Discussion · Government Orders
Kelly McCauley Conservative
“The government should let Parliament approve its spending. The member opposite voted to let the government spend taxpayers' money without our approval or oversight. That goes against the whole point of Parliament.”
“Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to respect the parliamentary tradition of “what touches all should be approved by all”. Again, I keep going back to the original Model Parliament’s being called. The very point of having a Parliament is approving such things. The member opposite voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund. He voted in favour of taxpayers’ money continuing to go out the door without oversight or approval of Parliament, violating the very reason Parliament exists and violating the very reason the Westminster system exists. If the member opposite wants to follow a parliamentary tradition, he should follow the one originally set by King Edward: “what touches all should be approved by all”.”
-
Reply to a debate question
Relevance 100 of 100
Of this reply, 100% addressed the question or point raised.
See full analysis
Mr. Speaker, I would like the government to respect the parliamentary tradition of “what touches all should be approved by all”. Again, I keep going back to the original Model Parliament’s being called. The very point of having a Parliament is approving such things. The member opposite voted in favour of the vote 40 slush fund. He voted in favour of taxpayers’ money continuing to go out the door without oversight or approval of Parliament, violating the very reason Parliament exists and violating the very reason the Westminster system exists. If the member opposite wants to follow a parliamentary tradition, he should follow the one originally set by King Edward: “what touches all should be approved by all”.