All jokes aside, I'd like to reiterate that it is a very serious matter. Given the fact that members' privileges are such a serious matter, we need to define what we are looking at. There needs to be some line drawn as to where we go on this. Was there actually a premature disclosure of a bill?
What we have before us—and even the minister testified to this very fact in her testimony that day—is that there was no premature disclosure of a bill.
The Conservatives, a few of the colleagues here, Mr. Schmale and Mr. Richards, have mentioned that perhaps the reporter had even more knowledge than one would have because she was able to deduce, or take rumours and turn them into what may or may not be in the bill, which was actually in fact inaccurate, in part. I would disagree. That does not qualify to be greater knowledge. If the reporter had greater knowledge of the actual bill, Mr. Chair, they would have included contents of the actual bill.
From what we have in both reports from the CBC and The Globe and Mail, we really don't see any of the contents of the bill that was tabled before the House. We have what may have been educated guesses, things that were talked about a lot previously in the media, or rumours and speculation. We don't have actual content.
I think it's important to bring up the fact that the minister did indicate that anybody who actually worked on that bill, or had that bill, would have had better knowledge than what was presented in the actual report. They would have known that the statement made about those suffering from psychological conditions was actually incorrect. They are included in the bill, and they're not an exception.
So on the point about having intimate knowledge, I would disagree. I don't believe this was intimate knowledge or the actual contents of a bill. I believe we should be taking this seriously in committee, but we shouldn't be heading down the road of a witch hunt or a Spanish Inquisition, if you will. Mr. Reid so nicely brought that up, and that's what it's starting to feel like to me here today.
Because it is so serious, I'd just like to reiterate that we should keep it to the premature disclosure of a bill and whether core parts of the legislation and anything substantive were mentioned. We don't have any of that before us here today. My position is that we need to very careful about dragging in what could be hundreds of people, which would not lead to anything in the end. Right now, this committee has already had five meetings on this very matter, so I believe we have been taking it very seriously. We have not stonewalled the opposition by any means. We have not been unwilling to bring in the justice minister, the attorney general, the acting clerk, and the law clerk and parliamentary counsel. They have all been before this committee to talk about this very issue. So I believe we've been taking the matter quite seriously. However, we've not been left with a lot of evidence at this point. So how can we justify going on when there are so many other important matters for this committee to address?
It really does seem like a wild goose chase. We are talking about a few rumours, some speculation that was in an article, nothing that was actually stated in the bill, and we're running with it and trying to figure out the hundreds of people who may have, at some point, had some knowledge of or access to the bill. But the fact remains that had a person with actual knowledge, who had access to the bill, leaked it to the media, we would have had a better source, we would have had actual information about the bill.
In conclusion, I'd just like say: what leak? There was no leak.
We keep stating that as if it were a fact. The opposition keeps stating that there was a breach as if it were a fact. Our job here, at this committee, is to find out whether there was a breach. This is a prima facie case, and we haven't come to any conclusion. We're trying to investigate this, not trying to accuse anyone or have an inquisition. We're trying to investigate, and, at this point, after five meetings, we have yet to come to any solid evidence of there being a breach, or being a leak.
Because this matter is so important, I would suggest that we treat it as such and don't get carried away with wasting this committee's valuable time on any more meetings that are probably going to lead to nothing, because we're at nothing right now.
That's all I have to say. Thank you.