Go to main content Skip to main content
Interventions in the House of Commons
 
 
 
RSS feed based on search criteria Export search results - CSV (plain text) Export search results - XML
Add search criteria
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-17 15:12 [p.11324]
Mr. Speaker, I am rising on a point of order with respect to the nomination of Madeleine Meilleur as an officer of Parliament, the Official Languages Commissioner, and in particular with respect to the motion the government has now put on notice to confirm her nomination.
As a matter of law, the Official Languages Commissioner can only be appointed if two statutory requirements are satisfied, as set out in section 49 of the enabling act, which states:
The Governor in Council shall, by commission under the Great Seal, appoint a Commissioner of Official Languages for Canada after consultation with the leader of every recognized party in the Senate and House of Commons and approval of the appointment by resolution of the Senate and House of Commons.
Therefore, there must be consultation with leaders of the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party. Second, only after valid consultation has occurred, a resolution must be moved and passed in this place.
Canadian courts have made clear that when the use of the term “consultation” appears in a statute, it connotes much more than notification, yet notification was all that was offered in advance of this appointment announcement to the leader of the New Democratic Party and, I understand, to the leader of the Conservative Party.
Our leader was sent a letter that announced the nomination, and invited a reply within a few days. Having sent that reply, indicating our profound disagreement with the nomination, there has been no offer of further discussion from the government to resolve these concerns.
The courts have upheld, in the case of Lavigne, that the Official Languages Commissioner is appointed under a quasi constitutional statute. This is an officer of Parliament responsible to this place, and not to the government of the day.
Mr. Speaker, simply to provide information, as in the present case, does not constitute the statutory precondition of consultation. Therefore, in our submission, the motion to nominate Ms. Meilleur should not be voted upon until the statutory requirement of true consultation has occurred.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-17 15:18 [p.11325]
Mr. Speaker, with your permission, we will be providing a written elaboration on our motion forthwith.
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-12 11:23 [p.11142]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have not denied that the projects funded through their privatization bank would result in user fees and tolls placed on Canadians. They have not denied that the projects will cost more and will result in significant delays. Will the government deny today that if offered the choice, Canadians would choose not to have user fees on infrastructure?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-12 11:24 [p.11142]
Mr. Speaker, I guess he did not answer because Canadians were not offered that choice.
All week we have been asking specific questions about the secret Liberal infrastructure brought to us by BlackRock, and all week the Liberals have avoided clear answers, just like today. Instead they have responded with very tightly crafted talking points.
Here is my question for the Liberals: Is the government using any messaging given to it by BlackRock, yes or no?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-08 14:45 [p.10896]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals want to severely restrict the ability of the parliamentary budget officer to initiate studies by requiring him to have a work plan approved by the Speakers of this House and of the Senate.
They also want to prevent members of this House from requesting cost estimates of government projects. That means previous reports on old age security, F-35 fighter jets, and crime legislation would simply not have been possible.
Is this what an independent parliamentary budget officer looks like to the government?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-04 14:39 [p.10782]
Mr. Speaker, the flawed study of the Afghan detainees scandal was cut short by the Conservatives after only reviewing an initial set of documents. Stéphane Dion at that point said, “[w]hen you read these documents, you will have questions to ask to your Prime Minister”. He also said that the Conservatives were blocking an inquiry because of being “afraid of having to answer to Canadians”.
Therefore, will the Minister of National Defence appear before the defence committee to answer questions about this scandal, yes or no?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-05-02 14:48 [p.10658]
Mr. Speaker, last year the health and justice ministers commissioned the Council of Canadian Academies to conduct independent studies on the eligibility criteria under the new law on medical assistance in dying.
Dr. Harvey Schipper is a vocal opponent of that law, yet he has now been made chair of a committee under it. This raises serious doubts about the impartiality of the entire process. How can Canadians have any confidence that the working group will examine the issue fairly, when its chair opposes medical assistance in dying?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-04-07 11:23 [p.10327]
Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell us exactly when the government was informed of the U.S. attack?
Can he confirm that during this conversation his government offered Canada's support?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-04-07 11:24 [p.10327]
Mr. Speaker, could the Prime Minister reveal to Canadians if this attack was part of a larger strategy, and will the government insist that Canada's support for further action is contingent on an approach of multilateralism?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-04-06 14:29 [p.10285]
Mr. Speaker, both opposition House leaders have made a fair and reasonable proposal that we follow the model that Jean Chrétien used for his parliamentary modernization. It included one member from each party and it was chaired by the deputy speaker.
Let me quote from the committee's mandate: “the committee shall not adopt any report without the unanimous agreement of all the Members of the committee”. If it was good enough for Jean Chrétien's majority Liberals, why does the minister believe her majority government is so much more entitled?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-04-05 14:29 [p.10204]
Mr. Speaker, the government wants to unilaterally change the rules that govern the House of Commons. At first, the Liberals pretended it was just a discussion paper and now they claim that this power grab is necessary to be rammed through here because, well, it was in their election platform. Can the Prime Minister explain then why he used the excuse of a lack of consensus to abandon his platform promise on democratic reform, but now he unilaterally wants to change the way our democracy works?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-03-24 11:22 [p.10000]
Mr. Speaker, the Liberal House leader keeps referring to her government's unilateral power grab as a discussion paper. Well, let us listen to some of that discussion. Don Martin said that the changes are aimed at strengthening the “elite Liberal advantage”. John Ivison's response has the headline “Liberals latest attempted power-grab in Commons sure to fail again”. Chantal Hébert said, “A majority government has already quite a lot of power without abusing it by changing the rules”.
I have one simple question for the Liberals: How do they think this is going over?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-03-24 11:26 [p.10000]
Mr. Speaker, yesterday the environment minister responded to the $1.2 billion in cuts to programs fighting climate change by saying “the numbers are in there”. Well, they sure are: page 150, 2017-18, cut $750 million; 2018-19, cut $500 million. To make matters worse, the Liberals are cancelling the public transit tax credit which will make it more expensive to ride the bus. If it is not the middle class and those working so hard to join it, who do the Liberals think take public transit?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-03-23 14:45 [p.9957]
Since when does a cabinet minister or House leader give orders to a committee anyway, Mr. Speaker?
The government House leader is ignoring the long-held tradition of getting all-party agreement for an overhaul of the way that democracy works in this place. If the House leader's argument that the government of such a warm and loving Prime Minister could not possibly harm our democracy with the power grab now under way, I wonder if she might speculate with us what the majority government of a prime minister like, say, Kevin O'Leary would do with all that power?
View Murray Rankin Profile
NDP (BC)
View Murray Rankin Profile
2017-03-23 15:10 [p.9962]
Mr. Speaker, in relation to the question of privilege, I want to add my two cents to the question of privilege raised by my hon. colleague the House leader of the official opposition, and I will conclude my remarks by asking for unanimous consent for a motion.
There is no doubt that the minister's actions were inappropriate, but more to the point, they were entirely misplaced. The lack of respect in dealing with the bill in question firmly rests on the shoulders of the government House leader, not the Conservatives. The government made the decision to try to shoehorn the debate on Bill C-17 into the tiny 30-minute window before the budget. It was not the opposition that did that. Perhaps the minister should just march on down the front bench and channel her anger where it actually belongs. She should demand that the government House leader call it for debate this afternoon or maybe even for all day tomorrow.
I would like to ask for unanimous consent for the following motion: that the order of the day for tomorrow, Friday, March 23, 2017, shall be Bill C-17, an act to amend the Yukon Environmental and Socio-economic Assessment Act and to make a consequential amendment to another act. Let us just get on with it.
Results: 1 - 15 of 165 | Page: 1 of 11

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Version: 1.13.30.0