Well, I'm disappointed to hear that. I appreciate your comments, but I'm a little disappointed. I know you weren't here, but these motions were drafted directly as a result of the testimony given by the Minister of Justice.
I think we're fairly satisfied that she was not the source of the leak, but she gave us direction, pointing us in a direction where we should look further. I don't think it's acceptable to say “The justice minister said no, it's not her. Okay, end of story, let's move on.” I think we need to keep going, especially based on this testimony. She basically said there are more people who have this document than us.
We accept that. Let's see the list. Let's see where else we can go. As a former reporter, this language in the article is fairly straightforward. She's using language as a statement of fact, not journalistic speculation. To me, that tells me she had a conversation with someone, and as a former reporter, usually it was in the communications department. We accept that there is one minor error in the article, but that could have been, as Mr. Reid pointed out—and I know you weren't here, Mr. Chan—very easily journalistic error. That part of the article could have been put down in error, especially if the reporter in the case was taking notes by hand during that conversation.
Looking at the article, what I think is more evident is that the reporter was stating facts about the bill, details that were not in the legislation, which to me means that you have a lot more detail than journalistic speculation. Somehow the reporter got this information, and it looks.... As I said, these are facts that were not in the bill, that the bill was excluding. That is very significant detail. That's a different style. So clearly there is something here.
The minister said she wasn't the one. Okay, let's take her at that, so who else? She said there's a list. Let's find out who's on that list. Maybe this is nothing, maybe it's something, but I think to have this referred to us and to say well, one witness is good enough, we'll just pass it along, I don't think that's acceptable. I think there's more to look for here. You look at what we're dealing with, and to leave it and not go a little further, to me there's something very dangerous there. We need to find out if privilege was breached. Clearly by the language, something is here.
I don't think stopping the investigation by the government sends the proper message, especially after one witness. Let's see who has the list and make a decision, based on that list, where we should proceed from there. But to say, no, we're done, that's not getting to the bottom of things. That's not finding out if there's a breach.
Let's find out. This is very serious. I think I'd be very troubled if the government voted this down. This is supposed to be a serious investigation, so let's treat it as such. Let's do the proper investigation and have the proper witnesses, and let's see if there's something there. But to leave it and to say we're done after one...I think that would be a serious fault.
Thank you.