TranslatePolitics.ca

Recent debates

8 latest topics

06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 57 statements 06-18 Spring Economic Update 2026 Implementation Act 19 statements 06-18 Arab Heritage Month Act 5 statements 06-18 The Economy 15 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Government Priorities 2 statements 06-18 Housing 12 statements 06-18 The Environment 2 statements

Government Orders

Privilege

2026-05-25 Sitting 121 Showing 1–4 of 4

The debate was about a potential breach of privilege regarding leaks of government legislation to the media before being presented in the House. Members discussed whether this premature disclosure impaired MPs' ability to properly review and debate legislation. The Bloc raised the issue, while the Liberals and Conservatives indicated they may respond later.

Official Hansard ↗

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois 3:30 p.m.

“I want to make a procedural complaint about documents being leaked.”

Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege concerning a breach of the collective rights and privileges of members in the House, specifically the fundamental right of members and the House to be informed first about government legislation. The Speaker has consistently ruled that premature disclosure of a bill and its elements to third parties can constitute a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege. This principle has been confirmed on several occasions in rulings rendered by various Speakers of the House, notably on March 19, 2001, March 9, 2011, and December 3, 2012. More recently, on April 10, 2019, Speaker Regan reiterated that disclosing legislative information outside the House before it is introduced in the House undermines the fundamental role of parliamentarians, which is to legislate. On November 29, 2021, Speaker Rota confirmed that such disclosures, even partial ones, may constitute a violation of the collective privileges of the House. Finally—

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Xavier Barsalou-Duval

Bloc Québécois 3:35 p.m.

“I think there's something fishy going on. It looks like Air Canada knew what was in the government's bill before we did. That's not allowed. The government should answer for it. I want a committee to look into this.”

Official Hansard

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.

View on ourcommons.ca ↗

Hon. Kevin Lamoureux

Liberal 3:35 p.m.

“I'm not going to give a real answer right now. We'll say something later.”

Luc Berthold

Conservative 3:35 p.m.

“I'm not going to give a real answer either. Maybe we'll say something later too.”

What they said. What they meant.

Recent debates