House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2011, with 77% of the vote.
Health October 9th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, the World Health Organization is preparing for another SARS outbreak this winter. The Naylor report said that Canada is not adequately prepared for a true pandemic. With the fall flu season upon us, the Naylor report urged Health Canada to issue national recommendations for SARS surveillance by next week.
Will these guidelines be in place and why have they not been here by now?
Health October 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, 44 deaths is not light reading. I would like to quote from page 205 that says:
In 2002, Health Canada informed airport authorities that it would be transferring airport quarantine responsibilitiesto Canada Customs.
These Customs staff were never trained for the job. This comes right out of his report. Why were those Customs staff never trained to do the job?
Health October 8th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Dr. Naylor said that the handling of SARS was a national embarrassment. That was what we said last spring.
In his report it states:
--Health Canada personnel...largely invisible [that is on page 31]...deficiencies in data acquisition and sharing [that is on page 201]...significant gaps and inconsistencies with respect to information on SARS [that is on page 202].
Will the minister finally apologize for her government's inadequacy in dealing with SARS?
Health October 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, in January the minister said when it comes to therapeutic cloning, “not at this time”, but she would not rule it out in the future.
Creating human life for the purpose of harvesting spare parts is deplorable, yet Canada's position at the United Nations amounts to support for an attack on human dignity. Why would we have one position at home and another one abroad?
Health October 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, an international convention on human cloning is being debated at the United Nations. Many countries want to see a comprehensive ban on human cloning, both therapeutic and reproductive.
In fact, the government's Bill C-13 calls for prohibitions on both reproductive and therapeutic cloning, but our negotiators at the United Nations are seeking prohibitions on reproductive cloning alone. Why the double standard?
Privilege October 6th, 2003
Mr. Speaker, we have argued long and hard in the House. I think April 10 was the last time we actually debated this bill in the House. However we really were arguing long and hard about some of the complexities of the legislation. We fought in committee. It was a unique piece of legislation because it went to committee prior to going to first reading in the House and on to second reading and committee work for the second time. We worked on it at the committee stage. We had the best witnesses from across Canada and around the world. It is very complex legislation. We actually recommended that it be split because it follows two trains of thought: one on the scientific and the other on building families and assisting individuals to reproduce because they have difficulties doing so.
From our perspective, because of the complexity of the legislation, now that we are through committee stage, where we put forward over 100 amendments and at report stage where we asked that 66 or more amendments be considered, we need to know what is before us. I think we spent two or three hours one evening voting on some complex amendments, some of which were passed. However, now that we are at the third reading stage with something similar to time allocation being called, we need to understand exactly what it is we are debating here. It is important we have the opportunity to read exactly what we are here to debate at third reading.
It is absolutely imperative that we do that and I ask the Speaker to consider it.
Government Contracts October 1st, 2003
Mr. Speaker, almost daily it seems that new evidence is uncovered of a culture of corruption, cronyism and mismanagement that is flourishing under the Liberal government.
Yesterday another former senior official was arrested by the RCMP in the growing Virginia Fontaine scandal. The accused stands charged of giving preferential treatment to the Fontaine Treatment Centre for a payback of almost $1 million in government contracts to a company owned by his wife. Yes, Virginia, there is a Santa Claus.
He is the seventh person charged in an all too familiar tale of kickbacks, junkets, bogus travel claims and lucrative government contracts.
Problems at Health Canada were allowed to fester for years before the infamous Caribbean cruise story broke in October 2000.
This is another example of Liberals acting only when a scandal become public. Clearly the Liberals are incapable of managing taxpayer funds and undeserving of the public trust.
Parliament of Canada Act September 22nd, 2003
Madam Speaker, we have an ethics counsellor right now. If we are not going to fix the problem of making the ethics counsellor's job or role more open, more transparent, more encompassing, then what is the point of changing it? We might as well leave it the way it is.
If the bill is about fixing it, then let us get it right and do what needs to be done to gain credibility for the House and members of Parliament and to hold all people to higher standards, specifically cabinet as it sets an example and a model for all of us.
Parliament of Canada Act September 22nd, 2003
Madam Speaker, this goes right to the heart of the issue. It is all about credibility. It is all about trying to enhance the credibility of the House and members of Parliament who serve in the House. We serve the people of Canada.
If we cannot hold individuals who have the power and the money to transparency, to openness and to be accountable for the decisions they are entrusted to make, then we really are doing nothing. This legislation misses the boat completely by exempting them. It really is a frustrating situation.
We must ask ourselves why would that be the case. What is the problem with that, unless there is something to hide? That is why Canadians look at the government and say that the rot is getting close to the top. With that we have to think about what can we do to remove the rot or fix the blemish.
I believe the legislation is an attempt to put a band-aid on something that will become very chronic, painful and an epidemic as we move forward into the 21st century if we are not prepared to stand in the House and fix it now. We have waited a decade, a decade too long, and it is a shameful legacy of the government.
Parliament of Canada Act September 22nd, 2003
Madam Speaker, I want to thank my hon. colleague for that question because there is one glaring thing. We could point to a number of things in the bill. First is how the commissioner gets there. If he is appointed by the Prime Minister, then nothing changes. The commissioner should be appointed by an all party committee. It should not just be the Prime Minister's appointee elected in the House. That individual should be chosen by the House initially.
But that is not the thing that bothers me the most. The hon. member asked me for the one that stands out. The one that stands out is the one about the cabinet, the ones with the power, the ones with the money, the ones who over the last decade have been implicated in many challenges on the ethical side of government and being able to say that they have mishandled their portfolios or mishandled Canadian money, something with which they are entrusted. Under this piece of legislation they are held to a lower standard than members of Parliament who have absolutely no power and very little ability for funding.
If we are saying to Canadians to trust us because we have a commissioner who will look after this, but by the way the ones with all the power and all the money we cannot touch, then we have missed the boat and we are just putting up a smokescreen. That is the most glaring part of the legislation that is wrong.