Conservative Party MP Scott Reid stood in the House of Commons yesterday and took the extraordinary step of calling Mark Holland, Marlene Jennings, and by extension, the entire Liberal Party caucus, thieves and liars.

The Speaker's response? He let it stand, and wants to hear a report from Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings.

What follows is the entire exchange. The juicy bits have been highlighted and some editorial comment from me thrown in:

Mr. Scott Reid (Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington, CPC):

Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a matter of privilege regarding something that has been in the news the last little while.

Two members of this House, the hon. member for Ajax-Pickering and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine, two days ago took several boxes of documents that they purport to have found in drawers and filing cabinets [ed: "purport": to present, esp. deliberately, the appearance of being; profess or claim, often falsely] in what were formerly the Conservative offices, then the opposition offices, and have gone through them and have found and retained what they say are documents that may be of interest to the public for future release. I can quote from their press release as to exactly what they call these documents.

At any rate, they returned a number of the documents, including personnel files. With regard to retaining them, the hon. member for Ajax-Pickering said that "the Liberal caucus is retaining possession of some of the documents to determine whether or not they contain other issues that are in the public interest". This is implying that they have gone through these files in sufficient detail to set aside some for further examination.

In addition, the hon. member for Ajax-Pickering said:

Today we're returning five years worth of personal performance appraisals of Conservative staffers that this government negligently left behind.

These are confidential documents on their own staff. Such gross ineptitude makes me nervous about how this government handles other issues of a private nature.

The documents then were boxed up and shipped down the street to the Langevin Building and the Prime Minister's Office.

The reason I rise on this is that, first of all, one of the members of the staff--and I believe there were about 30 members of the then opposition leader's staff whose personnel files were taken--of the then leader of the opposition, and before that of what was then the third party, the Reform Party, was myself [ed. By making this personal, Scott Reid is able to claim the privilege that I believe is required in order to take this to the Speaker]. It seems reasonable to assume that further assurance is needed, more than simply the word of these two MPs, that these files have been returned unopened, unexamined and were not looked at and that none of them have been distributed or shown in any way. [ed. I don't believe a word these two say, Mr Speaker, and neither should you. In other words, they lie.]

I mention this in particular because some of what has been said by these hon. members in connection with this case appears, perhaps, to be at variance with the truth. [ed. Was I not clear before? Was there any doubt? I said they lie. You can tell, because their lips are moving.] I draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, a number of indications of this.

First of all, there are the boxes. One of them contained an address label and this is clearly visible on TV footage of the boxes being transported down Wellington Street. The address label contains in the "from" area, "145 Well", or in other words, Room 145 or Suite 145, Wellington. I remember this well, of course, because I worked there for a period of time. Second, visible is "320-3", with no building indicated. That is the address of the Conservative research group on the third floor of the Wellington Building, not the building to which they were being transported.

Therefore, it is highly improbable that this sticker was attached by Liberal researchers or staff. Rather, it was probably a pre-existing label. That suggests that these documents were not in fact found in locked or unlocked drawers, cabinets and so on, but rather were actually in these boxes from the very start. That is one thing.

The second thing is that I have consulted with the individual at the Prime Minister's Office who now has possession of the boxes. It is reported to me that on the sides of the boxes, or at least on one of the boxes or perhaps several of them, are the words "Conservative files for Kev". This is a possible reference to Kevin Bosch, the lead opposition researcher who has devoted many years of his career to doing opposition research with the intention of digging up documentation that might be damaging to the parties he is opposed to. So that certainly, particularly for the Conservative Party, is a matter for concern.

[ed. The previous two paragraphs are essentially the presentation of evidence. The House of Commons is also a court of law, though it rarely functions as such. But when a member is accused, the House of Commons is where the "trial" takes place. The Speaker is now the judge.]

This puts into question the assertion that there was gross negligence on the part of the government in leaving these documents behind. It suggests, rather, that the documents were in fact boxed up to be shipped. We do not know why they were not shipped but presumably they fell into the hands of the opposition leader's office and staff a little more than a year ago at the time that the offices were being changed. [ed. Scott Reid starts to suggest that the boxes were waylaid in some way, but more significantly, that the boxes were under the control of the Liberal Party for this past year, and not just over the last few days or weeks.]

This means that if there is negligence, in that nobody noticed they were there, then that negligence would actually fall on the Leader of the Opposition and his staff [ed At best, the Liberals are guilty of stupidity for not realizing they had the wrong boxes.]. On the other hand, there is another possibility that these documents were retained with the intention of pulling out documents that were found to be potentially embarrassing and leaking them over a period of time as we get close to an election, or even in a writ campaign, and that would seem to be a robust hypothesis given the fact that certain documents were leaked and we were told that others are being saved for future consideration [ed. The most likely explanation, and the one being put forward to the House, is that the boxes were pilfered, and that it was a politically-motivated operation.].

My concern in this matter of privilege is that it is difficult for me as a member of Parliament to carry out my functions as a member of Parliament when the only assurance I have that my documentation has not been treated in such a manner is the assurance of a member of Parliament whose recount of what has happened appears on some particulars to be at variance with the facts [ed. How can I work with these people? They are liars!]. This as well may constitute a contempt of Parliament on the part of that member. [ed Contempt!]

At the very least, I would think it would be necessary to have proactive statements confirming that the personnel documents, and my personal document in particular, were treated with extreme respect and some demonstration be made of that from the hon. member for Ajax-Pickering and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine who certainly were the ones who showed the folders to the press two days ago, as well as from the hon. Leader of the Opposition and his predecessor, the interim opposition leader in whose office these documents were kept and whose staff must have had them in their possession prior to the time at which these two hon. members drew them to the attention of the media, first selectively, and then as they returned the documents. [ed. I want an apology delivered in the House from Mark Holland, from Marlene Jennings, from Bill Graham, and from Stephane Dion. But that should just be the beginning.]

I note in this regard that Maingot's Parliamentary Privilege in Canada on page 163 states:

That any act within the precincts of Parliament could constitute a matter of privilege.

He defines the precinct as the various parliamentary buildings, including the building,

--that was known, formerly the Metropolitan Life building which is now referred to as the Wellington building.

As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Wellington building is the building in which the events I have described took place and where the Leader of the Opposition's office is found and where my file was. [ed. The crime took place on the grounds under the control of the Speaker.]

Maingot also points out on page 229,

Contempt is whatever a House finds as contempt

He cites Erskine May's definition:

Any act or omission which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any Member or officer of such House in the discharge of his "parliamentary" duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly to produce such results may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.

An example of a ruling on a new contempt of Parliament, can be found on March 12, 1996, when the Speaker found a prima facie question of privilege when it was found that a member acted inappropriately after he sent out a press release inviting Quebeckers still serving in the Canadian Forces to integrate into a Quebec armed forces in the event of a yes outcome following the Quebec referendum.

While it is certainly true that the case of the members I mentioned are not identical to the 1996 case, one could argue that their actions are just inappropriate, that they destroy the atmosphere of trust and honour that are necessary to act effectively as a House and that they, therefore, are in contempt of Parliament, that it certainly is a breach of my privileges and is worthy of examination by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.

Mr. Speaker, if you find that there is a prima facie [ed: Latin phrase used to indicate that the evidence presented is sufficient to prove the case, and that the Speaker should proceed to direct the matter to committee] case of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

The Speaker:

I appreciate the work of the hon. member for Lanark-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington and I assure him that I will await response from the hon. member for Ajax-Pickering and the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grâce-Lachine. [ed. Good job, Reid. It appears that you've made your case. Holland! Jennings! What the hell?!]

I have not seen the files except in a photograph in the newspaper showing the two hon. members outside the Wellington Building wheeling a crate of files up Wellington Street, which I did recognize in the photograph. [ed. I've seen the pictures too. I'm keenly interested. And yes, it sure looks like my papers are being taken for a walk on the public thoroughfare.] Of course, I only had what words were printed under the picture as evidence as to what was on the cart. Clearly, the Chair is not in a position to give much of an opinion on this matter at this point.

However, I am sure those hon. members will come to the House in due course and explain whatever is necessary and then the Chair will be able to make a ruling as to whether there has been a question of privilege raised by the hon. member and, if so, whether a motion to refer to the matter to the committee should be permitted. I am prepared to deal with that when the hon. members come back. [ed. Explain yourselves, Holland and Jennings, because I am seriously considering giving Reid exactly what he wants.]

So what if the Speaker agrees with the interpretation of the events as laid out by Scott Reid? What if the Speaker decides an apology is not sufficient, and that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs, chaired by my local MP, Gary Goodyear, needs to investigate and the report on this matter?

Interestingly, Scott Reid and Marlene Jennings are both members of the committee. Since Reid has put forward the motion, and since Jennings is one of the accused, I would think they would recuse themselves from the Committee while it was considering the matter. That would leave the Committee with four Conservatives, three Liberals, two Bloc Quebecois, and one NDP member.

A majority report would require two votes in addition to the four Conservative votes. Assuming that the three Liberals vote against any finding of fault, it would fall on the two Bloc and the NDP members. As the BQ has been silent on the matter of these papers, and has not figured in the question of Stockwell Day and Jim Hart raised by these boxes, and apparently forgotten, I think they'd be inclined to support the Conservatives. It helps that Marlene Jennings is a Quebec-area MP, of course. Though she represents a safe Liberal riding in Montreal, any action that undermines the Liberals in Quebec has to be seen as a good thing, especially with the poor showing the the Parti Quebecois in the recent Quebec election.

But first, the Speaker wants Mark Holland and Marlene Jennings to explain themselves. That should be fun to watch.