By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, January 31, 2013 - 0 Comments
The Star reports that Conservative Senator Patrick Brazeau and Conservative MP Royal Galipeau were the entertainment at a recent fundraiser for an Ontario PC candidate. First up, Senator Brazeau.
Sen. Patrick Brazeau referred to Spence’s “so-called hunger strike” in addressing about 80 people at a Legion hall in the Ottawa suburb of Orleans, and mocked her physical shape. “I was sick two weeks ago,” Brazeau said. “I had the flu and I lost five pounds.
“I look at Miss Spence, when she started her hunger strike, and now?” Brazeau added as a voice in the hall called out, “She’s fatter,” which drew laughter from much of the audience.
Mr. Galipeau then followed with his unique brand of makeup and social protest commentary.
“I stood in the circle around Chief Spence,” Galipeau said. “I noticed that manicure of hers. I tell you Anne can’t afford it,” he said, referring to his wife.
Galipeau said: “Most people in Idle No More are my skin colour and about my age. It reminded me of the 1960s and 1970s flower people who are now organizers for the NDP in Ottawa Centre. They are the same people I saw in the Occupy movement the previous summer.” “Whether it’s Idle No More or Occupy or the pots and pans in Quebec, the labour movement can’t finance those things anymore because we’ve passed legislation to shine the light of day on that,” said the MP.
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, December 6, 2012 at 9:00 AM - 0 Comments
Before yesterday’s incident, the most recent confrontation in the House might have been when Conservative MP Royal Galipeau confronted Liberal MP David McGuinty. A couple weeks before that, Liberal MP Anita Neville and Conservative MP James Bezan seem to have had an an acrimonious encounter of some sort as well.
Further back in history are a few more colourful incidents.
On the afternoon of February 4, 1997, Reform MP Darrel Stinson challenged Liberal MP John Cannis to a fight in the House.
On April 15, 1999, Liberal MP Steve Mahoney accused Mr. Stinson of challenging him to a fight outside the House.
And on April 17, 2002, Keith Martin briefly seized the ceremonial mace. A lengthy debate on the incident followed a few days later. Mr. Martin was ultimately forced to appear at the bar of the House and apologize.
By Aaron Wherry - Tuesday, October 30, 2012 at 1:36 PM - 0 Comments
An interesting exchange from the very end of yesterday’s debate on the budget.
Charlie Angus. Mr. Speaker, I had a great deal of respect for Jim Prentice. There was a man who stood up in the House and did not misinform people. He was a man one could say would never lie. Jim Prentice in 2009 stood up as part of the throne speech and said that the government would put a price on carbon. The present Minister of Foreign Affairs went to Montreal and said that the government would open a carbon trading institute in Montreal and “put a price on carbon”. Either they were making that up, they were lying or they thought the Canadian people were stupid, but that was the policy the government ran on: that it would put a price on carbon. I see the bobbleheads who are now repeating this misinformation, the lie about the so-called carbon tax, when the government had told the Canadian people that it was putting a price on carbon I would like to ask that hon. member, what happened to the commitment made by Jim Prentice, an honourable man in the House? Was that just cynicism on the government’s part or was he making it up?
Joy Smith. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, the Prime Minister would never tax the public in any way, shape or form to that end. The fact of the matter is that I have never before been called a “bobblehead” and I take exception to that kind of analogy. I have had nine years of university. I have raised six children. I do not consider myself a bobblehead. I consider myself an intellectual person who works hard to raise the standard of everything I do, and I am saying great kudos to the government and our Prime Minister, who has protected this whole country from financial ruin when a lot of other countries have experienced economic downturns.
Dan Harris. Mr. Speaker, following up on the point that my colleague raised, Mr. Prentice made his comments in response to the Speech from the Throne. The Speech from the Throne actually did say that the government would put a price on carbon, and that price was $65 a tonne. If we take the total output, that would actually mean a $45 billion tax on carbon, which is more than double what the entire Conservative caucus is saying we are pitching. How do we square that circle?
Joy Smith. Mr. Speaker, how I square that circle is that we are living in the year 2012 and the Prime Minister has never, ever said anything about putting a tax on carbon. It is the NDP carbon tax that would raise groceries. It is the NDP carbon tax that would increase gas prices. That is—
Royal Galipeau. Mr. Speaker, the hon. member and I both ran in 2008 against a carbon tax. The party that ran on the carbon tax was relegated to a reduced caucus in the opposition. They are now stuck in the third corner. It is true that we talked about carbon trading with the United States. The United States would not trade. We cannot trade with ourselves, so that is the end of it.
The problem for Mr. Galipeau and Ms. Smith is that their party and government now consider “carbon trading” to be the same thing as a carbon tax. And while Mr. Harper didn’t talk about putting a tax on carbon, he did talk about putting a price on carbon. And so far as the Conservative party and the Harper government are now concerned, a price on carbon is a tax on carbon.
(There could be a discussion to be had about whether cap-and-trade should be pursued in Canada if the United States is not willing to do likewise—something Mr. Galipeau seems to suggest—but it’s a discussion that has been rendered moot by the Harper government’s primary arguments that putting a price on carbon is a carbon tax and a carbon tax is a terrible thing.)
By Aaron Wherry - Thursday, October 18, 2012 at 8:00 AM - 0 Comments
The Conservative MP for Ottawa-Orleans rose before Question Period yesterday to recount what Megan Leslie had said the day before.
Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this chamber the NDP member for Halifax quoted the Prime Minister as stating in November 2008, “…our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes”.
Mr. Galipeau was apparently hoping that anyone listening to him yesterday hadn’t been listening the day before. Or maybe he himself had only heard half of what Ms. Leslie said on Tuesday.
For everyone’s benefit, the full sentence, spoken by the Prime Minister in 2008, is as follows.
I should mention that while our plan will effectively establish a price on carbon of $65 a tonne, growing to that rate over the next decade, our Government has opted not to apply carbon taxes.
And therein lies the farce.
For the record, Royal Galipeau was first elected as a Conservative in 2006 and he was a Conservative MP in 2008 when the party endorsed ”a domestic cap-and-trade system.” He was a Conservative MP when Jim Flaherty committed $66 million towards establishing a “price on carbon” and when, as noted above, Stephen Harper promised “a price on carbon of $65 a tonne” and when John Baird said “the establishment of a market price on carbon are key parts of our Turning the Corner plan to cut Canada’s greenhouse gases.”
When Mr. Galipeau ran for relection in 2008, the party platform he ran on included a promise to pursue a continental cap-and-trade system. He was a Conservative MP when that pledge was repeated in that year’s Throne Speech. He was a Conservative MP a year later when Jim Prentice announced an offset system that would “generate real reductions in greenhouse gas emissions … by establishing a price on carbon.” He was a Conservative MP when the Harper government claimed in December 2009 to be “working in collaboration with the provinces and territories to develop a cap and trade system that will ultimately be aligned with the emerging cap and trade program in the United States.” He was a Conservative MP in May 2011 when Peter Kent allowed that a continental cap-and-trade system could be something to consider in the future. And he is presently a Conservative MP in a Conservative government that refuses to definitively rule out implementing a cap-and-trade system if the United States is prepared to do likewise.
By Aaron Wherry - Wednesday, June 13, 2012 at 4:41 PM - 0 Comments
Welcome to live coverage of tonight’s C-38 votes. It was expected that voting would begin around 5:30pm, but some procedural fussing about by the Liberals seems to have delayed those votes by a few hours. Stay tuned throughout the evening (and morning?) as we follow the parliamentary festivities.
4:43pm. If you’re only now tuning in, you just missed a fascinating series of points of order, during which Liberal MP Kevin Lamoureux twice asked the Speaker to clarify the rules of the House (Speaker Devolin invited Mr. Lamoureux to read the standing orders) and Bob Rae objected to the Defence Minister’s earlier use of the word “mendaciousness” (Peter MacKay duly stood and withdrew the remark). The House is now at the time reserved each day for the presenting of petitions and will soon move to the final period of report stage debate on C-38.
4:51pm. The New Democrats held a photo op this afternoon to demonstrate how they were preparing for tonight’s votes. Mostly this seems to have involved Nathan Cullen removing his jacket and writing “C-38″ on a giant white pad of paper.
5:04pm. The Liberals have chosen now to discuss Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. And now there is some discussion between the Speaker, Elizabeth May and Denis Coderre about how long one can speak when responding to a question of privilege.
5:15pm. With Mr. Lamoureux still responding to Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege, Conservative MP Bob Zimmer rises on a point of order to question Mr. Lamoureux’s point of privilege. The Speaker stands and reads the rules pertaining to questions of privilege, specifically that such interventions should be “brief and concise” and that the Speaker has the right to “terminate” the discussion. Liberal MP Massimo Pacetti rises on a point of order to object to Mr. Zimmer’s point of order. Mr. Lamoureux attempts a point of order to respond to Mr. Zimmer, but the Speaker suggests he carry on with his point of privilege, but then Mr. Coderre rises on a point of order to complain about the Speaker’s desire to move things along. The Speaker asserts his impartiality and attempts to straighten this all out, but Mr. Coderre rises on another point of order to clarify his respect for the Speaker, but also to express his desire that Mr. Lamoureux be allowed to give a full response to Mr. Cullen’s point of privilege. Mr. Pacetti rises on a point of order to add his concern that Mr. Lamoureux be allowed to speak fully. The Speaker says he was merely reminding everyone of the rules and gives Mr. Lamoureux five minutes to finish and, finally, we’re now back to Mr. Lamoruex’s point of privilege.
5:30pm. The Speaker stands and calls an end to Mr. Lamoureux’s remarks and attempts to move to the last hour of report stage debate on C-38, but now Mauril Belanger is up on a separate point of privilege.
5:32pm. The Speaker cuts off Mr. Belanger to move to deferred votes on two opposition motions and one private member’s bill. MPs have 30 minutes to report to the chamber.
By Aaron Wherry - Monday, October 19, 2009 at 8:00 AM - 15 Comments
The Conservative backbencher admits the giant novelty cheques he handed out upset his stomach.
The design of the cheques provided to one area MP to highlight infrastructure spending left him feeling “a bit queasy,” he said. Royal Galipeau, MP for Ottawa-Orléans, said he insisted that the cheques provided to him didn’t have the Conservative party logo but said he still wasn’t happy with the design. ”That didn’t look like a government cheque to me. I would preferred it looked like a government cheque.”
… Galipeau was photographed in March handing over a $21,339 cheque for a francophone seniors program in Ottawa with his name printed at the top and his signature below. He says he still thinks the large cheques are a good way to highlight government work and plans to continue handing them out, but using a design based on a real government cheque.
By Paul Wells - Wednesday, July 22, 2009 at 11:10 AM - 51 Comments
Here in the string quartet section of macleans.ca, I know you’ll be as delighted as I am to learn that the federal government’s not-at-all-ridiculous Marquee Tourism Events Program has announced another grant. And just in the nick of time! Yes, it’s the Ottawa International Chamber Music Festival, which truly is a marvellous event, and for which I have already, long ago, purchased a single Platinum Pass so I can spend much of the next 10 days geeking out to Haydn and Mendelssohn without actually having to drag any of my already-long-suffering friends along. Anyway, just this morning, the indefatigable Royal Galipeau, Conservative MP for Somewhere Around Here, announced a MTEP grant of $210,000 to “make it possible to increase marketing and promotional efforts aimed at attracting audiences from out-of-province and out-of-country, specifically targeting major cities in the U.S., England and other European centres.”
For this year’s Chamberfest.
Which starts in three days.
This is asinine.
But perhaps I am being too harsh. Continue…
By kadyomalley - Saturday, November 15, 2008 at 9:24 AM - 5 Comments
Not sure why it’s taken so long for Royal Galipeau to make it official, but he’s now the seventh (!) MP — and the fourth Conservative — to enter the race to turf Peter Milliken from the Speaker’s chair. The ITQ poll has been updated accordingly: