Privilege

Bill C-40, Strengthening Canada's Defence Sector Act · Question of privilege · now at committee in the House Where it stands

The House debated a question of privilege concerning Bill C-40, a defence bill. Conservative member Gabriel Hardy argued that details of the bill were leaked to journalists before members of Parliament saw it, saying this broke the rule that members must be first to receive legislation and that the Prime Minister was withholding information. A Liberal member briefly commented during the exchange and then withdrew the remark.Written by AI from the debate. Updated .

Official text (opens in a new tab)

2 statements

Gabriel Hardy, Montmorency—Charlevoix

Conservative
“The government leaked details of a new defence bill to reporters before sharing it with this House. Our rules say elected members must be the first to see new bills. The Prime Minister is hiding information from us, and that hurts our democracy.”
Official Hansard

Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to the question of privilege raised earlier this week. Data and details from Bill C-40 were leaked. For those listening, what does that mean? Bill C-40 relates to national defence. To begin with, we should recognize that this is an important matter. However, journalists were granted privileged access to parts of this bill even before it was introduced here in the House, so before members of Parliament, who were elected by the public, had a chance to review it. Paragraph 3.14 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice states as follows: The premature disclosure of bills which have not yet been read in the House may be a breach of privilege. There is a well-established convention of parliamentary practice whereby members must be the first to be informed of the substance of legislative measures. It seems to me that it is essential to ensure that the members elected by Canadians are able to be the first to analyze the issues that are presented in the House, such as motions and bills, so we can be the eyes, ears and voices of our constituents and ensure that we can at least give them correct information. Our role is to analyze and share information with Canadians and represent them. The Prime Minister is showing signs of a trend. He seems to be on roll when it comes to his House of Commons attendance, to say the least. This week, he rose in the House to tell us that he is new here and not familiar with the rules. That is no excuse. Ignorance of the rules is no excuse for not following them. According to a long-standing code, members must be the first to know what goes on in the House of Commons because what we do here matters. Failure to follow these procedures undermines democracy. We live in a time where people are starting to have less and less confidence in our institutions and where there are more autocracies in the world than democracies. I think that we should at least be able to expect the Prime Minister and his team to show some respect for democracy. It is not right for the government to give inside information to certain journalists to shape public opinion and get a bit of head start so that the opposition does not have time do its work. We know that and it happened again recently. I will close with this. The Prime Minister walked away from the negotiations with the United States. We were never told why. We do not know what was left on the table and we parliamentarians have no say in the matter. The Prime Minister is building closer ties with the European Union and, at the end of last month, he went to Montreal to make an announcement about potential agreements with the EU. No one in the House knows what is going on. He said that his members are just there to vote and, unfortunately, he did not realize that he was being recorded at the time. The independent commissioners are beginning to sound the alarm and saying that he is becoming less and less transparent. I think that someone on the other side should remind him that this is not Canada Inc. and he is not the CEO of a company. He must show respect for democracy. That is supposed to happen in the House. I think we need to get back to the basics.

Kevin Lamoureux, Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons

Liberal
“I withdraw my comment now that the member is done speaking.”
Official Hansard

Madam Speaker, I was concerned about it being commentary rather than a clear demonstration of a violation, but it looks like the member is done, so I will withdraw my comment.

Discussion

No comments yet

See the full discussion

Comment rules

More from sitting 149

  1. Government Orders First Nations Clean Water Act 32 statements
  2. Oral Questions Employment 12 statements
  3. Oral Questions The Environment 6 statements
  4. Oral Questions Employment 4 statements
  5. Oral Questions Finance 10 statements
  6. Oral Questions Intergovernmental Relations 4 statements
  7. Oral Questions The Economy 8 statements
  8. Oral Questions Taxation 2 statements
  9. Oral Questions Infrastructure 2 statements
  10. Oral Questions Veterans Affairs 4 statements
  11. Oral Questions Indigenous Affairs 8 statements
  12. Oral Questions Artificial Intelligence 2 statements
  13. Oral Questions The Economy 2 statements
  14. Oral Questions Public Safety 4 statements
  15. Oral Questions International Trade 2 statements
  16. Oral Questions Rail Transportation 2 statements
  17. Oral Questions Transportation 2 statements
  18. Oral Questions The Economy 6 statements
  19. Government Orders First Nations Clean Water Act 13 statements
  20. Government Orders First Nations Clean Water Act 20 statements
  21. Oral Questions Steel and Aluminum Industry 2 statements
  22. Private Members' Business National Strategy on Flood and Drought Forecasting Act 13 statements
  23. Government Orders Privilege 2 statements