Mauril Bélanger

[Privilege, February 19th, 2004]

The member said that she had not yet seen the information. I do not think she said, and I will clarify the record, that they had refused to provide the information, which is what the member is alleging right now.

Having said that she had not seen the information is certainly something that I have not heard disputed here from what the Deputy Prime Minister said. Therefore I believe this is certainly not a prima facie question of privilege and I would encourage the Speaker to rule against it.

[Privilege, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I would like to have a moment to review the record, but judging from the comments, the words and the quotes that the hon. member just used, the Deputy Prime Minister said that she had not yet seen that information.

[Points of Order, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, in your comments on the remarks by the member for Roberval, you said there might have been a second question that would have been in order, but no one would have answered it on this side of the House.

If the question that you did not hear had been in order, we would certainly have been pleased to answer it. However, we would have had to hear it as well. On this side of the House, we did not hear this second question either.

If it were asked again, I suppose we would have the pleasure, if you see it fit, to answer it.

[Supply, February 19th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if you were to seek it, I believe that you will find consent for the following motion:

That at the conclusion of today's debate on the Bloc Quebecois opposition motion, all questions necessary to dispose of this motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to the end of government orders on Tuesday, February 24, 2004.

[Canada Elections Act, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, discussions have taken place between all parties and I believe that if you were to seek it you would find consent that when the question is put later today on the motion to refer Bill C-3 to committee before second reading, that the motion be deemed carried on division.

[Points of Order, February 18th, 2004]

I have the right to speak here as much as those members do.

[Points of Order, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, this is the second time in the space of a few minutes that a member of the opposition is casting aspersions as to the honesty of members in terms of the tabling of documents.

It is with impunity that we are treating the reputation of hon. members. An hon. member who will table a document will table the document that he was quoting from. Unless those people will say on a regular basis that no member in the House is to be trusted any more, we had better get on with this. This is a rather unacceptable line of points of order.

[Points of Order, February 18th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, I think that there is a rule in this House by which MPs are to be trusted, considered to be telling the truth and behaving decently. The member who just spoke is insinuating the contrary.

Mr. Speaker, I invite you to resolve this issue of excessive questioning of individual behaviour.

[Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if the House would agree, I propose that you seek unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as having voted on the motion now before the House, with Liberal members voting in favour.

[Radiocommunication Act, February 17th, 2004]

Mr. Speaker, if you seek it I think you will find unanimous consent that members who voted on the previous motion be recorded as voting on the motion now before the House, with Liberals members voting yes, except those who would have voted otherwise.