Again, in the material you received I would draw your attention to the reference to the Speaker's ruling of November 5, 2009. That one is of interest given what you've just said. In that case the Speaker found there was no prima facie case of privilege since—and I'm paraphrasing here—the minister had assured the House that no details of the measures being proposed in the bill were publicly disclosed, and only the broad terms of the policy initiative contained in the bill had been.
That gives you an idea of the kinds of things the Speaker might look at. That's one example.