I would take up Mr. Schmale's invitation to look at the specific article in question, because I have it in front of me, so I'll read it into the record. What I think is the basis of difference is the first three paragraphs of this particular article that was written by Laura Stone, dated April 12, 2016, and posted at 9:31 p.m. It reads:
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. 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.
I get the point that when someone is not authorized to speak publicly about a piece of legislation about to be introduced in the House.... It's something that we don't condone. We don't condone it, but again, nothing in this article—if you read the rest of the article—suggests that Ms. Stone was in possession of the actual bill. That is the substantive difference between this and all the other cases where a breach of privilege was in fact found by PROC. Again, I simply want to make that very clear. That is the distinction and that is why the government is voting against this.
Yes, it's not appropriate behaviour, but not a breach of privilege.