Parliamentary Privilege / Rights of the House

Contempt of the House: alleged disclosure of the text of a bill prior to its introduction in the House

April 18, 2013

Debates, p. 15610

On April 17, 2013, Mauril Bélanger (Ottawa—Vanier) rose on a question of privilege concerning the possible disclosure of the text of a government bill on the Notice Paper.^[1] Mr. Bélanger stated that a news report published by The Globe and Mail that day suggested that Members of the Conservative caucus may have been provided the text of electoral reform legislation that had yet to be introduced in the House of Commons. Craig Scott (Toronto—Danforth) added that the premature disclosure of the text of a bill was a contempt of the House and a breach of privilege, stating that the House has the right of first access to the text of bills. Peter Van Loan (Leader of the Government in the House of Commons) stated that no draft copies had been provided to the Conservative caucus and that the allegations were hearsay and not supported by facts. The Speaker took the matter under advisement.^[2]

Resolution

On April 18, 2013, the Speaker delivered his ruling. He stated that the concerns expressed by Mr. Bélanger and Mr. Scott seemed to be based more on conjecture and supposition. Furthermore, in light of the assurances of the Government House Leader that no copies, sections, or excerpts of the bill had been made available at the caucus meeting, the Speaker did not find that a prima facie case of privilege existed.

Decision of the Chair

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.

Postscript

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.