Procedure and House Affairs Committee on Sept. 29th, 2016

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Chan.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I guess I should answer Mr. Richards' comments. I would say that we would take it very seriously if there was clear evidence that the bill was in the possession of someone not authorized to be in possession of it prior to it being tabled before the House. Again, as I said, there is no such evidence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Thank you very much, Chair.

There are a couple of things to point out. I think that if you look at the wording of the article, as we've talked about many times before, you'll see that the wording was very clear: knowledge of the legislation was there, or, more to the point, what wouldn't be in the bill was there. That's pretty specific evidence demonstrating that there was prior knowledge of the legislation.

I understand what Mr. Chan is saying, but I also would just point out to him to reread the article. I think it becomes very clear what is there.

Also, we didn't get here by just dreaming this up. The Minister of Justice pointed us in this direction in her testimony. We are here based on the evidence she gave and on her direction being that her ministry.... She cleared it up that her office wasn't involved—questioned her staff, had procedures in place—so we're very confident that her department was not the source of the leak. Going by her direction and her advice, this is how we got here.

Obviously, the Minister of Health is the next step in this whole process. If you're saying there's no evidence, again I point back to the article, and I point back to the Minister of Justice pointing us in the direction and urging us to continue. I hope my friends on the other side do have another look at this. We want to get to the bottom of this. Hopefully, they do too, other than just saying that we've done our due diligence, we've listened to one witness, and we're good to go.

I think there's more to be done here. It would be a shame to draw the line and close this here because, as I said before, you're rewarding bad behaviour. How would this stop going forward? Why would it stop? There is no consequence.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thanks.

Mr. Chan.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

I would take up Mr. Schmale's invitation to look at the specific article in question, because I have it in front of me, so I'll read it into the record. What I think is the basis of difference is the first three paragraphs of this particular article that was written by Laura Stone, dated April 12, 2016, and posted at 9:31 p.m. It reads:

The Liberal government is set to introduce its much-anticipated physician-assisted dying law on Thursday, a bill that will exclude those who only experience mental suffering, such as people with psychiatric conditions, according to a source familiar with the legislation. The bill also won’t allow for advance consent, a request to end one’s life in the future, for those suffering with debilitating conditions such as dementia. In addition, there will be no exceptions for “mature minors” who have not yet reached 18 but wish to end their own lives. Those three issues, however, will be alluded to in the legislation for further study, according to the source, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the bill.

I get the point that when someone is not authorized to speak publicly about a piece of legislation about to be introduced in the House.... It's something that we don't condone. We don't condone it, but again, nothing in this article—if you read the rest of the article—suggests that Ms. Stone was in possession of the actual bill. That is the substantive difference between this and all the other cases where a breach of privilege was in fact found by PROC. Again, I simply want to make that very clear. That is the distinction and that is why the government is voting against this.

Yes, it's not appropriate behaviour, but not a breach of privilege.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Schmale.

[Jamie Schmale, Conservative, Haliburton—Kawartha Lakes—Brock, ON]

Mr. Chan, I understand your point, but I would also argue that somebody was discussing that. It was clear in that quote you just gave: “according to the source”. Somebody was discussing. Somebody was sharing that information before it was tabled in the House. I think that says it right there. That was pretty clear. That might change the minds of the members opposite.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Mr. Richards, I assume you want a roll call vote again?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I would like a recorded vote, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay. Is everyone ready?

Mr. Chan.

[Arnold Chan, Liberal, Scarborough—Agincourt, ON]

May I make a suggestion just in the interests of expediting the process?

Perhaps, Mr. Richards, you'd be willing to read all six motions and we'd simply apply the vote, but if you want to do it one at a time, it's in your hands.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I would like a recorded vote on this motion, and then we'll move to the next motion, Mr. Chair.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The motion is defeated.

Would you like to read your next motion, Mr. Richards?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

The next motion would be:

That the Procedure and House Affairs committee invite the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons to appear to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)”.

To speak very briefly to it, Mr. Chair, I've listened to the arguments being made by the government today and in previous meetings. To me, it just seems like an attempt to make some kind of cover for the fact that they are not wanting to have.... It was made quite clear to us that there were other people who had access to this.

We called the Minister of Justice and were able to clear up the clouds over her head. Obviously, in this case of the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, when we're talking about legislation being tabled, that's often a department that would have access to the legislation. Give them the opportunity to come in and to clear the names of the government House leader at the time and those in the government House leader's office. Give them the opportunity to clear those names and clear up the clouds hanging over their heads.

Again, we can always hope that the government members will choose to have the words of their whip match the actions of their government to do everything they can to ensure this won't happen again.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Just for clarification, Mr. Richards, because this motion was done some time ago, I assume you're referring to the House leader at the time the motion was presented.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

I think that would probably be the most appropriate, yes.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Okay.

Is everyone ready for the vote?

Do you want a roll call vote?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes, please.

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

The motion is defeated. Would you like to read your next motion, Mr. Richards?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Yes. Thanks, Mr. Chair.

The next motion would be:

That the Procedure and House Affairs committee invite the Director of Communications to the Prime Minister to appear to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14, (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)”.

Again, Mr. Chair, I will remind members.... I know there was some objection to calling officials from the Prime Minister's Office. If that's their only objection, I certainly would be willing to call the Prime Minister himself, if that's something they would prefer, but someone should be held accountable.

When the Minister of Justice was here, it was made clear several times in her remarks that, as she indicated, people in the Prime Minister's Office had access to this piece of legislation. If there was in fact a leak of what was in the bill or key themes that were not going to be in the bill, which would both require knowledge of the bill, this may have been a very likely source. The communications department in the Prime Minister's Office would be a likely source. That is why we would move to call the director of communications.

Again, if the government feels more comfortable with the elected officials having accountability, we'd be happy to make a motion to move that the Prime Minister himself come before the committee, but we felt that this was an appropriate way to deal with it. We certainly hope that, given what I think is now their fourth opportunity to have the actions match the words, Mr. Chair, the government members will choose to, on their fourth opportunity, vote to see the opportunity for accountability and transparency on the part of their government.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you, Mr. Richards.

Mr. Clerk, will you call the roll for a recorded vote?

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

The motion is defeated.

Mr. Richards, would you like to read your next one?

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Chair, I will move:

That the Procedure and House Affairs committee invite the Chief of Staff to the Prime Minister to appear to answer all questions related to its study on the question of privilege related to “the matter of the premature disclosure of the contents of Bill C-14 (An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying)”.

This is simply an opportunity. We're going to give the government members a fifth opportunity today to try to demonstrate some kind of accountability, some kind of transparency on the part of their government. It was made very clear that the Prime Minister's office did have access to the contents of legislation when the leaks were made about what was or wasn't in the bill. That knowledge would have existed, and this is an opportunity for the chief of staff of the Prime Minister to answer on behalf of the Prime Minister's office as to whether the Prime Minister's office was the source of the leaks and what they had done to try to take steps to ensure this does not happen again.

It's a very troubling pattern in this government of words not matching their actions. We've seen that on a number of occasions, too numerous to even begin to count. It's a very sad record that they have in this regard, Mr. Chair, and also in terms of their accountability or transparency. We've seen these limo rides by the Minister of Health. We've seen the exorbitant moving costs, these cash payments being made. After being caught, they started paying back portions of it.

There's a really troubling pattern in this government of a sense of entitlement, of a lack of accountability and a lack of transparency, and this just seems to fit with that pattern. I really hope that government members, given their fifth opportunity today to be accountable, to be transparent to the Canadian public, will choose to stand up and show that they are serious about this matter.

[The Chair, Liberal, Larry Bagnell]

Thank you.

Would the clerk call a roll call vote please?

(Motion negatived: nays 5; yeas 4)

Mr. Clerk, are those all the motions we have before us?

Do I have a sense, so as to not inspire more debate, that there is a general consensus that nothing more needs to be done on this?

Mr. Richards.

[Blake Richards, Conservative, Banff—Airdrie, AB]

Mr. Chair, no, I would certainly not say there is a consensus for that in any way. I think that I can speak on behalf of my colleagues here in the official opposition that we, as the official opposition, believe the words that were used by the chief government whip that we must do everything we can to ensure that this kind of a leak does not happen again, that the government must take this seriously.

I think it's quite clear in our attempts, in our efforts, to try to make sure that we do our job, do it with its proper due diligence, and ensure that the government is held accountable and is able to have an opportunity to be transparent, that those who have these clouds now hanging over their heads, thanks to the actions of the.... I'm sure it's no fault of the individuals here today. I'm sure they were given their direction as to how to vote. That's unfortunate. Now with these clouds hanging over the heads of the Prime Minister and his office, there are also clouds hanging over the Minister of Health.

Certainly I'm sure Canadians, based on the pattern of what they've seen and what they've seen today, will have all kinds of questions about the lack of accountability and the lack of transparency being displayed by this government. We're simply hoping there would be an opportunity for that to be cleared up and for there to be some light shed on this for Canadians. It's quite clear that's not the intention of this government, and that's very unfortunate but, no, there certainly isn't consensus that nothing further needs to be done here.

I will make it very clear that we, as the opposition, believe that we need to do our job and ensure the opportunity for accountability and transparency.