House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2019, with 34% of the vote.
Private Members' Business October 19th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I have one other brief matter.
There have been the usual discussions among the parties and again I think you would find unanimous consent for the following motion. I move:
That Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act (Northern Ontario), be referred after second reading to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs as opposed to a legislative committee.
Committees of the House October 19th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I hesitate to interrupt the flow of the debate, but there is a bit of House leaders' business to be conducted.
Discussions have taken place among all parties concerning the debate scheduled for later today on the motion of the member for Desnethé—Missinippi—Churchill River to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, and I believe you would find consent in the House for the following motion. I move:
That the debate scheduled to take place later this day on the motion to concur in the first report of the Standing Committee on Aboriginal Affairs and Northern Development, be deemed to have taken place, the question on the motion deemed put, the recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 5:30 p.m. on Wednesday, October 25, 2006.
Business of Supply October 19th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, I believe if you seek the consent of the House you would find that the usual discussions have taken place among all parties and that there is consent for the following motion. I move:
That at the conclusion of today's debate on the opposition motion in the name of the Member from Markham—Unionville, all questions necessary to dispose of the motion be deemed put, a recorded division deemed requested and deferred to 5:30 p.m. on Tuesday, October 24.
Government Policies October 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, my colleagues have laid open the minority Conservative government's growing record of blatant contradictions: the promised aid and reconstruction not happening in Afghanistan; the Auditor General and Environment Canada finding the Minister of the Environment to be a stranger to the truth; and written commitments to provinces, to women, to aboriginal people and to museums. Promises broken, truth denied.
Well beyond climate change, why does the government find so many truths to be so inconvenient?
Points of Order October 17th, 2006
It's exactly the same thing.
Points of Order October 17th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the proposition that the whip for the government presents on the floor this morning comes as a bit of a surprise because of the government's position last night, which was exactly the opposite.
The proposition that he is bringing forward appears, from a substantive point of view, to be a reasonable one in view of the fact that there was either confusion or an error in the course of the taking of the vote on the amendment to Bill C-24 that was entirely unintentional and inadvertent on the part of the New Democratic Party. I suspect there is a will in the House to see that it is corrected.
However, I need to point out, Mr. Speaker, that this is not the first time this has occurred. We saw a similar incident in the spring in relation to a vote on a budget bill; I hasten to add, not on the budget itself, but in relation to the vote on the budget bill. At that time the House, specifically on the part of the government and perhaps the Bloc, but I do not want to characterize its position because I do not know for sure, did not have the will to accommodate the simple correction of what was an obvious inadvertent occurrence that, since that time, I must say, the government has been at some pains to exacerbate.
The point is that these incidents do, unfortunately, occur. It is obvious to all members of the House that they are inadvertent and there has, at least up until last spring, been the will in the House to immediately recognize the reality of the situation and to cooperate with each other to correct the error and ensure the record accurately reflects what the will of the House would be.
In this instance I think it is obvious what the NDP intended, even though that was not reflected in the detail of what happened last evening. From the opposition's point of view, we are certainly prepared to see that inadvertent situation put right and the accurate reflection of the NDP's position to show through in the proceedings of the House.
I simply make the point that the same goodwill, the same give and take and the same sense of fair play and accurate reflection should apply in all circumstances.
Canadian Wheat Board October 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, then let the farmers vote. It is unbelievable that the minority Conservative government would plan to kill the Wheat Board and kill the farmers' right to vote all at the same time. Gone would be the single desk marketing system and producer cars and short line rail systems and the port of Churchill and anyone to stand up to the anti-farmer market power, the grain companies and the railways. So much for transparency and accountability.
Why does the minister fail to respect the farmers' legal right to vote? What is he afraid of?
Canadian Wheat Board October 16th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, there is obviously one rule for the government and one rule for the board.
The government of Saskatchewan says that destroying the Canadian Wheat Board's marketing system would slash grain incomes in Saskatchewan by at least $300 million a year. The law enacted by Parliament gives western farmers the legal guarantee that before any marketing change, prairie farmers must be given the opportunity to vote on that specific change in a fair and democratic plebiscite.
Will the minister commit himself today to fully respect the farmers' democratic right to vote on this specific issue?
Points of Order October 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, as I pointed out yesterday, the written record includes, among other things, the government's news release, when it took great pride in announcing its program cuts. Both the President of the Treasury Board and the Minister of Finance were quoted at length in that news release. The headline of the news release, applying to all the cuts that were announced by the government, was that it was cutting waste. It referred to all those programs as wasteful. That is very clearly on the written record, in the words of the government's own news release.
Second, the words on the tape, as transcribed by the House, as reported by dozens of news media outlets across the country, make it very clear that the minister said that there was no value in trying to provide literacy services to adult Canadians. Those are his words on tape, recorded and filed in this House.
Government Appointments October 6th, 2006
Mr. Speaker, the lesson from the head tax is that trampling on human rights is never acceptable, not 100 years ago and not today.
The focus here is precisely and undeniably on the chief of staff for the Minister of the Environment. His intolerance is broadly published and unmistakable, and now he is heading up the minister's office in charge of the government's most important policy file.
The House deserves an answer. Does the government agree or disagree with this individual's intolerant views?