Candidate, James Rajotte
Conservative Party, Edmonton Riverbend, AB
Bio
CLC rating: evaluation pending
Rating Comments: This MP did not run again in 2015 federal election. On Sep. 26, 2012 he voted in favour of MP Stephen Woodworth's principled Motion 312 to study whether a child in the womb is a human being based on the preponderence of evidence from modern medical science. He also voted against 2nd reading of the reckless, transgender 'Bathroom Bill' (C-279) which, if passed, will put young girls and women at risk by creating a counterfeit, legal 'right' for men to access women's bathrooms and changerooms.
Position: Finance Committee (Chair)
First elected (yyyy.mm.dd): 2000.11.27
Previous Occupation: Executive assistant, researcher
Birthdate (yyyy.mm.dd): 1970.08.19
Percentage in last election: 63.32%
Victory margin last election: 44.32%
Religion / Faith: not known
Contact
Parliamentary Office
House of Commons
Room 404, Justice Bldg
Ottawa, Ontario
K1A 0A6
Tel: 613-992-3594
Fax: 613-992-3616
Constituency Offices
204-596 Riverbend Sq
Edmonton, Alberta
T6R 2E3
Tel: 780-495-4351
Fax: 780-495-4485
Here is James Rajotte's voting record relating to life and family issues:
| Votes, Surveys and Policy Decision | Vote | Score |
|---|---|---|
| Bill C36, third reading: To protect exploited persons from prostitution by criminalizing pimps and the purchase of human beings for sex. After the black-robed activists who sit on the bench of the Supreme Court of Canada struck down our Criminal Code prohibitions against prostitution, the Conservative government put forward this new legislation, modelled on the successful nordic law, to protect women from prostitution and the degradation of communities. The bill passed by a vote of 156 to 124. It is shameful that 124 Members of Parliament voted to protect the evil, exploitative practice of prostitution. [October 6, 2014] |
Yes |  |
| Motion 312: Studying Canada's 400 Year Old Definition of Human Being Motion 312 (sponsored by MP Stephen Woodworth) called for parliament to review Subsection 223(1) of the Criminal Code of Canada which states that a child becomes a human being only at the moment of complete birth. |
Yes | |
| M-221, child protection motion To raise the age of consent for sex from 14 to 16 [Sep 28, 2005] |
Yes | |
| Motion to maintain the true definition of marriage Maintain definition as between one man and one woman [Sep 16, 2003] |
Yes | |
| Motion 12, Re-open debate on definition of marriage [Dec 2006] |
Yes | |
| C-38, A bill to abolish the true definition of marriage [June 28, 2005] |
No | |
| C-13, Reproductive Technologies bill Allowed destruction of embryonic humans for research; as well as human cloning for the purpose of organ harvesting (Oct 28, 2003) |
Absent | -- |
| Bill C279 - 3rd reading of 'transgender & transsexual' empowerment bill which added the radical concepts of "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison sought to invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote March 20, 2013 - passed 150 to 137] |
No | |
| C-484, Unborn victims of Crime Act Common sense legislation that would allow criminal charges to be laid in the death or injury of an unborn child when the childs mother is the victim of violent crime. This cannot be considered a "pro-life" bill because it specifically excludes deliberate acts of abortion by the woman. Nonetheless, it is a good "pro-family" bill because it protects women and their wanted children from violent crime. (Mar5/08) |
Yes | |
| C-313, Age of Consent child protection bill Raised the age of consent for sex from 14 to 16 [Sep 28, 2005] |
Yes | |
| Bill C389, 3rd reading of the "Transsexual Bathroom Bill" This radical bill sought to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. If passed, the bill would've endangered women and children by creating a legal right for men who "identify" as the opposite sex, to use female public washrooms. Male sexual predators or peeping toms would have certainly used this as an opening to enter the girl's washroom. It is unconscionable for legislators to put women and children in such a compromising position. It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. This bill passed final reading in House of Commons by a 143-135 vote on February 9, 2011, but then, thankfully, died in the Senate when a federal election was called. |
No | |
| Bill C279 - 2nd reading, to add "gender identity" and "gender expression" to the Human Rights Act and Criminal Code. This radical private members bill by NDP Randal Garrison would invent a counterfeit right to "gender expression" and "gender identity" in the Canadian Human Rights Act. Dubbed "the bathroom bill" by critics, this change in law would put women and young girls at greater risk from bathroom attacks by sexual predators and from peeping toms. It will create a legal right for men who identify as the opposite sex, to use female washrooms and change rooms - a form of "gender expression". Critics point out this radical departure from social norms will provide a convenient excuse for male sexual predators to get in close quarters with potential female victims by cross-dressing or pretending to be "transgendered". It would also create a legal nightmare for businesses and Christian charities that would be required to allow staff to cross-dress in the work place. Furthermore, this would harm youth by cooperating with mental illness and encouraging sexually-confused young men to perceive themselves as women, and vice versa. It will also open the door for radical activists to insist that transgenderism & transsexualism must be inserted in school curriculum and taught in classrooms as something that is normal, natural and healthy. [Vote June 6, 2012 - passed 150 to 132] |
No | |
| Survey on awarding Order of Canada to Henry Morgentaler Do you agree with awarding the Order of Canada to abortionist Henry Morgentaler? (July 2008) |
No | |
| Bill C-250, added sexual orientation to hate crimes law [Sep 17, 2003] Note: observers predict this could eventually be used to prosecute Christians for holding to biblical teaching on homosexuality and may cause sections of the Bible and the Catholic Cathechism to be banned as "hate literature". |
No | |
| Motion 83, Inquiry into the medical necessity of abortion Asked parliament to examine whether abortion is medically necessary and to report on its potential health risks to women (Oct 1, 2003) |
Yes | |
| Bill C-384, Legalize euthanasia & assisted suicide A horrible bill that would have given doctors permission to kill people who are seriously ill but not dying and who in fact, have a treatable condition. Doctors would also have been permitted to kill people suffering with treatable chronic depression. This bill was defeated on second reading, 59 votes in favour to 228 votes Against. [Apr 21, 2010] |
No | |
| Bill C-510, to protect pregnant women from coercion to abort This private member's bill by Conservative MP Rod Bruinooge, also called Roxanne's Law, was a common sense bill to protect women and their unborn children from coercion to abort. Abortion coercion by boyfriends, husbands, relatives and even physicians is very common in Canada. Unfortunately, the bill was defeated in 2nd reading by a vote of 97 to 178. [December 15, 2010] |
Yes | |
| Bill C-304, 2nd Reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act This clause enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 158-131. (Feb 15, 2012 ) |
Yes | |
| Bill C-304, 3rd reading - to repeal the censorship provision (Sect 13) of the Canadian Human Rights Act Section 13 enables Human Rights Tribunals to abuse their power by acting as 'thought police' to opress freedom of speech and freedom of conscience. They usually target Christians who hold to biblical moral teachings, especially in the area of homosexuality. For example, the Catholic Bishop of Calgary was dragged before an HRC kangaroo court for merely issuing a pastoral letter in which he reiterated his Church's teaching against homosexual conduct. This vote passed 153-136. (June 6, 2012 ) |
Yes | |
Here are quotes from James Rajotte on various life and family issues:
On stem cell research that destroys embryonic humans (Bill C-56): "The most contentious issue in the bill is obviously embryonic stem cell research, in particular, the fact that excess embryos would be used for research purposes ... My main concern with this legislation...is the lack of guidance by first principles. The majority report of the health committee suggested we include in the preamble of the legislation the phrase "the dignity of and respect for human life". That has to be in the bill at the beginning. We have to be guided by that first principle. ...I am not one who will stand in the House and say I know all the answers as to what exactly makes up a human person and a human being, but I have studied the issue... this is the most fundamental question for any society because it impacts on so many other pieces of legislation and it impacts on how we value human life... If human persons have a right to life, then we had better justify why it is they have that right to life. Is it the exercise of reason? Is it the capacity to exercise reason? Is it free will? Is it the capacity to exercise free will? We have to decide exactly why it is we say that human beings... have a right to life and the right not to be deprived thereof, or that for certain things such as an embryo, even an excess embryo created through IVF, somehow we can destroy that life and use it for research purposes. We need to answer that very fundamental question and debate that question in the House before we decide on what particulars the bill will have." [Hansard transcript, May 27, 2002]
On the need to reform Canadian Human Rights Commissions which destroy freedom of speech and freedom of thought: . . .human rights commissions operating at various levels of society are in need of major reform. [LifeSiteNews.com, May 22, 2008]
Here are the answers for the questionnaire as provided by James Rajotte on 2006.
| Question | Response |
|---|---|
| Do you believe that life begins at conception (fertilization)? | Yes |
| Are there any circumstances under which you believe a woman should have access to abortion? (note: Medical treatments to save the life of a mother and which result in the UNINTENDED death of her unborn child, are NOT abortions. Eg. in case of tubal pregnancy or cervical cancer) | Yes - "health" of the mother. |
| If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures to explicitly exclude abortion as an insured health service under the Canada Health Act? | No |
| If elected, will you oppose any legislative or regulatory measures designed to permit the deliberate killing (euthanasia) of a human being regardless of age, state of health, or "anticipated quality of life" or designed to permit "doctor-assisted suicide"? | Yes |
| If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures that would prohibit the dispensing of abortion-inducing pharmaceuticals? | No |
| If elected, will you support legislative or regulatory measures to prohibit experimentation upon human embryos, at every stage of development? | Yes |
| If elected, will you vote for measures that define marriage as the union of one man and one woman to the exclusion of all others? | Yes |
There are no videos available for James Rajotte.
-
GREEN light means the person supports CLC principles and is rated as SUPPORTABLE -
RED light means the person is NOT SUPPORTABLE -
AMBER light means voters should be cautious about the candidate. CLC is still evaluating this individual, does not have enough data, or their record is mixed. View their quotes & voting history to help you decide.