SoVote

Decentralized Democracy

House Hansard - 298

44th Parl. 1st Sess.
April 11, 2024 10:00AM
Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24
Mrs. Shannon Stubbs
  • Apr/11/24 11:52:25 a.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, on what planet have I ever advocated and would ever support the concept of requiring taxpayer subsidies and governments to nationalize and socialize the energy sector in Canada? The Conservatives, under former prime minister Stephen Harper, eliminated the vast majority of direct subsidies to oil and gas companies, yet the Liberals, who I have been happy to defend for the last nine years, have taken care of the rest that was left. It is true that they have given a historic subsidy to an energy pipeline that never required a single taxpayer cent. All it required was a government to assert provincial and legal jurisdiction to ensure the private sector proponent could build its approved project and create jobs to the benefit of all Canadians.
127 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border
Context: House Hansard - 298 - Apr/11/24
Mr. Peter Julian (New Westminster—Burnaby, NDP)
  • Apr/11/24 4:54:14 p.m.
  • Watch
Madam Speaker, it is not on the same point of order, but I am glad the government is making amends. The member for Cowichan—Malahat—Langford submitted those questions in good faith, and I am glad we will be getting the information Canadians require. I thank the parliamentary secretary for doing the right thing, making amends and apologizing for the lack of information around subsidies going to Loblaws and some of the other grocery chains that have been guilty of food price gouging. I am actually rising on another point of order, and that is the matter of privilege brought forward by the member for La Prairie concerning the convention of budgetary secrecy. The principle of budgetary secrecy is an important one, as leaks and premature disclosure sometimes have unintended and, in some cases, market-moving impacts. Despite this, we know that governments of all stripes, both Conservative and Liberal, have been known to use selected and targeted pre-budget leaks to their advantage as a way to control the narrative leading up to the budget. They love to point fingers at each other, but they both do this. There is no doubt that this is done for their political advantage; otherwise, they would not do it. While a number of Speaker's rulings have found no breach and, to date, no Speaker has wanted to put an end to this practice, the fact that it has been raised as a matter continuously for many years means that it merits review on the Speaker's behalf. Let us not forget the time former Conservative finance minister Jim Flaherty decided to give a fiscal update not to the House of Commons but to a private audience of financial professionals. The House of Commons is the purview of elected members, who have been chosen by Canadians to represent them; however, he did not present the update here. The Speaker of the House at the time was the member for Regina—Qu'Appelle, who found in favour of the government. In his ruling, he cited as precedent a decision by Speaker Milliken, which was also made as a consequence of the Conservative finance minister's actions. The example at that time was the government's decision to release a report on the economic action plan at a media event in Saint John rather than here in Parliament. The Speaker's ruling of October 5, 2009, included the following: It is very difficult for the Chair to intervene in a situation where a minister has chosen to have a press conference or a briefing or a meeting and release material when the Speaker has nothing to do with the organization of that [event]. Speaker Milliken was also asked to judge an incident where specific information about the main estimates was published in a newspaper article, as well as a blog and Twitter. On March 22, 2011, he ruled: The member argued that the Speaker had ruled on a number of occasions that the House had an absolute right to expect the government to provide information, whether on a bill or on the estimates, to the House before it was disclosed elsewhere. For him, it was a matter of being able to respond, as a member of Parliament, to enquiries in a meaningful and intelligent way. In his response, the President of the Treasury Board admitted that the untimely release of the material in question was improper and not in keeping with past procedures and practices of this House. Furthermore, he committed to taking steps to prevent it from happening again. The minister went on to cite House of Commons Procedure and Practice, second edition, at page 894, thus quite rightly pointing out that, in the past, similar matters, namely of budget secrecy, have been treated more as matters of parliamentary convention rather than matters of privilege. The member for Windsor—Tecumseh is certainly not misguided in his expectation that members of the House, individually and collectively, must receive from the government particular types of information required for the fulfillment of their parliamentary duties before it is shared elsewhere. However, in such instances when there is a transgression of this well-established practice, the Chair must ascertain whether, as a result, the member was impeded in the performance of parliamentary duties. Simply put, I agree with the member for La Prairie. These practices that we saw under the Conservatives and are now seeing under the Liberals have to change. This practice of disclosing all the budget information must change. We should align these budget practices more and more with House of Commons procedure and privilege. I hope that my intervention will help the Chair make a ruling on the intervention of the member for La Prairie.
795 words
  • Hear!
  • Rabble!
  • star_border