I want to follow up on Mr. Reid's comments. I thank him for suggesting that perhaps some of the past behaviour of the previous Conservative government was inappropriate, because that seems to be what he's suggesting. At least on the government side, we recognize that.
I'm going to get back to the point that Mr. Christopherson raised, which was with respect to the apology that had been put by the chief government whip, which was...if there is in fact a finding of privilege in this particular case. I think that's our responsibility and our role here today as a committee. It's to determine clearly, so that we have a clear precedent going forward, what the appropriate conduct is. What action should we or should we not take in terms of disclosure of material before the House, so that members have the first opportunity to consider contents of legislation that is before it at first blush, as opposed it being out there in the public more broadly?
That's why I get back to my original point, which is the possession of the bill, because it is the contents of the bill itself that require us, that give us the capacity as members, to determine whether something is in or not in the legislation. We have these media reports that clearly talk about these broad intentions or policy brushes, but it doesn't give us the substantive language of each of the particular elements that we need to consider as members of Parliament.
In fact, you could see all of us debating the issue as we were voting on the various substantive motions that were before the House yesterday, because we ultimately had the content of both the bill and the proposed amendments before us. Again, what I'm struggling with, frankly, is to understand the nature of the privilege. I get the broad brush of it, which is the intention that we get the material first, but in lieu of actually having the substantive bill before us.... Again, when I read the disclosure of the two media articles, there is no clear evidence that the reporters in question or the media sources in question actually had the bill. They may have had discussions, and then we have to decide whether those discussions or those disclosures constitute a breach of members' privileges. That, to me, is the distinction that I'm trying to deal with.
I welcome commentary, because I'm trying to understand. What is the nature of the breach? Did a breach take place and what is the evidence before us?