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 13:45 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

Mr. Speaker, if the member believes the rules should be changed, why does he believe the ethically challenged government that recently left office did nothing substantial to change those rules? Why is his party putting forward a frivolous motion that does not make a substantial change now, rather than making solid and concrete proposals?

Is it because the member is afraid that clearer rules would require us to, say, require the preceding leader of his party to reveal who bankrolled his leadership campaigns to the tune of $2 million, or is it just that more Conservatives will wind up in leg irons? Maybe it is just because the member knows that nothing wrong actually took place.

Monsieur le Président, si le député croit que les règles devraient être modifiées, pourquoi croit-il que le gouvernement à l'éthique douteuse qui a récemment cédé le pouvoir n'a rien fait de concret pour modifier ces règles? Pourquoi son parti présente-t-il une motion futile qui n'apporte aucun changement dans l'immédiat plutôt que de formuler des propositions solides et concrètes?

Serait-ce parce que le député craint que des règles plus claires obligeraient l'ancien chef de son parti à révéler qui a financé ses campagnes à la direction à la hauteur de 2 millions de dollars, ou est-ce simplement parce que d'autres conservateurs se retrouveraient les fers aux pieds? Peut-être est-ce parce que le député sait que rien de mal ne s'est véritablement produit.

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 10:59 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2016-04-19 17:08 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.