I want to thank Mr. Richards for his contribution to the debate. I would simply put, just for the benefit of everyone who is present, the government's response, again simply because we haven't visited this matter since last June.
To be honest, from what I'd heard from the official opposition, I haven't actually seen any new evidence that would make me change, at least in my case, my particular position with respect to the matter that's before this committee, that is, the question of whether, in fact, the actual contents of Bill C-14 were prematurely disclosed in terms of the actual substantive bill itself being in the public before it appeared before Parliament.
I would agree that it is problematic that someone would discuss the broad parameters of legislation in advance of its being tabled in the House. But, again, the distinction in what makes it a matter of privilege is that the actual bill itself is in the possession of someone prior to it being tabled in the House. To date, there still remains absolutely no evidence before this committee that that actually took place. That is the distinguishing point from previous cases of privilege where it was established that there was in fact a breach of members' privileges. That is the distinction that exists in this particular case. We simply do not have the evidence before us that the bill was, in fact, in the hands of this reporter from The Globe and Mail before it was tabled in the House. We have a media report that there was a conversation. But that is all.
To me there is a fundamental distinction between that conversation and the actual substantive bill itself being in the possession of the reporter. On that basis, I still remain of the position that this is not a matter that constitutes a breach of privilege, and that has been the position of the government. Again, I point out that there is no specific reference in the media reports of the specific contents of the bill being quoted. Again, it's high-level information that was reported. As I said, I don't think that is a proper practice, but it does not mean that it is a breach of privilege. It remains my position that until the bill was actually tabled before the House, there was in fact no breach of members' privileges.
If my friend has something or some other evidence that he could table to suggest that was not the case, then we would be prepared to look at it, but from my perspective right now, that is not the case. And so, from my perspective, it simply remains to be nothing more than an attempt to go fishing. That's my view.
I think we are prepared, if my friend is prepared to do so, to allow his six motions to come before this committee now for a vote.