Madam Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning the proceedings of yesterday's budget lock-up and the budget documents that were distributed to members of Parliament.
It turns out that members of Parliament who consulted the budget in paper format only, as distributed by the government during the lock-up and during the government's economic statement at the end of the day, did not receive all the information in the government's new budget policy. In fact, we have found that the PDF version, in other words, the electronic version, is 559 pages long, while the paper version is more than a hundred pages shorter at 448 pages.
It is also worth raising the issue of fairness in accessing the budget information, since some members who participated in the lock-up were informed by the government that the PDF document was the official and complete version of the budget, while others received this information only after the lock-up.
Worse still, members who received only the paper copy, just before attending the House sitting on the economic statement, were never informed that the paper copy did not contain the full and complete version of the budget. That raises serious concerns, especially since this was the version that most members received.
This situation not only shows how blatantly unprepared the government was, but, in our opinion, it also violates the right of all members to full and fair information and could obstruct members in the performance of their parliamentary duties.
It should be noted that not all members are authorized to take part in budget lock-ups and that only a limited number of people from each political party are allowed to attend.
In our opinion, if the paper copy was missing pages or incomplete information on the government's budgetary policy was distributed, this could compromise the ability of members who received the incomplete version to understand and analyze all of the budget measures and to prepare for debates.
I would like to draw the Chair's attention to the fact that lock-ups give the other parties' critics and economic experts a chance to review all of the government's budget measures. However, failing to provide information in a fair manner, so that all members can have access to the full and complete facts, infringes on members' right to have all the information concerning government affairs. This is essential, particularly when the elected government is a minority government.
Members of the opposition parties must have access to all the information in order to do their job and hold the government accountable on behalf of their constituents.
It is also important to note that not having all the information could, in certain circumstances, mislead members.
On this issue, Bosc and Gagnon point out, in the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, that parliamentary privilege protects members from any interference with their ability to perform their duties. On page 116, they state that misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House.
Parliament's right to obtain the fullest information possible on matters of public interest is indisputable. The issue here concerns the importance of the right of members of Parliament to have access to accurate and complete documents in order to exercise their responsibility to hold the government to account.
A ruling by Speaker Regan on March 27, 2018, published in the Debates of the House of Commons at pages 18134 and 18135, appears to recognize that principle. In that ruling, the Speaker referred to a ruling by his predecessor, at page 13868 of the Debates, and emphasized that “access to accurate and timely information is an essential cornerstone of our parliamentary system”. The Speaker went on to say:
There is not only great truth but also great power in these few words, for they represent a right that is integral to the health of our democracy. They also explain, to some extent, why members take seriously the need to defend their right to access timely and accurate information in order to fulfill their parliamentary duties, particularly their role of holding the government to account.
I therefore ask the Chair to determine whether, in the case before us, there is a prima facie case to find that members who were not informed that the paper documents they received were incomplete have been impeded in the performance of their parliamentary duties and whether there is a prima facie breach of their parliamentary privilege.
If so, I can move the appropriate motion to have the matter studied by the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs.