Committee
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Consult the new user guides
For assistance, please contact us
Add search criteria
Results: 1 - 15 of 901
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
I just want to say that is a quite faithful report of the debates that went on in our committee. If we want to take out one part, we could be heading towards taking out what we do not like and keeping what we like.
I think the research staff has done a good job. I said so at the last meeting. They reported what was said and it is very well done.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, I would really like you to give permission for us to study paragraph 38 at the same time as paragraph 33. It is not a big deal. The only thing that concerns me is that, in paragraph 38, they are asking us to change what Mr. Walsh apparently said. Did he mention an administrative decision? If so, we cannot have it look like he said “organizational decision”. The difference is important because, in paragraph 38, the words are Mr. Walsh's.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
Personally, I still say that our researchers have faithfully reflected the status of the discussions and they have described that situation as speculation—they stayed very neutral, those people, because a lot of politics were going on around the table. I feel that it is even to the minister's advantage. I would take out the word “spéculation“, but that is basically what it was, and Mr. Rae is right. We were discussing the Liberal motion and the Conservatives wanted to bring some of the debates back in. The analysts have analyzed the debates for us, but some people are challenging the content. That was the content of the debates, that's the reality. I cannot be opposed to their analysis and I cannot support removing paragraph 34.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
A point of order.
Could you specify the nature of the Speaker's request concerning this report? Mr. Reid is telling us that we were given until October 25. Mr. Chair, you are familiar with the Speaker's request. What is your position?
Excuse me. I heard October 25 through the translation.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, the only thing is that paragraph 36 mentions Mrs. Corkery's appearance and the answers she gave. It seems to me that, in her reply, she said that the letter did not give any more specific explanations. That is not the committee's position, actually. It really is what she said.
I do not know whether the analysts found the sentence in her testimony where she said that the letter did not give any more specific explanations. I think that is what she said.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
Mr. Chair, I am going to support paragraph 38. Mr. Reid is doing so for his own reasons, but I am supporting it precisely because Mr. Walsh told us that it is important for us to see that, in the minister's office, there are two levels of decision-making, a departmental level and a political level.
The Bloc Québécois is clear in its decision. We are not questioning the minister's decision, a decision made in her office. Rather, we are questioning the fact that, for more than a year, the attempt has been made to make it seem like a CIDA decision, and that we will never accept. That is why we are going to support paragraph 41, that, by way of conclusion, says: “… the committee sees no other choice to find her in contempt of Parliament”. If my colleagues were in agreement, Mr. Chair, we could even add “and to recommend that the House withdraw its confidence in this government that, by its systematic obstruction, today once more clearly shows that it no longer deserves to govern this country”.
An hon. member: Hear, hear!
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
I simply wanted to say, Mr. Chairman, that paragraph 32 makes reference to the statements made by certain members. Other paragraphs do the same in relation to other members. I believe the researchers have simply reflected the discussions that actually occurred in committee. In paragraph 32, the wording is consistent with the discussions that occurred at that time and the questions raised by certain members. In paragraph 33 and others as well, the Minister provides an explanation.
This is an accurate account of the discussions that took place in committee, Mr. Chairman.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
As you know, Mr. Chairman, the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs is the most important committee in the House of Commons. After the Speaker of the House of Commons, you are the most important committee chair. I see no reason why others could not participate in the debate. All members of Parliament are…
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
I have no problem with having the translation sent as soon as possible. We could then resume work around noon.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
I have a great deal of respect for Mr. Reid, but he is discussing the motion. He is not speaking to his amendment. Mr. Chair, could he please speak to his amendment? Please, we must not discuss the motion.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
This amendment completely distorts the meaning of the proposal. It is not an amendment, it is a proposal in itself. This amendment should not be ruled to be in order, Mr. Chair, because passing it would be just like negating the motion. I have no problem with the Conservatives being against the motion; all they have to do is vote against it. The problem is that this amendment does not serve to amend the proposal, it serves to destroy it and to put a completely new one in its place. I think you should take that into consideration, Mr. Chair.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
A point of order, Mr. Chair.
View Mario Laframboise Profile
BQ (QC)
Results: 1 - 15 of 901 | Page: 1 of 61

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

For more data options, please see Open Data