Ralph Goodale

[Justice, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, this minority Conservative government has no significant parliamentary agenda, but one standing committee, the justice committee, is overburdened by a string of ad hoc, one-off proposals designed to cause a logjam.

Liberals have a plan to get things moving. Of the 11 justice bills before Parliament today, we will pass six of them right now, today. That will save two months of parliamentary time and give the justice committee room to tackle all the others.

Will the government accept this proposal, or is it only interested in justice by fear and slogan?

[Government Policies, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, it is clear that the Prime Minister will bulldoze anyone not in his little ideological clique. He even shuts down parliamentary committees. Journalists call this attitude ham-fisted bloody mindedness. Then he complains when he cannot force his unilateral right-wing agenda down Parliament's throat.

Well, we all got elected to this place, not just the Conservatives. However, look who is filibustering, only the government itself. When will the Conservatives stop behaving like petulant bullies?

[Government Policies, October 27th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, in a minority, this Prime Minister says it is the government's obligation to take into account the priorities of the opposition, but he ignores his own advice. He raises taxes; slashes help for the vulnerable; kills the Kyoto plan; rips billions from child care, aboriginal people and training; undermines the Charter of Rights and Freedoms; and snuggles up to extreme republicans. This is all contrary to what Canadians want.

When will the Prime Minister curtail his belligerence to acknowledge that 65% of Canadians did not vote for him?

[Committees of the House, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. On a point pertaining to business earlier this afternoon, just before your ruling, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister, speaking to a certain matter, sought to table some documents, and I understand the tabling in fact took place.

The member for Ajax—Pickering has indicated that he has some material pertinent to the same matter, which he may wish to table in order to complete that particular record.

As a matter of fairness, I think it would be appropriate, since the parliamentary secretary has been permitted to table his material, that should the member for Ajax—Pickering wish to table material in relation to the same matter, he should be allowed to do so.

[Business of the House, October 26th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, as is the tradition on this day, I wonder if the government House leader could give us an indication of his plan for government business between now and the time when the House will take a recess for Remembrance Day.

I also wonder, with his report, if is he now in a position to specify the two dates upon which the House will on certain evenings consider the estimates in the committee of the whole of two government departments. Those departments have already been indicated as HRSDC and National Defence, and I would be grateful if the minister could specify the dates upon which those estimates will be called forward.

In light of the minister's public commentary about the government's plans with respect to any motion pertaining to same sex marriage, would the minister be in a position to be any more specific as to when that motion will be called, and particularly, would it be happening before the end of November?

[Employment Insurance Act, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Earlier in question period, we dealt with a question of privilege pertaining to the Minister of Foreign Affairs. In the course of my remarks in dealing with that matter, I indicated there was legal documentation from various members of Parliament that recorded a certain flow of events with respect to what happened in the House last Thursday.

I have in my hand eight sworn affidavits from members of Parliament, who are prepared to put their version of events on the record in this legal form. I wonder, for the information of the House, if there would be unanimous consent to have these filed in the House so this information could be available to all members of Parliament.

[Privilege, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Today, in response to questions during question period, the Minister of Foreign Affairs made an absolute and unqualified assertion of certain things pertaining to events in this House last Thursday. However, there is compelling evidence on the public record that the minister's assertions are plainly untrue.

Members of this House witnessed the minister's comments and are prepared to provide legal documentation to that effect. An audio tape records those remarks. The media has broadly reported the remarks in question.

That the incident in fact happened appears, Mr. Speaker, on the face of the record, to be undeniable. In that event, the minister has today presented an assertion to this House that is false and apparently deliberately so.

Such doubt about the minister's veracity cannot be allowed to persist. The matter cries out for greater clarity than that which exists today, for the minister may be irreparably compromised.

The privileges of members of this House are thus being infringed: first, by the lingering untruth; and, second, by the inability of the minister, apparently, to be believed. This matter needs an airing before the procedure committee of this House.

Mr. Speaker, if you find, on the basis of the evidence that is now in the public domain, that a prima facie case of privilege does in fact exist here, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion.

[Points of Order, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, with respect to the quotation that the minister has just read into the record, I believe she is obliged to file the entire document from which she was quoting and the House would be grateful to see the entire context of that remark.

[Decorum, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, that the offending remark was made is undeniable, and it cannot be claimed that just because Hansard did not catch it, it never happened.

Members of the House witnessed it. Audio tapes recorded it. The news media have repeatedly confirmed it. Every significant women's organization in the country has condemned it.

The minister might want to look at an editorial in today's Montreal Gazette to assess the damage that he is doing. Would it not be wise to stop the denials, acknowledge this mistake, apologize and avoid doing more harm to himself and his government?

[Decorum, October 25th, 2006]

Mr. Speaker, the foreign affairs minister is well aware of the offensive remark that has placed him in difficulty for the past six days.

Last Thursday, in reference to a comment about a dog, he pointed toward the seat of another hon. member and said, “You already have her”.

This being the minister's first opportunity to do so, will he simply withdraw that remark and offer the House an apology?