Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was industry.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Skeena (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2004, with 34% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Justice December 13th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the Liberal sex offender registry is a fraud. It will utterly fail to protect Canadian children. If the registry is not retroactive, it will be launched as a blank piece of paper, without a single name on it.

What good is a sex offender registry if it does not include any known sexual predators such as Karla Homolka?

Acts of Bravery December 9th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, on December 7, 2000, Mrs. Jody Kuntz of Prince Rupert risked her life trying to prevent a suicidal man from jumping from a small aircraft some 3,000 metres above the Hecate Strait on the northwest coast of British Columbia.

Deputy Sheriff Kuntz was escorting a prisoner to Prince Rupert when, 20 minutes into the flight, he lunged out of his seat toward the emergency exit, opening the door and partially exiting the airplane. Bracing herself against the door frame she managed to hold onto the back of the prisoner's clothes with one hand. Determined to end his life, the man freed himself from her grip and, despite Deputy Sheriff Kuntz's desperate attempt to pull him back, he eventually fell to his death.

The Governor General's Medal of Bravery is awarded for acts of bravery in hazardous circumstances. I am proud to congratulate Mrs. Kuntz today as she is presented with her Medal of Bravery.

Kyoto Protocol December 6th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, that is all very well said but targets without any idea of what it will cost to hit them is totally counterproductive. We have to know where we are going with this. We have to know what the cost will be in terms of dollars, jobs and of lost opportunity.

To simply say that we will do it and let the jobs move across the border to the lower 48th does not make any sense whatsoever. It is not good for Canadians. It just will not work. We need to keep the dollars in Canada, develop technology and deal with the problem in Canada with Canadian labour and people.

Kyoto Protocol December 6th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, obviously there are huge concerns about the potential costs of Kyoto. The government obviously does not know. It is like the gun registry. How much will cost? What is the total cost? Nobody knows.

That is not acceptable. There is no question that there will be huge costs on the Canadian economy. The right direction for Canada to go is to have a made in Canada plan, develop new technology, research and spend Canadian dollars. It makes no sense whatsoever to send billions of dollars overseas to third world countries to buy clean air credits. Let us keep those dollars in Canada. Let us create jobs in Canada working on new research and technology such as wind power, clean gas power and cleaner coal power. There are all kinds of options out there.

We have huge resources in Canada. We need to create jobs in Canada, not lose jobs. Kyoto will cost Canada jobs. That is absolutely counterproductive. It is not acceptable. I do not think Canadians will accept it. We have to work toward creating jobs in Canada, based certainly on working toward cleaning up the atmosphere and greenhouse gases.

It needs to be made very clear that 95% of greenhouse gases are natural and 5% of the world's greenhouse gases are man made. Of that 5%, 2% are Canadian and that is something like one-tenth of one percent.

I will not belittle the need for working on change and making things better but we have to look at the cost benefit analysis. I do not think the government has a clue about where we are heading with this. It is a terrible shame and a damned poor Christmas present for Canadians.

Kyoto Protocol December 6th, 2002

Of course.

During Ottawa's hot, muggy summers it is much the same. The limousines are running with the air conditioning on full blast.

The government, and in particular the Minister of Natural Resources, says it is all about choices. The Minister of Natural Resources is telling Canadians to make better choices to reduce greenhouse gases. I ask the minister, is it his choice to keep his limousine idling outside the House just so he can have a warm seat when he leaves?

The government plan states:

If every Canadian motorist avoided idling their vehicles for just five minutes a day, all year, more than 1.6 million tonnes of carbon dioxide, along with other toxic substances, would not enter the air.

Ministerial limousines are running for hours at a time, for hours, not minutes, as the government is asking Canadians to do. Each Tuesday the cabinet usually meets for three hours. On a typical Tuesday, that would amount to a total of more than 90 hours of idling time each week just for cabinet members. Interestingly enough, the plan states:

Every litre of gasoline you use in your car produces almost 2.5 kilograms of CO2 as well as other pollutants.

One can only imagine how many kilograms of CO


are being emitted by those idling limousines sitting mere metres from where I am standing right now.

It gets better. A major campaign put on by the Department of Natural Resources is entitled “The Idle-Free Zone”. The premise of this campaign is to help Canadians stop unnecessary engine idling. I wonder if the minister even knows about his own department's initiative. One can only wonder how the members of the cabinet are able to sleep at night knowing the absurd levels of hypocrisy they are emitting each day.

Why does the government expect Canadians to do their part when the federal cabinet is not prepared to follow suit?

The department says that there is never a good time to waste fuel and generate greenhouse gas emissions by idling our vehicles. How is it possible for the natural resources minister to say one thing, yet completely do the opposite? Canadians will have a great deal of difficulty accepting this line of reasoning.

What has become standard practice over the last 10 years from this administration is to ram one set of rules and regulations down the throats of Canadians only to live by a completely different set of rules. The choices being made by this cabinet today completely contradict the choices expected from Canadians.

Canadians expect and they demand leadership by example. Perhaps the Minister of National Resources should follow the words of Paul Graham, the Sudbury municipal project adviser whose words, ironically, are posted on the department's website:

Get your own house in order. You can't do anything with the public without getting your own house in order. The municipality must take the lead on issues like idling.

Leadership starts at home. Hopefully, the Minister of Natural Resources has heard this.

There is no need for the Ministers of the Environment and Natural Resources to travel across this country looking for ways to reduce greenhouse gases. What they need to do is look at themselves and look at their colleagues around the cabinet table. The government is telling Canadians that if they really care about the environment, then they will need to exercise restraint, to become more energy efficient.

The natural resources minister is part of another departmental campaign entitled, “Idling gets you nowhere”. In the literature it says “unnecessary idling is expensive and causes environmental damage”. It also says “Don't count on public support if you idle unnecessarily”.

The Canadian Alliance position is solid. Kyoto will not change a thing. The Minister of the Environment and the Minister of Natural Resources should come clean and admit this to Canadians. They are telling Canadians to conserve and reduce. Why should Canadians be expected to change their habits when the cabinet can simply ignore any responsibility? This is not responsible government.

The Canadian Alliance is speaking for millions of Canadians who are concerned with Kyoto. Perrin Beatty, who represents Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters, is one of those. The membership of his organization accounts for 75% of Canada's industrial output and 90% of its exports. When the government claims that Kyoto will not harm Canada's competitiveness, obviously it did not consult with the primary stakeholders.

I want to read into the record what the Canadian Manufacturers and Exporters had to say when the government released its plan:

The document acknowledges some of the concerns that have been raised by industry and by the provinces, but provides little more detail than the framework released previously. Canadians deserve a detailed plan that spells out the costs and necessary actions on the part of industry and individual citizens for Canada to achieve its target. There is still no clear indication of how Ottawa will address the remaining 60 megatonne shortfall. Nor is there a detailed outline of how much the incentives and programs will cost and where the funds will come from.The document says the plan 'must be a made-in-Canada approach that is based on collaboration, partnerships and respect for jurisdiction.' The acid test of whether the government means what it says is whether it will set aside its rush to ratify and give Canadians a chance to be heard first. It is far more important to get the plan right than to rush it through before Christmas.

When an organization that represents a majority of Canada's manufacturers expresses caution, asking for the government to get the plan right instead of rushing it through, why will the government not listen? What benefit is it to government to ignore the interests of those who create jobs? Obviously Canadian manufacturers want and need more information. They need to know concrete statistics on the impact of Kyoto.

I suggest that the Kyoto plan is simply an exercise by the Liberals for appearance purposes only. It is about saying one thing and doing another. It is about speaking out of both sides of the mouth. The government wants individual Canadians to do their part in achieving climate change objectives. The minister uses phrases such as “we expect, we hope and we intend”. These are not words of confidence. These are the words of a minister making up policy on the fly.

It is unacceptable to the Canadian Alliance. It is unacceptable to ordinary Canadians. The sheer hypocrisy of the Minister of Natural Resources alone will convince Canadians that the Kyoto plan is a scam. Leadership is living by example.

Kyoto Protocol December 6th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time today with the member for Surrey Central.

It is a pleasure to rise today to address the issue of Kyoto. This issue is of great concern to Canadians. What concerns Canadians is the unknown. They have no idea what the plan will cost, no idea what costs will be put on them in the future, and no idea what the plan in fact is supposed to do.

The government says to trust it with the many unknowns of Kyoto and all will be fine. This is a government that has become, over the past 10 years, a government of distrust, and now it demands that the Canadian public place full trust in it with the Kyoto plan.

Ten years ago, the Liberals promised Canadians they would solve the problem of the GST. They promised they would solve the problem of ethics in government. They promised they would solve the declining morale in the military. Ten years later, we know that fraud in the goods and service tax is running rampant. Ten years of Liberals at the helm have set new standards in ethics far more ethically challenged than those of any government it preceded. Ten years of spending less and less on the military have left Canadian soldiers feeling vulnerable and discouraged. Now there is a $1 billion gun registry boondoggle. What next?

Broken promises have become a staple of the government. The Prime Minister is desperate for a lasting legacy. I suggest that the legacy of the Prime Minister will be based primarily on the promises he broke rather than the promises he attempted to keep.

Now we have the promise of Kyoto. The government has promised the provinces that they will not bear an unreasonable share of the burden. It has also promised Canadian businesses that they will remain competitive. However, the government states in its documentation that it is impossible to be precise in forecasting the estimated economic impact over 8 to 10 years. It obviously has no clue as to the effect.

Every day Canadians are learning more about Kyoto and every day Canadians are asking more and more questions. Clearly, Canadians are growing more concerned about the unknowns.

I want to address a few things that have been outlined in the Kyoto package sent to my office by government. One pamphlet is entitled “Challenge for Canadians”. This is what it states:

On average, each Canadian generates just over five tonnes of greenhouse gases per year by driving vehicles, heating and cooling homes, washing and drying clothes and using other appliances. By making choices that reduce our GHG emissions, we are doing our part to address climate change.

In its draft plan, the Government of Canada asks that every Canadian set the goal of cutting personal greenhouse gas emissions by one tonne. It states:

Together, we can reduce our GHG emissions, just from small actions that we take at home, at work, or on the road.

Perhaps we should talk a bit about the need to make choices. When members of Parliament walk from their Parliament Hill offices to the centre block each day, we walk past the limousines of cabinet. It does not matter whether it is 30° below or 30° above: Those limousines are sitting there running. In the cold winter months they are running so that when the minister is ready to go, the car is all nice and warm.

Aquaculture Industry December 6th, 2002

Mr. Speaker, the aquaculture industry contributes over a billion dollars to the Canadian economy through its production and sale of nearly 120,000 metric tonnes of farmed salmon and other products yearly. It has the ability to harvest the product and sell it as fresh 365 days a year.

In my riding of Skeena there is much interest in expanding the number of aquaculture sites as a means of sustainable employment for remote coastal communities. This interest is also growing among some aboriginal groups.

I have always advocated for more development on the north coast of B.C., be it offshore oil and gas, grain shipments through the port of Prince Rupert or aquaculture. Development must be done in an environmentally sustainable manner, following clearly defined government regulations, and must benefit the local economy.

This is something myself and the Canadian Alliance have always supported.

Grain Transportation November 22nd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Labour proudly blustered about the role of the government in resolving a dispute at the port of Prince Rupert.

For the minister's edification, the grain handlers' dispute is at the port of Vancouver. Other than two minor picketing disruptions by the Vancouver union, a matter of a few hours, Prince Rupert Grain has handled every tonne sent its way.

Why does the minister not get her facts straight and recognize that Prince Rupert Grain has been the saving grace for this season's grain shipments as opposed to trying to score cheap political points for solving a fictitious dispute?

Oil and Gas Industry October 31st, 2002

Mr. Speaker, development of the oil and gas deposits off Canada's west coast could be a significant contributor to the economic recovery of British Columbia. Progress to date has been prevented due mainly to provincial and federal restrictions currently in place.

Offshore hydrocarbon deposit developments are safely taking place around the globe: off the east coast of Canada, in the North Sea off Scotland and Norway, in the Gulf of Mexico, even off the coastlines of California and Alaska, just to name a few areas. The technology for safe, environmentally sound, offshore operation of the oil and gas industry is available, as has been proven worldwide.

I urge the B.C. provincial government and the federal Liberal government to move quickly toward lifting their moratoriums thereby allowing this potentially valuable resource the opportunity to proceed to the exploration stage.

Aboriginal Affairs October 22nd, 2002

Mr. Speaker, regardless of that, the onus is on the minister and his department to resolve these issues. Federal moneys transferred to Indian bands must be accounted for. The B.C. Supreme Court has ruled that INAC must ensure that Indian bands use their federal funding for its intended purposes.

Why will the minister not abide by the B.C. Supreme Court ruling, recover the funds sent to the board, and send the moneys directly to the school district?