Perfect. It won't be up to some people's standards, but I'll see if I can start.
We're talking about whether there is something here. Let's look into this a little bit more. The minister said that when she went back at her department after this became public in the House, she asked her political staff whether or not there may have been a leak. She asked them: “Yes or no”? She sent her deputy minister to ask the people in the bureaucracy who had access to this bill if they were the source of the leak, and the answer came back as no. Okay, so the answer was no.
Back in a previous life when I was a little younger and in a bit better shape, I was a hockey referee. When I gave a penalty, no matter to whom, the player always said it wasn't them. I thought I was a pretty good referee. However, here we have a witness who will take the word of, I don't know how many, people that they were not the source. Then do we just give up there? I'd like to think we don't give up there.
I'd like to go back to the article of April 12. Look at the wording. For those of you who are former journalists on the other side, look at the wording: “according to a source familiar with the legislation”. The words “according to a source” is pointing you right there, is telling you right there.... Look at some of the wording, that the bill “will exclude”, and “Sources say the Liberal cabinet”, from the CBC on April 13. It is very clear.
I'll even quote my friend Andrew Scheer, from Regina—Qu'Appelle, a beautiful part of the country, I'm sure. He said, “I hope the House agrees to send this to the procedure and House affairs committee so that the committee can look into what happened, perhaps determine who did it,”—that is what we hoped to do, but we seem to be hitting a wall—“perhaps determine what systems could be put in place to avoid this type of thing [from happening] in the future, and if the culprit is found, bring that detail back to the House for the House to decide what to do with it further.”
Right now we have really nothing, but we want to get there. We want to take those steps to get to the next phase, but we can't do that if we don't know who had access to the bill, and if the bill gives us somewhere to go, this list gives us somewhere to go, somewhere to start, that, to me, says this is the next step. Yet some are saying that we've had one witness and that that's good enough.
No, that's not good enough. I'll even quote Speaker Lamoureux from 1971, who said, “Privilege is that which sets hon. members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess...”. That means they get the first view of the bill, which goes back to the very clear wording of the article here, that “according to a source familiar with the legislation...”.
Again, how do we get there? On the question of privilege versus contempt, the parliamentary law clerk has noted that a breach of privilege refers directly to the breach of a specific right, power or immunity claimed by the House or its members as necessary to fulfill their parliamentary functions. In contrast, contempt of Parliament refers to an offence against the authority or dignity of the House that impedes the work of the House or its members.
Mr. Chan, sir, it's right here, in a quote from 1971.
What we are looking at is very clear. To say that one witness is good enough.... We talked about a number of other things. We talked about the source of the leak. Okay, again, let's find out. Saying, let's draw the line, is unacceptable, because somebody clearly is the source of this leak. Will we find that person? Maybe, who knows? We can't do it without proceeding with this investigation.
The Speaker has referred it to us, and then it just seems as if it is going to disappear and fly off the radar and that it's no big deal. Well, it is a big deal. For sure, it's a big deal. Then you say, “Well, I don't know if this is true. I don't know”, but how does someone get that much detail? How does a reporter get this much detail as to what is or isn't in the bill? You just don't make that much up. If you work for the The Beaverton or The Onion, I guess you could, but this is The Globe and Mail. You just don't make it up, and you don't write with this kind of language if you're just looking up in the sky and hoping the words fall to you. It doesn't work that way.
As a reporter, I think back, where did I get my sources? Well, you talk to the rank and file. You talk to people in the communications department, sometimes politicians—but for the most part rarely, if ever, which is why the communications staff at the PMO are on this list. As Mr. Richards said, if the other side would like us to call the Prime Minister, we're more than happy to do that.
How much time do I have, Chair?