House of Commons Hansard #135 of the 42nd Parliament, 1st Session. (The original version is on Parliament's site.) The word of the day was ukraine.
Simon Marcil Bloc Mirabel, QC
Mr. Speaker, the Americans are engaging in unfair competition by generously subsidizing dairy products, but the federal government is turning a blind eye and letting our people down.
The reason supply management is not covered by NAFTA is to protect Quebec dairy producers, who are the first to pay the price for Ottawa's neglect.
Now that he has his limousine and his portfolio for betraying Quebec to the banks, will the Minister of International Trade do something to protect supply management?
François-Philippe Champagne LiberalMinister of International Trade
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague for his question.
He will be pleased to know that I met with dairy producers just this morning to reaffirm our commitment to supply management in Canada. We will work for all Canadians. We are working for farmers. We are working to promote trade by creating jobs. That is what we promised to do, and we will keep that promise.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I would like to draw to the attention of hon. members the presence in the gallery of the Gerhard Herzberg Canada Gold Medal for Science and Engineering prize winner Dr. Jeff Dahn and the John C. Polanyi Prize winner Dr. Sylvain Moineau.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Also with us, in the ladies' gallery, are the winners of the Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council Synergy Awards for Innovation, Steacie Memorial Fellowships and Gilles Brassard Doctoral Prize for Interdisciplinary Research.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
It is my duty to inform the House that a vacancy has occurred in the representation, namely: the Honourable Stéphane Dion, member for the electoral district of Saint-Laurent, by resignation effective Monday, February 6, 2017.
Pursuant to subsection 25(1)(b) of the Parliament of Canada Act, I have addressed my warrant to the Chief Electoral Officer for the issue of a writ for the election of a member to fill this vacancy.
Monique Pauzé Bloc Repentigny, QC
Mr. Speaker, I believe that if you seek it, you will find unanimous consent for the following motion: that the House strongly condemn the hateful remarks made against the people of Quebec by a columnist from Vancouver in the Washington Post on February 1, 2017, and urge the government to stand up for Quebec's reputation on the international stage.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Does the hon. member have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to inform the House of a breach of Standing Order 39. It is in regard to what is now popularly known as the carbon tax cover-up. It may rise—
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
Order.
I would just remind colleagues that the member is allowed to present his point of order, and I would encourage the member to remember that this is not debate and to carry on with his point of order.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I ask members of the House not to shoot the messenger. That is just what people are saying.
This is a serious matter. Under the standing order referenced earlier, members have the right to submit questions to the government and receive responses to those factual questions. Beyond a potential breach of that standing order, this is a matter that may rise to the seriousness of contempt.
This chamber, of course, is the child of the mother Parliament in Britain, wherein the joint committee on parliamentary privilege attempted to provide a list of types of contempt which included, “deliberately altering, suppressing, concealing or destroying a paper required to be produced for the House”.
My point of order refers to the suppressing or concealing of said information. The evidence for the possibility of this breach is in comparing an Order Paper question and the non-response to it with subsequent documents that were released under access to information.
The original Order Paper question asked for “analysis conducted in 2015-2016 by the government with regard to the impact on family household budgets” of the carbon tax. The government refused to release any documents in that regard, suggesting that none existed.
At the time, I acted in good faith. I refuse to ascribe to malice that which might only have been explained by incompetence, as it would be incompetent not to have done such an analysis before imposing such a tax. I took the government at its word.
A subsequent access to information request revealed that in fact it does have documentation that says, “Imposing a price on carbon emissions, either through a tax or cap-and-trade system, would raise the cost of fossil fuels and energy. These...costs would then cascade through the economy in the form of higher prices”. Those prices are then laid out in a table, which is whited out. As a result, we do not know what is in it, but we do know that it exists. Therefore, we know the government was breaching its duty to share that information with respect to the original Order Paper questions.
I then asked the government what impact the new carbon tax would have on the price of the market basket measure. That is a measure by Employment and Social Development Canada that determines the full cost that a family must absorb in order to buy basic goods and services required to live as a functional part of a society. Again, the government claimed not to have any data on that whatsoever.
However, the ATIP that I subsequently came into possession of says, “Imposing a price on carbon emissions, either through a [carbon] tax or a cap and-trade system, [does lead to] higher prices”. It goes on and makes reference to a second table, which would answer the question. Therefore, that table also exists.
Finally, I asked the government for any impacts to the change in food prices for a family of four. Again, the ATIP makes implicit reference to changes in the costs of food to nourish a family, but, of course, that too is blacked out.
I can go on and on. I think the government would like me to, but in the interest of brevity, Mr. Speaker, I will give you a systematic list of all of the documentation to which the government admits it is in possession, but which it deprived me of receiving when I submitted my original Order Paper question.
The Prime Minister is attempting to portray himself as a cornucopia, spraying riches far and wide, but he did not produce those riches. He takes them from those who did, and by depriving those people of the information on the original costs he deprives—
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The member is now straying into debate. I would like him to stay on his point of order and conclude.
Pierre Poilievre Conservative Carleton, ON
Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude by simply referring back to the parliamentary tradition from which we take everything we have here in this august chamber and of course, that tradition comes from the mother Parliament in Great Britain, where in the 17th century the adoption of the bill of rights gave every subject and now citizen the principle of no taxation without representation. That is that the public must not be forced to bear the burden of any costs without its consent, but people cannot consent to something when they do not know what it is.
Therefore, there can be no taxation without information. I ask the government to do the honourable thing and release that information immediately. Now if the government refuses to do so, you as president of this chamber have the obligation to compel it to do so. I ask, in the interests of taxpayers and the interests of the common people we are gathered here to represent, that you do just that.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
The hon. parliamentary secretary to the government House leader is rising on the same point of order.
Kevin Lamoureux LiberalParliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons
Mr. Speaker, my comments will be brief. I will limit my response to what has already been stated many times in the House on this issue. As you know, the Speaker does not judge the content or quality of the answers provided in the House of Commons. The Chair has ruled consistently in this regard.
Speaker Jeanne Sauvé in her February 20, 1983, ruling stated that it is not the Chair's responsibility “to determine whether or not the contents of documents tabled in the House are accurate.“
Speaker Milliken's ruling of December 12, 2002, stated that, “the Speaker has no role in reviewing the content of responses to written questions.”
In fact, Mr. Speaker, your ruling of September 27, 2016, concerning the government's response to Order Paper Question No. 152, again supports this position.
Furthermore, House of Commons Procedure and Practice, Second Edition, on page 522 states that, “There are no provisions in the rules for the Speaker to review government responses to questions.”
I submit that the matter before us has been dealt with on numerous occasions in the past and I have no further comments at this point.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I thank the hon. member for Carleton for raising this point of order. I thank the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons and I will come back to the House in due course with a decision.
The House resumed from February 2 consideration of the motion and of the amendment.
Opposition Motion—Taxes on Health and Dental Care PlansBusiness of SupplyGovernment Orders
Liberal
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
It being 3:12 p.m., pursuant to order made Thursday, February 2, the House will now proceed to the taking of the deferred recorded division on the amendment to the motion relating to the business of supply.
Call in the members.
The Speaker Liberal Geoff Regan
I declare the amendment lost.
The next question is on the main motion. Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?