Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege relating to the fact that, yesterday, the government announced that it had agreed to open 3.59% of the Canadian milk and dairy products market to American products, despite the unanimous adoption of a motion by the House of Commons on September 26, 2017, which read:
That the House reiterate its desire to fully preserve supply management during the NAFTA renegotiations.
The 2015 edition of the Oxford Dictionary of English defines the word “fully” as “completely or entirely; to the fullest extent”.
This raises a question. What is the point of a motion that is adopted by the unanimous consent of the House of Commons, this assembly of representatives of the people, the very heart of parliamentary democracy, if the government can toss that motion out at will?
On page 598 of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, it states:
However, orders or resolutions presented or adopted by unanimous consent express the will of the House and are as binding as any other House order or resolution.
The government disregarded a House of Commons decision to fully preserve supply management.
I want to make it clear that I am raising this question of privilege at the first available opportunity because the latest information became available during question period yesterday after the member for Mirabel asked a question.
We think the government's disregard for the clearly expressed will of the House is a grave offence to its authority and dignity. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, third edition, reads as follows at page 60:
Any conduct which offends the authority or dignity of the house, even though no breach of any specific privilege may have been committed, is referred to as a contempt of the House. Contempt may be an act or an omission. It does not have to actually obstruct or impede the House or a Member; it merely has to have the tendency to produce such results.
In our opinion, the fact that this agreement was signed despite a unanimous motion by the House to fully preserve supply management is nothing short of contempt of Parliament on the part of the government.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, should you find a prima facie case of privilege, I intend to move the following motion: “That the House note that the government is in contempt of Parliament by failing to respect the unanimous consent of the House, which called on it to fully protect supply management.”