Kevin Lamoureux

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, all I ask is to be heard. Other members want to heckle. I was very patient in listening.

Here I would draw the comparison of having a member of the Conservatives, who at the time was being assured that he could deal with the issue in whatever way he would like to—

[Privilege, March 22nd, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I will come back to the House business. However, initially in listening to the member across the way, it raises some concern in regard to why this mischievous behaviour, at the best of times, comes from the Conservative Party. I want to briefly highlight a couple of things that members and the Speaker might want to take into consideration.

One could reflect, for example, on the member for Beauce, and the level of discomfort that was very obvious with that particular member going from seat to seat and then ultimately leaving the party to start a new party. Probably a better example, which Canadians would be very familiar with, was with the member for Cumberland—Colchester, an individual of great integrity, when Stephen Harper made the promise of the Atlantic Accord and there was an accord that was in place, and a motion.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, without reservation, I would take back the word “stole”.

[Business of Supply, March 20th, 2019]

Madam Speaker, I would like to talk about accountability and trustworthiness and so forth, which the member alluded to a great deal. I would like to quote something from the Canadian Press:

The Federal Court of Appeal says it can't intervene in a case where more than five dozen NDP MPs were ordered to repay $2.7 million in expenses the House of Commons says was actually for partisan purposes.

That is being very kind. I was here when the NDP, including its previous leader, stole from Canadians. That was the bottom line.

My friend seems to be so focused on integrity every time he stands, talking virtually from day one in 2015 about integrity and accountability, yet the NDP members continue to want to deny that they broke the law when in fact they did.

Will he admit that maybe the NDP should be paying back those tax dollars?

[Government Response to Petitions, March 20th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the government's response to four petitions

[Question of Privilege, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on the second point. I thank the Speaker for the opportunity to respond to the intervention of the member for Milton.

The rules are very clear around in camera meetings. House of Commons Procedure and Practice, 2017, pages 1089 and 1090, states the following:

Divulging any part of the proceedings of an in camera committee meeting has been ruled by the Speaker to constitute a prima facie matter of privilege.

The key word here is “proceedings”. Making public a motion that one intends to move at a meeting is well within the rules. There is a high level of hypocrisy coming from the Conservatives on this very issue.

On February 28, the member for St. Albert—Edmonton released a letter publicly on Twitter—

[Question of Privilege, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, allow me to briefly address both points that have been raised by the official opposition and the member from the New Democratic Party.

The Minister of Finance duly tabled the budget 2019 documents in the House. That is not contrary to the rules. The opposition has been saying in the media that they will do everything to delay the presentation of the budget, as evidenced by the two motions debated yesterday during Routine Proceedings and further evidenced by the 257 opposed votes standing on the Order Paper.

On this side of the House, we want to deliver a strong budget. That is our duty as government—

[Questions on the Order Paper, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand at this time.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, I ask that the recorded division be deferred until tomorrow, Wednesday, March 20, after Government Orders.

[Committees of the House, March 19th, 2019]

Mr. Speaker, members on the other side of the House really need to give their heads a shake. Think about it. For the last two days, the Minister of Indigenous Services and Liberal members have wanted to talk about Bill C-92, but the opposition continues to frustrate the debate by filibustering, by putting forward motions like the one today to talk about the Champlain Bridge. That is today; yesterday it was something else. They do not want to debate substantive legislation.

On one hand, opposition members say the Liberal government always uses tools to prevent them from speaking and, on the other hand, they ask why the Liberals are not using those tools. They are challenging us to do something they do not want us—