Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 215
View Bob Rae Profile
Lib. (ON)
I think both paragraphs are relevant. I think it's an attempt to give a more complete view of the evidence and the various views expressed by members and parliamentary counsel. I think it's an important part of the balance that the staff has been trying to present as we go down that list.
View Bob Rae Profile
Lib. (ON)
I'm asking, through you, to our Conservative friends, if there's no difference between CIDA and the minister, why did Mr. Abbott make the statement that CIDA had examined this and it did not fit into CIDA's priorities? He stood up in his place in the House and said he was embarrassed to say that this had been his understanding when he made the statement, but that he now realized it wasn't true. Why would he have said that?
View Marcel Proulx Profile
Lib. (QC)
“Departmental”, in French, would become “ministériel”.
View Bob Rae Profile
Lib. (ON)
There was bound to have been speculation because of Minister Kenney's speech. Minister Kenney made a speech for which he, himself, has never given an explanation, to which he's not responded to any questions in the House with respect to how it did.... The minister repeatedly asked in the House about it, and he provided no explanation. So there was inevitably going to be speculation about the speech. I think it's fair to leave it in.
The reason the paragraph is fair is that it allows the minister's statement there as well. It simply says there was speculation and here's the minister's answer. I don't see what's unfair about that.
Results: 1 - 15 of 215 | Page: 1 of 15

Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data