Hansard
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 91 - 120 of 217
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-07 15:03 [p.887]
Mr. Speaker, during question period, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, in response a question from my colleague from Vancouver Quadra, began his answer with a personal attack, using language which in the past you have ruled unparliamentary.
I would ask if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister might wish to withdraw those first words of his answer. If he does not, Mr. Speaker, maybe you could review the record and come back to the House with some clarification as to what an appropriate answer would be.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-11-05 10:33 [p.735]
Mr. Speaker, I congratulate my hon. colleague from Wascana on his speech and on all his efforts throughout this scandal to clarify this situation and get some answers from the government and the Prime Minister. It is unfortunate that the Prime Minister often does not want to answer questions. However, I congratulate my colleague on his excellent work on this issue.
My question is rather simple. For the past few days, we have seen some of the questions that have arisen from the statements or affidavits the RCMP has filed in court regarding the involvement of the Prime Minister's Office—probably Mr. Woodcock, who is now the chief of staff for the Minister of Natural Resources—in inventing a scenario or scheme to cover up money in the PMO, specifically the money that Mr. Wright gave to Senator Duffy, and inventing stories involving a line of credit for Mr. Duffy's house and claims that he borrowed the money from the Royal Bank.
Clearly, the police documents reveal that that was not true, and furthermore, that the Prime Minister's Office had advised a parliamentarian to lie. It is really disturbing that senior officials in the office of the Prime Minister of Canada would take the time to send emails instructing a parliamentarian to go on television and lie to the Canadian public about an issue as complex and important as the integrity of the Prime Minister's Office and the Prime Minister himself.
I wonder if my colleague has any thoughts he could share on that.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-31 11:42 [p.642]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has in his possession a document that Canadians have yet to see that would help answer many questions.
Arthur Hamilton's invoice should itemize all of the work he did for the Prime Minister's Office. We know that he helped the PMO cover up this scandal.
Will the Prime Minister release that invoice so that we can see the details of the agreement with his office?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-31 11:43 [p.642]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has stated for months that no documents existed outlining the cover-up taking place in his own office. We now know that was not true, because Senator Duffy has made public documents and emails directly contradicting the Prime Minister. It is a sad day when Canadians have to learn more from Mike Duffy in eight days than from the Prime Minister in eight months. No wonder nobody believes the Prime Minister anymore.
Will the government make public the remaining documents, or will it wait for Senator Duffy to do so?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-28 14:21 [p.468]
Mr. Speaker, on February 13, the Prime Minister told this House that he had checked Pamela Wallin's expenses himself and that they were in order. Today he is saying the opposite.
When Mike Duffy was accused of inappropriate spending in December, the Prime Minister's Office told him that his expenses were in order. Today, the Prime Minister is saying otherwise.
If the Prime Minister has nothing to hide, why does he keep changing his story?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-28 14:22 [p.468]
Mr. Speaker, on May 16, after Nigel Wright told the Prime Minister about the $90,000 hush money, the Prime Minister said Nigel Wright had his full support. On May 19, the Prime Minister stated, “It is with great regret that I have accepted the resignation of Nigel Wright...”. Now the Prime Minister says Nigel Wright was fired. His story keeps changing every time, and nobody believes the Prime Minister.
When will the Prime Minister come clean and tell Canadians once and for all what he knows about this Conservative cover-up?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-28 14:23 [p.468]
Mr. Speaker, on June 5 in the House the Prime Minister indicated, incredulously, that Nigel Wright had acted alone, yet on October 24 he was forced to tell us a that a few people in the Prime Minister's Office knew about this scandal and its cover-up. These are numerous examples of a Prime Minister's story changing all the time.
Canadians no longer trust the Prime Minister to tell the truth. The only solution would be for him to finally testify under oath. If he has nothing to hide, nothing to cover up, why is he afraid of testifying under oath?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-24 14:23 [p.354]
Mr. Speaker, when Ray Novak was the Prime Minister's principal secretary, he was directly involved in covering up the Conservatives' scandal and helped hide the Prime Minister's involvement. The Prime Minister rewarded him for his potentially criminal involvement in this scandal by appointing him chief of staff.
Why does the Prime Minister think it is acceptable to reward potentially criminal behaviour?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-24 14:25 [p.354]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister should call Senator Segal.
This has to do with how the Prime Minister encourages and promotes corrupt behaviour in his own office. Ray Novak participated in what appears to be extortion and covering up the Conservative bribe, trying to sweep the whole scandal under the rug. What prime minister would punish the chief of staff by promoting him?
We had Bruce Carson, Nigel Wright, and now Ray Novak. Why does the Prime Minister choose to surround himself with people with such appalling ethical standards?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-24 14:26 [p.354]
Mr. Speaker, here is another name for the list: Chris Woodcock. Mr. Woodcock was the Prime Minister's go-to guy when he needed problems mopped up, sort of like a cleaner. He was sent the details outlining the deal and the bribe to silence Mike Duffy, but instead of going to the police he prepared a plan to cover it up. What was his punishment? He received a promotion to the job of chief of staff for the Minister of Natural Resources.
Was this promotion a reward for his role in this cover-up, or was it to distance him from the Prime Minister's own ethical lapses?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-23 14:58 [p.294]
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright did not act alone in the Mike Duffy affair. Ray Novak, the Prime Minister's current chief of staff, Marjory LeBreton, the former leader of the government in the Senate, and Conservative senators Tkachuk and Stewart Olsen have all been accused of participating in this scheme and threatening Mike Duffy in order to buy his silence. We are talking about potential criminal allegations.
How can the Prime Minister keep people in his inner circle who are the subject of these kinds of allegations?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-21 14:55 [p.169]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister falsely claimed that Nigel Wright was the only one aware of the $90,000 payment to Mike Duffy. Today we learned more details about how the entire PMO orchestrated a plan for Mike Duffy and we learned that the Prime Minister ordered Mike Duffy not to co-operate with the Deloitte audit.
The RCMP and Mike Duffy's lawyer have shown us that the Prime Minister has not been honest about this scandal. When will he come clean and stop hiding his own role in this scandal?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-10-17 14:41 [p.57]
Mr. Speaker, the RCMP affidavits published this summer contradict the Conservative ministers on the Wright-Duffy affair.
Contrary to what they have been telling us for months, we know that Mr. Wright was not the only person who knew the details of the agreement and that he had hundreds of pages of documents. Let us see whether the Conservative ministers can be honest for once. We know that Mr. Duffy had a meeting at the Prime Minister’s Office on February 11 of this year.
Whom did Mike Duffy meet at the Langevin Building on that occasion?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 13:46 [p.18533]
Mr. Speaker, I rise today on a question of privilege. It is indeed the same question of privilege my colleague from Avalon raised in the House on June 5 related to the rights of certain members to sit and vote in the House while in violation of certain provisions of the Canada Elections Act.
I would first state that I agree unequivocally with the arguments put forward by both my colleague from Avalon and my colleague the member for Winnipeg North.
Second, I understand that you, Mr. Speaker, have had a chance to consider all of the arguments with respect to this question of privilege and that you may be prepared to rule on that question of privilege.
I am rising is to tell you and my colleagues that I think it is important for the House to understand that our colleague from Avalon is not in Ottawa today, because he had the happy news this morning, at 9:55 a.m., of the birth of his second son Isaac Andrews.
I am glad that colleagues join me in congratulating our colleague from Avalon and his wife Susan on the birth of Isaac. Therefore, they will understand that he is in St. John's today and is not available to hear your ruling on this matter.
For this reason, I rise today, in essence, to resubmit the question of privilege raised by my colleague on June 5. I will spare you, Mr. Speaker, and the House the pleasure of hearing those arguments again. I would ask that you rule on the matter today if you are prepared to do so. If you are prepared to rule on the matter, Mr. Speaker, and you do find a prima facie breach of privilege, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 14:23 [p.18540]
Mr. Speaker, Saulie Zajdel, a former Conservative candidate and employee, has been arrested for corruption that was allegedly committed prior to the 2011 election.
A security check should have identified Mr. Zajdel as a potential risk. However, the Conservatives decided to give him a job paid by Canadian taxpayers.
Why did the minister hire someone with such a dubious past as that of Mr. Zajdel, at taxpayers' expense?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 14:24 [p.18540]
Mr. Speaker, the culture of corruption is so deep in the Prime Minister's Office that now two of his ex-chiefs of staff are facing RCMP investigations with respect to potential criminal behaviour involving legislators and other government officials.
The question must be asked: What does the Prime Minister ask his chiefs of staff to do that ends them in a police investigation and facing possible jail time?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 14:26 [p.18540]
Mr. Speaker, Nigel Wright, Mike Duffy, Saulie Zajdel, Bruce Carson, Arthur Porter: the Prime Minister clearly likes to surround himself with men of conviction. In Bruce Carson's case, I think he has five.
When did the Prime Minister decide that to work for him, one must either have a criminal record or be willing to obtain one?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 15:39 [p.18553]
Mr. Speaker, I would like to begin by thanking you for having studied this important issue. It is clear that you looked closely at any precedents as well as House procedure, and we thank you for your careful consideration of this question.
I think all members will acknowledge, and the Speaker's ruling makes it clear, that this is not an easy situation, and it is one for which not many precedents exist. I think a great deal of merit has been given to the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the member for Avalon.
Mr. Speaker, you have obviously given a great deal of attention to the interventions of other colleagues on this question of privilege, and for that, Mr. Speaker, I thank you profoundly.
The issue has been and continues to be, from our perspective, the issue of members of Parliament having earned the right to take their seats in this House. Those of us who are privileged enough to represent our constituents in this great democratic assembly also have the obligation to arrive in this place having followed every single section, every principle and every precedent of the Canada Elections Act and the various court cases over the years that have interpreted the application of Canada's electoral legislation.
This is a relatively simple concept. Every voter has the right to vote in a fair election. The person who wins the most votes wins the privilege of representing their constituents in the House of Commons.
However, the election itself still needs to be fair, fair to all of the parties and all of the candidates who are running. When a candidate chooses to flout election rules, the vote is, by definition, unfair. Democracy pays the price.
As I stated earlier, I think, and I agree with the Speaker, that the procedure and House affairs committee of the House of Commons is the place for members to properly understand the application of the Canada Elections Act and also the rights and privileges of members of this House to sit, debate and vote with colleagues who arrive here having followed all of the prescriptions of the Canada Elections Act.
I think it would be instructive, as we begin a debate on this very important matter, for my colleagues to be reminded of subsection 463(2) of the Canada Elections Act, which my colleague from Avalon raised, which says:
An elected candidate who fails to provide a document as required by section 451 or 455 or fails to make a correction as requested under subsection 457(2) or authorized by 458(1) shall not continue to sit or vote as a member until they are provided or made, as the case may be.
I would draw attention to the words “shall not”. The legislation, from our perspective, is unambiguous. It is prescriptive. It does not say “may not”. It does not say “might not”. It says “shall not”.
That is why, Mr. Speaker, you were in the difficult position of having to reconcile that section of our election legislation with other sections that provide, for other offences or other non-compliance measures, an opportunity to seek a judicial review before the appropriate court of competent jurisdiction.
That is why we will continue to ask—and we will repeat our demands—that any member who does not comply with the law be stripped of the right to vote and sit in the House.
If, after the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs has looked into the matter, the House concludes that in a specific case the member should have the right to sit in the House, the House of Commons has that power and privilege.
However, for the moment, the House has not ruled on this matter. That is why we continue to have serious concerns about the member's right to sit and vote in the House after having received an official letter from the Chief Electoral Officer regarding the section cited.
The statute passed by the House, the Canada Elections Act, is very clear. It says that members who are not compliant with the act shall not sit and vote. This is the case, as we now know, with respect to at least one member of the Conservative Party, the member for Selkirk—Interlake.
If the House, in its wisdom, chooses to stay this proceeding, having been informed by the Speaker, as you have just done, of the receipt of this communication, and it allows colleagues to continue to sit and vote, that is properly a privilege and right of the House. However, as we stand here today, we are in the absence of that opinion from the House.
Whether the law was well drafted, desirable for some Conservative MPs, pleasant, agreeable or nice, it is very clear: those members for whom an official communication has been received by the Speaker shall not sit or vote.
Once the procedure and House affairs committee, I hope at an early opportunity, is seized of this matter following your ruling, and I hope, following a vote in the House, it is our intention to continue the argument that in the absence of a decision by the House to the contrary, the legitimacy of these members is unquestioned. That comes directly from statutory authority, in the Canada Elections Act.
To conclude, Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank you for your ruling. I believe that you have taken the time to reflect. You spoke about the difficult situation that you find yourself in because this is setting a precedent.
I do not disagree. Obviously, I would not disagree with the Speaker. I do not disagree in terms of the procedure and House affairs committee's role in this. However, I would ask colleagues, and we will ask our colleagues on the committee, to reflect on this question: In the absence of a decision by the House, as you correctly noted in your ruling, Mr. Speaker, how legitimate is it for members to sit and vote in the House when they have been subject to a communication under that section of the Elections Act, which is prescriptive?
If the House wants to change the elections legislation and that section of the Canada Elections Act, there is a procedure to amend that statute. We are obviously waiting. The government has talked often about making amendments to the Canada Elections Act. It does not seem to be in a big hurry to do so, although it has perhaps briefed the Conservative caucus, in its horror, on allegedly toughening up the elections legislation. It has since run for cover.
If Parliament wants to amend the act, that is a separate issue from the application of the current legislation to members who were elected in the general election of 2011. That should properly be the subject of the discussion in the House this afternoon.
I hope that my colleagues on the procedure and House affairs committee will act forthwith to rectify what is an untenable situation for the members themselves, who are subject to this communication, for the Chair himself, who received this communication, and for members of the House, who we believe have not had their privileges respected because of the continued presence of members who have not complied with the Canada Elections Act.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 15:52 [p.18555]
Mr. Speaker, the question and comment of my colleague from Toronto—Danforth reminded me of his rather loquacious intervention that he made with respect to this question of privilege. He raises the nub of the issue from our perspective.
My colleague from Scarborough, in a conversation, said that perhaps we were looking for some sort of interim relief, some sort of temporary relief pending either, ultimately, the disposition by the Court of Queen's Bench of Manitoba or a decision of the House with respect to whether the member for Selkirk—Interlake should continue to sit and vote. From our perspective, the prudent thing would be for the member not to sit and vote, because as I said, the legislation is prescriptive. It does not say “may” or ”might”, it says “shall”. We think the legislation is very clear.
In the absence of either a court decision that the House chooses to enforce or a decision of the House itself, the member for Selkirk—Interlake should not be sitting or voting during proceedings of the House.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 15:54 [p.18555]
Mr. Speaker, I thank my hon. colleague from Ottawa—Vanier because he has asked the same question that gave us pause when my colleague from Avalon rose earlier. We are faced with an untenable situation. A number of members—or in this case, at least one member—is the subject of a letter that was sent to you, Mr. Speaker. We do not believe that the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs should take the summer to reflect and make a decision regarding this issue, and then report to the House of Commons.
As far as the member for Selkirk-Interlake is concerned—and I can certainly put myself in his shoes—it is a displeasing and untenable situation for him to be in, too. I am sure that he hopes that the House will make a decision as quickly as possible in regards to this matter.
In your decision, you invited the committee to consider another procedure and clarify the rules of the House. Obviously, that is an important process, but perhaps it is not as important as immediately deciding the status of a member of Parliament who is the subject of a letter addressed to you.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-18 15:57 [p.18556]
Mr. Speaker, I agree with my colleague from Skeena—Bulkley Valley, the House leader of the official opposition, on the two essential points he made.
This is a pattern of difficulty complying with elections legislation. We could go back to the in-and-out scandal where the Conservative Party ended up pleading guilty to a serious election offence. There is a long list, a direct line from these offences to the current situation in which some members find themselves. I share his view that it is a pattern of disrespect for election legislation.
I also share his view that the House should take the time to pronounce itself and to consider this matter thoroughly and completely. These issues have precedence over other matters before the House. I hope we can hear from colleagues on all sides of the House.
It would certainly be our intention to participate in what I hope is a full and substantive debate, starting this afternoon, on this matter. Once the House votes, ultimately, and once the debate is finished and no member rises to speak, then the procedure and House affairs committee can consider its work. However, until that time, we are looking forward to hearing interventions from many members.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-06-05 15:40 [p.17719]
Mr. Speaker, I am happy to rise today to present a petition signed by hundreds of residents of New Brunswick and other provinces in Atlantic Canada.
They are objecting to the very wrong-spirited and mean-spirited changes that the government is making to employment insurance, particularly as it impacts seasonal industries and those who work in seasonal industries.
The petitioners are asking this House and the government to change direction and to rescind these changes to employment insurance to ensure that economic progress and fairness can continue in areas dependent on seasonal work.
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-05-29 14:51 [p.17241]
Mr. Speaker, on February 13, the Prime Minister told this House that he had personally reviewed Senator Wallin's travel expenses and found them to be perfectly fine. However, once the audit began, Senator Wallin came to a different conclusion, and she has already reimbursed tens of thousands of dollars of expenses that she must have thought were inappropriate or perhaps fraudulent.
Canadians are wondering. Why would the Prime Minister say that these expenses were perfectly fine, when he should have known that the auditors had to go back to the Senate committee to ask for permission to go even further back, because these expenses were so appalling?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-05-29 14:53 [p.17242]
Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister had also said two months previously that the expenses were perfectly fine, but Canadians are wondering, in light of the Duffy-Wright scandal, if the Prime Minister can categorically reassure Canadians that the money Senator Wallin has already reimbursed, with potentially tens of thousands of dollars of further reimbursements to be given by Senator Wallin, were, in fact, her funds personally, or did somebody in the Prime Minister's Office, or perhaps Conservative Party headquarters, reimburse her or give her a gift to cover this appalling reimbursement?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians do not have any special, secret deals to clear their debt. The question is simple: did the Prime Minister ask if the arrangement complied with Senate rules, the Conflict of Interest Act, the Criminal Code and the Parliament of Canada Act, which state that prohibited monetary compensation cannot be offered to a senator and that anyone who makes such an offer can be imprisoned?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians cannot get their debts wiped out and their records whitewashed by the Prime Minister's Office.
What mechanisms did the government use to “go easy” on Senator Duffy as laid out in the agreement between the two lawyers? What authority did the Prime Minister have to supposedly promise a sanitized audit report, allegedly an independent evaluation, of inappropriate expenses?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
Mr. Speaker, ordinary Canadians do not have wealthy Conservative friends who can pay their debts and then whitewash official reports.
When was the Prime Minister made aware that Conservative senators on the audit committee had been asked to delete certain sections of the report pertaining to Senator Duffy's wrongdoing?
Could he tell us who gave that order to the Conservative senators? Was it the Prime Minister, his chief of staff or the government leader in the Senate?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-05-09 14:24 [p.16575]
Mr. Speaker, while families are trying desperately to help their children find a summer job, the Conservatives' priorities are elsewhere.
Instead of helping youths and middle-class families, the Conservatives are wasting more than $3,000 of taxpayers' money a day to spy on their own members in the media.
The question I would like to ask the Prime Minister is this: how many people asked him to waste the equivalent of a job a day to spy on his own Conservative MPs in the media?
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
Lib. (NB)
View Dominic LeBlanc Profile
2013-04-22 15:06 [p.15721]
Mr. Speaker, I am intervening with respect to the question of privilege that was brought before the House by the member for Langley.
Without any doubt, freedom of speech for members of Parliament is paramount in any democracy. In fact, you will be very familiar with this text, Mr. Speaker. Erskine May's 19th edition states, “Freedom of speech is a privilege essential to every free council or legislature.”
Mr. Speaker, the sheer number of interventions you have had on this question clearly displays the considerable concern surrounding the current management of members' statements. That concern is reflected clearly on all sides of the House.
The Liberal Party has until now not intervened in this question of privilege. I want to make it clear, on behalf of my colleagues, I am rising to intervene in support of the concerns raised by the member for Langley and I do so with the proviso that perhaps a solution is at hand, a solution that may negate your needing to find a prima facie breach of privilege.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, the leader of my party, the member for Papineau, gave notice late last week of a motion that in our view would resolve the issue and perhaps lead the member for Langley to conclude that his question of privilege need not be debated in the House and subsequently at the procedures and House affairs committee.
We had hoped to be able to debate the motion today. The motion from my colleague, the member for Papineau, would take control of members' statements away from the party whips, every party whip including our own, and give it back to members themselves because we believe that it is very important for members to be able to rise in the House in a consistent and reliable way to represent their constituents and speak for the women and men who have elected them and sent them here to this chamber.
We had been told in last Thursday's statement by the government House leader that we would have a Liberal opposition day today and therefore the House would have been seized of this very issue today. Unfortunately, the government decided to change the order of the proceedings today. We would have preferred to be discussing this today, but we are hopeful that in the coming days, perhaps even this week, the House will again be seized with the motion from my colleague from Papineau.
The motion, from our perspective, and I hope from other colleagues' as well, would provide not only direction to the Chair by, we hope, changing the actual standing orders, but would reduce the need for the question of privilege to continually be debated in the House and for the procedure and House affairs committee, which is currently dealing with the rather lengthy and complicated electoral boundaries reports from each province, to take up its time with this particular matter.
The question of privilege has been before the House for several weeks. There have been regular interventions from members on all sides. Mr. Speaker, I would urge you, and believe it would be prudent for you, to wait only a few more days in the hope that the House is able to pronounce itself through a vote on the motion presented by the Liberal Party on an opposition day, which we believe may, in a very common sense and democratic way, resolve the issue. A ruling by you, Mr. Speaker, before the House has had a chance to speak and to vote on this Liberal motion could in fact lead to the procedure and House affairs committee's important work on electoral boundaries being delayed. I think there is no better way than to get the consensus of the House in a stand-up vote on a thoughtful, democratic motion brought forward on an opposition day.
Therefore, I would urge you, Mr. Speaker, to resist ruling on this question of privilege, to give the House, I hope, in the coming days a chance to pronounce itself on a motion that we think is very important to restore the democracy of this House of Commons and Canadians' faith in their elected representatives to speak on their behalf at every available opportunity in this chamber.
Results: 91 - 120 of 217 | Page: 4 of 8

|<
<
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data