Mr. Speaker, I wish to raise a question of privilege.
Yesterday, during consideration of the main estimates in committee of the whole, the Minister of Finance and National Revenue deliberately misled the House when he answered one of my questions. I asked him several times whether he acknowledged that the Canada carbon rebate cheques that were issued by the federal government in the middle of the election were sent to people before the tax was collected. The minister finally responded that no, they were not. I invite the Chair to consult the Hansard on the matter.
It seems that the minister did not see fit to admit the truth. If we refer to the events leading up to the Prime Minister's decision during the election campaign, an order was made to suspend carbon pricing and eliminate the system as soon as the new government was elected. However, the House will recall that Ottawa had decided to pay the $3.7 billion to Canadians, with the notable exception of Quebeckers, and that the sums ranging between $220 and $456 were paid out in eight Canadian provinces and territories.
Thus, the Canadian carbon rebate cheques that were sent out in April, which cost $3.7 billion, were not funded by Canadian consumer carbon pricing and Canadians never paid the amounts they nevertheless received.
The Minister of Finance tried to mislead us by deliberately stating that the carbon tax rebate cheques issued during the election campaign in the form of the Canada carbon rebate were a result of consumer carbon pricing even though the tax had not been collected beforehand. In our view, such a statement constitutes a breach of parliamentary privilege, if not contempt of Parliament.
On page 82 of the third edition of House of Commons Procedure and Practice, one of the grounds for contempt is “deliberately attempting to mislead the House or a committee (by way of statement, evidence, or petition)”.
This point is also reiterated on page 112. According to House of Commons Procedure and Practice, it has been agreed on several occasions by successive Speakers that three criteria must be met to demonstrate that a member, in this case the Minister of Finance, has deliberately misled the House.
In a ruling on May 5, 2016, at page 2956 of the Debates, Speaker Regan reiterated these criteria. First, the statement needs to be misleading. Second, the member making the statement has to know that the statement was incorrect when it was made. Finally, it needs to be proven that the member intended to mislead the House.
I respectfully submit that the minister's response meets the criteria set out in House of Commons Procedure and Practice, namely, that the House has been misled following statements made in the House by one of its members, whether that member is an MP, a minister or even a prime minister.
First, the minister's answer is misleading because it implies that the rebates were made through the carbon pricing mechanism, when in fact the money came from the public purse, which is made up of taxes paid by Canadians among other things. The minister therefore seems to be saying that this money paid to Canadians does not come in part from the pockets of Quebeckers, which is just not so.
Second, there is no doubt in our minds that the minister knew that his answer was likely to mislead the House. It is quite obvious that a minister with so much experience could not have thought that the Canada carbon rebate issued on April 22, after the deductions had been suspended, was part of the carbon pricing system put in place by the previous government, in which he was a minister. However, during the election, the media reported that a spokesperson for the Liberal Party of Canada had stated that the final rebate was “a transitional measure to prevent millions of households from suddenly losing their support.”
In response to the leader of the Bloc Québécois earlier today, the Prime Minister confirmed this position from the election. During question period today, the Prime Minister said that the final Canada carbon rebate payment was issued to help millions and millions of Canadian families through a transition period, adding that many families outside Quebec and British Columbia need this transition period. That is the reason being given for the amounts paid out as part of the Canada carbon rebate during the election.
Third, it seems entirely reasonable to believe that the minister intended to mislead the House, given that when he gave his answer, the finance minister had every reason to hide the fact that the money used had come from public funds. I asked the minister the same question many times before I got his answer. That suggests that the minister did not want to admit that the money had not come from administering the carbon pricing regime but had instead come from public funds, collected in part from Quebec taxpayers.
The fact that he himself is responsible for matters pertaining to appropriations and the budget suggests that he had a vested interest in keeping Canadians and Quebeckers from finding out that the Canada carbon rebate payments had come out of the public funds to which Canadians and Quebeckers contribute.
While I recognize that vigilance is required in these situations and that matters of this nature are not to be taken lightly before being found to be a prima facie breach of privilege, I still believe that this question of privilege warrants serious consideration. In my view, there is no dispute as to facts, opinions or conclusions to be drawn from an allegation of fact, which would ordinarily be a matter of debate.
I asked the minister, “Were these carbon tax rebate cheques that were sent out in the middle of an election to buy votes in eight provinces delivered without the tax that funded them being collected?” It was a very clear, direct and succinct question, and the minister's answer was no.
In conclusion, the Bloc Québécois believes that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege and that the matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for study.