House of Commons photoWon his last election, in 2015, with 71% of the vote.
Human Rights April 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives believe that a 14-year-old who breaks the law should be punished as an adult, but the Conservatives also believe that a 40-year-old should be able to utter hate and prejudice and escape all punishment.
Why the double standard? Why are the Conservatives soft on hate?
Human Rights April 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the member was 40 years old when he made these hateful remarks. Allowing the member to remain an officer of the House of Commons debases this institution.
Does the Prime Minister realize that his tepid response to these hateful remarks against gays and Canadians suffering from AIDS tells Canadians that hate, bigotry and prejudice are just fine in his Canada?
Human Rights April 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the hateful and offensive comments were unacceptable for an officer of this House.
Will the Prime Minister show some leadership and relieve the member of his responsibilities as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons?
Human Rights April 4th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the hateful, offensive words of the member for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre demonstrate a prejudice that is unacceptable for an officer of the House of Commons.
Will the Prime Minister show leadership and relieve the member of his responsibility as parliamentary secretary to the government House leader?
Science and Technology April 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, on December 14, the day the satellite was launched, the minister repeated, “This satellite will help us vigorously protect our Arctic sovereignty”. The very next business day MDA agreed to sell the satellite to the Americans.
Could the minister name one other country in the world that would invest $445 million to launch a satellite to protect its sovereignty and would then allow that same satellite to be sold to foreigners the very next day?
Science and Technology April 3rd, 2008
Mr. Speaker, on October 25, the industry minister made a major announcement on RADARSAT-2 where he boasted, “This satellite will help us vigorously protect our Arctic sovereignty”. The minister would not have said those words if MDA had told him that it was already in deep negotiations to sell the same satellite to the Americans.
How can the minister trust MDA and ATK's assurances today when they were hiding the truth from him last fall?
Science and Technology March 13th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, what about Canadian sovereignty?
On October 25, the industry minister said this about RADARSAT-2:
This satellite will help us...protect our Arctic sovereignty as international interest in the region increases.
The United States does not recognize Canada's claim over the Northwest Passage.
If this sale goes ahead and we have a dispute with the Americans over Arctic sovereignty, who will control RADARSAT-2? Will it be Canada or the U.S.?
Science and Technology March 13th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, the RADARSAT-2 satellite was developed to strengthen Canada's sovereignty.
At committee today, the industry minister would not answer the following question, and Canadians deserve to know: Will the government guarantee that if MDA is sold to the Americans, the RADARSAT-2 satellite technology, developed by Canadians with Canadian tax dollars, will not be used against Canada's national interest to attack Canada's sovereignty?
Science and Technology March 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, this is interesting, because before Dr. Carty spoke out, the industry minister said about Dr. Carty that he has made “significant and valuable contributions to Canada's international agenda”. He told this House that “Dr. Carty is a respected Canadian whom I hold in very high regard”.
Why, then, did the Conservatives kill Dr. Carty's position? Was it because Dr. Carty, like Linda Keen, dared to speak truth to power? Is it because this government prefers ideology to evidence?
Science and Technology March 7th, 2008
Mr. Speaker, yesterday Dr. Arthur Carty told the industry committee that the need for a national science adviser has never been greater and that the government is “tarnishing” Canada's international reputation as a science and innovation leader by cutting that position. He also said that he is “dismayed and disappointed” that the Conservatives find scientific advice “unwanted”.
Why did the minister mislead this House by telling us that Dr. Carty is leaving voluntarily and that he supports the government's latest attack on science?