header image
The world according to David Graham

Topics

acva bili chpc columns committee conferences elections environment essays ethi faae foreign foss guelph hansard highways history indu internet leadership legal military money musings newsletter oggo pacp parlchmbr parlcmte politics presentations proc qp radio reform regs rnnr satire secu smem statements tran transit tributes tv unity

Recent entries

  1. Trump will win in 2020 (and keep an eye on 2024)
  2. January 17th, 2020
  3. January 16th, 2020
  4. January 15th, 2020
  5. January 14th, 2020
  6. January 13th, 2020
  7. January 12th, 2020
  8. January 11th, 2020
  9. January 10th, 2020
  10. January 9th, 2020
  11. January 8th, 2020
  12. January 7th, 2020
  13. January 6th, 2020
  14. January 5th, 2020
  15. January 4th, 2020
  16. January 3rd, 2020
  17. January 2nd, 2020
  18. January 1st, 2020
  19. December 31st, 2019
  20. December 30th, 2019
  21. December 29th, 2019
  22. December 28th, 2019
  23. December 27th, 2019
  24. December 26th, 2019
  25. December 24th, 2019
  26. December 6th, 2019
  27. A podcast with Michael Geist on technology and politics
  28. Next steps
  29. On what electoral reform reforms
  30. 2019 Fall campaign newsletter / infolettre campagne d'automne 2019
  31. older entries...

2016-04-18 15:32 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Consideration in committee, Dividing a bill, Government bills, Income tax, Motion of instruction, Tax Free Savings Account,

Examen en comité, Impôt sur le revenu,

Mr. Speaker, I am just wondering why the member for Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques wants to debate a motion regarding a bill that he has already agreed to send to committee. He voted in favour of Bill C-2 at second reading on March 21. Why does he now want to change a bill he recently voted for? The member already had the right to vote for or against the clauses in the bill. There is a whole section of committee appropriately referred to as clause-by-clause consideration for this very task. The bill has already been referred to committee. I do not see why he is now writing new conditions for his support.

Why will the member not let the committee do its work and hold its own debate rather than pushing for unnecessary delays?

Monsieur le Président, j'aimerais seulement savoir pourquoi le député de Rimouski-Neigette—Témiscouata—Les Basques tient à débattre d'une motion sur un projet de loi dont il a déjà approuvé le renvoi à un comité. Le 21 mars, il a voté en faveur du projet de loi C-2 à l'étape de la deuxième lecture. Pourquoi veut-il maintenant changer un projet de loi après avoir voté récemment en sa faveur? Le député a déjà eu l'occasion de voter pour ou contre les dispositions du projet de loi. Il y a au comité tout un processus qu'on appelle justement l'étude article par article qui est conçu expressément à cette fin. Le projet de loi a déjà été renvoyé au comité. Je ne comprends pas pourquoi il pose maintenant de nouvelles conditions à son appui.

Pourquoi le député ne veut-il pas laisser le comité faire son travail et mener sa propre étude au lieu de réclamer un report indu?

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on April 18, 2016

This entry has been archived. Comments can no longer be posted.

2016-04-18 15:03 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-04-18 17:03 House intervention / intervention en chambre

(RSS) Website generating code and content © 2001-2020 David Graham <david@davidgraham.ca>, unless otherwise noted. All rights reserved. Comments are © their respective authors.