44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 9, 2024 10:00AM
- Apr/9/24 11:55:49 a.m.
- Watch
Mr. Speaker, for the past few weeks, the federal government has been parading all over Canada, announcing programs of all kinds and budgetary envelopes in advance, disclosing bits and pieces of the budgetary measures that will be part of the budget to be tabled on April 16.
On a number of occasions, nearly four weeks before the tabling of the budget, the media reported figures shared by cabinet members and the Prime Minister, meaning that some of the financial initiatives that will be included in the finance minister's budget were known in advance. It is disconcerting that the government would violate the principle of secrecy as it relates to fiscal matters, a principle that should be upheld by any responsible and trustworthy government.
Despite this parliamentary tradition and what, in our opinion, the principles of good governance call for, the federal government is prematurely disclosing budget items that are part of a budget plan, a projection for the coming years. These announcements, taken out of context, are preventing the opposition from doing its job properly. Members are learning in dribs and drabs, in isolation, what the next Liberal budget will consist of.
Starting on March 25, ministers began announcing budgetary measures for housing, for the national child care network, for the national pharmacare program regarding oral contraceptives and certain diabetes medications, for the new national school meals program, for the development of artificial intelligence, for strengthening national defence and for mental health.
In short, over the two-week parliamentary recess, a whole bunch of pre-budget announcements were made, a pre-election striptease of sorts, according to an April 3 article in La Presse.
According to Bosc and Gagnon's House of Commons Procedure and Practice, budget secrecy is a long-standing parliamentary tradition, and straying from this principle can have a negative impact on business or on the stock market, potentially causing irrevocable harm to some individuals or institutions and unduly benefiting others.
Members will recall that, before the content of the budget that the Minister of Finance intends to table is made public, finance officials usually hold an in camera information session for members and journalists, to preserve the necessary secrecy and to allow members to read the government's budget measures so that they can then debate them with full knowledge of the facts.
The principle of secrecy in relation to fiscal matters is a fundamental principle commonly recognized in a parliamentary democracy and one that should undoubtedly be a matter of consensus in the government and among cabinet members. It is disconcerting that the government itself prematurely disclosed significant budget items without assessing the potential impact of that decision.
There was actually a time in 1989 when, to protect this parliamentary principle, then Prime Minister Mulroney had a journalist criminally charged with stealing confidential information and disclosing it before the budget was tabled. The finance minister at the time, Michael Wilson, decided to present his budget early in order to safeguard the principle of budget secrecy.
What is most worrying is that the Liberal government went ahead with this, ignoring the tradition of a parliamentary practice designed to prevent insider trading and allow parliamentarians to read the budget ahead of time, the better to comment on it.
By announcing its budget to the media in bits and pieces, the federal government is being irresponsible toward all members and particularly toward the opposition parties, which are responsible for keeping an eye on the government's policies.
To disclose certain measures that the government believes will be popular, without allowing parliamentarians and Canadians an opportunity to see the government's entire budget policy, is a ploy that significantly affects the opposition parties' ability to take an informed position and hold the government to account with full knowledge of the facts.
Consequently, we believe that the members of the opposition parties have been obstructed in fulfilling their parliamentary duties, given that they were unable to take an informed position based on all the necessary budget information or to properly inform voters about the budget measures that were announced and their impact or repercussions.
These budget announcements could give financial advantages to certain experts in the field, which could be considered insider trading. That is a fundamental issue for the Speaker's office to address. In addition, it is important to ensure that the premature disclosure of budget measures does not violate the privilege of members of Parliament, who have been impeded in the performance of their duties, leaving them unable to represent and defend the interests of their constituents with full knowledge of the facts.
It will also be important to check whether the premature disclosure had the effect of misleading the public about the budget and, by the same token, members of Parliament. According to Bosc and Gagnon, at page 116, misleading a member or members can be considered a form of obstruction that could hinder the business of the House.
That is why, if the Chair finds that there is a prima facie breach of parliamentary privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion.
853 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- Apr/9/24 6:42:59 p.m.
- Watch
Madam Speaker, the Bloc Québécois' position will come as no surprise: We will be voting in favour of this bill.
First of all, I would like to salute the courage of the member for Madawaska—Restigouche, who introduced this bill. I do not know what the future holds for this bill, but first and foremost, I must salute the member's courage. As someone who knows the history of the Acadians, I have a real admiration for him. I wanted to say that before I began my speech.
The bill aims to offer the possibility of choosing an oath and no longer forcing people to swear an oath to the King of England or Canada. Usually, we say: “I...do swear, That I will be faithful and bear true Allegiance to [His or Her] Majesty”, followed by the name of the king or queen who is on the throne. With this bill, there is the possibility of introducing a second option, which is to say: “I, A.B., do swear that I will carry out my duties in the best interest of Canada while upholding its Constitution.”
Is that the best solution from the Bloc Québécois's perspective? I would not say so. This is not a bill the Bloc Québécois would have drafted. That does not mean it is not good. It is a step in the right direction. I am not trying to make my colleague sad. We would simply have drafted an oath of allegiance to the people. The people elect us. They are the reason we are here, the reason we make decisions. The people are always the reason we take the most informed action possible.
I know it will come as no surprise that the Bloc Québécois is against the monarchy. It is an old system whose glory days are long past, from a time before things such as the airplane and the car were discovered. That was ages ago. We believe in democracy. We believe that the people are sovereign, not the King. What matters to us is the equality of all people, regardless of the colour of their skin, the language they speak, or where they come from. Everyone is equal.
When we swear allegiance to someone born into the right family, under a lucky star, no one can claim that everyone is equal. It transgresses the foundations of democracy from the start. Guess what? Democracy is the reason we are here. A person is either a supporter of democracy or not.
In 1776, Adam Smith wrote a treatise on the wealth of nations. According to his extraordinary book, people deserve to be treated with respect and on an equal basis. People who succeed by their merit, skill and hard work have earned their success. That is what economic liberalism is all about. I am not saying that we all have to be economic liberals; that is not what I am saying. In the country of today's king, Adam Smith laid the groundwork for an economic system coupled with a political system that upholds the equality of all and reward based on merit. No one can claim that Charles III deserves to have his shoelaces ironed based on merit. Nothing justifies the royal treatment given to this individual, who should be the equal of everyone else. For that reason and others, we therefore object to swearing an oath.
That being said, there is something else. The Governor General of Canada, who represents the King, could potentially gain political power even though they are not elected. That is crazy. We cannot accept that possibility.
We have power because we are given that power by virtue of being elected. People say that they have confidence in us for certain reasons. They read our platform, they listened to us and they decided that we should represent them. The fact that we are making these decisions is justified. If people are unhappy with my work, we know what will happen. I will have to step down. The people will decide.
Before I get into the rest of my remarks, I must say that swearing an oath to the Constitution is problematic. First, the Constitution places a lot of emphasis on God, which is problematic. Second, Quebec did not sign the Constitution. It was shoved down our throats. We would therefore be swearing allegiance to a Constitution that has not been signed by my people. I have a bit of a problem with that.
Furthermore, I am looking at Canada's current Liberal government, and it does not respect the Constitution. It will be swearing allegiance to the Constitution while interfering in the jurisdictions of Quebec and the provinces. It is simply going to renege on the very foundations of this Constitution. When we talk about a normal country, we are not quite there. Lastly, why are we against swearing allegiance to the King? Because it is the British monarchy. He is the king of another country. We are swearing allegiance to a king who comes from somewhere else and lives somewhere else. He will come and do a little tour once in a while, at taxpayers' expense, of course. Honestly, I think he might as well stay home. That would be a good deal; it would allow us to keep more money to solve our own problems.
For Quebeckers, this king is the conqueror. The English won the Seven Years' War, which we call “la guerre de la Conquête” or the war of the conquest. It is funny because, when we talk about the war of the conquest and the Plains of Abraham, we always think about defeat, whereas native-born Canadians think about victory. Then they wonder why we say that we are a distinct nation. Perhaps that is part of the reason. There were moments in history when we were at war. That is because we do not even come from the same people. Before the British Crown came along and conquered Quebec, it crossed the St. Lawrence River and burned down farms belonging to Quebeckers, to French Canadians at the time, all along the river.
Incidentally, the British also deported the Acadians. Why? The Acadian population totalled 18,000. The British separated families. They deported 12,000 Acadians, and 8,000 of them died of an epidemic before they even reached their destination. It is the British Crown that did that. Am I really supposed to swear an oath to that? It makes no sense.
Then there was Amherst's germ warfare. I think it was in 1760. He decided he wanted to help indigenous people, after a fashion. He infected blankets with smallpox, and then he distributed the blankets to indigenous people. Some say it was the first case of germ warfare. The British Crown did that. I am supposed to swear allegiance to that?
When the patriots were hanged, strangely enough, 12 French-speaking patriots were hanged, and yet some of the people who participated in the patriots' rebellions were English, Irish and Quebeckers or French Canadians. The 12 who were hanged were francophones. How bizarre. I am the member of Parliament for La Prairie. Joseph‑Narcisse Cardinal, who was the member for La Prairie, was sentenced to hang because he had gone to Kahnawake to get weapons and been caught. He had five children, and I think his wife was expecting a sixth. His wife wrote a letter to Colborne's wife. Colborne was Governor General at the time. She begged her to save her husband's life. She did not get a response. She went to see Colborne's wife and Colborne gave her $8. That is the British Crown. They seriously want me to swear an oath to that?
Lord Durham wanted to put a definitive end to problems related to the patriot rebellion. He said that it was not a political war, but an ethnic war because of French Canadians. He said he would fix things. He said they were a people without history, a people without literature. He said they had to be assimilated for their own good. That is why the powers that be set out to unite Lower Canada and Upper Canada. That is how we were treated. There is a member here from Durham. Canadians see Durham as a good person. We see him as a force for assimilation. We can read what Durham wanted to do in the 19th century and look at what is happening today. We know that history does not tire of its own tales. If we do not listen, it repeats itself. As Jacques Parizeau put it, the best way to make someone a separatist is to teach them history.
That is how I know that what would make Quebeckers and the members of the Bloc Québécois truly proud would be to swear an oath to the people of Quebec in the republic of Quebec.
1520 words
- Hear!
- Rabble!
- add
- star_border
- share
- menumenu
- notificationsnotifications
- home
- mailmail
- searchsearch
