Procedure and House Affairs Committee on June 9th, 2016

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I appreciate the question. I'm not trying to prevent getting at the source of the details or being in any way obstructive to the question. As the Minister of Justice, I have 4,500 employees working in the department.

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

But they didn't all see it, obviously.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

They didn't all see it, but I imagine that we can all appreciate a piece of proposed legislation that requires approval—

[Scott Reid, Conservative, Lanark—Frontenac—Kingston, ON]

There is a list of those to whom any confidential document is circulated. You have to recall those copies. At any stage, there would be a record of those to whom it was circulated, both in your department and in others.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

You have 20 seconds.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I can speak to having confidence in my department. I know people have access and what level of security access they have. Certainly our department has departments within it that are responsible for particular aspects of the Department of Justice and the role that I play as minister, and I recognize that my individual exempt staff have responsibilities as well. I know who was involved in medical assistance in dying and have canvassed all the staff in following the appropriate security measures.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister.

Now we'll go to Ms. Sahota for a five-minute round. She'll be sharing with Mr. Graham.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you, Minister. I appreciate your being clear on the topic of members' privilege here today. Could I clarify some other things with you?

We're talking about whether there was a breach of a member's privilege and whether the article or what was contained in the article rises to that definition of a breach of a member's privilege. I'd like to get your opinion on whether you think there was a premature disclosure of Bill C-14.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Nothing has come to my attention that there was premature disclosure of Bill C-14, and my department in no way, shape, or form would disclose such a sensitive piece of legislation.

[Ruby Sahota, Liberal, Brampton North, ON]

Thank you.

I'll be sharing my time with David.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Thank you. It's nice to be back.

In the last meeting when you were not here, we discussed the 41st Parliament a good deal, where a large number of government bills were discussed at great length by the ministers themselves and it was in the press. At no time did a breach of privilege ever even come to be discussed.

I'll give you a chance to react to things like the Fair Elections Act, having the quote in the paper, the ability to move the commissioner of Elections Canada where the investigators work from Elections Canada and set it up as a separate office. All kinds of very detailed descriptions were not considered a breach of privilege because the bill wasn't released.

Do you see any similarities with this and the previous practices? Do you seen any comparisons?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

There may be comparisons. Reflecting on this particular circumstance with respect to this proposed piece of legislation, the conversation of physician- assisted dying, medical assistance in dying in the context of the proposed legislation, Bill C-14 , has been a conversation that we've been having in an expansive way at least for the last seven months.

The special joint committee has been having that conversation and I as the minister who has been tasked to work on this legislation has been involved as much as I can in the development of the legislation, sharing information with Canadians about the thoughts that were being put into the legislation, ensuring that we do our part, hearing as many voices as we can to find balance in personal autonomy and the protection of the vulnerable.

These are words that I have used in advance of the tabling of the legislation and continue to use today, although now that the legislation has been tabled, I can go into detail about how we found and sought to find that balance in Bill C-14. I have been speaking to that balance all along.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

We're down to about a minute and a half left in this meeting.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Yes, you won't have your full time. There's only a minute left.

[David Graham, Liberal, Laurentides—Labelle, QC]

Just to wrap this up, our study is very specific in referring to the premature disclosure of the bill. From what I can see, and from answers to my colleagues' questions, there was no premature disclosure of the bill, so where do you see this matter going? Where can we go further with this, if anywhere?

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

I certainly wouldn't impart on this honourable committee what the next steps would be, but what I would like to do, given that the time is running out, is assure this committee that breaches of privilege are taken and should be taken incredibly seriously, and all individuals who had access to Bill C-14 and its developmental documents have the necessary security clearances. We have the substantial policies of the Privy Council Office that ensure we abide by the security provisions to ensure that confidential documents remain in the confidence of the Queen's Privy Council. I'm confident that those were followed across the board.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Minister. Thank you for appearing today.

[Jody Wilson-Raybould, Liberal, Vancouver Granville, BC]

Thank you.

[David Christopherson, NDP, Hamilton Centre, ON]

Chair, on a point of order, we're dealing with a question of privilege, but is it not fair to say that, given some of the testimony from the minister, we may also be dealing with someone who has broken their oath? The minister alluded a number of times to people being under oath in terms of the level of secret or above secret. She mentioned it two or three times. Does that not suggest this isn't maybe just a question of a breach of members' rights, but someone has violated their secrecy oath?

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

I think we can discuss that in the future.

Our time is up, but bring that up.

The meeting is adjourned.