House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Conservative MP for Palliser (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 43% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Moose Jaw Warriors April 26th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to rise in the House of Commons to congratulate the Moose Jaw Warriors for their outstanding play in this year's Western Hockey League playoffs.

It has been a great year to be a hockey fan in Moose Jaw. The people of Moose Jaw are thrilled to be part of the Warriors' best season ever.

The Warriors are a community owned club and are spurred on by their fantastic fans at home in the “Crushed Can” and on the road. They are the pride of Moose Jaw and a big part of the community spirit that makes Moose Jaw a great city.

With wins over the Brandon Wheat Kings and the Calgary Hitmen, all eyes in Moose Jaw are now focused on winning the eastern conference by defeating the member for Medicine Hat's Tigers and advancing to the WHL final.

On behalf of the people of Palliser, I want to thank Coach Steve Young and his staff, General Manager Chad Lang, President Darin Chow and all the players who have given their all to deliver great hockey and an outstanding year to the people of Moose Jaw.

Go Warriors go. Bring home the Memorial Cup.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 24th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time you have been in the chair when I have addressed the House I would like to congratulate you on your appointment as acting Speaker.

The Prime Minister will ask Parliament to approve the choice in child care allowance. I wonder why the member for Beaches—East York does not support giving $1,200 per child. Does she prefer the status quo, which is zero? It is clear where the government stands. Now it is time for the Liberal Party to stand up for universal child care.

Canada's new government's approach requires no federal-provincial negotiations, no funding for academics, researchers or special interest groups, and it cuts out the political and bureaucratic middle men. It will provide real support and direct payment as soon as Parliament approves it.

The previous government spent a lot of time talking about child care but, after 13 years of rhetoric, no one can find those universally free, readily accessible, federally created day care spaces. Ordinary parents who work hard, pay their taxes and play by the rules do not have a taxpayer funded lobby group. They do not hold demonstrations and make regular trips to Ottawa for news conferences but they support our plan. We intend to support them by keeping our promise of making choice in child care a reality.

The national child care program never materialized and now Canadian parents are waiting for the opposition parties to stand up for them, like the government is standing up for parents, the experts in child care, mom and dad. Where did all the money go with zero spots created under the previous Liberal government?

Federal Accountability Act April 11th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, we have witnessed 13 years of Liberals rewarding their friends, funnelling taxpayer money to Liberal campaigns, waste and corruption.

Public trust needs to be restored. It started today with the introduction of the government's federal accountability act.

Could the President of the Treasury Board tell us why he felt it necessary to bring in a bill with over 250 sections?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 7th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, this is the fifth day of sittings of this Chamber and we are very fortunate and very blessed to have been entrusted with this great honour by Canadians. This is a record that is just going to build. We are going to build our report card and it is one that Canadians are going to be proud of.

We on this side of the House look forward to the scrutiny of the opposition parties because our record is one that we are going to be proud of. This is going to be a record of honesty, integrity and accountability, and it is just going to continue to build. This is why our first order of business is going to be this monumental piece of legislation, the federal accountability act, which is going to change the way that this place functions forever. This is a nice way to begin what is going to be an excellent report card for this Prime Minister and members on this side of the House.

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 7th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it surprises me to hear the member opposite talk about a shakedown, because if anybody should be talking about shakedowns it is certainly not the members opposite.

The term “culture of entitlement” did not exist until we saw the exploits of the prior government. This is new terminology. I do not know if Canadians really want us to get into chapter and verse. Certainly we could do that. There are about 35 different RCMP investigations ongoing and people are under investigation. My constituents want Liberals to go to jail, but I do not think we really want to go down that road.

What we are doing in this party, as our first order of business, is cleaning up government with a robust and vigorous accountability package.

The ballot question in the 2006 election was about who could restore honesty, trust and accountability to Ottawa, and Canadians spoke. Accountability for hard-earned tax dollars should be a given. It is not something we should really have to be spending all this time on. As we have seen from the exploits of the previous Liberal government and prior Liberal governments, unfortunately it is not a given, but this party and this Prime Minister are going to give Canadians the good, honest government they deserve.

The federal accountability act will ensure that the trust of Canadians will be upheld. The residents of Palliser and Canadians from coast to coast grew sick and tired of watching the previous Liberal government function like a big club. The vast majority of Canadians were outside the Liberal club, so they closed down the club and they want it closed down permanently.

Under the previous Liberal government, the mantra truly was “Who do you know in the PMO?”. Under this new Conservative government, the questions will be these. What is in the best interests of Canadians? Is this good value for money? Is this decision in keeping with the trust that Canadians have bestowed upon us as the government and all of us as elected officials?

Resumption of Debate on Address in Reply April 7th, 2006

Mr. Speaker, it is an honour and a privilege to respond in the House today to the Speech from the Throne.

I will say at the outset that I will be splitting my time this morning with the member for Vegreville—Wainwright.

Mr. Speaker, as this is the first time I am on my feet in the 39th Parliament I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate you on your re-election as Speaker and as a member of Parliament. I would also like to congratulate all new members in the House on their election and incumbents on their re-election. I thank all Canadians who let their names stand for election in this great country.

It is important that I say thanks to the voters of Palliser for once again investing their trust in me and the Conservative Party in the last election. I extend a heartfelt thanks to the hundreds of quality people who volunteered their time to send me back to this chamber. Most important, I extend a special thanks to my loving wife Denise for all her hard work to help me get here and her solid support every step of the way.

It is truly an honour to serve the hard-working families of Palliser. Since first being elected in June 2004, I have had the great opportunity and sincere privilege to listen to and speak with thousands of people throughout my constituency about their hopes and dreams for the future, for the Canada they want to see and the government that they deserve.

During the past election, it was clear throughout the many conversations I had with people in Moose Jaw, Regina, Wilcox, Avonlea, Mossbank, Pense, Rouleau, Caron and Caronport that concern about trust and accountability were common threads uniting rural and urban, young and old. Those voices spoke loudly and clearly during the last election. They voted for change. They voted for a new government that would respect their families and their tax dollars.

They voted for a new Conservative government because we promised to deliver on five key priorities: cutting the GST from 7% to 6% and then to 5%; ensuring our communities are safe by cracking down on gun, gang and drug crime; giving parents choice in child care with a $1,200 annual payment for each child under the age of six and creating 125,000 more child care spaces; and working with the provinces and territories to establish a health care patient wait time guarantee.

Most important, they voted Conservative because they wanted a party in power that would restore trust and accountability to government. It is a pleasure today to rise in the House on behalf of the people of Palliser as part of a government that is making good on that commitment to Canadians.

As announced in the throne speech on Tuesday, the government's first piece of legislation will be the federal accountability act. This new law will restore the principle that government should serve the public interest of all Canadians, not personal interests and certainly not the political interests of the Liberal Party of Canada, as well as restoring Canadians' faith in our public institutions by making them more accountable and effective.

Canadians expect politicians and public sector employees to conduct themselves according to the highest ethical standards. My goal as a representative of the people of Palliser is to make government more effective and accountable to Parliament and to Canadians.

During the last election campaign I knocked on a lot of doors and many people told me how fed up they were with Liberal corruption. These are hard-working men and women who play by the rules and pay their taxes. They were absolutely fed up and disgusted by the culture of entitlement that developed in Ottawa under the former Liberal government. That is why they voted for change, positive change that would get rid of this culture of entitlement, positive change that would mean tough new rules to ensure that the kind of corruption we saw happening under the Liberal government could never happen again.

The federal accountability act builds on our platform commitment. It takes into account our discussions with officers of Parliament, such as the Auditor General and the Information Commissioner, along with public policy experts, eminent Canadians and unions. Our accountability package will address longstanding and difficult issues head on.

Most importantly, through this new legislation we will increase public confidence in the integrity of the political process by tightening the laws around political financing and lobbying. We will take steps to ensure government is more accountable by eliminating the undue influence of big money donors, by banning large personal or corporate donations to political parties, by toughening the rules governing lobbying, by making the federal government more transparent and accountable by increasing the power of independent officers of Parliament such as the Auditor General, and by providing real protection to whistleblowers, both public servants and other Canadians who wish to come forward with information about unethical or illegal activities that they may have seen in some area of the federal government.

We will make government more open while balancing legitimate concerns about the need for personal privacy, commercial confidentiality and national security. Accountability and trust in government is essential. It is not our business, it is everyone's business. It requires that Parliament, the government and the public service work together to serve Canadians honestly and with integrity. This is a government that campaigned on trust, believes in trust and will govern with trust. That is why it is my sincere pleasure to have the opportunity to speak to the throne speech today.

Transportation Amendment Act November 28th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the member for British Columbia Southern Interior who has been a fantastic member in the House, serving both his constituents and his caucus. He has also been a great source of help to me personally. As a fellow member of the Standing Committee on Transport, he has been a wealth of information. I wish him well in the three Gs: garden, golf and grandson. We will all miss the member for British Columbia Southern Interior.

As a new member of this 38th Parliament, I would like to ask the member a bit about the democratic deficit that we have heard about in this place. I question the teeth of the Standing Committee on Transport. Three reports were completely ignored by the Minister of Transport: the report on airport rent that the committee spent considerable time on; the report on air liberalization and open skies; and the complete disregard of the report on the farmer rail car coalition. Two days before the government falls we hear this deal is going ahead in complete contravention of all the recommendations made by the transport committee.

I would like the member's comment on the democratic deficit that he has seen in this Parliament. I will finish by again wishing him well in all his future endeavours.

Transportation Amendment Act November 28th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport. We are fortunate enough to have him as a new member of the committee. I know he has been very interested in all that we have been doing at committee.

I would like to ask the parliamentary secretary two specific questions.

First, on Liberal air transport policy, I want to talk about airport rent and ask about the Liberal policy which has been tragic for airlines and for air passengers.

Pearson International Airport is the most expensive airport in the world at which to land a plane. It costs $13,000 to land a 747 at Pearson. I have travelled with the Standing Committee on Transport. Numerous witnesses appeared before us in Toronto and Montreal. Every single witness talked about the desperate need for rent reduction. In Toronto, the major hub in this country, there was very little relief. That costs air travellers money.

The government said that it made some changes. Smaller increases in the future do not equal rent reductions. People at Pearson and across Canada are begging for relief in airport rents. I would like the member to comment on why the government has failed the air industry and has failed to deliver the much needed rent relief to Pearson.

On another point, I want to ask the member about the FRCC deal which was recently completed for hopper cars. Our interest on this side of the House is twofold. We are fighting hard for farmers. I am fighting hard for the jobs of the CPR workers in Moose Jaw, Saskatchewan who maintain those cars. Is the member opposite aware that this deal went through with no open tendering process? We still do not know the maintenance costs for these cars. The FRCC is not even talking about savings for producers which was the entire idea to begin with. That was the pitch, that it would save producers money. It is not even being discussed any longer.

I wonder if the parliamentary secretary could deal with those two points.

Political Party Fundraising November 24th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, it seems like another example of rules for Liberals and other rules for Canadians who want to play by the rules.

While Canadians have been ignored by the Prime Minister, $5,000 buys privileged access for a few. He has been desperately raising money for his corrupt Liberal Party, most recently at a $5,000 per ticket cocktail party. These funds will apparently be used to pay back a fraction of the money stolen from taxpayers. Yet because tax receipts are issued, all taxpayers will be subsidizing these donations.

Why does the Prime Minister think he is entitled to have hard-working taxpayers subsidize the repayment of money that was stolen from them in the first place?

Petitions November 23rd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.

With due respect, a member offered a petition on a very serious subject and all members in their seats agreed to give consent for the tabling of that petition. A member opposite poked her head through the door of the lobby and screamed “no”. She was not in her seat at the time.

I would ask that you ask the question again, Mr. Speaker.