Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was mmt.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for New Westminster—Coquitlam (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2011, with 36% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Endangered Species April 22nd, 1996

Mr. Speaker, last year the Deputy Prime Minister proposed an endangered species act. She claimed it would help prevent Canadian species from becoming extinct. The difficulty is that the proposal only covered 4 per cent of all of Canada's land and it failed to consider the most important aspect, species habitat. Habitat protection must be the cornerstone of any endangered species legislation. There is no other way.

Last Thursday, 16 new species were added to Canada's growing list of species at risk. Canada's new environment minister wants to make us believe that his government is working toward sustainable development except his words are meaningless unless he can assure Canadians that a new endangered species act will stop further species from becoming extinct.

Today is Earth Day, a day first conceived by environmentalist John McConnell who said that such a day is needed to "celebrate the wonder of life on our planet."

The minister should proceed carefully to preserve the many wonders of life in our country.

Criminal Code March 27th, 1996

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-248, an act to amend the Criminal Code (prostitution).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill in the House.

In my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby prostitution is a problem. Constituents are very concerned. They feel the only action taken so far was to move the prostitutes from one side of the railway track to the other, and I say that in a literal sense.

My community asked me to represent it and to take real action from the federal standpoint. My constituents want amendments made to the Criminal Code in order to make penalties tougher and control easier.

Currently in section 213 of the Criminal Code public communication to obtain sexual services only carries a penalty of summary conviction.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Criminal Code March 27th, 1996

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-247, an act to amend the Criminal Code (trespass).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce this bill. I have received numerous complaints that persons are trespassing on property causing a public disturbance and destroying a sense of community and liveability for children, yet are unable to be removed permanently. For example, we know that malls are a popular place for youth to hang out. If the security of the mall is forced to remove a problem person, that person can re-enter the mall within minutes. The only way the person can be charged is if they resist. Therefore if the person never resists, the act could continue over and over.

There is a serious technical gap in the law which has been identified by the New Westminster city police in my riding as they have a storefront office in a local mall.

To come to the aid of the community which is being subjected to this loophole in the law, I am proposing an amendment to section 41 of the Criminal Code, making it a summary conviction for a person who has already been lawfully removed from real property or a dwelling house not to be able to lawfully return for 24 hours.

The Criminal Code is full of gaps like this one and while this bill may only fill one of the holes, it is certainly a good start. Our laws need to support the law-abiding citizen rather than provide a legal invitation for repeated mischief without ensuing consequences.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Department Of Public Works And Government Services Act March 26th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, if I had been here for the first vote I would have voted with my party against the motion. I want to say that I am here.

Petitions March 20th, 1996

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36, I wish to present a petition from my constituents of New Westminster-Burnaby.

I am pleased to point out that their diligent effort has paid off. These petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's crumbling national highways.

Criminal Code March 20th, 1996

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-241, an act to amend the Criminal Code (punishment for subsequent and serious personal injury offence).

Madam Speaker, it is snowing today in Ottawa but the daffodils are up in my riding of New Westminster-Burnaby and we have some here today supplied by the radio station CKMW from my riding.

It is a pleasure to introduce the bill to the House. Too often following a serious crime we learn the offender has a long criminal record. We need some common sense crime prevention. This bill would imprison an offender for an indeterminate period of time should they be convicted of a second serious personal injury offence.

At first glance opponents of the bill say it resembles the three strikes and you are out laws currently be used in several U.S. states. However, this bill avoids the shortcomings of the American model. Stealing a pizza or painting one's name on a bridge or even writing a bad cheque, although hurtful and socially disruptive, are not examples of a serious personal injury offence as defined in the Criminal Code.

This amendment would operationalize the existing Criminal Code sections and protect the community from the few offenders who are causing the majority of serious crimes and who are unwilling to reform.

The way the law currently stands there is little deterrence for repeat offenders who commit serious personal injury offences. This bill goes to the source of the problem for the safety of the public. Most important, it places the victim's concerns before those of the offender.

I encourage all members to support this bill.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed.)

Bill C-94 March 12th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of the Environment.

Following prorogation, Bill C-94 dealing with the gasoline additive MMT was put on the shelf. His predecessor, the Deputy Prime Minister, claimed she had unanimous cabinet support. The Minister of Trade now writes: "Bill C-94 should not be reintroduced, as it could have many adverse implications for Canadian trade without compensating environmental benefits".

Will the minister side with the reasoned view of this cabinet colleagues and not reintroduce the bill or will he simply continue to follow along the questionable path of his predecessor?

Petitions March 6th, 1996

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition on budget day on behalf of my constituents. They want to remind the finance minister that he still has time to change the text of his budget. The petitioners are upset that 52 per cent of the price of gasoline is composed of taxes and that the federal excise tax on gasoline has already increased by 566 per cent in the past decade.

The petitioners request that Parliament not increase the federal excise tax on gasoline and that the government strongly consider reallocating its current revenues to rehabilitate Canada's national highways.

Speech From The Throne February 28th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, we also are very concerned about what is happening with CPP money. We hear the government is floating ideas such as the age of qualification is going to have to change, the amount of premiums that are collected are going to have to increase and perhaps benefits decrease, or a combination of those.

Looking at the money that is collected, I understand that it is then loaned back to the provinces at non-market rates. What is the government suggesting that it do? Perhaps the money that is collected can receive a proper return on the international market rather than be given at non-market rates to the provinces.

Protection Of Personal Information Obtained By Certain Corporations Act December 12th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Caribou-Chilcotin for the introduction of his private member's Bill C-315.

The bill will protect the privacy of individuals with respect to personal information about themselves obtained by certain corporations. There have been many times when my mailbox at home is literally stuffed with so-called addressed junk mail. We all get it and I think it is safe to say most of us do not like it. In most cases it is a request for money for an obscure organization or it is an ad for a product we know will not be exactly how it appears in the picture.

We file this mail in the circular file, file 13, in a place where it rightfully belongs. However, what is it exactly that I am throwing out in that situation? Is it just a letter or a notice from some organization that happened to get my name and address out of the phone book? Chances are it did not come from a phone book but rather from some corporation that had me on its computer list and that corporation probably sold my name as a part of a mailing package to some interest group that has an interest in me as part of a targeted marketing scheme.

What could it know about my personal information? It can include a variety of things and could be gathered from several different sources. It could include a home address, business address, unlisted telephone numbers, physical characteristics, health records, education, employment, financial history, social insurance number, the magazines we read or even what political party we belong to.

Every Canadian who uses credit has their credit rating and related information stored in American computers and filed under their Canadian social insurance number.

Members should recall what was said in the House by the government of the day when the social insurance number was introduced. The government of the day misled us. Canadians, as it is now commonly observed by the commentators, were lied to about the scope, the use and the implications of our social insurance number. However, we cannot now turn back the clock of history. However, we can remember what group broke faith with Canadians on this subject. It was the Liberals.

It is an old story, the social insurance number debate in the House with the solemn promises made, especially in stark contrast to the current state of affairs. Are we any wiser now in this techno age? Are the Liberals? That is why we need much more protection in this general area. This private member's bill is a useful part of that developing awareness.

Opponents might say disseminating such information is not serious. I point out some examples that caused me to believe the issue is quite serious. In a recent Globe and Mail article a story was raised about a computer company that recently sent samples of its Internet browsing software free to four million people. However, when it was used the sample software automatically dialled up the company's home page, gathered information about users without their permission, gathered Internet addresses, types of software being used on the computer and who knows what else.

There are people who are geniuses with computers. They are capable of breaking encrypted codes and getting access to top government information. If they are able to get this type of information with ease there is no question what type of information they can obtain from me all without my knowledge or my permission yet still completely legal.

This bothers me and I am sure that when more Canadians are made aware of this it will trouble them as well.

The Internet is something completely new I am sure to most members of the House. Computer technology seems to be updated hourly, too fast for me to keep up. Last year I purchased a new laptop computer and at the time it was the latest technology. A week after I bought it a newer and better model was available. It is the same with the Internet. Every day someone has a new way of tapping into someone else's information.

Control of access on the Internet remains an unanswered problem. With more and more people accessing it everyday concerns certainly rise. People have expressed a concern to me and therefore I believe something must be done. We cannot sit around and do nothing. If we do, the technological world will overrun us and could literally prevent any protectionist measures from being eventually implemented.

The computer is only one of many ways of retrieving confidential information. I have heard of a hospital employee who supplied a computer disc of names of terminally ill patients to a local funeral home. There are no clear rules surrounding our privacy. The result is a clear lack of individual security.

The largest problem with parallel provincial privacy acts is they do not cover any federally regulated institutions. Bill C-315 affects all corporations as outlined in section 2 of the Canada Labour Code

such as air transportation companies, maybe a radio station or banks or any other work deemed under the Canada Labour Code.

Today I stopped by the Bank of Montreal and picked up an application for an air miles MasterCard to check the terms of application. At the bottom of the application is the fine print that should be read before we sign our life away, so to speak.

I want to read what it says:

By signing below I accept as notice in writing of and consent to you obtaining or exchanging any information about me at any time from any credit bureau, my employer or other person in connection with any relationships between us or those which you or I may wish to establish.

It is incredible. This disclaimer allows the financial institution to exchange my information, so basically other corporations may know what I purchased on my last trip. If any transaction has a name or a number attached to it, it is in the computer. The disclaimer does not indicate what information they can exchange. They simply say any information. Since most of us need a credit card, we sign off on the application and send it in. There is no getting around it. In other words, the banks have us in a catch 22. A credit card is needed to operate in the business world but complete exposure is the price of the card. Obviously all this needs to be changed.

However, the banks are against any federal changes and for obvious reason. They have their own privacy code, so they say. Linda Routledge, director of consumer affairs for the Canadian Bankers Association, said:

The association's voluntary privacy code is already used as the basis for rigorous safeguarding of consumer information by the banks.

The banks say why regulate. We have a code that works just fine. The problem is that with the code it does not allow the consumers the legal right or opportunity to complain. The power of banks is enormous and obviously they will do everything in their power to ward off federal regulators from intervening.

Canadians ought to have a right to control what is done with their personal information. I know my constituents would be completely behind me in that regard. Sure there are people out there who could not care less if anyone in the world knows who they are, what they earn, who they owe and what they owe. I am confident in saying that an overwhelming majority of Canadians are not comfortable with this type of knowledge being freely disclosed. It seems our whole lives are stored on a chip to validate who and what we are. It all comes from the computer. There is a movie playing with a plausible premise, that personal computer information could be put in the wrong hands and used in a sinister manner against the person.

The bill proposed by my colleague is an excellent foundation. It is vitally important that the bill make it through second reading and on to committee. If members have problems with the bill, they would have the opportunity to amend it in committee. We understand bills are not always perfect. That is why we have committees in this place: to make legislation better and to have successive review.

My colleague from Cariboo-Chilcotin has done his homework and produced a good bill. Along with my colleagues who have spoken before me, I too support the legislation and urge my friends from across the floor to do likewise, if not for themselves, then for the personal security of the community that has sent us here as their representatives.