ENGLISH VERSION

Check against delivery

RULING ON THE QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

RAISED ON APRIL 14, 2016,
BY THE MEMBER FOR REGINAQUAPPELLE
(MR. SCHEER) CONCERNING THE PREMATURE DISCLOSURE OF
THE CONTENTS OF BILL C-14, AN ACT TO AMEND THE CRIMINAL
CODE AND TO MAKE RELATED AMENDMENTS TO OTHER ACTS
(MEDICAL ASSISTANCE IN DYING)

April 19, 2016

I am now prepared to rule on the question of privilege raised on April

14, 2016 and again yesterday, by the House Leader of the Official
Opposition (Mr. Scheer) concerning the premature disclosure of the
contents of Bill C-14, An Act to amend the Criminal Code and to make
related amendments to other Acts (medical assistance in dying).
I would like to thank the House Leader of the Official Opposition for
having raised this matter, as well as the Chief Government Whip
(Mr. Leslie) and the hon. Member for New WestminsterBurnaby
(Mr. Julian) for their submissions.
In presenting his case, the House Leader of the Official Opposition
pointed out that specific and detailed information contained in Bill C-14 was
reported in a newspaper article and elsewhere in the media before the Bill
had been introduced in the House. In describing the seriousness of this
matter, which he considered to be a breach of Members privileges, he
stressed the need for Members to access information in order to fulfill their
parliamentary duties, as well as the respect required for the essential role
of the House in legislative matters.
In response, the Chief Government Whip, acknowledging the
problem, stated that (quote) the government takes any breach of the
privilege of Members and of the House very seriously (unquote). He then
noted that such a premature divulgation of the Bills contents had not been
authorized and apologized unreservedly, committing to ensure that it would
not happen again.
This being the first question of privilege to be raised in this
Parliament, I want to take this opportunity to inform Members of the role of
the Speaker in this regard, particularly as it is a narrowly defined role. As
House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, states at
page 141:
(quote) Great importance is attached to matters involving privilege. A
Member wishing to raise a question of privilege in the House must
first convince the Speaker that his or her concern is prima facie (on
the first impression or at first glance) a question of privilege. The
function of the Speaker is limited to deciding whether the matter is of
such a character as to entitle the Member who has raised the
question to move a motion which will have priority over Orders of the
Day; that is, in the Speakers opinion, there is a prima facie question

of privilege. If there is, the House must take the matter into
immediate consideration. Ultimately, it is the House which decides
whether a breach of privilege or a contempt has been committed.
(unquote)
In adjudicating questions of privilege, the Speaker carefully considers
the effect that the alleged breach has on Members ability to function. At
page 145 of OBrien and Bosc, it states:
(quote) In deliberating upon a question of privilege, the Chair will
take into account the extent to which the matter complained of
infringed upon any Members ability to perform his or her
parliamentary functions or appears to be a contempt against the
dignity of Parliament. (unquote)
As honourable Members know, one of my most important
responsibilities as Speaker is to safeguard the rights and privileges of
Members, individually and collectively. Central to the matter before us
today is the fact that, due to its preeminent role in the legislative process,
the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to
others before it has been made accessible to all Members. Previous
Speakers have regularly upheld not only this fundamental right, but also
expectation, of the House. On October 4, 2010, on page 4711 of the
Debates, Speaker Milliken noted:
(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 that it will consider. (unquote)
This important convention exists so that Members can properly
exercise their functions as legislators. Speaker Milliken saw fit to reiterate
it in that particular case even though in those unique circumstances the
Member admitted to having herself prematurely released the contents of
her own Private Members Bill, so no doubt existed as to the provenance of
the leak he chose not to rule that the incident constituted a prima facie
case of privilege.
It is within this context, that I, as Speaker, must review each case on
its own merits. Having done so, the facts are clear and undisputed in this
instance; detailed information regarding the contents of Bill C-14 was

indeed made available through the media before the Bill itself had been
introduced in the House. There were no arguments raised to the contrary.
As such, there was a direct contravention of the Houses right to first
access.
The Chief Government Whip has unequivocally apologized for any
breaches of confidentiality in this instance, recognizing the seriousness of
the matter; this should be reassuring to all Members. That being said, it
would appear to the Chair, at first glance, that the leaking of the Bills
contents and, thus, the pre-empting of Members access to legislative
information, has impeded the ability of Members to perform their
parliamentary functions. In a strikingly similar case, quoted by the
honourable Opposition House Leader, Speaker Milliken stated, at page
1840 of Debates of March 19, 2001:
(quote) The convention of the confidentiality of bills on notice is
necessary, not only so that members themselves may be well
informed, but also because of the pre-eminent role which the House
plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. (unquote)
He concluded by affirming that it was (quote) a situation that the Chair
cannot condone.(unquote)
In this instance, the Chair must conclude that the Houses right of first
access to legislative information was not respected. The Chair appreciates
the Chief Government Whips assertion that no one in the government was
authorized to publicly release the specific details of the bill before its
introduction. Still, it did happen, and these kinds of incidents cause grave
concern among honourable Members. I believe it is a good reason why
extra care should be taken to ensure that matters that ought properly to be
brought to the House first do not in any way get out in the public domain
prematurely.
Thus, the available precedents lead me to conclude that this incident
constitutes a prima facie question of privilege and I now invite the House
Leader of the Official Opposition to move the appropriate motion.