Ralph Goodale

[Points of Order, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, we were just treated to hearing the government House leader say that if no one else rises in the House to address a question put to a committee chair, that the government House leader is entitled to respond to that question, and he can be as partisan as he wants, but that there are tougher strictures that apply to everybody else in the House. This is a matter of the government wanting one set of rules for it and another set of rules for everyone else.

The fact is the question was in order and the answer dealt with the agenda of the committee. It called for a spirit of cooperation and it asked for timeliness in moving the agenda forward. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that answer.

[Points of Order, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, this issue was, indeed, raised a few days ago by me, in a point of order with the Speaker. The Speaker at that time indicated that he had allowed the government House leader to answer on behalf of a committee chair because no one else on the committee, like the vice-chair, rose to address the question that had been put before the House.

Today, a question was asked of a committee chair. The committee chair was unable to answer, so the vice-chair rose to provide the answer. The question was about the agenda of the committee. The questioner referred explicitly to the agenda for the next meetings of the committee and the vice-chair spoke of asking for a new spirit of cooperation among committee members and the timeliness of dealing with the committee's agenda.

The question and the entire answer were entirely within the rules of the House.

[Ethics, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government's explanation is just not credible.

If those “financial considerations” mentioned by the Prime Minister on that tape back in 2005 were only to get Chuck Cadman to run as the Conservative candidate, if that was the only goal, then surely the party interest would be ongoing.

How many efforts were made to persuade Mr. Cadman to become a Conservative once again after the May 19 vote on the 2005 budget?

[Ethics, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the only thing piling up faster than snow in Ottawa is the number of Conservative scandals the Prime Minister will not investigate.

However, he is not the only Conservative to have a revealing conversation back in 2005 about Chuck Cadman. The now Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Public Works had one too, also with a journalist. The parliamentary secretary explained the exact death benefit issue that was so crucial to Mr. Cadman. Again, that had nothing to do with any party nomination.

Can the government not see that stonewalling will not work, not this time?

[Ethics, March 7th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, the government is trying to scuttle its Cadman scandal. It is now even highlighting other Conservative scandals, and it is a long list, to take attention away from that taped conversation which captured the Prime Minister's very own words: “the offer to Chuck”, “there were financial issues”, “replace financial considerations”, “financial insecurity”, “make the case”. These have nothing to do with a party nomination.

When will the government realize this issue will not go away until the Prime Minister finally answers?

[Business of the House, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the government House leader, did I miss Friday of next week? I was distracted and wonder if the House leader dealt with that.

[Business of the House, March 6th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, as usual my question has to do with the flow of business, over the time between now and the Easter adjournment. I wonder if the government House leader could designate the remaining opposition days that will need to be covered in that space of time, and also indicate precisely what he has in mind in terms of House business for the two days of the five next week that would not be opposition days.

I would inform him that if he has in mind designating Monday as an opposition day for the official opposition it would be our intention to use that day to provide extra time for members of the House of Commons to give the proper kind of participation and consideration to the motion with respect to Afghanistan.

There is a strong desire, certainly on the part of the official opposition and I think on the part of all members of the House, to have adequate time to consider this matter in a proper way. Therefore, if Monday is to be a Liberal opposition day, we would devote it to that very important public business.

I would also ask the government House leader a question with respect to Bill C-21.

There was a procedural issue earlier with respect to that bill, Mr. Speaker. You have now ruled that two particular amendments are in fact in order and therefore any procedural question has been removed with respect to Bill C-21. Therefore, I wonder when the House leader intends to bring that bill back for consideration in the House.

[Committees of the House, March 5th, 2008]

Mr. Speaker, there has not been the normal consultation that usually would go along with this type of matter. It is possible that consultation could proceed later but since it has not taken place to this point, we would not be in a position to agree to the item at this time.

[Trade, March 4th, 2008]

Sue him.

[Federal-Provincial Relations, March 3rd, 2008]

Are you the bickerer or the bickeree?