Yes, sorry, I'm addressing the motion.
This is the first time I've seen the media story, but it seems pretty obvious from reading this that the reporter talked to someone who was in the room during the discussion. So I take Bill's point, which is that if you're going to ask people whether or not they leaked it.... I mean, the report was sent to our offices. My office received a copy of the report last week. Unless the reporter is fabricating some of this, it's obvious that they've talked to someone who was in the room. So I just want to point that out as being relevant information.
The second thing is I think that documents go out the back door lots of places, lots of times. I appreciate that, but I think the first layer of investigation obviously would be the people who were in the room at the time the conversation took place. The minister wasn't in the room. The bureaucrats weren't in the room. Unless the reporter made this up, someone who was in the room--it could be physically--had to talk to this reporter. Some of the quotes here are very specific about the conversation that took place, as opposed to being about the document. I had a copy of the document, obviously, so I guess I'm a suspect for having given it to the media, but I wasn't in the room at the time, so I couldn't speak about what the debate was on the report.
I'm not saying that departments never leak stuff. All I'm saying is that when you look at the facts here, the reasonable place to start the investigation is with the people who were actually in the room at the time, not with committee members who were not in the room, or, quite frankly, not with ministerial or departmental staff. I just think that's a logical point from which to approach this issue.