“Mr. Speaker, this gives us a chance to look at something again. The recognized party status rules were created by law in 1963 to do one thing only, which was to provide funding to parties that have at least 12 members of Parliament in the House. That law said nothing about changing the rights that each member of Parliament has vis-à-vis each other. As the leader of the Green Party of Canada with a seat for Saanich—Gulf Islands, I should in theory have equal rights to those of every other member of the House, because the 1963 rule did not say, and no rule has ever said, that members of Parliament from parties with fewer than 12 MPs cannot sit on committees. I verified this quite recently with the clerk to make sure. As the clerk described it, it is a practice of long standing, not a rule. Why has the government decided it is okay to provide funding to the NDP members but not to ensure that those very fine members sit on committees?”
Statement grade
A+
The average of Signal, Relevance and Clarity.
Average 96 / 100
A score under 50 is red. Choose a measurement to see where it lost points and why; choose it again to clear.
Claims 100%
This view breaks the statement into its steps and names what each one does.
Mr. Speaker, Claims · 99 wordsthe Board of Internal Economy, which makes the decisions, has decided on a funding formula, indeed, for parties of the House, 1which has no connection to the item at hand.Off pointI would simply say to my hon. colleague that we are all equals in the House.The member and I, the Leader of the Opposition, and the Prime Minister are all equals when we meet in this place.We all enjoy one vote each.We all enjoy the same privileges and the same ability to compel accountability, to vote on budgets and to govern in the best way possible.
