Question of privilege concerning budget documents

[ Table of Contents ] The Speaker : I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised on November 5 by the member for Joliette—Manawan concerning budget documents distributed to members. In his intervention, the member alleged that due to differences between the paper version of the budget distributed to members on November 4, 2025 at both the lock-up held behind closed doors and during the sitting of the House, and the electronic PDF version available on the website of the Department of Finance, members had not had equal access to information on budgetary policy. This, he argued, undermined the ability of members—particularly opposition members—to analyze government measures, prepare for debate, and hold the government to account. The member noted that the electronic PDF version of the document contained more information than the paper version distributed to members. He further argued that members attending the budget lock-up earlier in the day were informed that the electronic version was official and complete, while others who did not attend the lock-up, only discovered this afterward. He concluded by suggesting that this resulted in members being impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties and asked the Speaker to consider this a prima facie breach of privilege. [ English ] The deputy House leader of the government in the House of Commons countered that it is the budget document tabled by the minister in the House on November 4, 2025, that constitutes the official government policy and confirmed that the document was indeed complete. She commented that past Speakers' rulings clarify that budget lock-ups are not proceedings of Parliament. She concluded by affirming the government's commitment to ensuring that members receive the budget information they need, in the format of their preference, to fulfill their parliamentary functions. What primarily concerns the Chair in this situation is therefore whether the proper tabling procedures were followed and if information was intentionally withheld from members. In a ruling on alleged misleading budget documents, Speaker Sauvé stated clearly on April 26, 1983, at page 24867 of the Debates: Ministers, and not the Chair, are responsible for anything they might table concerning the administrative responsibilities of the Government. The Chair is competent to determine whether or not the tabling procedure observed is correct. It is not responsible for the content of the documents themselves. [ Translation ] At the time designated for the budget presentation, the minister moved the usual motion, tabled a series of ways and means motions, and tabled a paper copy of what constitutes the official version of the budget document. To this end, the Chair is satisfied that the proper procedures were followed. The member noted that the hard copy he received does not contain all the information found in the electronic version. The Chair agrees that fulsome budgetary information should be available to members, so that they can more easily conduct their analysis of the government’s policy. That said, it is always possible that more extensive information can be found in other sources, even if these are not tabled in the House. The Chair must examine this matter through the lens of the high threshold for adjudicating questions of privilege, and, in the present case, no contradictory information seems to have been deliberately provided, and no information seems to have been intentionally withheld. [ English ] Accordingly, the Chair concludes that the member has not been impeded in the discharge of his duties and, therefore, does not find this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. The Chair welcomes the interpretation provided by the deputy government House leader that the official and complete budgetary document was the one tabled by the minister . That being said, the Chair wishes to express concern with the idea that the electronic PDF version of the document might be seen by others as the official and complete version of the budget or, as is indicated in the version available online, that, “In case of discrepancy between the printed version and the electronic version, the electronic version will prevail.” From the Chair's point of view, the authoritative version of the budget remains the one tabled in the House, not the one published on the department's website. I thank all members for their attention.