Ralph Goodale

[Business of the House, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as the government House leader knows, this matter does not have to be dealt with by the procedure and House affairs committee. It can in fact be dealt with directly by the House of Commons itself. It is very important that this committee be established.

[Business of the House, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the latter item is very important. In light of the time that has passed by, three weeks, and the NATO meetings are now essentially concluded, could the government House leader give us the assurance that the striking of that committee will take place no later than next week?

[Business of the House, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, on the business of the House for the coming week, I wonder if the government House leader could provide the agenda that he has in mind beyond the budget bill, which of course is preoccupying the House now. I would also like to ask him two specific questions.

First, Bill C-21, dealing with aboriginal human rights, has been dealt with extensively in a committee of the House of Commons and has been reported back to the House. It has been sitting on the order paper ready to be dealt with by the House since the 30th of January. I wonder if he could tell us when he intends to call Bill C-21 to be finally dealt with in the House.

Second, it was three weeks ago today that this House adopted a motion pertaining to the mission in Afghanistan. That motion calls explicitly for the creation of a special standing committee to provide greater transparency and accountability with respect to that mission in Afghanistan. It is important that that committee be struck immediately. I wonder if the government House leader could indicate his intention with respect to the establishment of the committee on the Afghanistan mission.

[Human Rights, April 3rd, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure all members are shocked by what appear to be racist, sexist and homophobic remarks attributed to the Conservative member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre. The previous Conservative member for this same riding, Mr. Spencer, was dumped by his party for similarly offensive attitudes.

Will the government House leader require the member to step aside today from his duties as parliamentary secretary until this matter can be properly investigated and resolved?

[Ethics, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is claiming that Mr. Zytaruk doctored the recording so he must find the tape as released by Zytaruk to be truly damaging, otherwise, why attack it.

Is it because of that specific mention of the offer to Chuck? Is it the references to financial considerations, financial insecurity, financial issues? Is it the admission that the people who made the offer were legitimately representing the party?

It is easy to clear the air here. Why will the Prime Minister not just table his own tape un-Grewaled, so to speak?

[Ethics, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the parliamentary secretary answers everything but the question.

The tape is from author Tom Zytaruk. He made it public. Dona Cadman and her family stand by their statements that Conservatives did make an offer to deal with their financial insecurity. That is consistent with the tape.

If it is all false, why is the Prime Minister not suing the source of the allegations, Mr. Zytaruk and the Cadmans? Is it not true that his political lawsuit against the official opposition and now this tale about a tampered tape are all a desperate dodge to avoid confronting the Prime Minister's very own words?

[Ethics, March 14th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Prime Minister again tried to dodge that damaging tape that caught him talking knowledgeably about an offer to Chuck Cadman. He has admitted in the House that it was indeed his voice mentioning the offer to Chuck to replace financial considerations by people legitimately representing the party.

However, yesterday, for the first time, the Prime Minister claimed that the tape had been tampered with. If that is true, why did it take over two weeks to say so, and will he table the complete unedited tape in the House right now?

[Ovarian Cancer Awareness Month, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, if you could ask for the House's consent to revert to motions, I believe there is a will in the House to do that. Unfortunately the consultation that had been anticipated before had not been undertaken. It has now been undertaken and I think you will find the will in the House that the hon. member for Davenport is requesting.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2008]

I have one further item that I would draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker. I am looking at the projected order of business, which we all receive on a daily basis. I note at the very top of that projected order of business the advice is offered to all members of the House that it is subject to change without notice.

[Points of Order, March 12th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I would point out for the hon. member, for you and for other members of the House that the order paper, which I have in my hand, clearly indicates that the item we wish to discuss today was put on the order paper on December 4, 2007. Therefore, proper notice has been given to all members of the House that this matter may be called on an opposition day when one of those opposition days comes along.

Thursday of last week the government House leader officially designated that this would be an allotted day for the official opposition, the Liberal Party. It is therefore our prerogative, under the rules, to call for debate one of the items that stands in the name of a Liberal member as identified in the order paper for the business of supply. That is exactly what we are proposing to do.

The motion standing in the name of the member for Mount Royal is the item we wish to call forward for discussion in what remains of this opposition day after all of these points of order. I would submit to you, Mr. Speaker, that the item standing there since December 4, 2007 is perfectly in order and the debate should proceed.