Question of Privilege
April 18, 2013
Contempt of the House: alleged disclosure of the text of a bill prior to its introduction in the House
Hon. Andrew Scheer
Speaker of the House
Ruling Text
The Speaker:
Yesterday, the Members for Ottawa—Vanier and Toronto—Danforth both rose on a question of privilege regarding the possible premature disclosure of the contents of a Government bill prior to its introduction in the House.
Both Members referenced an article that appeared in The Globe and Mail newspaper that suggested that during the weekly Conservative Party caucus meeting, some Conservative Members had expressed concerns about how specific sections of the bill were drafted and had asked that they be rewritten. The Members for Ottawa—Vanier and Toronto—Danforth suggested that this demonstrated that the Conservative Members may have been provided with the actual text of the draft bill in question. Both Members emphasized the seriousness of the premature disclosure of bills and asked the Chair to investigate this matter.
In response, the Leader of the Government in the House assured the House that at the caucus meeting held by the Conservative Party that day, no draft copies of the bill or sections of it were circulated or displayed, nor were excerpts provided.
As Members know, it is a well-established practice that the contents of a bill are kept confidential until introduced in Parliament, thus making their premature disclosure a serious matter. However, in this case, a careful reading of the arguments presented to the Chair about what transpired reveals that the concerns expressed appear to be based more on conjecture and supposition than on actual evidence.
Furthermore, the Government House Leader has stated categorically to the House that no copies, sections or excerpts of said bill were in any way made available to those who were in attendance at the caucus meeting. In other words, he challenges the supposition being made, and he insists that there was no breach of confidentiality regarding the bill.
In light of the lack of evidence and the Minister's categorical assurances, the Chair considers the matter closed.
I thank Members for their attention.
The bill in question, Bill C-23, An Act to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts and to make consequential amendments to certain Acts, was introduced in the House on February 4, 2014..
[1]
An Act to enact the Canada Political Financing Act and to amend the Canada Elections Act and other Acts, Order Paper and Notice Paper, April 17, 2013, p. III.
[2]
Debates, April 17, 2013, pp. 15539–41.
Edit Metadata
Holding
"The Speaker found no prima facie evidence of a question of privilege, as the allegations of premature bill disclosure were based on supposition and were countered by a categorical denial from the Government House Leader."
AI Summary
The Speaker denied a question of privilege concerning the alleged premature disclosure of a bill, citing a lack of evidence and the government's categorical denial.
AI Analysis
- Outcome
- Denied
- Tone
- Neutral
- Procedural Stage
- Speaker's Ruling
- Significance
Low
High