Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to say that the appointment process that was in place at the time was the appointment process in place at the time. We obviously think it was not perfect because we are changing it.
House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 50% of the vote.
Points of Order March 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am quite happy to say that the appointment process that was in place at the time was the appointment process in place at the time. We obviously think it was not perfect because we are changing it.
Points of Order March 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I am encouraged that fine correspondence has taken place. However, I did not hear any attack by the Prime Minister yesterday. I heard a statement of fact that the individual who had a relationship as a spouse was appointed by the Liberal government to that position.
I do not know what his view of accountability is. There are very competent people who are related to me. However, we all know that under the rules we have in place right now, I cannot appoint them, regardless of their merits, regardless of their quality, regardless of their talents. That is what conflict of interest is.
There was no attack in question; it was simply a question of fact, that the previous Liberal government had regularly engaged in appointments of family members to government posts.
Foreign Affairs March 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this government takes very seriously its responsibility for all Canadians. Canadian consular officials are providing consular services to the child in question. The Canadian government does provide consular services to all Canadians who need help abroad.
This is, however, a sensitive, private matter. For reasons of confidentiality, I cannot comment any further, except to say that the family has explicitly requested that their privacy be respected.
Aerospace Industry March 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, our government believes that the aircraft are needed to support our troops found throughout the world.
However, the Bloc Québécois feels otherwise. In fact the member for Saint-Jean said that the purchase of aircraft was a needless waste; but now he would like to benefit from it. I am somewhat confused.
Aerospace Industry March 2nd, 2007
Mr. Speaker, our government is determined to maximize the economic benefits of our investments in the army. The crux of the matter is that the military needs new equipment after having been neglected by the Liberal government for 13 years.
Business of the House March 1st, 2007
Mr. Speaker, today we will continue the debate on the Bloc opposition motion.
Tomorrow I hope to start and conclude the debate on the third reading stage of Bill C-36. This relates to the Canada pension plan and old age security.
Next week and the following week will of course be constituency weeks and members will be working in their constituencies while the House is adjourned.
When the House returns on Monday, March 19, it is my intention to call the report stage of Bill C-10, the mandatory minimums penalty part of our agenda to make communities safer; Bill C-42, An Act to amend the Quarantine Act; Bill S-3, to do with defence; and Bill C-33, relating to income tax.
At 4 p.m. on Monday, March 19, the Minister of Finance will present his budget, as he has previously advised the House. Tuesday, March 20 will then be the first day of the budget debate. Wednesday will be day two.
I am currently asking that Thursday, March 22 be the last allotted day subject to any need to reschedule given that we are three weeks away from that day.
Democratic Reform February 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, this was a wide open competitive process. I do not believe anybody should be barred from participating because of their views.
What I want to know is why the member's party, the NDP, barred Canadians from participating in a consultation by the parliamentary committee. A motion was put forward allowing for additional consultations to take place, allowing the parliamentary committee to do its study. That was put forward by a Conservative member of Parliament. It was the NDP and the other parties that voted down that consultation process.
Democratic Reform February 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether parliamentarians are an over- or under-represented group in this country.
However, what I can say is that the way this study is fashioned is so that a representative sample of Canadians is asked to participate, not people from special interest groups but rather a cross-section of Canadians. It should be representative of the population in terms of women, in terms of aboriginals, in terms of regions, in terms of income, in terms of ethnicity. Across the board we should have representativeness and that is the best way to conduct an open consultation.
Points of Order February 27th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I listened carefully to the arguments of my friends, the member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, and I wish to respond briefly.
The member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean claims that the purpose of the amendments is simply to limit the application of the private member's bill before us and, as such, it does not go beyond the scope. That may well have been the intention, but the fact is that the device, the actual approach, used to achieve that objective is in fact a very different one.
It is not the case of one that is limiting the provisions of the bill that were already before the House of Commons and before the committee. Rather, it is to introduce entirely new sections, new provisions and new concepts, and the definition of essential services, one that did not exist. The amendments introduce new concepts that expand the scope of sections that were previously unaddressed by the private member's bill. As such, while the effect in part may be a limitation, the actual other effect and the reality of the approach and device used actually significantly expand the nature of the bill beyond the original scope.
With regard to my friend, the member for Windsor—Tecumseh, the argument he has made is essentially that the committee should be master of its own destiny, that it has the right to control its own process. In fact, the rule of order we are dealing with actually states quite the contrary. The basis of that rule is that the House of Commons is the master of its destiny, and when the House of Commons made its decision on second reading of Bill C-257, it did determine at that point the scope of the bill and what its principle was. It determined the essence of the matter in the bill.
Those are the parameters that have been set by the House within which that committee can operate, so in fact no, the committee is not master of its own destiny to do whatever it may like with the bill. It does not have the right to control its own process. It must do so within the parameters of the legislation that has been sent to it by the House. For that reason, Mr. Speaker, I submit to you that the arguments I made to you yesterday remain in place and that what we have in these amendments are amendments that go beyond the scope and purpose of the original bill approved by the House at second reading.
Points of Order February 26th, 2007
Mr. Speaker, I will respond very briefly to the comments made by my friend from Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean , who made a very compelling argument in substance. I thank him for that compelling argument in substance. The difficulty was the appropriate time for him to have made that argument would have been before second reading. It was a private member's bill from Bloc and it was at second reading that the intent and purpose of the bill was established. Therefore, whatever the merits of the arguments after that fact, the fact remains that through the amendments in front of us the scope and purpose of the legislation has been changed dramatically.
While I may support the substance of his arguments, that does not get us over the procedural difficulty we have, that it is simply not in the jurisdiction of the committee or of the House to entertain those amendments.