House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberals.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for Newton—North Delta (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Criminal Code November 5th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Fraser Valley for bringing forward Bill C-209. I also appreciate his thoughtful and rightful initiative in doing so.

We all know joyriding is a serious crime and a serious problem. It is not a joyful ride. It should be called a painful ride. This problem affects communities all over the country and any one of us could be a victim of this crime. We do not know who will be a target tomorrow in our communities. The hon. member for Erie—Lincoln said even he was a victim of this crime.

It is disappointing to hear members from the third and fourth parties opposing the bill.

In my riding 27 cars are stolen every day. Most of them end up being used for a so-called joyride, which I call a painful ride. The fine imposed for this type of crime is unproportional to the loss and damage caused, including the innocent lives which are lost in these types of accidents. As a result of this, insurance premiums are increasing. They are skyrocketing. Innocent victims are affected not only by the damage but also by the increased insurance premiums.

The hon. NDP member for Vancouver East stated that an increase in penalties, fines or holding the parents responsible will not help. What else will help to reduce this type of crime?

Let us consider the record of other countries, such as Singapore. There are no more joyrides in those countries because the penalties are harsh and tough. Young criminals know that the penalties are tough. That is the way to control these crimes. Someone has to be held responsible for these painful rides. Who else will be held accountable? These young kids are stealing cars and going for joyrides. Why not hold the parents responsible?

This is an excellent bill. We need to bring about these changes. Measures to deal with joyriding should be in the Criminal Code. Someone has to take the initiative. The parents should be held accountable for the actions of their kids who are not properly controlled.

I appreciate the initiative of the hon. member for Fraser Valley. Considering the seriousness of these crimes, we need to take corrective action and hold someone accountable.

Parenting Arrangements November 5th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, in my riding I have a constituent who is a Canadian citizen. His wife is an American citizen and a Jordanian citizen. They had a two-year-old daughter. Unfortunately they are divorced. When my constituent was divorced he received custody of the child. Thereafter the mother abducted their two-year-old child and took her to Jordan. This situation happened seven or eight months ago.

The father who had legal custody could not have access to the child. He went to Jordan to fight with the government and the legal system there so that he could bring the child back to Canada because his daughter is a Canadian citizen.

The legal system had him going up and down and back and forth. After many months he could not get the child and bring her back to Canada.

I would like to ask the hon. member what she feels about this kind of situation when the children are abducted and they are carried out of the country. They are not in a position to come back to Canada and the Canadian government has been unable to follow it up. What would be the hon. member's reaction and what would she feel this motion might do to follow up on these kinds of situations?

Reform's Territorial Protection Act November 3rd, 1997

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-271, an act respecting the territorial integrity of Canada.

Madam Speaker, I have the honour and privilege once again to rise on behalf of the people of Surrey Central to introduce my private member's bill entitled “Reform's territorial protection act”.

This bill seeks to protect the territorial integrity of our country. The purpose of this enactment is to affirm Canada's sovereign indivisibility. The Constitution of Canada forms a federal state that is one and indivisible. This serves the interests of all Canadians. My bill is based on the fact that there is no provision in our Constitution for the withdrawal from the federation of a province or a territory.

The good people of Surrey Central whom I represent with honour want to accomplish three things within this bill.

First of all, we want to ensure that the Canadian federation may not be deprived of any part of Canada's territory except with Canada's consent, by due process of constitutional amendment.

Second, we want to ensure that no province or territory may unilaterally withdraw from the federation.

Finally, we want to ensure that no province or territory either unilaterally or in conjunction with any other province or territory can attempt to or declare its intention to secede from the federation and form a separate state.

My constituents and I believe that Canada is constitutionally sovereign and indivisible. We feel strongly that no province or territory shall initiate, authorize, sponsor or permit a referendum to be held on any question purporting to seek a mandate for withdrawal or indeed the intent to withdraw from our federation without the federation's consent.

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

Federal Public Service Pension Act November 3rd, 1997

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-270, an act to provide defined contribution pensions for the public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, to be managed and invested by a private sector manager, and to amend the Income Tax Act and certain other acts in consequence thereof.

Mr. Speaker, I rise to introduce my private member's bill, the federal public service pension act. This bill will place the superannuation pension plans of the public service, the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police on sound financial footing by placing employee contributions in private sector pension funds at arm's length from government.

It will be funded by employees' contributions at the same rate as before, with the option of contributing additional money. A pension account will be held for each employee within the fund. The private sector fund manager will be selected by a committee representing the employees.

On retirement a lump sum may be taken with remaining funds placed in an annuity for the employee. Family benefits will be prescribed by regulation. Contributions are to be deducted from taxable income. Existing and accrued superannuation benefits will remain intact and protected. The new pension scheme will come into force on January 1, 1999.

Public servants, members of the Canadian forces and the Royal Canadian Mounted Police new pension fund will be funded with their contributions and real dollars will be invested reaping pension rewards.

Parliament may opt to appropriate funds for the new pension funds but seeks no new spending by Parliament.

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

Cida October 31st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, Canadians want accountability within the system. The Canadian auditor general's office has trained over 120 auditors from 45 countries. CIDA has never used them except once and it exposed that the money was not used for the intended purpose.

Could the minister tell Canadians why those auditors are not being used by CIDA?

Cida October 31st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, accountability and transparency are lacking in CIDA's policies and performance.

In 1994 CIDA recommended that an aid effectiveness advisory committee with members from inside and outside CIDA be set up. That was over three years ago.

Can the government tell us why this committee has not been established and how long this party will continue to take political advantage of CIDA?

Canada Co-Operatives Act October 22nd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to answer the hon. member's question. He did not read Bill C-5. He has no concrete question to ask on the bill so he is asking a question on what he believes he has been doing on the other side when his whip tells him to vote in support of the bill or against the bill.

On this side of the House we keep completely in touch with our constituents. We meet with them frequently. We have a free right to vote on this side of the House.

I sent a survey to my constituents asking for their views on different matters and I have received encouraging responses from them on various issues. I will be putting forward their concerns in the House.

Unlike the other side of the House, I am free to vote the way my constituents want.

Canada Co-Operatives Act October 22nd, 1997

Yes, Madam Speaker, I appreciate that but on the other side, I have to justify why we are supporting this bill. What we have seen in the past on the other side is why we have to mention these things. These are bitter truths. I am not making up these figures.

The finance minister has just introduced the largest tax hike in Canada, a 73% increase in CPP premiums, that will cost $10 billion to the Canadian taxpayers. Those are the reasons why we have to mention these things. They are the ones who are not creating jobs. On this side of the House we have to say these things because we will support any motion or bill that will create jobs.

To summarize what I have been saying, Canadians want our federal government to be effective and efficient in terms of leading our nation to prosperity. Bill C-5 is a lesson for the Liberals. If they do their work honestly and well then everyone in this House can give their support to such work.

When the Liberals are pork-barreling, when they are handing out patronage appointments, when they turn their backs on the victims of crime, when they hide their heads in the sand like ostriches and ignore the unemployed and when they refuse to assist our private sector to be competitive in the global economy, we will hold the government's feet to the fire.

In conclusion, on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central, I am casting my vote in support of Bill C-5 and the strengthening of co-operatives in Canada.

Canada Co-Operatives Act October 22nd, 1997

Madam Speaker, I am well aware that I am discussing Bill C-5, but there is a strong desire and need to mention this particular fact because for a surprise, we see that this bill, presented by the Liberals, is a strange thing.

In most of the previous bills, they have been dealing with how to squeeze money from the taxpayers who are taxed to death. For a surprise, we are looking into this matter. This is a matter for accountability. I refer to this simply because we are amazed and surprised how this bill is presented and quoted by them. I will go to my debate.

The Reform Party whip, the hon. member from Fraser Valley, has researched this same sort of behaviour by the Liberals which I mentioned earlier. I believe that there is a need to mention this because it is pertinent and important here.

He found that a Montreal accounting firm that gave $87,000 to the Liberals over the past few years has received $20 million in contracts from CIDA. I suppose that the true reason that the Liberals have it right this time with respect to Bill C-5 is that somebody else wrote this bill for them.

The Liberals have, in fact, very little to do with this bill. That is the reason my colleague from the other side has pointed out, because they have to do very little to this bill, that it is not written by them. It is given to them by the co-operative themselves.

I would guess that most of the Liberal backbenchers, especially the neglected, lonely and largely unknown members from Ontario may not have even read Bill C-5. Liberal MPs who are not in the cabinet do not have to read this bill because they are told by their Liberal Party whip how they are supposed to cast their vote, how to behave in committee and what to say in the media and to their constituents. Their whip does all those things for them.

The good constituents of Surrey Central know that, as their member of Parliament, I am free to vote the will of my constituents. My constituents tell me, not my party whip, how to cast the vote of Surrey Central in this House.

Again, I point out that this legislation was written for the Liberals by the co-operatives in Canada to modernize the current definition of co-operative basis, improve the governance rules, increase financing possibilities, amalgamation and other flexibilities needed by many of Canada's co-operatives.

In fact, my constituents and I are glad to be of some service and assistance to the more than 10,000 co-operatives operating in Canada by casting the vote Surrey Central has in this House in favour of approving the passage of this Bill C-5.

Most sectors of the Canadian economy have co-operatives. Co-operatives have been a very successful component in our economy. In fact, many co-operatives are non-financial co-operatives. These co-operatives serve many sectors of our economy, including agriculture, consumers, fishing, forestry, health, child care, housing and community development.

The largest amount of co-operatives in Canada exist in the agriculture sector. These co-operatives include marketing co-operatives as well as those involved in supply, production and services.

Canada's co-operatives employ more than 133,000 Canadians. Canadian co-operatives have over 14.1 million members, which is about half of the population of this wonderful country.

On this side of the House we are anxious to support anything which will help Canadians continue to be employed. We want to do everything we can to create jobs. We want to ensure fair treatment of the small business community and our co-operatives.

Bill C-5 will assist in ensuring a level playing field for our co-operatives to be competitive in the business industry.

By supporting an initiative that will modernize and assist the work of co-operatives in Canada, Bill C-5 will do something to help overtaxed Canadians who are struggling to find jobs. The Liberal Party has done nothing to create jobs for unemployed Canadians; however, it has killed jobs with taxes.

The billions of dollars the Liberals have spent on infrastructure—which is the wrong approach since the Liberals have no vision—have failed to change the unemployment rate in Canada since 1993. For 86 consecutive months Canada's unemployment rate has been hovering at about 9%.

The co-operative movement in Canada now reaches most sectors of the Canadian economy. Canadians co-operatives compete head to head with national and international businesses and corporations. It is important that the federal government support this movement, particularly with the globalization of businesses.

The Reform Party supports measures to ensure the successful operation of the marketplace, including promoting competition. We recognize private sector investment as an important source of capital for Canadian businesses, unlike the Liberals, who have been patting themselves on their backs day after day, even in question period.

We believe that the private sector is the key to job creation in Canada. Small and medium size firms in Canada could create more jobs if they were not taxed to death.

Most jobs in Canada are created by small business. That is not what the Liberals believe. They continue to spend hard earned tax dollars on public make-work programs which provide few short term jobs. Ask any Liberal on the other side and he or she will put you to sleep rambling on about what the Liberal government has done to create jobs for Canadians. Any Liberal spin doctor can give you a seemingly endless litany of things the Liberals have done to create jobs, but we know that the Liberals just do not have it right.

Governments do not create jobs. People create jobs. Our small businesses and entrepreneurs create jobs, but they cannot do that when the smiling Minister of Finance cripples their businesses with taxes. How can they do it?

The Liberals have reduced the deficit by increasing taxes. They have frozen the unemployment rate since they took over the reins of the federal government from the Tories.

Bill C-5 is a good bill because it addresses the needs of the private sector. Canada's private sector is in the best position to determine what it needs to be competitive. For once, we have the Liberals allowing the federal government to respond to the needs of the private sector. It is a miracle.

Not only that, but it appears that the Liberals are allowing us to have a debate on Bill C-5. We were only allowed to debate Bill C-2, which was the largest tax increase in Canadian history, for a very brief time, less than seven hours. Following that the Liberals only allowed one day, a couple of hours, for Bill C-10 to be debated in the House. It was another tax grab. That we are allowed to debate Bill C-5 is another miracle. I hope that I will continue to see such miracles in this House for all bills which come before the House in the future.

We on this side of the House give a clear warning to the Liberals that we do not want debate on any bill to be suddenly cancelled, particularly those which dig deep into the pockets of Canadians.

These are the same Liberals who cancelled the Somalia inquiry. Never before in the history of our country has any government shut down a commission of judicial inquiry. The Liberals did. The Somalia inquiry was only two-thirds of the way through its work when the Liberals shut it down. The inquiry was very close to analysing events at the department of defence that took place under the Liberal government.

In Bill C-10, the bill that only saw the light of this House for a matter of a few short hours before the Liberals shut down debate, we saw that the Liberals cannot even do something as simple as negotiate a tax treaty with another country without trying to figure out a way to squeeze more money out of the already overtaxed Canadian taxpayers.

Income tax take has been rising steadily in this country. The Liberals are balancing the budget on the backs of Canadian taxpayers. Canadians know that the average family's purchasing power has been decreasing since 1993. Personal income tax revenues have increased significantly since the Liberals have been in power.

The savings rate for Canadians has dropped from 10% in 1992 to less than 1%—

Canada Co-Operatives Act October 22nd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I am proud to rise today on behalf of the constituents of Surrey Central to declare our support for Bill C-5, the government's proposed legislation is to replace the Canada Cooperative Associations Act.

The proposed legislation, to be known as the Canada co-operatives act, promises to be a helpful piece of legislation. All sides of the House of Commons in the 36th Parliament should be proud to support this bill.

I have some previous experience with co-operatives in Canada. I am a former director of the second largest credit union in Canada. The successful story of that credit union is a fine example of Canadian co-operatives. It was the very first credit union in Canada to be placed for public trading on the Toronto Stock Exchange.

Bill C-5 is a legislative proposal prompted by a request from the Canadian Cooperatives Association to the federal government to update the current legislation affecting co-operatives in Canada. The association made specific recommendations as to what it needed in the bill. Bill C-5 contains the recommendations which the industry requested.

Bill C-5 will modernize the legislation affecting co-operatives in Canada. This bill will provide the financing tools the sector needs to compete effectively. It will strengthen this vital component of the Canadian economy.

The definitions in the legislation affecting Canadian co-operatives will be broadened by Bill C-5 so that current policies, practices, values and principles in this sector of our economy are reflected in the legislation governing it.

For example, co-operatives will be allowed to access capital markets directly. Co-operatives will continue to be able to raise capital from their members. But also with the passing of Bill C-5 into law they will have access to the financial markets.

Co-operatives will be able to recruit directors from outside their membership to a maximum of 20% of the board of directors of a co-operative.

Bill C-5 also includes definitions of the duties, liabilities and responsibilities of directors. It addresses the governance of the board of directors. As a former co-operative director, I can assure the House that this section of the bill, in particular, is a very welcome measure. Under Bill C-5 the standards that apply to directors under the Canadian Business Corporations Act will now apply to co-operatives.

This bill also gives co-operatives access to the modern and flexible legislative tools such as the right to amalgamate, which is very important in this industry.

On behalf of the people I represent, I can declare that this is a rare occasion. My colleagues in the Reform Party, veterans of the previous Parliament, have assured me that it is a rare experience to find ourselves on the side of the House supporting a successful event accompanied by the lame side of the House, the government side.

Even the hon. member for Edmonton North, formerly the member for Beaver River, who is our most experienced team member admits that by working closely with Canadians and listening to the concerns of affected parties, the Liberals got it right this time just for a change.

I mention the deputy leader of the Reform Party because as a new member of Parliament representing a brand new constituency, she has taken the time to explain to me, a rookie MP from British Columbia, that she can remember very few times in the House when she could cast her vote in support of a Tory or Liberal government initiative. We rely on her sage wisdom. She has seen almost every flat footed, maniac antic of Tory and Liberal governments.

She has seen hundreds of millions of dollars go to Bombardier in Quebec. Bombardier always remembers the Tories or the Liberals at election time, of course, depending on which party is most likely to win.

She has seen Liberal and Tory cabinet ministers, MPs and party hacks brought up on all kinds of charges of bad behaviour, questionable conduct and things that extend to criminal acts and RCMP investigations. Surely, it must have been our deputy leader who coined the phrase, Liberal-Tory, same old story.

These days in question period she is trying to find out how the current Liberal government has rigged it so that 70% of the companies that get hundreds of millions of dollars in contracts from the Canadian International Development Agency are the same companies that give hundreds of thousands of dollars to the Liberal Party of Canada.

Imagine, companies that get CIDA contracts are 70 times more likely to have given money to the Liberal Party of Canada than any other company. A group of companies directed by former Liberal cabinet minister, Marc Lalonde, has donated a whopping $80,000 to the Liberals in the last two years and the payoff is $80 million in CIDA contracts. This situation is unacceptable and almost unbelievable.