House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2025, with 65% of the vote.
Petitions November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I rise today to table a petition. The petition is signed by local residents who are urging the government to prohibit any Canadian from being involved with the use of cluster munitions anywhere in the world. I am pleased to table this petition. I look forward to the government's response.
Ethics November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, despite access to information requests and questions asked in the House, the government said for months that it had no information.
Now we know about the hundreds of emails, but Canadians might have to wait for a criminal trial before they can see those emails for themselves. It is unbelievable that Mr. Woodcock is now the chief of staff to the Minister of Natural Resources.
Can the government confirm whether Mr. Woodcock has had any contact whatsoever with the RCMP?
Ethics November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, we know that the PMO was forced to provide emails and other records to the RCMP. For months, countless ministers stood up in the House and asserted there was no written agreement between Wright and Duffy. Over and over again, it was outright denial.
Can the government confirm that one of the documents it turned over to the RCMP is the February 20 email which summarizes the Wright-Duffy legal agreement, and can it confirm that Mr. Woodcock has had this email in his possession since last spring?
Ethics November 8th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, Chris Woodcock was the Prime Minister's director of issues management, the top official, the go-to guy for handling dangerous political files. He crafted the strategy to cover up the Wright-Duffy deal; he wrote the false media lines which instructed Mr. Duffy to hide the real source of the $90,000 cheque.
Mr. Duffy has provided the RCMP with all his emails and records related to Mr. Woodcock. Has the government turned over to the RCMP all of Mr. Woodcock's records relating to Mr. Duffy?
Economic Action Plan 2013 Act No. 2 October 28th, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for a very thoughtful and measured speech. I would like to ask the member where he might see the country going in terms of innovation.
Several years ago, in a previous government led by then-minister Allan Rock, now the president of the University of Ottawa, a very comprehensive Canadian strategy was put in place to pursue an innovation strategy for the country. Four or five round tables were struck, and at the time I had the privilege of chairing an environmental technologies round table, to take a closer look at where we were going. Back then, around the year 2000, in the national capital region, we were receiving 60% of all the venture capital monies in Canada. That has been cut now by over 80%. We have also lost half of our high-tech firms.
What is the member's view with respect to an innovation strategy for the country? How does he see that dovetail with manufacturing and with information technology?
Elimination of Partisan Government Advertising Act October 24th, 2013
moved for leave to introduce Bill C-544, An Act to amend the Auditor General Act (government advertising).
Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise today to introduce my private member's bill, the elimination of partisan government advertising act. It would amend the Auditor General Act to appoint an advertising commissioner to oversee government spending on advertising. It is time to bring Canada's advertising rules into the 21st century. The appointment of an advertising commissioner would provide accountability for all Canadians.
I call on my colleagues from all sides of the House to support this bill and work with me to eliminate partisan government advertising.
(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)
Business of Supply October 22nd, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I appreciated my colleague's remarks.
I have read the motion several times. There is a lot in the motion that is of merit, leaving aside the NDP's choice to bring this motion on its first opposition day in this new sitting.
The area that I am having the most difficulty with is the question of senators participating in caucus meetings. What is the rationale behind the NDP's call for senators not to be able to participate in caucus meetings?
The member knows full well that although caucus meetings are occasionally political and partisan, they are also very much policy-based. They are discussions about the merits of bills, they are internal meetings about private members' bills, and, for that matter, about motions like this one being debated today that has been put forward by the NDP.
Would the NDP agree that if we preclude senators from participating in caucus meetings of their own party and if we want senators to be non-partisan, why do we not say to senators that they should participate in all caucus meetings, including caucus meetings of the NDP?
Rail Transportation October 21st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, this summer, Lac-Mégantic experienced an unprecedented rail catastrophe.
Unfortunately, that was not the only accident involving trains and dangerous goods. Most recently, there was an accident this weekend, forcing the evacuation of more than 100 Albertans.
Municipalities want to know what is in the cars that are crossing their territory and they want to be involved in developing emergency plans. Will the government finally listen to what they have been calling for?
Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act October 21st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, I think that it is important not to underestimate the risks involved. At the same time, there is no need to exaggerate them. In Canada a lot of products are moved by rail and this is done very safely.
As I mentioned in my presentation, it is important to remember that the percentage of oil transportation by rail is increasing rapidly in Canada—largely because the Conservatives favour rail to avoid the complexity of the regulatory systems in place in Canada. These systems may be complicated, but there is a good reason for that, namely to help protect Canadians and our land.
Safeguarding Canada's Seas and Skies Act October 21st, 2013
Mr. Speaker, with respect to the question of the ability to amend any bill brought forward by the government, my answer is that there is always hope.
There is always hope that the government might see fit to leave the sloganeering aside sometimes. The title of the bill is “safeguarding Canada's seas and skies act”. I hope the person who devised that slogan got a bonus, because that is not what the bill would do at all, but I suspect it is great marketing.
If the members of the Conservative caucus could see fit to leave that kind of stuff aside for a while, maybe we as legislators could come up with something to help improve the situation.
With respect to my colleague's question, there is always hope. There is an opportunity for all of us to bring amendments to bear to try to improve legislation for Canadians. If that is not why we are here, then why are here?