Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege regarding 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) introduced earlier today.
On the same day the bill was put on notice, details of the bill were reported in The Globe and Mail. The article begins:
The Liberal government is set to introduce its much-anticipated physician-assisted-dying law on Thursday, a bill that will exclude those who only experience mental suffering, such as people with psychiatric conditions, according to a source familiar with the legislation.
This is not a case of journalistic speculation. The reporter identified someone in the know who provided to her specifics of the bill. The journalist continues to refer to this source later in the article:
The bill also won’t allow for advance consent, a request to end one’s life in the future, for those suffering with debilitating conditions such as dementia. In addition, there will be no exceptions for “mature minors” who have not yet reached 18 but wish to end their own lives.
Those three issues, however, will be alluded to in the legislation for further study, according to the source, who is not authorized to speak publicly about the bill.
These are very specific elements of the legislation. The CBC The National gave similar details last night, and it too referenced sources.
Now that Bill C-14 has been introduced and we now know the details, we also know that those details were reported in The Globe and Mail and elsewhere in the media prior to its introduction.
On March 19, 2001, the Speaker ruled on a question of privilege regarding an incident whereby the media was briefed on a justice bill, Bill C-15, before members of Parliament. The Speaker indicated that there were two important issues in that case: the matter of the embargoed briefing to the media and the issue of members' access to information required to fulfill their duties.
In his ruling, the Speaker said:
In preparing legislation, the government may wish to hold extensive consultations and such consultations may be held entirely at the government’s discretion. However, with respect to material to be placed before parliament, the House must take precedence....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 rule which the House plays and must play in the legislative affairs of the nation. To deny...information concerning business that is about to come before the House, while at the same time providing such information to media that will likely be questioning members about that business, is a situation that the Chair cannot condone.
That matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. The committee concluded:
...the protocol of the Department of Justice whereby no briefings or briefing materials should be provided with respect to a bill on notice until its introduction in the House of Commons should be adopted as a standard policy by all government departments. We believe that such a policy is respectful of the House of Commons and its Members. It recognizes the legislative role of Parliament, and is consistent with parliamentary privilege and the conventions of Parliament.
The committee went on to say:
This incident highlights a concern shared by all members of the Committee: apparent departmental ignorance of or disrespect for the role of House of Commons and its Members. Even if the result is unintended, the House should not tolerate such ignorance within the government administration to undermine the perception of Parliament’s constitutional role in legislating. The rights of the House and its Members in this role are central to our constitutional and democratic government.
On October 15, 2001, the content of another justice bill, Bill C-36 was leaked to the media. The Liberal government House leader at the time, Don Boudria, rose in his place and did, in my opinion, the right thing. He stated:
Last Friday afternoon I received a copy of Bill C-36. As is my role as Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, I do what is known as a review of the bill. I took precautions then and earlier with the minister and all of her staff to ensure that the bill was not in any way given to the media or otherwise. I was given that assurance by everyone I spoke to.
On Saturday I saw extracts from the bill in the media. They were not all factually correct but enough of them were that it caused me to be as concerned as the hon. member when raising this question in the House.
I cannot say much more other than to apologize on behalf of whoever is guilty of this. I use the word guilty because that is what comes to mind, given the respect that I have for this institution. Anyone who breaches that respect is guilty of an offence in my book. The problem is that we do not know who it is.
The situation here before us is identical. We do not know who leaked the contents of the bill. The article refers to "a source familiar with the legislation”.
On the same day that the question of privilege was raised, the Speaker ruled and said:
I have to say at once this appears to be similar to the issue raised earlier before me with respect to Bill C-15. In my opinion it appears that there has been again a breach of the privileges of the House in relation to this piece of legislation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg—Transcona in his remarks tried to assist the Chair by suggesting that it was for the Chair to investigate the matter and come up with the name of the culprit and so on. I respect his opinion of course in all matters, but in this matter I think his view is perhaps wrong. There is a body that is well equipped to commit acts of inquisition, and that is the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs....
Accordingly, in my view this is a matter which ought to be sent to the committee.
In my opinion, we clearly have a breach of privilege. The contents of Bill C-14 were leaked to The Globe and Mail and perhaps others, and we do not know who the culprit is.
We in the opposition are very concerned about this dismissive view of the role of the House. I trust that members of the government are equally concerned and would want to get to the bottom of it, as Mr. Boudria did in 2001.
I have no doubt, Mr. Speaker, that you too would be concerned, and that is why I ask that you do as your predecessors have done and refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.
In conclusion, if you would permit me to speculate here for a moment, Mr. Speaker, I suspect that Mr. Boudria had the usual struggles that House leaders and their staff have with ministers' communication directors who like to preposition the government's message on a bill. However, they did not understand the role that the House played then, and perhaps they do not now, but members of Parliament certainly do. I do not think any member, regardless of what side of the House he or she sits on, wants to have their independence taken over by staff in ministers' or departmental offices.
