Ralph Goodale

[The Economy, November 21st, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we cannot know where we are going if we do not understand where we have been. So it is with the deficit: Canada's new Conservative deficit.

To fix it the government must be honest about where it came from. Private analysts like Global Insight and the Parliamentary Budget Officer, an officer created by the current government, all say Canada's new Conservative deficit is caused by mistaken Conservative policies.

Will the government explain what logic led it to eliminate both the prudence factor and the contingency reserve from the federal budget?

[Business of the House, November 20th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this has to do with House business. I would be interested to have from the government House leader his forecast of the agenda going forward.

As I ask him this question, the first time I have had to ask the so-called Thursday question in this new Parliament, I want to congratulate the government House leader on his new appointment and hope that the relationship among House leaders is one that works well as we go forward.

Could he provide to the House the information that is usually given about the game plan for next week? I note that the Minister of Finance indicated a certain time for the economic statement next Thursday afternoon at four o'clock. I wonder if that means that what remains of the throne speech debate would carry over then into the Friday of next week. Could the House leader tell us if that is his intention?

Specifically, on the economic statement, could he indicate if a decision has been taken yet as to whether the statement will be delivered in a parliamentary committee, or in the House in committee of the whole, or as a statement by a minister or in some other venue altogether?

Could he also say whether there will be a briefing provided to members of the opposition before the presentation of the statement so it can be treated with the seriousness that it deserves, given the gravity of Canadian economic circumstances at the present time?

[Oaths of Office, November 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there is a new element involved in this and that is, as I understand the motion that you read, you are seeking the approval of the House for the bill to be printed. That has in fact never happened before and it must be clear that nothing of substance is changing by this new procedure. Otherwise there should have been notice and consultation.

[Oaths of Office, November 19th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, dealing with Bill C-1 in the proceedings at the opening of a Parliament is largely a symbolic gesture, as described in Marleau and Montpetit, to assert Parliament's right to act as it sees fit quite apart from what may or may not be in any Speech from the Throne.

Unfortunately, with the gesture the Prime Minister is making, there was no preliminary consultation with the opposition parties about what the government had in mind. We spent a good portion of the day yesterday talking about the importance of consultation, inclusion and reaching out to all members of the House to involve them in the proper procedures of this place to try to establish a better atmosphere and a more conducive feeling among members to work together on important topics of the day.

While the process that the Prime Minister is now proposing may not change anything in substance, I would on this occasion like to ask for two things. First, the assurance of the Prime Minister and, indeed, from the Chair, that this gesture does not change anything in substance since we have not had any opportunity to be consulted in advance or to examine the precedents that might exist in the provinces. I would like that assurance.

Second, I ask for the general assurance of the House, in the spirit of goodwill trying to make this place work better for all of us, that there is a sincere effort made at advance notice and consultation so this kind of awkward point does not need to arise again.

[Privilege, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Before we proceed to that item, in view of the general support that has been expressed in the House earlier with respect to Bill C-34 dealing with Tsawwassen, I wonder, in the interests of expediting that matter, if we might, now by unanimous consent, deem that bill read a third time and passed?

[Points of Order, June 17th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Liberal colleagues of the member for Don Valley West, we wish him every success in his new career.

In this place and in our caucus we have always benefited from his good advice, his hard work, his intelligent judgment on the various issues that he was called upon to comment on and to deal with from time to time. However, I think all of us recognize and want to pay honour to his commitment to principle, his civility, his passion and his dignity.

This place has been a better place because that hon. member has been with us. We thank him and wish him Godspeed on his way.

[Motor Vehicle Safety Act, June 17th, 2008]

Just to be clear, Mr. Speaker, is the government House leader referring to Bill C-60?

[Aboriginal Affairs, June 12th, 2008]

Immediately.

[June 11th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the official opposition, I will say that we are honoured to consent.

[Food and Drugs Act, June 10th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, what the parliamentary secretary mentioned in his last sentence is what I am sure all members of Parliament would desire to achieve. However, we all know this old principle that the devil is in the details. Parliament is here to examine that detail to ensure we do not get stuck with the devil.

Accordingly I would ask the parliamentary secretary two further points.

He expressed great confidence about the impact, or not, of this legislation with respect to naturopathic doctors and the various remedies to which they wish to have access. The parliamentary secretary's view is there is nothing in the legislation that in any way detracts from that.

Since he is aware that a number of members of Parliament have received rather extensive representations from this sector, and I suspect the parliamentary secretary has received many himself, would he be good enough to provide to the House the written responses of the Minister of Health or the Department of Health and to put in writing the specific assurances the has given here? Those assurances are important.

For people who have questions and wonder how this legislation affects them or may have some negative impact on them, it would be of considerable reassurance if the Department of Health would be forthcoming to give a written response to Canadians who have expressed their worries in this regard, in a number of letters to members of Parliament.

Second—