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...

2016-04-19 10:59 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Cabinet Ministers, Conflict of interest, Fundraising and fundraisers, Minister of Justice, Opposition motions, References to members,

Allusions aux députés, Membres du cabinet, Ministre de la Justice

Madam Speaker, the member makes a very serious accusation that the minister misled this House. As the member knows, that is not parliamentary language, nor is it true. In fact, he just misled the House.

If the member is not happy with the state of affairs, why not use the opposition day motion to change the rules? Why not say, “This does not work, so why not try that,” instead of what he is saying? I think we can do a lot better.

The minister is working within the current rules, within the current ethical boundaries, and I think she is doing a very good job.

However, if the member wants to change the rules, that is a separate issue, and he is welcome to make a motion to that effect.

Madame la Présidente, le député porte une accusation très grave en disant que la ministre a induit la Chambre en erreur. Comme il le sait, c'est faux et ce n'est pas là un langage parlementaire. En fait, c'est lui qui vient d'induire la Chambre en erreur.

Si le député n'est pas content de la situation, pourquoi ne se sert-il pas de la journée de l'opposition pour modifier les règles? Pourquoi ne dit-il pas « Cela ne fonctionne pas, pourquoi ne pas essayer ceci » au lieu d'agir comme il le fait? Je pense que nous pouvons faire beaucoup mieux.

La ministre respecte les règles et les limites éthiques actuelles; à mon avis, elle fait de l'excellent travail.

Si le député veut changer les règles, c'est une autre affaire; libre à lui de présenter une motion en ce sens.

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on April 19, 2016

This entry has been archived.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

2016-04-19 10:56 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-04-19 13:45 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.