Thank you, Mr. Chair.
As all members of the committee would know, I've brought notices of motion for a number of motions in regard to our study on the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14.
For context, I'm going to read the motions I have. Then I'll be moving one of the motions, Mr. Chair.
The first of those motions would read as follows: That, in relation to its study on the question of privilege related to the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying) and pursuant to the Handling and Safeguarding of Classified and Protected Information and Assets guidelines, and the requirement to maintain a distribution list of all SECRET information, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs request that the Government provide a full distribution list of all persons who had access to any copies of the legislation on Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying) prior to its introduction, to the Committee no later than June 21, 2016.
The other motions are as follows: That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee invite the Minister of Health to appear no later than June 21st, 2016, to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14...”. The motion goes on to cite the rest of the title of the bill.
Also: That the Procedure and House Affairs committee invite the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister to appear no later than June 21, 2016, to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14...”.
Also: That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee invite the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to appear no later than June 21, 2016, to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14...”.
Finally: That the Procedure and House Affairs Committee invite the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister to appear no later than June 21, 2016, to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14...”.
Now, I just wanted to make sure to read all of those into the record so there would be context to the motion that I will move, Mr. Chair, and I appreciate your indulging me on this.
I wanted to take a few moments to explain this. I think it's easier for members to understand the rationale behind all of the motions prior to moving the first one. Then we can have some discussion about that and, hopefully, proceed with our proper study of the matter to ensure that we are doing our due diligence here.
It was made quite clear when the justice minister appeared before us and mentioned numerous times that her department was certainly not the only department or agency that in fact had disclosure of the contents of the bill prior to it being tabled in the House of Commons, of course. That's not really any great surprise, but she did mention very specifically a number of times the Minister of Health and that department, and also the Prime Minister's Office. Those were two that she made quite clear.
To that, I've added also the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, simply because obviously we're all aware that the House leaders and their offices have the direction or control in terms of what happens and comes forward in the House of Commons. Obviously, they would be consulted and would be in the loop on these things in everything that is coming forward in terms of the government's legislative agenda, so this seemed like a logical one.
I do believe that when she was appearing before us the minister also once or twice mentioned the Treasury Board president, but when we're looking at this, I feel that the Prime Minister's Office seemed to be the one that was indicated most often. Also, in all honesty, in looking at who would be most directly involved in this, obviously it would be at Health and in the Prime Minister's Office, outside of Justice, where the most involvement in this bill would have been.
Also, I think that when we're looking at dealing with the media or journalists, the most obvious place would be a communications shop, I suspect, as it would often deal with the media and be looking at communication strategies. So if there were a deliberate strategy to leak this, it would often come from those departments.
That is the reason there is no indication by me or anyone else in the official opposition that these specific individuals were the source of the leak, but certainly there are people who are answerable for those departments, and much like the Minister of Justice, it would be appropriate for them to answer for whether any kind of determination was made, any kind of investigation done, as to whether the source of the leak came from their specific ministry, department, or agency. That is the reason for choosing to call those specific witnesses.
The minister indicated a number of times that a number of individuals had access to the legislation prior to its being released. If you look at the guidelines for the handling and safeguarding of classified and protected information and assets, which would obviously include bills prior to their being released to the House of Commons—if you look under section 502 of those guidelines, a number would be indicated for each copy as one of the criteria for handling secret information. They would have to show the copy number on the face of each copy and maintain a distribution list. Clearly a distribution list is maintained for these documents, and that is why we believe it is appropriate for that list to be released to this committee so the committee is aware of who else might have had access.
Obviously, our job that we've been tasked with by the House of Commons through the Speaker is to try to do our very best, to do all the due diligence that we possibly can, to ensure that we determine the source of the leak and to try to ensure that we prevent this kind of thing from happening again and take any measures necessary to do that. It is important that we do our best to determine who would have had access to these and to have the people who are answerable—for what anyone being honest would have to admit would be the most likely sources—testify, given that they would be the people who would be dealing most with the media. We would certainly call them, much as we did with the Minister of Justice. The government side agreed to have the Minister of Justice here, and the same principle would certainly apply.
I can't understand why anyone wouldn't want to have these other departments and agencies that had full access to the contents of the bill come here to defend the actions of their department or ministry and make sure they have shown an accounting for any efforts they have made to investigate and determine that there was no source of the leak. I would think that no one on the government side would want to have that cloud hang over the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office, or the Minister of Health either, I'm sure, and so for us to do anything but bring someone to be accountable for the Prime Minister's Office, the Minister of Health, and their departments and their ministry offices, we all, including the government side, would want them to have the opportunity to come and ensure that they have given us all an accounting for what due diligence, what types of investigation, they have done.
If we were to do anything else, the effect would be to leave some kind of a cloud, or cast some kind of doubt over the Prime Minister or the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Health's office. We certainly wouldn't want to see that. No one would want to see that, and we want to ensure we do our best due diligence to ensure that doesn't happen. If there is nothing to hide of course they would be more than willing to appear, and I would certainly hope that would be the case.
Mr. Chair, we'll move these motions one at a time as that's required, but the one that needs to be moved first would be the motion to ask that the distribution lists be provided. Would you like me to read that one back? It's been read into the record. It's been provided on notice. Do I need to read it again?