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...

2017-06-20 12:36 House intervention / intervention en chambre

Committee meetings, Filibuster, Parliamentary reform, Process of debate, Standing Orders of the House of Commons

Obstruction systématique, Processus du débat, Réforme parlementaire, Règlement de la Chambre des communes, Réunions des comités

Mr. Speaker, that is an easy one. If the opposition came to the table as honest brokers and came to the government to discuss this, which is what we were looking for, we would have had a much more productive discussion and it would have resulted in a motion. If they did not agree with it, they could have filibustered at that point. However, at least we would have had the discussion.

The best way of going forward is by having everybody come to the table and being honest with their opinions.

Monsieur le Président, la réponse est facile. Si les députés de l’opposition avaient agi en intermédiaires honnêtes et qu'ils s’étaient adressés au gouvernement pour discuter, ce qui était ce que nous voulions, le débat aurait été bien plus productif et il aurait produit une motion. S’ils n’étaient pas d’accord avec celle-ci, ils auraient pu faire obstruction à ce stade. Cependant, nous aurions au moins eu le débat.

La meilleure façon d’avancer, c’est d’avoir tout le monde à la table, honnête dans l’expression de ses opinions.

Watch | HansardEcoutez | Hansard

Posted at 15:26 on June 20, 2017

This entry has been archived.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

2017-06-20 12:34 House intervention / intervention en chambre | hansard parlchmbr tv |

2017-06-20 19:14 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.