House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was debate.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Conservative MP for Ancaster—Dundas—Flamborough—Aldershot (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 41% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Calgary Declaration September 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for Chicoutimi for his remarks.

I like to think that the Reform Party does not have a hidden agenda by this motion which would lead to a more divisive debate in this country than there has been already on the national unity issue. I would prefer to think that the member for Calgary West really does want to lead the way in getting better access to the type of government documents, federal and provincial, that members of parliament, the press and the public should have access to.

I would assume that he would not want to open up documents that might adversely affect federal-provincial relations. He does not want to cause dissent. He wants knowledge.

I suggest to him that the problem he really ought to be addressing is the Access to Information Act. Currently under section 14 it rather broadly prevents the government from disclosing any type of documents relating to federal-provincial affairs.

If the Access to Information Act were amended so that it was not so broad, so that so much was not restricted from public disclosure, so that in this particular section it was narrowed down that governments should only withhold information that would cause problems with federal-provincial relations, then his motion would have merit.

I would suggest as it is currently framed the motion does strike with too broad a brush and has the potential of causing great damage.

We must give the federal government and the provincial governments an opportunity to debate divisive issues in privacy and perhaps give them a 30-year rule whereby these things should be reported. Right now I really do think that what the member should be doing is looking to amendments to the Access to Information Act. Then I think he would get exactly what he wishes.

Competition Act September 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is a real privilege to lead off the debate on Bill C-20 for the government in co-operation with the member for Ottawa Centre. This is a case where the government is standing aside to give some backbench MPs an opportunity to tell the House and the world that these backbench MPs have had a chance to introduce amendments to Bill C-20 that are of a substantial nature and which are going to have a very important impact on Canadian society.

I will now speak to my two amendments. Getting these amendments into the legislation was not easy as I had to convince the officials of the competition bureau and the justice department that amendments could be created to address the concerns I had. I had the encouragement of the industry minister throughout. When it came to committee my amendments and the amendments of the member for Ottawa Centre passed unanimously.

The first amendment to Bill C-20 changed the definition of business in the Competition Act to include the raising of funds for charitable or other non-profit businesses. This is a huge leap forward in addressing the terrible problem all across the country where various organizations are preying on Canadians, chiefly senior Canadians, by making all kinds of promises to raise money for charitable purposes.

Everyone has a horror story with respect to charitable and non-profit organizations and sometimes organizations that are neither. They get on the telephone or send out direct mail solicitations and ask for money in return for promises they cannot keep and sometimes promises they know are not truthful.

I will give just one example of the type of telemarketing pitch that seniors are being subjected to. I will condense the script from a telemarketer in Toronto called Univision Marketing Group.

The person calling whose name is whatever says “I am calling for the Children's Emergency Foundation. I will only keep you for a short minute or two. By the way, do you have children or grandchildren or your own? Well, our foundation was started by a group of Canadian mothers who wanted to do something about the state of child poverty and hunger right here in our own country and our province”.

The caller continues “We think as Canadians we have a responsibility to look after our children, so we started supporting child feeding programs in Ontario and across Canada. These take place in schools at breakfast or lunch, in community centres and in housing projects where some 5,000 are already being provided with hot nutritious meals each day”.

We wonder whether that is so, but this is the real catch. “In the light of the shocking facts of child poverty right here at home, would you pledge a one time gift of $75 to feed 75 Canadian school children?”

That is the essence of what my amendment addressed: when organizations promise that 100%, 80% or whatever of the money a person donates to a worthy cause actually gets to that cause, while it was never intended to and will never get to that cause.

I could only trace the Children's Emergency Foundation to an apartment building. It is a charity, however. As a result of this amendment a complaint to the competition bureau will enable it to undertake an investigation. If the investigation of this type of claim shows there has been a wilful misrepresentation, the organization or individual responsible for the misrepresentation will be subject to the penalties of the Competition Act. As an indictable offence that would involve five years in jail and an unlimited maximum fine. Bill C-20 also provides for summary conviction that could lead to a fine of some $200,000.

For the first time non-profit and charitable fundraising comes under legislation that provides for real penalty where there is a deliberate attempt to get money from the public through false representation.

It is amazing to think that non-profit organizations and charities have never been subject to the Competition Act but it is true. If we split hairs it is possible to say that the Competition Act could have been applied to charities and non-profit organizations but it never has been. As a result of this amendment I suggest that it will.

Let us not make any mistake. I am not only talking about charities and non-profit organizations. There are many organizations out there which are neither and are raising money by pitching all kinds of things to the Canadian public.

I will cite an example. The International Fund for Animal Welfare is an organization based offshore. I cannot trace it as a non-profit organization in Canada but it has an address in Ottawa. This organization specializes in misrepresenting an animal rights situation somewhere in the country, for example in our north with respect to the seal hunt. The scheme is to put out all this information saying that there are people out there beating and killing seal pups and to send out beautiful literature showing bleeding white coats. The reality is that it is against the law to kill white coats. We do not do that here in Canada.

However, they have no compunction. They are known worldwide. They do the same thing when it comes to elephants in Africa and their ivory. They have all kinds of other causes. All we know about them is that they get about $36 million U.S. in revenues from around the world by falsely raising these issues and then conducting a mail out fundraising campaign showing animals suffering and asking for donations. Their slogan is something like “Remember, 80 cents on the $1 of whatever you send in” will go toward saving the dog or the cat or whatever is in their literature.

I suggest that my first amendment will address wilful misrepresentation of facts in order to fundraise. We must remember that the operative word is wilful. Accidental is one thing but wilful is another. It does not matter whether it is a bona fide organization in Canada; it still applies. Even if an individual who misrepresents in order to raise funds from the public will be caught by the Competition Act.

The amendment will also address partly the terrible problem that has been in the news lately which has led to comments from the solicitor general where we know there are certain charitable organizations in the country that have become fronts for terrorist activities abroad. We do know that this is a growing problem and has been a problem for some time. Charitable organizations or non-profit organizations raise funds for one purpose in Canada and they turn out to be financing conflicts in other parts of the world.

General legislation is needed to address that problem but at the very least if organizations pitch one thing and then finances something else abroad like terrorism they would come under the Competition Act and would be subject to prosecution. If is a partial first step.

I cannot stress enough that this is the first tool for the government and the taxpayer to protect the consumer from people who would misrepresent the way the money they are raising will be spent abroad.

The second amendment deals with using foreign direct marketers and telemarketers to market into Canada. What the amendment states is that the act will include permitting a false representations to be made. It addresses a problem whereby hundreds of charities and other non-profit organizations in Canada use foreign for profit marketers abroad, usually in the United States, to do telemarketing or direct marketing in Canada.

I will give a little example. I have two fundraising letters in my hand. The first one is from the Ontario Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and the second one is from OXFAM. If we examine these letters we see that they are printed on exactly the same paper even though they are very different organizations, have the same type face and the same ink. We also see that the bulk mailing number on both envelopes is 05110874. In other words, they have the same account with Canada Post.

What is really happening is that the account is with a for profit marketer that is doing this service for them. The reason we have to make sure that the Competition Act catches organizations that use offshore direct marketers to fundraise in Canada is to make them responsible when these offshore fundraising organizations misrepresent into Canada. This again is an enormous step.

I will give an example of the problem. As is often with these organizations in Canada, they do a deal with a direct marketer in the United States for a profit. The idea is that the for profit company, in exchange for using the name of the organization, fundraises in Canada at no expense to the organization until it has created a donor list that is so large that a profit is created and all the expenses are met of the for profit fundraiser. Then the balance goes back to the charity or non-profit organization.

My first amendment will catch organizations that are doing fundraising by using telemarketers and direct mail services and are saying that the money is going to charity when in fact the deal is that 100% of the donated money for which they are getting tax receipts is going to the for profit organization in the United States. None goes to charity until the for profit direct marketer in the United States finally meets its expenses. Then a bit of money goes to charity.

It is another abuse that exists in the charitable sector which will be addressed by the first amendment and by the second amendment where the for profit marketers in the United States misrepresent in Canada, when they overstate how much money is going to charity and when they overstate the facts in any way. Again the operative word is wilful. Where an organization allows this to be done in its name wilfully in the United States, the Competition Act penalties will apply.

I do not want to be too long because I know the hon. member for Ottawa Centre wishes to speak. However, just to give an idea of the dimensions of the problem, I have here a list of organizations in Canada which are using a for profit direct marketer in the United States, which means they are getting telemarketing services and direct mail from the United States: $1000+ Lifetime Members of a TV Ministry representing 12,000 people, the Agnes McPhail Foundation, AIDS Committee of Toronto, the Alberta Lung Association, the Alzheimer's Society of Ontario, Amnesty International, the Animal Alliance of Canada, Arctic Society of Canada, Arthritis Society, Asthma Society of Canada, B'Nai B'rith, the Barbra Schlifer Clinic, BC Association for Community Living and the BC Lung Association.

We must remember that they are giving to for profit telemarketers and direct marketers in the United States the privilege and the opportunity to earn money selling the fundraising into Canada.

The list continues: Big Sisters of Ontario, the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League, Canadian Association for the Deaf, Canadian Blind Sports Association, Canadian Centre for Victims of Torture, and Canadian Christian Heritage Donors involving 53,000 people. I am sure they would like to know the for profit marketer in the United States that has their names has to give them literature which at least is honest.

I will continue: the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Canadian Corporate Donors, Canadian Diabetes Association, Canadian Environmental Defence Fund, Canadian Federation of Humane Societies, Canadian Hearing Foundation, Canadian Hemophelia Society, Canadian Hunger Foundation, Canadian Liver Foundation, Canadian Paralympic Committee, Canadian Paraplegic Association, Canadian Parks and Wilderness Society, Canadian Peace Alliance, Canadian Wildlife Federation and Canadian Mental Health Association. Why in heck can they not do their own fundraising, for heaven's sake?

The list continues: Candlelighters Canada, Care Canada, Channel 17 Public Broadcasting, Child Find, CNIB, Council of Canadians, Covenant House, Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of Canada, CUSO, Cystic Fibrosis, David Suzuki Foundation, Developing Countries Farm Radio Network, Doctors Without Borders, Earthroots, Elizabeth Fry Society, Energy Probe and Epilepsy Canada.

It does go on and on. There is nothing wrong with using these organizations but it is useful for members of the public to know that when they get this mail in their mailboxes it is coming from a for profit direct marketer in the United States. We can go on. Friends of Canadian Broadcasting. One would think they would be able to do it on their own. Greenpeace Canada, Heart and Stroke Foundation Ontario, Help the Aged, Homemakers magazine, Horizons of Friendship, the Humane Society of Canada, the International Planned Parenthood Federation.

The International Fund for Animal Welfare. They do not even do their own work on their own. Interval House, Kidney Foundation, Kids' Help Foundation, learning disabilities, Leukaemia Research of Canada, Lupus Canada, Match International, McMichael Gallery, Media Watch, quite a group, Multiple Sclerosis Society, NAC, which I think is the National Action Committee for the Status of Women. I note it only has 5,000 members with this organization in the United States, which is a little bit different from what we are given to understand.

The National Association of Women and the Law, the National Gay and Lesbian Rights Supporters, North York Women's Shelter, Ontario Association for Community Living, Ontario March of Dimes, Ontario SPCA, Ontario Special Olympics, Osteoporosis, Outil de paix, OXFAM, the Pet Savers Foundation.

Planetary Society, Planned Parenthood Federation of Canada: Pollution Probe, Project Ploughshares, the Red Cross of Ontario, Ronald MacDonald House, Save the Children, Schizophrenia Society, Scouts Canada, select Canadian religious donors. That is not a charity. There are some 22,000 of them.

The Sierra Legal Defence Fund, Sistering, Ski Patrol, Society for Manitobans with Disabilities, SOS Childrens Village, Spina Bifida, St. John's Ambulance, St. Stephen's House, Toronto Dance Theatre, Toronto Disarmament Network.

Toronto Humane Society, TV Ontario, UNICEF, United Nations Association, United Way of B.C., United Way of Greater Toronto. It is interesting that only these two United Way organizations appear. I guess other United Way organizations deal with other direct marketers in the United States.

Voter Education South Africa

Canada, Whale Adoption Fund, the White Ribbon Campaign. We remember that. It was up here a few years ago. Wildlife Preservation Trust Canada. That is enough.

Competition Act September 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I will be leading off the debate for the government side on the third reading of Bill C-20.

I wonder if I could have unanimous consent from the House to share my time with the member for Ottawa Centre.

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the answer to that is that if we did that with every legislation every time there was an appeal, the implementation of all legislation would be stalled because it would be an open door to block every kind of legislation.

I will address another point very quickly. I think it is the correct process that if there is any area in society, any province or group that objects to the gun registration, sure they should challenge in the courts. There is nothing wrong with that. That is due process. But the essence of my speech was that I was afraid that many members opposite, and I respect many of them, were nevertheless parroting myths and the aims of a foreign organization. I challenge them to go out and look into the finances of the National Firearms Association that is so much in your pocket, or are you in their pocket? I am really quite sure.

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, if the member had been here throughout the debate, as I have been, he would have realized that the government has repeatedly stressed it does not believe that registration is the cure-all or the end-all or even that it will necessarily improve the situation with respect to crime.

The reason we are bringing in legislation, to sum it up for all on the opposition side, is that we want to remind Canadians that guns in Canada are a privilege, not a right as they are in the United States, and as a privilege it must be managed competently and securely in the interest of all Canadians. That is why we are bringing in gun registration.

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I begin by expressing some impatience with respect to the remarks of the Leader of the Opposition in this debate. In condemning the government's legislation in Bill C-68 in the same breath he condemned parliament and the procedures by which the House operates.

I am very tired of this. The Leader of the Opposition fails to realize we are one of the oldest and most successful democracies in the world. We operate under the British parliamentary tradition, not the American system. To put the matter very delicately and to use an expression that is very common in the countryside where I live, even swine don't defecate in their own corner. I wish the Leader of the Opposition would direct his remarks as they should be directed against the government but not against parliament.

Second, the Leader of the Opposition also cited the charter of rights and complained in his remarks that the charter of rights contains no provisions for property rights. That indicates how the Leader of the Opposition equates human rights and human values with property. It is true that in the United States deadly force can be used to protect property. However, we in Canada honour human rights above property rights. That is one of the things that makes us Canadian. I am sorry the Leader of the Opposition fails to realize that.

I reserve my main remarks for something the member for Kootenay—Columbia said. He stood in the House and said from his heart that he was speaking on behalf of his constituents, on behalf of what he believed people wanted him to say with respect to criticism of gun registration.

Criticism of gun registration is legitimate, but I remind members what the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt said in reply to a question very early in the debate from one of his colleagues. He was asked what the government's agenda was in introducing gun registration. The member for Saskatoon—Humboldt replied that they wanted to register all the guns and disarm everybody. That is what he said. Members can check

Hansard

and find that. I want the Reform Party to hold that thought in mind.

I have always had a great interest in special interest groups. Just a few days ago the Reform Party introduced a bill that reflected my studies of special interest groups. One of the special interest groups that I tried to probe during the debate on Bill C-68 was the National Firearms Association of Edmonton that turned out to be very prominent in the lobby against Bill C-68. I found out that the leader of the National Firearms Association in Edmonton was also the riding association president of the riding of Edmonton—Strathcona. I believe he still is.

That is all the information I could find out. There was this lobby group behind the Reform Party and I could find no other data. However a computer search I did turned up another association with exactly the same name: the National Firearms Association of Austin, Texas. Thanks to the Internal Revenue Services I was able to get its basic financial data. I was also able to get a constitutional document. It is a flyer it puts out which explains what the National Firearms Association of Austin, Texas, is all about.

Apart from saying that an attack on one gun owner group is an attack on all and no compromise ever, and so on and so forth on gun control, this is the key phrase:

Only through concerted action will we emerge victorious against those who would seek to disarm the people of the United States.

Where in the debate did we hear that? We heard it from the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt and we have heard it frequently from members of the Reform Party.

There is nothing wrong in my mind with coming up here and attacking the government because perhaps gun registration is working out to be more expensive than it should be, but I caution members opposite when they speak to make sure that they are genuinely speaking for Canadians. I will show them the dangers that might be inherent in speaking for the National Firearms Association, which we suppose may have something to do with the one in Alberta.

I have another statement from the document of the National Firearms Association of Austin, Texas, which reads:

Our right to keep and bear arms is an absolute inalienable God given right just like our right to live and breathe.

That is the kind of talk we get from the National Firearms Association in the United States. Americans have the right and the advantage of being armed unlike the citizens of other countries whose governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. That is the kind of rhetoric we have here.

“The strongest reason for people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is a last resort to protect themselves against the tyranny of government”. That is where it is coming from. In the United States is a movement that wants to arm itself against the government and is not too far removed from the citizens militia that caused a terrible tragedy in the United States not long ago.

This document talks about the militia. It says “Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Congress shall have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords and every other terrible implement of the soldier are the birthright of an American”.

The document goes on and talks about a new world order. What the National Firearms Association in the United States is all about is that it is afraid there will be a new world order set up in Europe that will persuade the president of the United States to disarm all Americans and that they will lose their guns and live under tyranny.

One of the final messages in this document is that they urge all members to remember that it is not just a crisis in the United States but a crisis in the entire world and that they should be going out fighting for freedom, for guns in every other country in the world including Canada.

When members opposite talk about problems with any kind of legislation, they should remember that it is government legislation. They should not condemn parliament because this is where we have very good debates but should remember when they speak to speak for Canadians.

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the sincerity with which the member made his remarks but in making his remarks he betrayed some of the lack of understanding of the west with respect to Ontario and central Canada.

There is wilderness in central Canada. I am one who for many years has canoed and camped in the wilderness, oftentimes in Algonquin Park which is only a few hours north of Toronto. Tens of thousands of people use Algonquin Park and the area around Muskoka. There have been two fatal bear attacks in the last 10 years in Algonquin Park.

This very weekend I was surrounded by wolves on an island as I camped with my son. At my cottage in the summer, I killed a three foot rattlesnake. My cottage just happens to be in the range of the only poisonous snake in Canada.

To use the member's logic, everyone who goes to Algonquin Park, everyone who goes to Muskoka, and there are thousands and thousands of them coming from Toronto, Hamilton, Waterloo and Cambridge, should go with a firearm every time they get in a canoe. We in Ontario do not feel that is acceptable. It is not necessary.

Surely the member opposite will admit that an attack by a wild animal, whether it is a cougar or a grizzly bear, is indeed a very, very rare eventuality and we do not have to go armed into the wilderness every time we want to go away for the weekend.

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca reminds me that the first dead person I saw was a suicide victim with a shotgun. The technique was put the shotgun in the mouth and pull the trigger and the head was completely blown off. I was 17 at the time.

Subsequently I became a police reporter, a journalist, and I saw a lot of murders and suicides in the course of that part of my career. One of the things I learned about suicides is that there are two things that often operate. One is that the suicides generally do not want to hurt themselves. They do not like to use knives and other methods that actually may do them injury or may lead to a fairly slow death. What they prefer is something that is instantaneous and something also that will answer their impulses.

Often suicides are not planned over a long period. If they get very depressed suddenly they will try to take their own lives. In the presence of a firearm in a household where there is a person who is known to be subject to these violent depressions who might be a potential suicide, registration would be very important in this instance. I would have thought that the member for Esquimalt—Juan de Fuca, in the light of his profession, would appreciate that. I was very surprised that he said the opposite because gun registration surely would save the lives of some suicides.

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have a more simple question for the hon. member for Wild Rose.

He spoke at length about the high cost of gun registration. If gun registration cost only, say, $10 million or even $1 million, or if indeed gun registration cost nothing at all, would he then support it?

Supply September 22nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I just want members to know that in replying, the member for Saskatoon—Humboldt did not reply to the question that was asked of him.

He was asked to supply details, some facts, some statistics, not some speculation.