SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 298

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 11, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24
The Speaker
  • Apr/11/24 3:11:12 p.m.
  • Watch
I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on February 26, 2024, by the House leader of the official opposition, concerning the alleged premature disclosure of Bill C-63, an act to enact the online harms act, to amend the Criminal Code, the Canadian Human Rights Act and an act respecting the mandatory reporting of Internet child pornography by persons who provide an Internet service and to make consequential and related amendments to other acts. The opposition House leader claimed that the bill's contents had been leaked to the media, as evidenced in two separate reports from CBC and CTV News. Pointing to the anonymous quotes in the news reports, he concluded his remarks by positing that the information was leaked intentionally, knowing that it was wrong. In doing so, it breached the rights of members of Parliament and the House. For his part, the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader countered that the envisioned legislation's objectives were widely known and already in the public domain long before the bill was placed on notice and introduced, given the government's prior commitments and extensive public consultations. Furthermore, the parliamentary secretary emphatically rejected the allegations that the government had shared the bill before it was introduced. The House leader of the official opposition is correct in asserting that there are abundant precedents that once a bill is placed on notice, its contents are not to be disclosed prior to introduction, thus ensuring that members have the first opportunity to take note of the bill. The premature disclosure of bills has usually been seen as a contempt of the House. I will invite MPs to please take their conversations outside of the House, including the member for Scarborough—Guildwood. In a ruling on October 4, 2010, which can be found at page 4711 of the Debates, Speaker Milliken stated, and I quote: It is indisputable that it is a well-established practice and accepted convention that this House has the right of first access to the text of bills it will consider. On the substantive matter raised in this question of privilege, as members know, the policy direction leading to a government bill is not typically developed in the strict isolation of a government department. Prior to the putting on notice and introduction of most modern legislation, extensive consultations and public debate frequently occur for months or even years. Past precedents from the Chair address this reality, and Bill C-63 seems to be another example of that pattern. On June 8, 2017, Speaker Regan emphasized the need for balance between members' right to have the first opportunity to see the bill and the need for prior public consultation. He said, at page 12320 of the Debates: The right of the House to first access to legislation is one of our oldest conventions. It does and must, however, coexist with the need of governments to consult widely, with the public and stakeholders alike, on issues and policies in the preparation of legislation. In the same ruling, Speaker Regan indicated that the denial of a premature disclosure of the bill by the government, and the absence of evidence that members were impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties, had led him to find that the matter was not a prima facie case of privilege. Having reviewed the contents of the bill against what was reported in the media, and considering the assurance given by the parliamentary secretary that the government did not share the text of the bill between its placement on notice and its introduction, it cannot be determined that the information that appeared in the news media necessarily came from a premature disclosure of the bill by so-called senior government sources. The title of the bill, combined with the various sources of information mentioned above, such as background information provided during the consultation process, could have easily informed as to the specific objectives of the bill. There is a plausible argument to be made that the scope, objectives and targets of the bill were known prior to its being placed on notice and introduced. Not being able to say with certainty that the information in the media reports came from the bill itself, I cannot determine that any member was impeded in the carrying out of their parliamentary duties, or that the dignity of the House was transgressed. As such, the Chair cannot find that there is a prima facie question of privilege. That being said, the Chair shares the members' concerns when detailed information on proposed legislation, whether accurate or not, appears in media stories prior to their introduction. It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to— Order. I am going to remind all members that one of the fundamental rules of being a member and being a Speaker in this House is that members are not to question or to insult the Speaker, unless they are doing it through a motion which would call into question the Speaker's role. I would like to remind all members about this fundamental rule. I know that I have had some conversations with members in the past about this. I will continue. It casts doubt on the role and predominance of Parliament in the legislative process and may lead to understandable frustration. I thank all members for their attention.
908 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • Apr/11/24 4:54:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not on the same point of order, but I am glad the government is making amends. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford submitted those questions in good faith, and I am glad we will be getting the information Canadians require. I thank the parliamentary secretary for doing the right thing, making amends and apologizing for the lack of information around subsidies going to Loblaws and some of the other grocery chains that have been guilty of food price gouging. I am actually rising on another point of order, and that is the matter of privilege brought forward by the member for La Prairie concerning the convention of budgetary secrecy. The principle of budgetary secrecy is an important one, as leaks and premature disclosure sometimes have unintended and, in some cases, market-moving impacts. Despite this, we know that governments of all stripes, both Conservative and Liberal, have been known to use selected and targeted pre-budget leaks to their advantage as a way to control the narrative leading up to the budget. They love to point fingers at each other, but they both do this. There is no doubt that this is done for their political advantage; otherwise, they would not do it. While a number of Speaker's rulings have found no breach and, to date, no Speaker has wanted to put an end to this practice, the fact that it has been raised as a matter continuously for many years means that it merits review on the Speaker's behalf. Let us not forget the time former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty decided to give a fiscal update not to the House of Commons but to a private audience of financial professionals. The House of Commons is the purview of elected members, who have been chosen by Canadians to represent them; however, he did not present the update here. The Speaker of the House at the time was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who found in favour of the government. In his ruling, he cited as precedent a decision by Speaker Milliken, which was also made as a consequence of the Conservative finance minister's actions. The example at that time was the government's decision to release a report on the economic action plan at a media event in Saint John rather than here in Parliament. The Speaker's ruling of October 5, 2009, included the following: It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event]. Speaker Milliken was also asked to judge an incident where specific information about the main estimates was published in a newspaper article, as well as a blog and Twitter. On March 22, 2011, he ruled: The member argued that the Speaker had ruled on a number of occasions that the House had an absolute right to expect the government to provide information, whether on a bill or on the estimates, to the House before it was disclosed elsewhere. For him, it was a matter of being able to respond, as a member of Parliament, to enquiries in a meaningful and intelligent way. In his response, the President of the Treasury Board admitted that the untimely release of the material in question was improper and not in keeping with past procedures and practices of this House. Furthermore, he committed to taking steps to prevent it from happening again. The minister went on to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 894, thus quite rightly pointing out that, in the past, similar matters, namely of budget secrecy, have been treated more as matters of parliamentary convention rather than matters of privilege. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is certainly not misguided in his expectation that members of the House, individually and collectively, must receive from the government particular types of information required for the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties before it is shared elsewhere. However, in such instances when there is a transgression of this well-established practice, the Chair must ascertain whether, as a result, the member was impeded in the performance of parliamentary duties. Simply put, I agree with the member for La Prairie. These practices that we saw under the Conservatives and are now seeing under the Liberals have to change. This practice of disclosing all the budget information must change. We should align these budget practices more and more with House of Commons procedure and privilege. I hope that my intervention will help the Chair make a ruling on the intervention of the member for La Prairie.
795 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border