Ralph Goodale

[The Budget, June 6th, 2007]

Look in the mirror, Jim.

[The Budget, June 6th, 2007]

You broke your promise and you broke your word.

[Member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean, June 4th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to pay tribute to our Bloc Québécois colleague, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean. He has had a distinguished career as a member of the National Assembly in Quebec and here in Ottawa. He will soon be leaving us, after over 13 years in this House. He was leader of his party, House leader and always a proud representative of Lac-Saint-Jean.

Over the years, the hon. member for Roberval—Lac-Saint-Jean and I have had our differences of opinion and, as House leaders, we often crossed swords. He is an excellent strategist. He has carefully studied and has a thorough knowledge of the rules of Parliament. One could even say that he has become an exemplary parliamentarian in the greatest of British traditions following Disraeli, Gladstone, Churchill and others, and now, Gauthier.

When we were in government, the House leader of the Bloc was the most formidable of parliamentarians. His sense of strategy was beyond compare. He often amazed us with his procedural knowledge. The hon. member is also a dangerous adversary during question period. When he speaks, and especially when he sets aside his prepared text, he is always passionate, as demonstrated by his words and by his tendency to turn a Liberal shade of red.

Too often, he is the one shown in the clips. Well, now, completely impartially, he can play clips of us on TQS, I have no doubt.

To the hon. member, I would say good luck and take good care. You have always shown respect for this place and the people in it. You will be missed, just as I am sure you will miss this House.

[Business of the House, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I am sure the House will be fascinated to learn from the government House leader what his agenda includes for the next 10 days or so, through to the end of next week.

In giving us his answer, I wonder if he could indicate, despite the government's protestations of good intentions, why there continue to be efforts by government members on committees like finance, agriculture and official languages to filibuster and obstruct the work of those committees.

With respect to the legislation that has just been under discussion here, the wage earner protection act, the Minister of Labour effectively admits that there is a problem with this legislation, but he is unwilling to fix it in the House of Commons. He wants to plunk the job of fixing it into the Senate, the very Senate which the Conservatives daily condemn.

To expedite the bill the Liberal official opposition is prepared to allow the Senate to do the remedial work that the government should do. If it is more expeditiously done in the Senate, we are prepared to accept that, but why will the minister not just assume his responsibility and do his own job?

[Points of Order, May 31st, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, I apologize for interrupting the parliamentary secretary. I do not mean to interrupt his speech. He will have an opportunity in just a moment to continue, but this has to do with another matter that occurred in the House earlier today at the beginning of the session.

I rise on a point of order concerning the government's use of Standing Order 56.1 to dispose of the committee stage of Bill C-44. This occurred earlier today.

I would like to refer specifically to a ruling by the Speaker on September 18, 2001, in which the Speaker said the following:

The expanded use of Standing Order 56.1 since 1997 causes the Chair serious concern. The government is provided with a range of options under Standing Orders 57 and 78 for the purpose of limiting debate. Standing Order 56.1 should be used for motions of a routine nature, such as arranging the business of the House. It was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages, certainly not for bills that fall outside the range of those already contemplated in the standing order when “urgent or extraordinary occasions” arise. Standing Order 71 provides in such cases that a bill may be dealt with at more than one stage in a single day.

Mr. Speaker, that appeared in Hansard on September 18, 2001.

Therefore, in light of this ruling that is already provided, and referenced, I might say, in Marleau and Montpetit, acknowledging that the committee stage of a bill is a stage of consideration, the government can use Standing Order 78 to limit debate at this stage or at any other stage.

As indicated by the Speaker in the quotation that I referred to, Standing Order 56.1 “was not intended to be used for the disposition of a bill at various stages”.

I would therefore, Mr. Speaker, respectfully request that you look at the motion adopted by the use of Standing Order 56.1 this morning and rule explicitly that the motion is out of order in relation to Standing Order 56.1.

I would point out, Mr. Speaker, that the aboriginal affairs committee is meeting very shortly and that is why I have raised the matter at this time. Your ruling in a timely manner would be most welcome on this issue so that the standing committee can know where it stands.

[Equalization, May 28th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, later this afternoon the premier of Saskatchewan will appear before the finance committee to explain his deep disappointment in the 2007 federal budget and especially the broken Conservative promise about equalization. The government has boasted that complaints from provinces would be ended, but that is not true. At least five provinces are very angry.

Will the government confirm that it never once mentioned to Saskatchewan that the Conservative equalization promise to Saskatchewan would be capped and therefore killed?

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals offered to expedite over 70% of the justice bills in the House. It is now public that the government's deliberate plan is to cause a dysfunctional, chaotic Parliament.

The Conservative budget is a failure, its political leadership on the Afghan mission is in disarray, its climate change policy is a complete dud and its 200 page plan to intimidate Parliament is twice as long as its whole strategy on science and technology.

Will the minister just admit that he is trying to blame Parliament for complete, utter Conservative incompetence?

[Committees of the House, May 18th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, the government makes no effort to respect the fact that Canadians elected a minority Parliament. It is instructing Conservative chairs of parliamentary committees to obstruct and disrupt those committees for partisan advantage. It condones and rewards abusive behaviour. It even counsels witness tampering and intimidation. This is contempt for democracy, akin to Richard Nixon.

Why will the minister not at least be honest enough to table his manual of dirty Conservative tricks?

[Business of the House, May 17th, 2007]

Mr. Speaker, once again we have seen the tendency of the government to filibuster itself.

I point out to the House that when the typical Thursday question is asked, it usually takes the House leader for the opposition something less than one minute, respecting the prerogatives, timing and tradition of the House. I trust in future that the question will be allowed something in the order of five minutes so there can be a little fairness shown, obviously in response to the government's tendency to filibuster everything.

If the government House leader is looking for an explanation as to why the atmosphere around this place has tended to sour in the last little while, he might just look in the mirror.

[Business of the House, May 17th, 2007]

Don't filibuster.