You're stealthy.
Where was I on this? Yes, the reporter identified someone in the know who had provided specifics to this bill. As we're going through this step by step, I think we can say they're referring to the source in both cases. I think it's clear, and I think maybe we all agree, that there are specific elements of the legislation in these articles, with very similar details. I think we've established that it proves these just weren't picked out of the air. I don't think you can have two articles.... Well, The National could have the same details, but they would have to quote their sources, which would at that point have been The Globe and Mail, “According to The Globe and Mail this, this, and that”.
To Mr. Reid's point, are there one or two sources of the leak? Maybe, but we don't know until we get on this. Was it a coordinated effort to leak this information and to frame the story as the government wanted? We don't know until we get this list.
Going back to privilege, and again why it's so important, I do stress that privilege came to be, and it was absolutely necessary for the House to function effectively and for the members to carry out their responsibilities.
The late eighteenth and nineteenth centuries also saw, for the first time, the systematic study of the history of privilege and contempt with the publication of several manuals on parliamentary procedures. The culmination of these efforts to understand and elucidate better the constitutional history of Parliament was achieved in 1946 with the publication of the 14th edition of May.
I cited that a little earlier.
This edition presented a thorough and elaborate examination of parliamentary privilege based on an exhaustive examination of the Journals and the principles of the law of Parliament. It also cited instances of misconduct of strangers or witnesses, disobedience to the rules or orders of the House or committees, attempts at intimidation or bribery and molestation of Members or other Officers of the House as cases that more properly involve a contempt of Parliament rather than an explicit breach of an established privilege. The British House of Commons now takes a more narrowly defined view of privilege than was formerly the case, with the emphasis being placed on parliamentary proceedings. The change became apparent in 1967 when the Select Committee on Parliamentary Privilege accepted the need for the radical reform of the law, practice, and procedure relating to privilege and especially contempt, agreeing that they required simplification and clarification and to be brought into harmony with contemporary thought. The Committee went further to express the conviction that the recognized rights and immunities of the House “will and must be enforced by the courts as part of the law of the land”.
Now I'm not saying this applies in this case, but I think the point about privilege is very much clear:
While the House took note of the Committee’s report, it was never adopted. In 1977, the Committee of Privileges re-examined the meaning of privilege and contempt, and the general thrust and conclusions of the 1967 report were reiterated in its report, later adopted by the House. The Committee recommended that the application of privilege be limited to cases of clear necessity in order to protect the House, its Members and its officers from being obstructed or interfered with in the performance of their functions.
Now, Chair, to do our duty, as I've stated a couple of times already, and to do our duty properly, as members of Parliament, to leak a bill, in this case a very important bill, but to leak any bill before parliamentarians have had a chance to take a look at it and examine it blocks us from effectively carrying out our responsibilities as members of this place.
If we all have the heads-up that one or two sources of the leak find it okay to go on their own, maybe with direction from their team captain, and we do not investigate, which is what I think the other side is implying, that we just call it a day and shut down, then that is not letting us do our job. Without mechanisms in place to either stop it from happening, or to find the source of the leak, this could actually prevent us from doing our job. Could this happen again? Quite possibly it could, because there doesn't seem to be a consequence. Again, it's rewarding the child's bad behaviour.
This will say why it's important here:
Privilege in the Pre-Confederation British North American Colonies From the establishment in 1758 of the first legislative assembly in Nova Scotia, the common law accorded the necessary powers to the legislature and its Members to perform their legislative work. “Members had freedom of speech in debate and the right of regulating and ordering their proceedings, and were protected from being arrested in connection with civil cases, because the legislature had first call on their services and attendance.” As to the power of an Assembly in the colonies to punish and more especially imprison for contempt, the situation was not at all clear. In effect, the rights enjoyed by the Assemblies in the pre-Confederation period were quite limited. However, as early as 1758, the House of Assembly of Nova Scotia had an individual arrested and briefly confined because of threats made against a Member of the Assembly. In Upper and Lower Canada, the Constitutional Act, 1791, adopted by the British Parliament, was silent on the privileges of the Legislatures, although by 1801 the Speaker of the Legislative Assembly in Upper Canada claimed “by the name of the Assembly, the freedom of speech and generally all the like privileges and liberties as are enjoyed by the Commons of Great Britain our Mother Country”. ...the Assembly of Upper Canada proceeded to fight for and assert many of the same privileges, such as freedom from arrest while sitting and freedom from jury duty, claimed by the British Commons. The Assembly also claimed the power to send for and question witnesses and to punish any individual who refused to appear or answer questions, using its power of imprisonment to ensure obedience of its orders. Although challenged on occasion, the Assembly was successful in enforcing its privileges.... In the period prior to responsible government, the Assembly in Upper Canada guarded its reputation by punishing libels against it in the newspapers and also fought for the right to initiate money bills, that is, bills for appropriations and taxation. In general, the Assembly of Upper Canada was satisfied that it could discharge its functions with the privileges it had. In the same period, the Assembly of Lower Canada also asserted both individual and corporate privileges—freedom from arrest and freedom from the obligation to appear in court with respect to civil suits brought against Members, and the right of the Assembly to punish for contempt, no matter the offender. The Assembly was not afraid to put forward its claims of privilege against the Crown. In 1820, it blocked the conduct of business at the opening of a new Parliament because of a dispute over the return of election writs and again in 1835 over comments made by the Governor about the privileges of the Assembly. With the Union Act, 1840 which created the Province of Canada out of Upper and Lower Canada, and especially following the achievement of responsible government, issues of privilege were less frequent or serious. This can be attributed to the fact that responsible government acknowledged the supremacy of the Assembly.
Chair, it's right there.