House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 45% of the vote.
Ethics March 22nd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I do not think it will come as a surprise to any member of the House that I completely reject the premise of the hon. member's question.
It is this government who has been focused like no other on jobs, on the economy and on our low tax plan to help Canadian families. We have come very far over the past few years. The 480,000 net new jobs is nothing more than a good start.
The Minister of Finance will present the next phase of Canada's economic action plan in the next few hours.
Ethics March 22nd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the fingerprints of the NDP members were all over that act. They unanimously supported the act.
Some very serious allegations were brought to the attention of the government. We did the responsible thing and immediately referred the matter to the relevant authorities.
Rather than letting the member for Vancouver East be judge, jury and trial lawyer, we will let the police and the courts deal with the matter.
Ethics March 22nd, 2011
Mr. Speaker, as a matter of first priority, this government brought in the Federal Accountability Act that got tough on people who leave government for five years. The law is very clear.
When issues arose with respect to one individual, we did the responsible thing. We immediately referred the matter, not just to the RCMP and to the Ethics Commissioner but also to the Commissioner of Lobbying.
Let me be very clear. Those who break the law should face the full force of law.
Points of Order March 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
I first want to thank all members of the House for that thoughtful debate.
I appreciate all the interventions that were made about this very important matter.
Pursuant to the motion adopted earlier today after question period, there have been discussions among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That, in standing in solidarity with those seeking freedom in Libya, the House welcomes United Nations Security Council Resolution 1973; that the House deplores the ongoing use of violence by the Libyan regime against the Libyan people; acknowledges the demonstrable need, regional support and clear legal basis for urgent action to protect the people of Libya; consequently, the government shall work with our allies, partners and the United Nations to promote and support all aspects of UNSC Resolution 1973, which includes the taking of all necessary measures to protect civilians and civilian populated areas under threat of attack in Libya and to enforce the no-fly zone, including the use of the Canadian Forces and military assets in accordance with UNSC Resolution 1973; that the House requests that the Standing Committee on Foreign Affairs and International Development and the Standing Committee on National Defence remain seized of Canada's activities under UNSC Resolution 1973; that should the government require an extension to the involvement of the Canadian Forces for more than three months from the passage of this motion, the government shall return to the House at its earliest opportunity to debate and seek the consent of the House for such an extension; and that the House offers its wholehearted support to the men and women of the Canadian Forces.
United Nations Security Council Resolution Concerning Libya March 21st, 2011
Mr. Chair, I have a comment. I want to commend the member on an excellent speech.
Questions on the Order Paper March 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, the Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns at the Privy Council Office, PCO, coordinates the government-wide process for producing and tabling responses to parliamentary written questions seeking factual information from ministers of the Crown relating to public affairs.
PCO seeks to assist the government in providing timely, complete and accurate responses to questions from parliamentarians and has prepared a “Guide to Producing Parliamentary Returns” to assist departments, agencies and other government organizations to prepare timely, complete and accurate responses.
Officials in PCO examine the Order Paper and Notice Paper of the House of Commons and the Senate on a daily basis for new questions. The text of each question is analyzed and, on occasion, clarification of a question may be sought from the parliamentarian who filed the question. PCO then determines, in consultation with departmental parliamentary return officers, which departments and other organizations in a minister’s portfolio will be assigned to respond to the question. In the case of complex questions assigned to many departments and other government organizations, PCO will often produce and distribute written instructions. These will state which organizations should answer parts of a question, provide advice on interpretation of the question, refer to relevant government policies, and, if needed, provide a template so that information is presented in a consistent manner. These instructions are tabled in Parliament with Ministers’ answers to the questions.
PCO has also produced, as requested by the Auditor General, a “Glossary of Terms for Parliamentary Returns” to help parliamentarians frame written questions in a manner that will assist them in getting the type of information they wish, and to help government institutions ensure there is a consistency of response. Many of the glossary items relate to financial and accounting terms used by federal government institutions.
PCO is responsible for ensuring compliance with the guidelines, for ensuring that there is a consistency of approach with respect to multi-departmental/agency responses, for quality control as far as practicable, and for ensuring the responses are formatted for tabling in Parliament and using appropriate parliamentary language. For responses to questions tabled in 2010, PCO in carrying out these responsibilities made or suggested that 275 discrete changes be made to proposed responses submitted to the PCO Office for the Coordination of Parliamentary Returns. Approximately two-thirds of these interventions were to address formatting issues, typographical errors, translation issues, or issues of parliamentary language. An additional 25% of the interventions were to provide greater precision, greater clarity, or additional information in the responses. In four instances, duplicate information was removed. In five other instances, PCO interventions were to suggest the privacy of individuals or companies be protected in accordance with government policy, i.e., that the principles of the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act be applied. For responses tabled in 2009, PCO made or suggested 41 changes to provide greater precision, greater clarity, or additional information in the responses. It was not possible in the time available to research the number of changes to address formatting and other similar types of matters in 2009.
Take Note Debate March 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, there have been negotiations among the parties and I believe you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That notwithstanding any Standing Order or usual practice of the House, after routine proceedings this day, the House shall resolve itself into Committee of the Whole for a take note debate, pursuant to Standing Order 53.1; that the committee consider the following motion: “That this committee take note of the March 17, 2011 United Nations Security Council resolution approving immediate action to protect the civilian population in Libya and Canada's contribution to international efforts to enforce that resolution”; that, after four hours of debate or when no member rises to speak, the committee rise and that a minister of the Crown be permitted to rise on a point of order.
Points of Order March 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, at your request, if I used any unparliamentary language in response to a question from the member for Timmins—James Bay, I withdraw it.
Ethics March 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, why would the member's constituents trust him? This is a member who committed massive electoral fraud, not once, not twice, but three times. Let me say, his constituents will be convicting him in the next election.
Ethics March 21st, 2011
Mr. Speaker, I think it is a bit rich for the member to stand and talk about broken promises.
I have a good friend in Timmins, Ontario, who listened to election campaign commitments from this member, not in one election, not in two elections, but in three elections, where he made a solemn pact with the voters to stand in this place and vote against the wasteful long gun registry.
Finally, when his constituents needed him, he exposed an act of electoral fraud by breaking faith with his constituents. I do not need to hear about broken promises from this individual member.