Committee
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the user guide
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 100 of 7299
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I have a point of order.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes. I'd like you to clarify that, because we were all here and everybody put up their hands at the same time. You're starting with two NDP speakers. You think it would go left and right, in fairness, back and forth.
We all put our hands up at the same time, and you start by putting down two NDP speakers. Do you think that is fair?
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
We all put up our hands.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm just asking a question, that's all.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
No, you didn't.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
If you check the record, you didn't read out the names, Madam Chair.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
But we all put up our hands at the same time.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
We all had our hands up.
An hon. member: We all had our hands up at the same time.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Actually, I have a point of order.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Madam Chair.
I know it's early. I know we had a late night and the meeting was adjourned abruptly, but I distinctly remember—I was wide awake. I saw Rathika's hand go up, my hand went up, and then you actually made a point of saying that we hadn't even started the meeting yet. But I kept my hand up and I believe Ms. Sitsabaiesan kept her hand up. Then the other hands all came up.
So the fact that you have now indicated that two members of the NDP are in speaking order one and two...I'm a little bit concerned with your judgment and your biased call on the speaking order.
I would just like to reiterate what my colleague, Mr. Menegakis, has said. It seems a little unfair, unjust, and biased when literally within seconds all our hands went up and you looked over on the left side of the table and acknowledged two of your colleagues, the NDP, over and above everyone else on this committee.
I'd ask for a little bit of fairness and respect in this committee, and allow at least one member of the Conservatives to go in the top two positions. I will tell you, my hand was up.
Just to reiterate, whether I go for the Conservative side of this committee or Mr. Dykstra or any of my colleagues, it's irrelevant to me at this point because I know I will get my time to speak, but I think in all fairness, you should allow one of my colleagues to go at least in position one or two today.
View John Weston Profile
CPC (BC)
It is. When Parliament begins early in the morning, there's this moment of silence when all members are asked to consider the guidance for the country—
View John Weston Profile
CPC (BC)
I just thought it might be a good way to frame a fractious meeting, to do the same thing.
View John Weston Profile
CPC (BC)
Before we open, and we're sort of opening, we should stop, pause, and ask for that moment of guidance for the country and for the committee.
View John Weston Profile
CPC (BC)
Following the model of Parliament that we have,
…we should observe a moment of silence before the debate begins.
for guidance for our country and for our committee.
View John Weston Profile
CPC (BC)
Sorry. I just suggested that we begin with a moment of silence for guidance for the committee and the country, just like we do in Parliament.
It would need unanimous consent...[Inaudible—Editor].
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
That goes for that side as well.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm not sure whether it was a problem with the translation, but I heard the member opposite say that we were playing the victim. If I recall correctly, there was only one person in the committee who was playing the victim and it was because their feelings were hurt, and that was the member from Scarborough—Rouge River, Rathika Sitsabaiesan.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
I've heard this ruling already. This ruling is on record. This ruling has been read by the Speaker. This ruling has been introduced in the House of Commons. I'm not sure why we'd be just reading a ruling and not speaking to the actual issue of the extension.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, Mr. Chair. Madame Groguhé just made reference to something that she said in camera. I'd just like to get clarification from you that we cannot refer to anything at all that happened in an in camera meeting.
She just made reference to something that she said in camera. She said, “I read this in camera.” I don't believe it's proper procedure to do so.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Actually, as Ms. Freeman, the member opposite, knows, any member of this committee is free to get up and help themselves to coffee. We found that out yesterday. Actually, the chair vacated the seat multiple times, so we know that's possible. And yesterday the same member left the room to use the facilities, so there is no reason for a comfort break.
I find this discussion very interesting and I suggest that we continue moving forward. If the member desires a 10-minute break, she has other colleagues at this table who can carry on.
View Ted Opitz Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, we're all individuals on this committee. We're all on other committees as well. It's incumbent on individuals to regulate themselves, as we do, and as the member demonstrated yesterday. She was free to conduct personal activities outside the boundaries of this room, or stand up and get a coffee, as the chair did twice last night, and that's fine. We can do these things without having to interrupt the proceedings in kind of an all-inclusive exercise where everybody has to go to the bathroom together.
I think that's not something that's valid, and we've just burned up valuable time debating bathroom breaks.
Thank you.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you.
I just want to reiterate to this committee that the reason we're here is that the government is seeking an extension to actually consider amendments to this bill. We are being delayed and obstructed through adjournments and suspensions of committee meetings by the opposition. Now we're hearing that they need comfort breaks.
I just want to say—
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm actually on a point of order.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Now that I'm hearing that the opposition is calling for comfort breaks every couple of hours, it just goes to show that they want to delay this. They want to obstruct.
Agreeing to an extension of the time for this particular bill so that we can examine the amendments is absolutely outrageous, considering that 80% of Canadians are in support of this legislation. They are in opposition to most Canadians.
If the member is feeling so uncomfortable that she needs a comfort break, there's an easy solution. We can actually just put this to a vote right now and then she can take the break she so desires and she can rest. But if we want to debate this.... If the opposition is truly interested in talking about this particular issue, they will not try to suspend/adjourn and now take comfort breaks.
View Ted Opitz Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'm having difficulty in understanding the relevance of the member's point of order, because she brought up the same point of order previously. You had been expertly advised by our clerks on that point of order and gave guidance at that time.
In doing so, she in fact interrupted her colleague with something that I considered to be a frivolous point of order, something that had been dealt with earlier. We should be dealing with the issues in this bill, and in particular dealing with those people who would do harm to Canada's soldiers, sailors, and airmen—the Canadian Armed Forces—in potentially committing acts of terrorism against our troops and our forces at home and abroad.
I would ask and urge the member—I'm delighted that she's learning about O'Brien and Bosc and learning the procedures of the House, but this isn't the appropriate place to do so at this time. We have clerks who can provide that expert opinion, and we should be proceeding to deal with the particular issues of—
View Ted Opitz Profile
CPC (ON)
Chair, I thought I was going to get the same latitude.
View Ted Opitz Profile
CPC (ON)
I was just about to wrap up.
View Ted Opitz Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Chair, I would urge, as a previous chair said, that there be decorum. Decorum is something that finds itself in using procedures, or potentially using procedures, frivolously, as with the previous member who called for a comfort break and then didn't even leave her chair.
Mr. Chair, I would urge the members opposite to please stick to the point, to allow Madame Groguhé to carry on with the discussion of the important issues at hand—those important issues that pertain to our former colleagues serving in the Canadian Forces today—and deal with this important issue for which Canadians expect us to do the work here in Parliament, and not to be frivolous.
Thank you.
View Chungsen Leung Profile
CPC (ON)
Chair, on the same point of order, I don't think there's any precedent that says three minutes, or any amount of time, is a requirement to call a meeting. As we've experienced in the last two or three weeks in the House, votes were taken right at 3 p.m., immediately following question period, for which there is actually no time given in between.
Therefore, I respectfully ask the opposition to quickly come and debate this point and then bring it to a logical conclusion.
View Devinder Shory Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I won't make a long speech, because I know that the Canadians watching these proceedings at this point want to know why the NDP is blocking my private member's bill, which is seeking amendments to strip the citizenship of violent convicted terrorists. That is the issue here.
I understand, Mr. Chair, that we as members of Parliament have the right to call points of order as many times as we wish and that chairs also have some rights to adjourn, cancel, or suspend the meetings unilaterally. I just want to put on record, in the point of order about the three minutes' notice or thirty minutes' notice, so that Canadians know how this evolved, that the NDP chair unilaterally suspended the meeting. Without consulting, she adjourned the meeting previously. She basically, in my view, abused the process and abused—
View Devinder Shory Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
I'll wrap up by saying that I urge you, the chair, to cut down the time on points of order. Of course, we all have the right, but we should limit the point of order. As you have seen, and as I have been seeing, whenever this side of the table is speaking on a point of order, the other side interrupts right in the middle of that point of order.
Please, let's respect the taxpayers' time, let's respect the House proceedings, and let's get to the point. The NDP should tell Canadians their position. Why do they want to defend the citizenship of convicted terrorists? That is the issue. I'm very interested in listening to Madame Groguhé and other NDP members clarifying their position. Rather than talking about the procedure, etc., they have to come clean.
Thank you for hearing me.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Simply to put some perspective on the situation, Mr. Chair, we were all meeting here in this very room last night when the meeting was abruptly adjourned by the chair and reconvened a number of minutes later. I believe the impression that members opposite are giving is that somehow they were being called in here and they had to come from...I heard a member opposite say 131 Queen, possibly, or from home, or whatever, as if to give the impression that this was a meeting that was abruptly called in the wee hours of the morning so that people didn't have a chance to get here.
In fact, Mr. Chair, I want to remind honourable members, certainly on both sides over here, that not only were the members present in the building and within a minute's walk away, but.... As you know, we're staffed quite well at these meetings. Our staff is here, and I can personally attest to the fact that NDP staff was present in the room for the entire time, even when some of the NDP members—I believe all of them—walked out of the room. You yourself, Mr. Chair, were here in that period of time.
These delays and these games are in fact frivolous.
What is definitely correct in the statements I heard is that we're all here to represent our constituents. As my constituents want to know why I'm here in the wee hours in the morning, I'll explain to them the reasons why I'm here, some of which Mr. Shory quite eloquently expressed when he seriously raised the question as to why there would be any opposition, really, to a bill that seeks to strip citizenship from those who perpetrate crimes against our own Canadian troops, for example, as this bill so correctly does.
Mr. Chairman, in coming to my conclusion, while I appreciate that there's a great amount of partisanship here and people want to jostle their positions and pretend they're fooling Canadians...Canadians are not fooled in any way, shape or form. We've been sitting in this meeting, which has been convened now for the better part of the second day. We sat until the wee hours of the morning. Every member knows that these are procedural games that are being played by the NDP to suspend, to adjourn, when they're standing outside the door, conferring with their staff in the corners, in meeting rooms, in the lobby.
To suggest in any way, shape or form that a meeting was convened and in some way a member's privilege in representing their constituents was somehow violated because it's possible they would not have been near the precinct at 1:57 a.m. is untruthful, disingenuous, and definitely frivolous.
I wanted to go on the record and say that to this particular point of order.
Thank you.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2013-06-13 11:19
[Inaudible—Editor]...cancel your flight tomorrow.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2013-06-13 11:19
Sorry. My apologies.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Actually, I heard everything and I'm okay. I can hear.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Name one. Name one.
You can't name one.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, I'd like to respond.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
I've been listening very closely to Sadia's speech and her comments. She has indicated there are a number of areas where human rights have digressed in Canada. I was simply asking her—I wasn't shouting, I was asking her—to list examples, if she's going to make a broad and sweeping statement. She's not listing any of the examples.
That was my question, and I hope she's going to do that.
Otherwise, you shouldn't say it if you can't actually prove it.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
I have a different point of order, so I'm waiting until you finish this one.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
I'll withdraw for now. Thank you.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2013-06-13 13:14
So let's adjourn.
View Mike Wallace Profile
CPC (ON)
View Mike Wallace Profile
2013-06-13 13:14
Take a vote. We'll go outside.
View Dean Del Mastro Profile
Cons. Ind. (ON)
Mr. Chair, I note that it's 1:39, as a matter of fact. I think if I was attacked at this moment by a wild beaver severing one of my limbs, I could still make it to the House of Commons with plenty of time to be in question period for when questions actually begin at 2:15.
Thank you.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
No. I have a point of order.
He didn't make a recommendation, he was just suggesting that—
View Dean Del Mastro Profile
Cons. Ind. (ON)
I was commenting on the member's comment.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
—it only takes five minutes to get to the House. I'm suggesting that this is a critical piece of legislation, a critical amendment on the extension that we'd like to see passed. If there's an urgency to get to the House, I'd be happy to have the vote and all of us could spend—
View Dean Del Mastro Profile
Cons. Ind. (ON)
Yes, why don't we do that.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
—question period and whatever other period they'd like to spend there. But, Chair, you won't get unanimous consent to break for question period or for members' statements. We want to continue. We want to work on getting to a vote on this motion that I've moved on the legislation, so let's keep working.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
I would like to get back to debate as well because we've had so many interruptions. I just feel that, as a woman, I need to come to the aid of Ms. Freeman. She was having difficulties understanding what my colleague Mr. Dean Del Mastro said. I have to say I'm the youngest of five children. My parents are close to 80, and sometimes they come up with expressions I don't quite understand because of the age difference. I don't know whether she understands exactly what Mr. Dean Del Mastro was referring to or whether he needs to clarify it in terms that maybe are more understandable to all members of the committee. I would like to come to her aid and ask her if she understands what that phrase meant or whether she needs it clarified.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm trying not to sound funny, but most members of this committee understood what it meant. I just wanted to make sure that she was....
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
I want to get back to debate. I wanted to make sure that everyone on the committee understood the terms that were used. I think Ms. Freeman gets the gist of it, so I'm okay at this point.
Thank you very much.
View Dean Del Mastro Profile
Cons. Ind. (ON)
Mr. Chairman, I would simply point out that Mr. Opitz has actually left to deliver a statement in the House. That opportunity is available to Ms. Sims, Ms. Freeman, or anybody else. This committee has important work to do. There's plenty of precedents for committees to sit through question period, in fact for committees to sit through the weekend and sit through the summer, Mr. Chairman. This is an important question that's before this committee. I'd encourage you to get back to debate to deal with the question at hand.
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
Actually, I'm okay. Thank you.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
On a point of order, Mr. Chair, there's a motion on the floor that we're debating, and now she's moving another motion before that motion has been voted on. If she would like to move that motion, why don't we vote on the extension and then we'll vote on her motion to go to question period?
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
It's already done. It's over.
You do it before the vote.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Lamoureux was not on the list. After your speaker was Mr. Dykstra.
When you started the day—
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
No, if she's not here, it goes to the next person.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Get her over here.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
Get her over here. Mr. Dykstra is next.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Okay, but if there's disagreement on it....
Is she coming or not?
View Roxanne James Profile
CPC (ON)
I just want to remind the member from the NDP that he's free to get up and take a bathroom break any time he needs to, or to get some coffee or refreshments. That's the privilege of every member of this committee. We might need to have a full break with everyone going to the bathroom at the same time.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Thank you. It's always a pleasure to work with you.
Madam Chair, page 1049 of Bosc and O'Brien states:
In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee.
I appreciate my colleague's comments, but the motion is pursuant to Standing Order 97.1 (1), and the committee is requesting an extension of 30 sitting days to consider Bill C-425. The argument I believe my colleague opposite is making is that an extension would be relevant in order to see further debate of the content.
I therefore challenge the relevancy of her claim and would challenge you to ask her to move to her next topic or close her debate.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Chair, is it my understanding that you've ruled against this point of order and that my colleague should not move to the next topic, given the question of relevancy?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
So you've ruled against this point of order?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
I challenge the concept of relevancy given that my colleague is arguing for an extension of the debate on this bill, which is what the form and substance of this motion is. I believe you've ruled against this according to page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc, and I challenge your ruling on this matter.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
I think what she said was that we challenge the chair, so, Madam Chair, my understanding is that your ruling on a point of order was defeated. Is that correct?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Then, just for my understanding, would any arguments that my colleague might make to argue against the extension of the study of this bill be ruled out of order?
An hon. member: That's right. It was voted on.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Chair, again referring to page 1049 or O'Brien and Bosc, it states, “In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee.”
I argued on the latter half of that statement before. I'd like now to order that my colleague opposite's comments are repetitive. I believe that the point on the need for robust witness testimony has been made several times here in the debate on this. I would say that any testimony related to the need for robust witness testimony is in fact repetitive. She should be moving to the next point of content in her speech.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm going to let Ms. Rempel finish her point. I do have a point of relevance to Mr. Morin's interjection, but I think that Ms. Rempel needs to finish her point.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Chair, to my colleague opposite, I'm not a regular member of this committee either, and I've been following the rivetting testimony here through various other means. I believe a lot of it is put in Hansard.
I just wanted to clarify that per that point, my understanding is that the need for robust witness testimony is something that has been clearly established in committee. Therefore, any testimony put under that category would be deemed repetitive per page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc.
Is that your ruling?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Just to be clear, the need for robust witness testimony is something that would be repetitive.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm not understanding what you're ruling, Madam Chair. Was my colleague opposite in order and not repetitive, or was she repetitive?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Excellent. Thank you.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, I pass.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
I'm actually referring to the previous point of order, which you ruled against and was overturned. I believe that my colleague's content was therefore ruled out of order, and the acts of war comment that she was making is no longer relevant.
I believe that she was supposed to move on to a new topic of debate.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
We did overrule that. Is that correct?
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Going back to page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc and looking at the matter of relevancy, I don't see how my colleague is tying her testimony into the subject of the motion before committee, which is a request to extend the debate on this particular bill. That point has not been made, and therefore I believe her current topic is irrelevant.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
Madam Chair, again, pointing to relevancy on page 1049 of O'Brien and Bosc, I believe the committee recommended to the House on April 23, 2013, that it be granted the power to expand the scope of the bill during its consideration of Bill C-425 . Therefore, the committee is waiting for the decision of the House before further consideration of the bill. Therefore, the motion put in front of the committee is to extend the time in which the bill will be considered in order to accommodate exactly what my colleague is talking about. Therefore, given that she, according to my understanding, is agreeing with the content therein, I would also argue relevancy on her current line of debate.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
It gives me great pleasure, as a non-regular member of this committee, to talk to a regular member of committee about committee business—
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
That's correct. It's from page 1049, as I've stated.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
As I've read several times: In addition, the Chair may, at his or her discretion, interrupt a member whose observations and questions are repetitive or are unrelated to the matter before the committee.
View Michelle Rempel Profile
CPC (AB)
It's actually a new point of order, because each content point that has been brought forward today has been repetitive and irrelevant.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, a point of order.
The Vice-Chair (Ms. Jinny Jogindera Sims): We have—
Mr. Rick Dykstra: The relevance of the motion that is on the floor has nothing to do with the report that you're referring to.
You're talking about an argument we had, that was carried by this committee a number of weeks ago, in regard to expanding the scope of the bill. We received a decision from the legal clerk that the amendments were out of scope, and we had to go back to the House of Commons to seek the will of the House to be able to expand the scope of the bill that was agreed to by the member of Parliament.
You're speaking to that specific issue. That has nothing to do with the motion we are speaking about today.
Today is merely this motion, and I'm happy to read it again. This motion refers directly to the 30-day extension that a member of Parliament can ask for, or can seek, or can be requested by committee in order to ensure that his or her private member's bill has an additional period of time to be dealt with at the committee that the individual MP has suggested and recommended that the bill go to.
That's what this motion is about. There's nothing relevant about what you're talking about in terms of expanding the scope of the bill. That has nothing to do with this motion.
You've got to rule her to speak specifically to the motion, Madam Chair.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, I recommend we vote on it, because we've already been here for a long, long, time.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Madam Chair, based on what you just said—and I appreciate your reading the motion again so that it's clear to everyone—Ms. Groguhé spoke since about 8:30 this morning. She had about, if I read correctly here, six to seven, almost eight hours, to speak. We didn't interrupt her. We allowed her to speak to many spokes that have a little bit to do with the issue relevant to the bill itself. Virtually none of what she spoke about was about the extension. I let that go. I didn't say anything.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Let me make my point.
Well, she's gone. Actually, we're not supposed to say whether a member is here or not.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
What I am saying is that we allowed it to go and we didn't say anything. But now, when it comes specifically to this motion, I expect that the next speaker is going to speak specifically to the motion on the floor that you read today and that we aren't going to go into the same speech that we heard from Madam Groguhé. It has to be specifically to the motion on the floor today.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
You read the motion out so everybody would understand, Madam Chair. Again, we have a situation where the member is speaking about something that may have happened or have been said during the debates that occurred when the bill was before this committee. The bill is not before the committee any more. What is before the committee at the current time is this extension request. So what is the relevance of quoting witnesses when we've already determined that is out of order?
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Mr. Harris may want to make his point, but it's incorrect actually because the relevance that you're going to need to rule on my point of order is whether or not the member is speaking to the motion that is on the table, which you read. We've already heard from the previous speaker almost all the same arguments which are being presented by this speaker. So relevance has already been established, Mr. Harris. What we want now is to understand why the NDP will not vote on the issue of a 30-day extension that will allow a private member's bill to actually move forward. That's what is relevant here.
If they don't like the private member's bill--
Mr. Jack Harris: Do you think it's relevant?
Mr. Rick Dykstra: That's what I know is relevant and that's what I'm asking the chair to rule on.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes, I'm waiting for your ruling.
View Costas Menegakis Profile
CPC (ON)
No. The member apologized, so there's no need for me to say anything.
Thank you.
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Relevance?
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
Yes. I think Ms. Rempel is going to make the same point of order that I am, so she's—
View Rick Dykstra Profile
CPC (ON)
I'm giving the floor to Ms. Rempel.
Results: 1 - 100 of 7299 | Page: 1 of 73

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
>
>|
Export As: XML CSV RSS

For more data options, please see Open Data