Mr. Speaker, I want to say that this matter is obviously of concern to the NDP as well. We do think that there are other cases not cited by the member that support the idea that the media should not be getting sneak peeks at legislation. We know, for instance, in the case of the report on Monday night, that members could be asked anytime before or after the media have that information to comment, and not having seen the legislation, we would not be in a position to do so.
I want to raise a case from March 14, 2001. A question of privilege was raised regarding a briefing the Department of Justice held for members of the media on a bill not yet introduced in the House, while denying members access to the same information.
Speaker Milliken ruled that the provision of information concerning legislation to the media without effective measures to secure the rights of the House constituted a prima facie case of contempt.
The matter was referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs. In its 14th report presented to the House on May 9, 2001, the committee found that the privileges of the House and of its members had been breached: “This case should serve as a warning that our House will insist on the full recognition of its constitutional function and historic privileges across the full spectrum of government.”
However, the committee did not recommend any sanctions at that time, in light of the apology of the Minister of Justice and the corrective actions that were being taken to ensure such events did not reoccur—presumably, actions that we would like to see sustained.
The ruling said, at that time, “To deny Members 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. Even if no documents were given out at the briefing—” and I think this is important to underline to you, Mr. Speaker, “...it is undisputed that confidential information about the Bill was provided. While it may have been the intention to embargo that information as an essential safeguard of the rights of this House, the evidence would indicate that no effective embargo occurred.”
There are at least some important similarities between those two prima facie cases, Mr. Speaker, so I would encourage you to consider that ruling of Speaker Milliken when you are considering this issue.