House of Commons photoLost her last election, in 2011, with 32% of the vote.
Firearms Registry November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, we are also in contact with Hayder and his press secretary. I will keep asking the same question until Hayder Kadhim gets an answer. He is the college shooting victim who challenged the Conservative government to answer a simple question, and here it is for the third time to the Prime Minister.
Why does the government insist on dismantling a gun registry proven to have saved lives and which now costs next to nothing to maintain?
Firearms Registry November 2nd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of Public Safety claimed that he agreed in principle with the comments made by Hayder Kadhim, a student wounded in the Dawson College shooting.
Today this same minister declared his intention to dismantle the gun registry. For the second time, I am asking the Prime Minister to respond to Hayder's question. Why does he want to abolish a gun registry proven to have saved lives and which now costs next to nothing to maintain?
Income Tax Act November 1st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I wonder by what authority do you go back on a decision already made by the house?
In accordance with the Standing Orders, the House made a decision. Now you have cast doubt on this decision.
Firearms Registry November 1st, 2006
Mr. Speaker, today, Hayder Kadhim, a victim of the Dawson College shooting, said that when he awoke from his coma he was devastated to learn three things: one, his friend Anastasia was dead; two, he would have to live with bullets in his head; and three, his own Prime Minister was going to eliminate the gun registry. Hayder's question to the Prime Minister is, “I want him to explain to me why he wants to dismantle a gun registry proven to have saved many lives and which now costs next to nothing to maintain”.
Ministerial Expenses October 30th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, by his own words, the minister has confirmed the facts I stated in my previous question.
Can the minister explain to Canadians why he gave Normand Forest $24,000 for 24 days? What exactly did Mr. Forest do during that period?
Why did he put him on full time salary, according to the government's own Internet site, while he was still being paid for this contract? Was it to give Mr. Forest a salary that exceeds Treasury Board guidelines?
Last Friday in this House, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister refused to defend the minister. Will he--
Ministerial Expenses October 30th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Labour and Minister of the Economic Development Agency of Canada for the Regions of Quebec must explain how his political adviser, Normand Forest, was hired.
Through his company, Mr. Forest was given a government contract at $1,000 a day for 24 days, from March 7 to March 31. In the middle of the contract, Mr. Forest was hired as an employee of the minister’s office, beginning on March 14, 2006.
How can the minister justify the same employee getting two paycheques at the same time?
Decorum October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, it is clear that women are not a priority for this Conservative minority government. It has abolished programs for women, but it denies having done that. The minister made sexist comments but he is now denying it, in the House.
When will the Conservatives stop denying the reality, and when will the Minister of Foreign Affairs assume his responsibilities, including responsibility for his contemptuous behaviour towards women and this House?
Decorum October 25th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, a long list of women's groups agree that the Minister of Foreign Affairs must apologize for the disparaging remark he made in the House last Thursday. His sexist remark, which today he is denying having made, goes beyond decorum. It speaks to a fundamental lack of respect for women.
The minister and the Prime Minister both refuse to apologize. Why are they endorsing such disrespect to Canadian women and to members of Parliament in the House?
Decorum October 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the parliamentary secretary look up the word “potiche” in her French-English dictionary. That word is neither offensive nor a slur.
It has been four days and all we have seen is the Minister of Foreign Affairs evade the truth and a Prime Minister who lets him get away with it. Why does the government allow these sexist comments and evasions of the truth to cloud Canada's reputation as the defender of women's rights around the world?
It has been four days. Will someone over there stand up, do the honourable thing and--
Decorum October 23rd, 2006
Mr. Speaker, why does this government refuse to condemn loud and clear the unacceptable, sexist remarks made in this House by the Minister of Foreign Affairs and Minister of the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency?
If similar remarks were offensive to an MP from a visible minority or one who is homosexual, would he have the gall to stand by what he said? He thinks he can get away with it because a woman was involved. That adds insult to injury. We demand an immediate apology.