Refine by MP, party, committee, province, or result type.

Results 98656-98670 of 141746
Sorted by relevance | Sort by date: newest first / oldest first

Points of Order  Mr. Speaker, this is on the same subject. It is very clear. There was a vote in the House of Commons and the NDP was the only party to vote against this change at Elections Canada concerning voter identity. It was very clear. Just check the recorded division in the House of Commons.

February 10th, 2009House debate

Yvon GodinNDP

Taxation  Their leader told the House two days ago that he will not bring in another budget, and I quote, “until we need to raise taxes”. It is now clear: taxes will rise under the Conservatives. In these tough economic times, that is not what Canadians need. We need a stable and focused leadership that only the Liberals can provide.

May 28th, 2009House debate

Anthony RotaLiberal

Canada-Colombia Free Trade Agreement  The government must drop its planned trade agreement, which makes us a party to human rights violations. We need to send a clear message that we will not sign trade agreements at any cost.

May 28th, 2009House debate

Claude GuimondBloc

Culture  There is more money for the Canadian television fund, restoration of historic sites and the Quebec City armoury. That is a clear analysis. It is in the budget, which the Bloc opposes.

February 10th, 2009House debate

James MooreConservative

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act  We have heard from members of our caucus who raised issues related to the nuclear power process. The member for Timmins—James Bay in the last Parliament made it very clear that attempts to deposit waste from nuclear plants in northern Ontario would be resisted by the people of northern Ontario again and again because of problems related to that process of storage and disposal and to the waste itself.

May 28th, 2009House debate

Bill SiksayNDP

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act  Therefore, there is private sector involvement and that has nothing to do with us. I want to be clear, though, on what was announced today on the AECL issue. AECL has two divisions and the first is a research division that has Chalk River in it. The announcement was that we would look at a new management process to ensure we can continue to develop our nuclear technology in this country.

May 28th, 2009House debate

Mike WallaceConservative

Human Resources committee  But I guess it requires a formal kind of...for one meeting before the end of June 12. That would be acceptable. It's a supportable kind of thing. As well, I want us to be clear. If Mr. Lessard proposes a motion, we're going to be adding a lot more other things. With these officials, what Mr. Savage has laid out here seems to be reasonable for our officials to come and respond to.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

Maurice VellacottConservative

Nuclear Liability and Compensation Act  As with a lot of the bills we are speaking to these days, it seems we get these bills through to the committee stage and then an election gets called and we have to start the whole process over. I am hoping that this Parliament survives long enough to finally clear off all these bills that have been in the hopper for two, four and six years, so that we can start with a fresh, new group.

May 28th, 2009House debate

Jim MalowayNDP

Government Operations committee  Your question is very clear. The minister knew that the office already existed, but it was located on a top floor. The new office employs people from headquarters. We have about 29 employees. Now, instead of subjecting people who come from far away to security measures, which may be intimidating even though they are necessary, all they have to do is head to the office on the ground floor.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

François Guimont

Agriculture committee  Before I go to Mr. Valeriote, I just want to be clear. I don't want--what would you call it?--philosophical ideas, yours or anybody else's in the Competition Bureau, to get in the way here. I would still like you to come forth with recommendations for us, as I said, in the next week or 10 days, if possible, so we can include them in our report as to how we can deal with some of the legislative things that address things.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

The ChairConservative

Status of Women committee  What I would like you to explain to me is simply this. When you have work to be done in your business in a union shop, you set clear criteria for the work that is to be done, so you are looking for someone to enter at a level of, let's suggest, a stenographer, or a crank operator, or whatever the job description is.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

The ChairLiberal

Status of Women committee  When you hire someone, you know what you want them to do, and they are offered a pay scale for doing that. Isn't that clear? Isn't that what happens? Therefore, if the employer is setting the criteria for the work and the pay scales for the work, when the unions negotiate agreements they then decide where the collective agreement would be distributed into different sectors.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

The ChairLiberal

Customs Act  The second potential problem deals with solicitor-client privilege. Specifically, it is not clear to me from the wording in this legislation that it is protected. Solicitor-client privilege is one of those legal rights that is accepted essentially in all common law countries, and it is something that needs to be enumerated specifically here.

May 28th, 2009House debate

Andrew KaniaLiberal

Government Operations committee  To be clear, these are projects that would not have people working on them right now, but because of this they now have people working on them? To be honest, I understand the concept of vote 35 being bridging, and I understand all that.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

Martha Hall FindlayLiberal

Government Operations committee  The $100 million, in reality, will total to more than what we would have done. To give you a clear idea, for instance, we had budgeted an amount for the Alexandra Bridge of $50 million or so. If we had not had the AIP increment to the base, we probably would have waited for a year to get that increment in order to bridge the gap between the original approval of $30 million and where we ended up, with $52 million.

May 28th, 2009Committee meeting

François Guimont