I'd like to respond to some of the comments made by the government side.
It seemed as though there were three arguments being made to oppose any effort by this committee to do the job that we're tasked with, which is to take a full look at a matter of privilege and make sure that we're doing our due diligence and taking the matter seriously. I don't get that sense, especially listening to them talk about having fun with it and these kinds of things. They're obviously not taking this seriously, and that's a concern to me.
There seem to be three arguments being made by the government side. The first argument was—and I will come back and respond to each of these points—that there was no evidence of premature disclosure of the substantial contents of the bill. As my colleague, Mr. Schmale, has just indicated, there certainly had to have been even a greater amount of knowledge to have been able to disclose, very specifically, what wasn't in the bill. That would require an extensive knowledge of what's in the bill, and so it's somebody that would have the knowledge and information. That's why it's so important to follow up to see if we can conclude what did happen.
The second argument the government seemed to be making was, “Well, the Department of Justice has followed the protocol.” It sounds like that may well have been the case, but the minister was clear when she was here that there were other agencies and departments. She specifically mentioned the Prime Minister's Office a number of times, and the Minister of Health and that department. I'm not sure why we wouldn't want to give them the same kind of opportunity to take away the cloud that hangs over their heads. The only reason I can conclude that the government would want to avoid that—and I can't imagine any other reason—is that there is something to hide. I would like to believe that's not the case, and I think all Canadians would like believe that's not the case. If the government doesn't want to try to do its best to get to the source of the information and try and determine what happened here—that's our job, that's what we're tasked with doing—and if they're not willing to do that, and if they're not willing to give the same courtesy to these people in the Prime Minister's Office, or if the government has an issue with its staff members being called, then we can always have the Prime Minister come, if that's what they'd prefer. Somebody needs to be answerable for those departments and agencies, and to do otherwise leaves a cloud hanging over them, giving the impression to people that there is something to hide. That's the only thing it can possibly do.
The third argument that seemed to be made—and it wouldn't apply to the specific motion that we're debating now, but in terms of the other motions that I indicated it would potentially be a part here as well—was that the chief of staff, or the director of communications for the Prime Minister's Office, shouldn't have to come here to answer questions. I think someone would need to come on behalf of the Prime Minister's Office to answer. As I indicated in my previous comments, the communications shop in a ministry, or the Prime Minister's Office, would be the most likely individuals to be dealing with the media, so that would be the reason for asking them, and the chief of staff is answerable for what happens in the Prime Minister's Office.
We felt it was probably appropriate to call the chief of staff rather than to ask the Prime Minister. We understand his busy schedule and that there are a lot of things to worry about. If the government would prefer to have the Prime Minister come—they indicated it needed to be someone on that political level—then the only other option would be the Prime Minister. If that's what they'd prefer over the chief of staff or the director of communications, then we can agree to that, if the Prime Minister needs to be answerable.
I would hope that the government wouldn't want to leave a cloud over the Prime Minister's head or over his office, without giving someone or him the opportunity to come before the committee to answer for his office and to ensure that there was some investigation or due diligence done to determine whether the source of the leak came from that office. If there is no effort made there to determine that, then it would seem as though there is something to hide, and I don't think anyone would want to see that cloud hanging over the Prime Minister's head.
I want to go back over those things and spend a little time to refute them.
The first point is that there had been no evidence of premature disclosure. Well, looking at The Globe and Mail article, there are a few specific passages that talk very specifically about things that are not in the bill, the first being, and I'll quote it exactly, that it is “a bill that will exclude those who only experience mental suffering, such as people with psychiatric conditions”.
Now that was one of them. There's a couple of others, but I'll talk about that one briefly first, because the Minister of Justice did address this when she was here. She felt that the bill didn't actually specifically exclude those. I think there were many who would argue that although that may be technically correct, the practical effect would be this. That was actually one of the reasons why some people opposed the bill. Generally, I think this would be what a journalist would do in an article, namely, to discuss the practical effects of something, because that's what Canadians would want to know. That's what a journalist would talk about, and it could have been an interpretation made by the journalist based on that, or it could have been something that was very explicitly indicated to the journalist by whoever the source of the leak was.
The other two points in the article were these:
The bill also won’t allow for advance consent, a request to end one’s life in the future, for those suffering with debilitating conditions such as dementia. In addition, there will be no exceptions for “mature minors” who have not yet reached 18 but wish to end their own lives.
The third was: The government’s bill is set to take a much narrower approach than recommended by a joint parliamentary committee it struck to study the issue over two months this winter.
In addition, there was an article by the CBC on The National the next day that mentioned some specific details that were not yet available to parliamentarians, but which also said that the government's plan would put the tough issues off before it studied those who suffer from psychological but not physical illness.
Again, that would maybe indicate that there might have been something broader than just one conversation. It may have been a bit of a strategy, and that's again why I point to communications people, because a strategy dealing with the media would obviously be implemented, or conceived of, or carried out by, or all of the above probably, by communication officials, whether those be the Prime Minister's Office or not. The justice minister was quite clear when she was here that the Prime Minister's Office had a very direct hand in this. She was quite clear about that, so it would seem to be a logical assumption that they may have had a very direct hand in the communication strategy around it as well. If this were a deliberate leak, it would probably have been part of that strategy, at least unofficially, and someone would have information or knowledge of that. The most likely person would be the director of communications in the Prime Minister's Office, or at least that would be the person who would be answerable for the employees or officials who would have been engaging in such activities.
I explain these points only to further reiterate the ones made by my colleague, Mr. Reid, when the justice minister was here, but also by my colleague, Mr. Schmale, today when discussing this motion, that in order for someone to have such an intimate knowledge of what isn't in the bill.... And this isn't just a shot in the dark, some kind of a guess. These are very specific points of things that aren't in the bill. That would indicate that someone would have to have knowledge of what was in the bill, and obviously to have had knowledge of what was in the bill they would have had to be part of the distribution list, or have had a copy of that leaked to them. As all of those copies are marked and numbered, so that we know whose copy they were, it would be obvious that it would be traceable. We would be able to know whether it were done that way. We would be able to trace the copy. If it were done by someone speaking with a reporter, we would be able to at least have some determination of whether there was any kind of effort made to determine whether that had in fact occurred by someone in the Prime Minister's Office, or had in fact occurred by someone in the Minister of Health's Office, or in the case of the one motion also the government House Leader, whose office would obviously have knowledge of the bill as well.
But that said, in order for us to fully determine who would have had access, this motion is important. I notice that the government didn't really address this actual motion in any of those comments in terms of why they would have any issue with the committee taking a look at who the distribution list would have been so we have some sense as to whether there is any chance of really being able to get to the bottom of it and determining who might be possible witnesses to call, what avenues we should go down, and in what direction we should look. I would certainly hope that they will change that direction and want to try to do the best to show openness, show accountability, show some transparency, and make an effort to try to determine what happened here.
This is a very serious matter. It's a matter of privilege, and it's been determined a prima facie case by the Speaker of the House of Commons. It's a very serious matter, and it's not one to be taken lightly and to be laughed off, as the government seems to be trying to do, or one that needs to be brushed aside, as the government seems to be trying to do.
The Minister of Justice was called and asked whether there had been any diligence done on her part or her office's to try to determine whether there had been any source of a leak. She then indicated, “Well, yes, it was done,” but she was very clearly pointing this committee where it needed to go next. Now, why would the government not want to follow that direction? Obviously she would have been trying to make sure that she was protecting herself, but I would think that we would want to extend the same courtesy to the other people who she mentioned and potentially implicated by giving them that same courtesy and that same opportunity.
For the government to do anything else would certainly cast the impression, I think, to any reasonable Canadian watching that the government would have something that they're trying to hide. I don't think the government would want to give anyone that impression, unless they actually do have something to hide. I would hope that's not the case.
It's just seems really difficult for me to understand why they wouldn't want to see the distribution list produced, why they wouldn't want to give some of these people the opportunity to have that same courtesy extended to them.
The government did indicate that it had some trouble with the chief of staff, or with the director of communications being called, and indicated it should be someone political. Obviously, the only person who could then be called would be the Prime Minister.
I would certainly be willing to entertain an amendment, or a motion on their behalf, to call the Prime Minister in place of the officials in his office, but somebody certainly should be answerable in the Prime Minister's Office to the same questions that were asked of the Minister of Justice. Who that would be? I'm open to having a conversation; I'm open for discussion about who that would be, but it should be somebody. Surely the government wouldn't want to give the impression that the Prime Minister's Office is not looking to be open, transparent, or accountable with Canadians. So we'll certainly give them every opportunity to prove that would be the case, and I hope they will do that. I don't think they would want to leave that impression with anyone. I would sure hope not.
I think it really is not a reasonable statement for anyone to make that, “Well, gee, we had one witness come in, the Minister of Justice, and she indicated that her department had done its due diligence, and therefore we should just drop the matter.” Why bother making any kind of an effort? It's just an opportunity for the opposition to have some fun. No one here finds this fun or funny, at least on this side.
This is a very serious matter and it's one that we need to take seriously as members of this committee and do our job to the best of our abilities. For anyone to say, “Well, we had the one witness come and, even though she very explicitly indicated there were other people we would obviously want to call and give the same opportunity to answer those questions,” that somehow we've done our job, when the Minister of Justice mentioned very explicitly, a number of times, both the Prime Minister's Office and the Minister of Health....
It would seem that it would be a pretty obvious conclusion that the next step would be to call those same individuals and ask some of those same questions. If there is nothing to hide, then they will simply answer that they have done their investigation, their due diligence, and they can have their names cleared as well. Otherwise, there will always be this black cloud that will hang over their heads, this doubt that Canadians will have about their integrity and honesty. It would appear that there would be something to hide. I can't imagine why the government would want that cloud of doubt and suspicion about the integrity of the Prime Minister to be left to sit over Canadians, and that same doubt over their colleague, the Minister of Health. I would really hope that they take another look and give us a second thought because it does not, in any way, seem as though they are taking this seriously at all. That is a really big concern. If you want to talk the talk about being open, transparent, and accountable, you have to walk the walk, and that is not what we are seeing from this government right now. I certainly hope they will reconsider their opposition to our doing our job as a committee and give us an opportunity to take that shadow and that cloud away from the Prime Minister and his office, and from the Minister of Health and her office.
The Minister of Justice has indicated that her office has done its due diligence and made every effort. I certainly think that most people were fairly satisfied that this might be the case. Why would we not want to have that same opportunity for the Minister of Health, the Prime Minister's Office, or the Prime Minister himself to clear up any suspicion there is? I just cannot imagine any reasonable reason why that would be the case.
I want to come back again to that idea of the chief of staff and the director of communications, and how the government members indicated that we shouldn't be calling them. Mr. Chair, although I would like to keep the floor, maybe I will ask the government side, Mr. Chan or someone else on that side who wants to respond, whom they would suggest we call from the Prime Minister's Office to give the Prime Minister's Office an opportunity...? If it is not the chief of staff, and if it is not the director of communications, they are saying it needs to be someone political. The only person that would be, that I can think of, would be the Prime Minister. Are they indicating they would like to see the Prime Minister come before the committee? Whom would they suggest we have come, to make sure we give the Prime Minister and his office the chance to clear their name?
Does anyone on the government side—if I can ask and still keep the floor, Mr. Chair—want to answer that question and give us some indication as to who should be answerable for the Prime Minister's Office, if not the chief of staff or the director of communications at the department where it would leak? Do they want the Prime Minister to come? Does anyone on the government side want to answer that?