nothing less than the highest standards of professionalism, personal competency, and integrity.

• 1135

I'm pleased to associate myself with all my colleagues opposite, and I'm sure all of us on this side of the table, on the government side, associate ourselves also with the hope that the measure undertaken in the form of offering his resignation will not be accepted.

But in light of the testimony, I would move that the matter be closed and that the committee adjourn.

The Chair: Okay. So that's essentially an adjournment motion.

[Translation]

Mr. Stéphane Bergeron: Are we debating the motion?

[English]

The Chair: It's a non-debatable motion. We're moving to adjourn.

A voice: A non-debatable motion to adjourn?

The Chair: That's my sense, yes.

Mr. Jerry Pickard (Chatham—Kent Essex, Lib.): Mr. Chair, shouldn't we dismiss Mr. Walsh?

The Chair: Yes. There was a suggestion that if there are no further questions to Mr. Walsh on the facts, we could allow him to withdraw. Would that be agreeable?

Some hon. members: Agreed.

The Chair: Okay.

Yes, Mr. Walsh.

Mr. Rob Walsh: I'd like to make just a brief comment, if I may, of a personal nature, Mr. Chair, to Mr. Bergeron.

[Translation]

I would like to assure you, Mr. Bergeron, that I respect the role that you have played as a member. You have responsibilities. For you, it was a matter of principle. You did not make it personal. I hope we will have an opportunity to work together in the future. I respect the work that you are doing. Thank you.

[English]

The Chair: Thank you, Mr. Walsh.

We have to deal with Mr. Kilger—

Do you have a point of order, Mr. Blaikie?

Mr. Bill Blaikie: I have a point of order with respect to the motion. A motion to adjourn may be non-debatable, but a motion to adjourn and that the matter be closed is a debatable motion. You can't pack a whole lot of other things, debatable things, into a non-debatable motion and then call it non-debatable.

The Chair: Okay.

Mr. Bill Blaikie: So either we have a motion to adjourn or we have a recommendation or a motion that the matter is closed. We can debate that, vote on it, and then adjourn. But I don't think we can have a hybrid motion.

The Chair: Okay, Mr. Blaikie, the chair accepts that this is an omnibus motion. So I agree that—

Mr. Bob Kilger: I'll make it more specific: a motion to adjourn.

The Chair: All right, then—

Ms. Carolyn Parrish (Mississauga Centre, Lib.): Call the question.

The Chair: —Mr. Kilger has moved that we adjourn. I'll call the question.

(Motion agreed to)

The Chair: We're now adjourned, presumably until some time in September.

Thank you, colleagues.