Madam Speaker, I would like to provide a response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Niagara Falls on April 17 with respect to the alleged premature disclosure of the content of Bill C-75.
My hon. colleague, in his statement, argued that the right of the House to first access to the text of the bill had been infringed. Our government takes these allegations, and the Speaker's recent decisions on related matters, very seriously.
I would argue that the matter before us today does not meet the requirements to be considered a prima facie breach of privilege. In fact, there was no premature disclosure of the bill.
On the subject of the confidentiality of a bill, the Speaker previously stated in his April 19, 2016, decision that:
....the House cannot allow precise legislative information to be distributed to others before it has been made accessible to all members.
This statement echoes the decisions of previous Speakers, such as Speaker Milliken's October 4, 2010, decision, which stated:
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.
Speaker Milliken also stated, in his November 1, 2006, decision, that:
The key procedural point....is that once a bill has been placed on notice, it must remain confidential until introduced in the House.
Again, I reiterate that all the rules have been complied with. In the present case, the article that the hon. opposition member referred to was published after the bill was tabled in the House.
At the core of the current debate lies the concept of parliamentary privilege. Matters of privilege and contempt can be broadly defined as: (1) anything improperly interfering with the parliamentary work of a Member of Parliament; or (2) an offence against the authority of the House.
The situation brought forward by the hon. member for Niagara Falls does not fit any of these categories, as no individual MP has been impeded, and there has not been any offence against the authority of the House.
Failing to see how anyone's right have been compromised or infringed, I would respectfully submit that this matter does not constitute a prima facie question of privilege.