Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, before I begin, I would like to recognize that today is the fourth anniversary of the attack on Parliament Hill and the loss of Corporal Nathan Cirillo. Today, we pay tribute to both Corporal Cirillo and Warrant Officer Patrice Vincent, who served their country wit

Business of Supply  That is a many-part question, Madam Speaker, but it gives me an opportunity to share a way forward. We have been involved. We have been making significant investments in women and peace and security, because we know that if women are onside through a conflict and then in peacemak

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, with Bill C-59, we needed both. We needed ways to protect the safety and security of all Canadians as well as ways to protect people's rights and freedoms, and that is what we have done. This bill would do both. It would give CSIS the power to commit acts of disrup

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, my hon. colleague is absolutely right. We can put all of the policy and all of the legislation that we want through, but if we do not fund it, if we do not give our national security agencies the resources they need to do their jobs, then all of that work will fail

Business of Supply  Absolutely, Madam Speaker.

Business of Supply  Absolutely, Madam Speaker. Those who are returning to Canada and who have participated in these horrendous events on the other side of the world will be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

Business of Supply  Madam Speaker, the most significant cut was almost half a billion dollars to the RCMP alone. When $500 million is cut from the budget of one of our key national security agencies, it cannot help but hurt. We have returned that money. We are funding the RCMP. We are giving our n

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, it would be inappropriate for me or anyone else to comment or speculate on matters related to an ongoing criminal trial. As the members know, committee studies and multiple Speakers have found that in questions during question period members should abide by the sub j

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, as per the House of Commons Compendium of Procedure, “Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters actively before the courts or under judicial consideration in order to guard those involved in a court action or judicial inquiry from any undue influence.”

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, I will remind the members that it would be inappropriate to comment on an ongoing criminal trial. Peter Van Loan said, “It is deemed improper for a Member, in posing a question, or a Minister in responding to a question, to comment on any matter that is sub judice.”

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, it is inappropriate to try to prosecute a legal proceeding on the floor of the House of Commons. The rules of the House and the work of the distinguished Table in front of us have made it very clear that this line of questions is inappropriate.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, once again, it would be inappropriate for me to comment or speculate on matters related to an ongoing criminal trial. As the member should know, committee studies and multiple Speaker rulings have found that during question period members should abide by the sub judi

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, it remains inappropriate to prosecute a legal proceeding on the floor of the House of Commons. The rules of the House and the work of the distinguished Table in front of us have made it perfectly clear that this line of questioning is not appropriate.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence has already offered to provide that date. If we continue with this line of questioning, it is as if we are prosecuting a case on the floor of the House of Commons, and that would be totally inappropriate.

Ethics  Mr. Speaker, that is exactly what we want. We do not want it to be prosecuted on the floor of the House of Commons. Therefore that line of questioning remains inappropriate.