New Democrats and Conservatives are accusing the Carney government of feeding legislative details to journalists before MPs can examine them, alleging a pattern of leaks aimed at shaping media coverage.
“We are seeing a concerning pattern from this Liberal government,” NDP MP Don Davies told the House of Commons Thursday.
“Over the last year there have been repeated ‘leaks’ from so-called ‘unauthorized sources’ to journalists in a clear attempt to shape public discourse.”
The controversy centres on Bill C-40, legislation introduced Tuesday that would turn the Defence Investment Agency into a Crown corporation.
On Monday, a day before the bill was tabled, The Globe and Mail reported the government’s plans, citing three unnamed sources who were not authorized to discuss the legislation publicly.
CBC journalist Murray Brewster similarly reported the proposed change before the bill’s introduction, citing two federal sources who were not authorized to speak publicly.
Davies argued the reports contained information that MPs could not have obtained from the bill’s title or its notice on the parliamentary Order Paper, according to Blacklock’s Reporter.
“This is sharp practice, somewhat devious, but arguably not prohibited,” Davies said of government leaks generally.
However, he argued that disclosing legislative details after a bill has been placed on notice but before MPs can examine it raises more serious concerns about parliamentary privilege.
“It demonstrates a disrespect for our democratic institutions, and we believe a clear message must be sent to this government that end-running Parliament in this manner is unacceptable and will not be tolerated,” Davies said.
Conservative House Leader Andrew Scheer raised similar objections Tuesday, arguing that the reports disclosed substantive provisions of Bill C-40, including measures concerning a new associate minister responsible for defence procurement.
“What we are looking at here is a leak of the provisions of Bill C-40,” Scheer said.
He asked the Speaker to find a prima facie case of contempt, potentially allowing the matter to be referred for further parliamentary examination. The Assistant Deputy Speaker took the complaint under advisement.
Under parliamentary rules, leaking a bill’s provisions before its formal introduction in the House can breach parliamentary privilege.
Parliamentary Speakers have previously found grounds for privilege complaints involving leaked legislation. In 2001, Speaker Peter Milliken found a prima facie case of contempt after journalists received confidential legislative details before MPs.
In 2016, Scheer’s complaint over leaked details of the Liberals’ assisted-dying bill, C-14, prompted a prima facie finding of privilege. A similar ruling followed in 2020 over Bill C-7. Neither ruling established contempt.
The government’s response remains unconfirmed, the sources unidentified, and no contempt finding has been made.
Scheer warned that Parliament must defend its authority against a government he accused of treating elected representatives as an obstacle.
“The House must stand up for its rights, especially against a government that appears happy to see Parliament as nothing but a distraction, or worse, just a mere speed bump.”
Can't say I'm surprised. It's smart; it forces your opposition to have to contend with an extant public perception without the chance for them to even prepare their own narrative. I'd also argue that it's anti-democratic in that it is a cynical move to undermine the effectiveness of the Loyal opposition.