There are 57 PMO staff. There are 17 staff of the Minister of Health, and that doesn't include any officials that could have access as well.
Let's go over the PMO staff, because there are 57 of them. We don't know what cabinet committees the legislation went to. That's why it's so important to get this list, because there are a lot of cabinet committees and a lot of people who had access to this bill. Let's go through the Prime Minister's staff. We did the Minister of Health's.
We have Gerald Butts, the principal secretary, who is the executive assistant to the Prime Minister. Geoff Hall is the scheduler to the Prime Minister. Probably not the photographer, but I'm going to guess, Daniel Arnold, the director of research and advertising. Roland Paris is the senior adviser to the Prime Minister, but that was on defence, so I'm guessing he wouldn't. The director of operations probably did not. I'm guessing here, possibly the regional desk, because they would be responsible for distribution once it was tabled. We have Lindsay Hunter of the Ontario regional desk. Jamie Kippen is another regional desk for Ontario. Cyndi Jenkins is from the Atlantic region. Jessie Chahal is from the Prairies and northern regional desk. Brittney Kerr is from the British Columbia desk, and Marie-Laurence Lapointe is from the Quebec regional desk. Terry Guillon, the lead media advance, most likely did have access. Probably not the writers of the correspondence, or the members of the deputation, but we don't know. We're just doing some speculation right now.
The Prime Minister's press secretary would probably be one that I'd be interested in hearing from, because I would guess that person would be on the list. The executive assistant to the director of communications would definitely be on it, as well as the lead of media relations and the communications officer. There are two communications officers. The chief of staff, Katie Telford, would probably be one we'd like to have a chat with, definitely. We're going through these names, but without that list, how do we keep going? Why would we reward bad behaviour in not continuing? It's clear and important for this committee to acquire who had access, as well as question other government ministers and senior PMO staff.
Chair, should we not give the same opportunity to the ministers and staff to clear themselves and their staff of any potential accountability for that leak? You go back to hockey, and I'll do another analogy. I know my predecessor liked to use hockey analogies a lot. I know that Mr. Reid does appreciate them sometimes. On any team, whether it's hockey, baseball, or football, the captains are the leaders. The captains speak for their teams. The team members take their lead from the captains. Most of the time you don't run a play based on, “Well, I think this is the right idea. The quarterback said we're going to run this play, but I think it's better if we run this play and not tell anyone”. I'm thinking, and this is speculation on my part, they wanted to frame a story in a certain way with the huge magnitude of this bill, so they said, “Let's start the conversation a couple of days early. Let's get the ball rolling, and let's start forming the conversation as we'd like it”.
That's why it's important to speak to the captains, or the leads, the department heads, and find out where their range of thinking is and where they might direct us.
Without this list we are just giving up and not even continuing in our mandate to carry out this investigation as directed by the Speaker. Without continuing, we don't even know what mechanisms we could send to the House for possible implementation so that this doesn't happen again, or recommendations to the various departments on how they might be able to prevent this from happening again.
Let's see the list, let's talk to those people, and let's have them give us the opportunity to clear them. Maybe they'd like to clear themselves instead of having this cloud hanging over them.
We go back to the Canadian Association of Journalists who have a duty to report the truth. I think it's clear, based on the wording, that they had very good sources to do that.
We'll give some background, and this goes on to why we have to do this. We have to continue this investigation because privilege is something we hold dear in this place.
As to privilege—and this is where it came from in Canada—centuries ago the British House of Commons began its struggle to win its basic rights and immunities from the king. The earliest cases go back to the 14th and 15th centuries when several members and Speakers were imprisoned by the king, who took offence to their conduct in Parliament, despite the claims of the House that these arrests were contrary to its liberties.
In the Tudor and the early Stuart periods, though Parliament was sometimes unable to resist the stronger will of the sovereign, the conviction continued to be expressed that Parliament, including the House of Commons, was entitled to certain rights. The elected Speaker of the House of Commons in 1523, Sir Thomas More, was among the first Speakers to petition the king to seek the recognition of certain privileges for the House. By the end of the 16th century, the Speakers' petition to the king had become a fixed practice.
Despite these early petitions of the Speaker, the king was not above the informing the Commons that their privileges, particularly freedom of speech, owed their existence by his sufferance. James I did this in 1621.
In protest, the Commons countered, “every Member of the House of Commons hath and of right ought to have freedom of speech…and…like freedom from all impeachment, imprisonment and molestation (other than by censure of the House itself) for or concerning any speaking, reasoning or declaring of any matter or matters touching the Parliament or parliament business”.
In rebuke, James I ordered that the Journals of the House be sent to him. He tore out the offending page of protest and then dissolved Parliament
Nor was privilege able to prevent the detention or arrest of members at the order of the crown. On several occasions in the early 17th century, members were imprisoned without trial while the House was not sitting or after the dissolution of Parliament.
In 1626, Charles I arrested two members of the House while it was in session, and in 1629 judgments were rendered against several members for this action. These outrages by the crown were denounced after the civil war, and in 1667 both Houses agreed that the judgment against the arrested members had been illegal and contrary to the privileges of Parliament.
In 1689, the implementation of the Bill of Rights confirmed once and for all the basic privilege of Parliament, including freedom of speech. Article 9 states, “freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place out of Parliament”.
Here we go. We're tying this in. This is from O'Brien and Bosc:
Free speech in the House was now finally established and protected from interference either from the Crown or the courts. In the late seventeenth century and the first half of the eighteenth century, some claims of the House as to what constituted privilege went too far. The privilege of freedom from arrest in civil matters was sometimes applied not only to Members themselves, but also to their servants. In addition, Members sought to extend their privilege from hindrance or molestation to their property, claiming a breach of privilege in instances of trespassing and poaching. Such practices were eventually curtailed by statute because they clearly had become a serious obstruction to the ordinary course of justice. Thus, privilege came to be recognized as only that which was absolutely necessary for the House to function effectively and for the Members to carry out their responsibilities as Members.
Mr. Chair, right there, privilege was recognized as “absolutely necessary for the House to function effectively and for the Members to carry out their responsibilities”.
Here we go again: a bill of huge magnitude, affecting pretty much every Canadian, released in significant detail, and saying what is not going to be in the bill. That provides evidence to the fact that the source had quite a bit of knowledge as to what was in this bill.