Ralph Goodale

[Points of Order, October 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I would make two observations in response to the issues the government has just raised with respect to these two bills.

First, your precedents are very clear that the raising of the issue by the government with respect to royal recommendations does not, of course, prevent the normal debate from proceeding. The issue would have to be resolved before a final vote is taken, but obviously members are free to debate these items up until the time that you make your ruling.

Second, before that ruling is given, I am sure that you will want to provide the sponsors of the bills with an opportunity to address themselves to you.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2007]

Yes, Mr. Speaker. The hon. gentleman can be assured that the information was in the hands of the media before the event that he refers to.

[Privilege, October 16th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. It may be that today the spin doctors and the media manipulators have gone too far.

A number of media outlets, including the Canadian Press, the CBC and others are reporting that copies of the Speech from the Throne, which members of Parliament are about to hear in the other place, were leaked to the media across Ottawa more than two hours in advance.

Copious details have been discussed in news broadcasts ever since without the knowledge of members of Parliament.

This is a flagrant contempt of Parliament. Parliament needs to know exactly who was engaged in this improper and premature release of the throne speech. Was it accidental? If not, who authorized it and at what level will the responsibility be shouldered?

Mr. Speaker, the references in Marleau and Montpetit and in Maingot are very clear. I will not trouble you with the details now, but I am happy to make those citations later if you require them.

However, I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that if you find a prima facie case of privilege in this case, that the details of a throne speech have been prematurely leaked in advance, then I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Business of the House, June 20th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, in order to have complete clarity with respect to the motion that the government House leader has just put forward in the House, I wonder if the government House leader could indicate to us the availability of precedents with respect to the constraint upon your discretion, which is involved in the reference in the motion to Standing Order 28(4).

That necessarily imposes a restraint on your discretion, Mr. Speaker, and substitutes instead the discretion of the government. I would be interested to know, since that is a serious matter in our Standing Orders, if the government House leader can inform the House, after consultation with the Table, which I am sure he has had, whether there are in fact the appropriate precedents for this type of provision to be included in an adjournment motion.

Mr. Speaker, I wonder if we have the clear assurance, because the wording of this motion is somewhat complex, that the special provisions being referred to here apply only in relation to this adjournment and only in relation to matters pertaining to Bill C-52.

[Petitions, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to table today on behalf of a number of people in Saskatchewan, most of them from Regina, dealing with the issue of child care.

The petitioners support strongly the child care agreement with the province of Saskatchewan that the Government of Canada had in place as of April 2005.

The petitioners note that the taxable allowance that is now provided by the government is small and will not establish any new child care spaces. They call upon the government to reinstate the previous arrangement that did in fact provide funding for the creation of a high quality system across the country.

[Committees of the House, June 15th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. With respect to this matter, could the parliamentary secretary confirm for the information of members who are not members of the particular committee to which he referred, that the report he tabled earlier today, in which he is now seeking concurrence, in fact safeguards the principle of parliamentary privilege?

[Business of the House, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I have a very precise question. I wonder if the government House leader is today in a position to deal with Bill C-62, the wage earner protection program?

[Equalization Formula, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the anger in Saskatchewan about the Conservative broken promise on equalization has forced the province to launch court action. All of Saskatchewan's political leaders agree, including the Conservative opposition leader. Even the Minister of National Revenue now admits that the promise was broken but no one over there will stand up for Saskatchewan.

The Prime Minister has been ducking Saskatchewan's premier for more than six months. Will he now meet the premier and offer him too an insurance policy, just like he is negotiating with Nova Scotia, to protect Saskatchewan against Conservative dishonesty?

[Petitions, June 14th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, was it your right ear?

[Budget Implementation Act, 2007, June 12th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, one of the crucial issues in the budget bill, as it relates to Saskatchewan, is the issue of the fiscal capacity cap, which the government has chosen to impose. What is problematic about that cap is while it is very clearly imposed by the budget, it was never mentioned to the province of Saskatchewan as the intended government policy before the budget was introduced in the House on March 19.

The Conservatives' answer to that, when asked why they did not mention this rather important fact before the budget was introduced, is that they did not expressly promise not to have a cap. They did make that promise very clearly in Atlantic Canada in a widely circulated brochure that said there would be no caps. I guess Saskatchewan is not entitled to read a brochure that circulated in Atlantic Canada. It should only read the brochures that are circulated in Saskatchewan. Obviously, that is disingenuous.

The government members now say that they always intended to have a cap, they just failed to mention it, that was accidental and that was too bad. The Premier of Saskatchewan, the leader of the opposition in Saskatchewan, who by the way is not a New Democrat but a Conservative, the media, all the experts who have analyzed this say that the failure to mention the cap and then the imposition of the cap constitutes a betrayal, a demonstration of bad faith.

How can the government justify the fact that it did not once mention to Saskatchewan that it was fully its intention from the beginning to impose a fiscal capacity cap?