Mr. Speaker, finally, on June 16, 2022, the Chair clarified that establishing a proven leak is not necessary: The reasonable appearance of early third-party access may be enough to establish a prima facie breach. I respectfully submit that the facts before us meet that very threshold. The chronology of events leads us to believe that parliamentarians' rights have been violated.
On April 8, 2026, Air Canada publicly announced the implementation of a new arbitration mechanism intended to expedite the processing of user complaints. In its economic statement on April 28, 2026, the government signalled its intention to reform precisely this type of mechanism. On May 6, 2026, the government tabled Bill C-31, which contains provisions directly related to these changes.
This series of events raises serious questions. How could a regulated entity not only have anticipated but also operationalized a mechanism aligned with legislative intentions which, at the time, had not been shared with Parliament or even made public by the government?
Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I am sure you will agree that this cannot be a mere coincidence or a random or uncertain interpretation. The facts and the sequence in which they occurred line up perfectly. First, Air Canada announced its initiative. Second, the government made an announcement 20 days later in its economic statement and third, the government tabled Bill C-31.
This situation echoes concerns raised in previous Speaker's rulings, namely, the actual or perceived granting of an informational advantage to a third party to the detriment of members of Parliament. As Speaker Scheer stated on March 3, 2014, members must be the first to see new legislation.
However, in this case, not only were members not the first to be informed, but specific action was taken outside the House before the government even disclosed the existence of this legislation. That raises not only the possibility of premature disclosure but also the reasonable perception that an external party was given privileged access to legislative content, which, according to the practices of the House, is sufficient to establish a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege.
Mr. Speaker, I submit that it is not for the Chair to determine whether a leak occurred or to identify the source. The question is more limited: Does the evidence presented and documented support a finding of a potential breach of the privileges of the House? I would suggest that, in this case, the answer is obvious.
The sequence of events, the nature of the facts and the alignment between Air Canada's actions and the government's subsequent legislation raise, at the very least, a serious issue requiring careful examination, particularly since, according to the lobbyist registry, there were over 100 meetings between Air Canada representatives and government officials, among others.
In these circumstances, in keeping with established practice, I ask that you find that this matter constitutes a prima facie question of privilege. If necessary, I am prepared to move an appropriate motion that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for consideration.