House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was money.

Last in Parliament September 2008, as Conservative MP for Edmonton—Sherwood Park (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2006, with 64% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Ethics Counsellor November 2nd, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister did not know for sure what it was but the other day he said the buck or the puck or whatever it is stops with him.

I have news for the Prime Minister. The buck stops with the Canadian people and they are fed up with governments that put political survival before integrity. The guidelines are clear. We have four different guidelines. Everyone of them makes it wrong for a minister to telephone or influence a judge or a quasi-judicial body in his control. That is clear. Yet we are not getting an answer.

Ethics November 1st, 1994

I suppose, Mr. Speaker, we will ask the same question again until we get an answer that is correct for the Canadian people.

The ethics counsellor has confirmed that it was only on Friday last, October 28, that he was given a document which outlines the rules for ministerial conduct and that he was asked to bring it up to date vis-à-vis dealings with quasi-judicial bodies. The Prime Minister stated yesterday that his recommendations were to be discussed by cabinet.

Would it not enhance public confidence if the guidelines for ministers would be made public, be presented, debated and possibly amended in this House and approved by a free vote of members of Parliament on behalf of all Canadians?

Ethics November 1st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and has to do with the role of the ethics counsellor in the now infamous Minister of Canadian Heritage affair.

We have it on good authority, namely from the counsellor himself, that he first found out about the letter on Wednesday, October 26 and that his source was the press and not the Prime Minister's office. He was not asked by the Prime Minister's office to do anything. He was not asked to prepare a report on the letter and he has not done so.

My question is simple: Why did the Prime Minister take the trouble to appoint an ethics counsellor and obligate the taxpayers to pay for the cost of that position if he does not consult with him on an issue this critical when he had over a month to do so?

Crtc October 31st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, we are observing here a tennis or ping pong game, back and forth, of responsibility. No one is willing to accept it. The minister does something and does not accept responsibility. The Prime Minister has a responsibility and he is not accepting it.

How is this Prime Ministerial responsibility defined? What are the responsibilities? Where does the buck stop? Are we going to get it there or there?

Crtc October 31st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, this rhetoric about restoring integrity to government is beginning to sound a little hollow.

Perhaps this government is taking a page out of Mackenzie's book when he wrote: "Integrity is necessary but not necessarily integrity". The Prime Minister said, the red book proclaims, and all the Liberal candidates were talking about it, "open government will be the watchword of the Liberal program".

If the Prime Minister really believes in and is promoting an open government, why did he not inform this House when he first became aware of the heritage minister's letter to the CRTC?

Ethics October 31st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the word is out. Government auditors are being asked to be more gentle and more mild. They are being asked to emphasize the good things in their reports and to tone down their criticisms. Why are they doing this, you ask. It is because the Access to Information Act now means that the people are actually getting to see these reports.

Could it be the Liberals are afraid of being exposed? Is this why the Prime Minister has appointed his own personal ethics lapdog adviser, for damage control instead of a real independent, answerable to Parliament ethics counsellor? Is this government just as afraid as the Conservatives were that the public will find out what is going on behind closed doors? Are the Liberals keeping their high standing in the polls only because they are hiding the facts?

It is high time that we get some real openness, real honesty, real accountability in government. Canadians are beginning to question whether it will come from this government.

Ethics October 31st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to say that I am very honoured and privileged to respond to the statement of the Prime Minister.

The way things work around here, different parties have a turn at being in government. We have had the Conservatives and Liberals over and over. I have to admit that sometimes when I look across I am overwhelmed at the magnitude of the responsibility ministers and the Prime Minister have. I sometimes wonder what we will be like when we get there.

We received a copy of the Prime Minister's statement only in an official language which does not happen to be my own. Except for a few paragraphs, most of my speech is going to be extemporaneous since I spent most of the time available to me getting it translated into the language I could understand. I hope you will bear with me, Mr. Speaker, if some of the points I make and develop are perhaps not as well developed as we are accustomed to on this side of the House.

The Prime Minister has spoken of the necessity for integrity, honesty and openness. He speaks of that not only today but has done so on a number of other occasions. I was never a member of a political party before I was elected here. One thing that drew me to the party to which I belong, the Reform Party, was that it stressed very strongly the concepts of integrity and honesty. I assure the House and the Prime Minister that his continually talking about integrity and honesty strikes a chord with the Canadian people because they want it and I want it.

The question here is not whether we want it. In the notes that I took I see his speech included talking about integrity and honesty. That is really not the debate. We already agree on that. However, the question is how to do it.

Without being disrespectful, what we have heard today is a longer answer to a question in Question Period without the nasty interruption of another question. We heard an explanation, trying to put oil on the waters and smooth them out. We are seeing massive damage control.

I would like to take a few minutes to get down to the basics of this issue. The question before us was triggered by a particular incident that has occupied the House for the last week. First we need to ask ourselves if we would be here debating this and would we be doing it in this way if it were not for this incident? Would the government be as eager to push forward this agenda if it had not been driven to it? Perhaps this is reactionary but we

need to get on with it. We need to make sure there is integrity in government.

We need to back up one step. One of the reasons the Canadian people and the opposition so strenuously object to what has happened is back one step further. It concerns the way government works.

We all recognize that in our system of government all of us as members of Parliament are essentially powerless to influence true decision making. On a number of occasions we have put motions which have made eminent good sense to anyone who stops to think about them. Yet to a person, all of the members in the government have voted the way their leadership and their party, including their ministers, have directed on an issue. I accept that as fact. That is what has been happening. I can observe that. I have come to that conclusion.

In the perception of the Canadian people, ministers are very powerful. Indeed they are. That is why one needs to object when a minister gives even the inkling that he is exercising that excessive power in order to influence matters on behalf of his constituents, a role that is not available to ordinary MPs in opposition or in government.

We need to ask the government what has happened here. The Prime Minister has correctly stated that just because one is a member of the cabinet one should not be disenfranchised as a member of Parliament. I agree with that principle. The cabinet minister, as a member of Parliament, must be able to represent his constituents in legitimate matters. It is the variation that is at question here.

This particular incident occurred when a minister made a statement on ministerial letterhead and because he is the minister overseeing that area it can properly be viewed as being undue influence.

The ethics code does not permit that. I was able to pull this out quickly from one of my files. I quote from the ethics package: "Public office holders shall act with honesty and uphold the highest ethical standards so that public confidence and trust in the integrity, objectivity and impartiality of government are conserved and enhanced".

That principle is violated when several people are contending for a licence and one has behind him the power of a ministerial letter and the other one has an ordinary MP representing him. Because it is in the same department I believe this is a violation of the principle and ought to result in more than just an apology and "let us try to do better". We need to go beyond that.

I also want to quote from the same document with respect to preferential treatment: "Public office holders shall not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person". In this case it is evident that this has happened. It is wrong and it needs to be corrected.

We also have the question of the ethics counsellor.

I hope the Prime Minister was honest, and I have no reason to question it, when he said: "We want to have not only the appearance of more integrity, but we actually want more integrity whether it is in appearance or not". I have no reason to doubt the authenticity of the minister's motivation there. I am in agreement with it.

I will not relate all of the details of what has been going on in the past few days, but when we have an ethics counsellor who is being consulted only in retrospect after decisions are made and then, so it appears, only to help put oil on the waters, that casts great doubt on the whole procedure. I think it is a violation of the principle to have an ethics counsellor be responsible to, take his directions from and answerable to the Prime Minister only.

I do agree that the Prime Minister needs all of the assistance he can get. I believe he needs to have counsellors in the area of ethics and certainly in the areas of operating this government. He needs all the help he can get but could we perhaps in addition have an ethics counsellor with the same order of independence and accountability to Parliament as, say, the Auditor General has in financial matters?

I think it would be eminently fair, very helpful to the Canadian people and would certainly help all of us in this place as members of Parliament to understand and believe the government if there were an independent inquiry, not pushed around by political interests but one which would be truly independent and respond openly and honestly with the assessment of what has happened, a recommendation of what should be done now in order to solve this situation, what we need to do, what rules we need to change, what legislation we need to bring in and what people we need in order to make it work better and more correctly.

I conclude by simply saying that this is a very, very unfortunate blight on this Parliament. It is an area where doubt is and has been cast on the government. We can only say that it is important for us as soon as possible, as cleanly as possible and as openly as possible to bring this to a conclusion and allow the minister to resign. Let us get this done the way it ought to be done and produce in the minds of people a genuine trust in the government.

Crtc October 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have no choice but to interpret that answer as meaning that the Prime Minister does not believe the principle was violated.

Could we then ask the Prime Minister, in order to bring some level of confidence to the people of this country that things are going right, that the ethics counsellor should now be asked to conduct a full and open investigation, making the results public in this House as well as to all Canadians? Will the Prime Minister undertake to give the ethics counsellor that authority today?

Crtc October 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, the words honesty, openness and integrity appeared in the red book in the last federal campaign, as they did in the Reform Party's blue book for three years longer. We are trying desperately to encourage this government to walk the talk.

I would like to read from the ethics principles that are in place: "Public office holders should not step out of their official roles to assist private entities or persons in their dealings with the government where this would result in preferential treatment to any person".

My question for the Prime Minister is does he believe that in the case of the subject today with the Minister of Canadian Heritage this principle is being violated?

Department Of Canadian Heritage Act October 27th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to also add a few comments, thoughts and ideas on the bill.

I cannot help but wonder why it is that we feel it is a legitimate role of government to pluck the pockets of the taxpayers by the coercive process called taxation without giving them a choice. We are forcing them against their will to support any and every cause which some bureaucrat or some deputy minister or some head of a department decides is worthy.

My hon. colleague from Medicine Hat has just gone through some of these ridiculous decisions which have absolutely no defence in terms of representing the mainstream of Canadian society.

I am one of those proud Canadians who was born here. I am a first generation Canadian. My parents did not speak English. My first language was neither English nor French. I could be called one of those ethnic immigrants although I was born in Saskatchewan, a point of which I am justly proud.

When we were growing up we had absolutely no access to public funds. As a matter of fact, my grandfather would have dutifully declined if it had been offered because he firmly believed that it was his responsibility to provide for and look after his family.

My grandfather and his sons, my dad and his brothers worked out at a very low wage in order to keep their identity and their

pride. I am very happy that is my heritage. I learned too that hard work and self-effort was required in order to get ahead.

When different people are able, by the spending power of the federal government, to merely access money at will and use it however they wish without accountability, whether or not it has any measure of support out there in the public, promotes and extends a standard of dependence. There is no excuse for that in the long run.

We are sometimes criticized in the Reform Party for harping on the debt. I cannot think of anything that is more important. Whether it is an individual, a family, a business, a province, a municipality or a country, we need to be sound financially if we want to be sound in other ways.

This morning I could not help but think of this when one of my colleagues from the Bloc was speaking. Perhaps part of the reason for the desire of divorce is the fact that we have such tremendous fiscal mismanagement. I read in a book not long ago that fiscal mismanagement and debt is one of the leading causes of divorce in families. Perhaps that is one of the reasons why Bloc members are representing a lack of trust and a lack of consideration for remaining in our Confederation.

We need to start looking at the use of our federal moneys much more carefully than we do. This whole department is a sinkhole of money that does not go anywhere. I cannot overemphasize this any more than I just have.

We have the problem of grants to different societal groups. I think about the past generations. In my area there are a number of Ukrainians and German speaking people as well as English speaking people in great numbers. Most of them, when they came out west, were independent, rugged pioneers. They would not accept handouts.

We keep talking about how we want to be tolerant and loving, we want to be multicultural. I agree with that profoundly. We need to reach out and touch each other, as the good phrase goes. We are building resentment by these programs. One group asks for a grant and they get so much. Another group asks for a grant, but because they do not have as powerful a connection to the decision makers, the grant is less or perhaps is even denied.

This can only produce one result. One group now resents the other group. The only real way of having a level playing field among all these different ethnic groups and promoting true ethnicity in our country is to treat them the same. Allow them to fund themselves at whatever rate they want to. Frankly most of the practice of ethnic culture does not require any money.

I was proud the other day to attend the meeting in this city with the Greeks, the AHEPA, their educational society.

They had put on a dinner and they wanted to inform us about their society. A wonderful thing happened. This was a formal occasion and those who could afford it-of course I was not among them-had tuxedos with black ties. It was a very elegant situation.

Suddenly some of those people gathered around the piano. There was one person there playing piano and two or three people came and started singing. It did not take long until there were about 20 people crowded around the piano. In this formal setting this little informal occasion had arisen.

We did not need a federal grant for that. That happened. It was spontaneous. It was genuine. It was real. I liked it. That is the kind of thing we need to promote. The federal government should be in the role of guaranteeing the freedom to speak in the country any language we want, guaranteeing the freedom to practise our culture any way we can legally. We ought not to be in the business of taking money and transferring it from the taxpayers, often against their will. We know there is an increasing resentment and a decreasing support for this involuntary taxation.

We can help renew that trust of the Canadian people by reducing the amount of money that we take from them in order to promote and give grants to people without just cause.

I want to say something about the CBC. My hon. colleague from the Bloc made mention of funding and that it was not equitable between French and English. I wrote it down while he was speaking that in the area whereof I speak, and this is just a statistical fact, the English speaking people in Alberta outnumber all of the others.

We also have a great number of people who speak Ukrainian. There are German people and I believe the French place fourth, although they may now be even lower in numbers because of quite a bit of immigration from the Orient in recent years.

We have a French television channel there, CBC. Most of the time it broadcasts the test pattern and plays nice music. I admit I sometimes watch it because I like the background music that is on while it displays the test pattern. That is other than the times it just has the 1,000 kilohertz signal.

We fund that. I do not know how new my statistics are, probably two or three years ago, but only about one per cent of Albertans speak French, and of those if I remember correctly only one-quarter spoke French but not English.

If our objective is to communicate with one another it is only important that we speak the same language. How I wish I could speak French so that I could debate and enter into discourse with

my colleagues to my right here. I wish I knew that language. Unfortunately when I was a youngster I did not learn it and I am discouraged at trying now. It is difficult. It is so important for us to be able to communicate with one another. Spending federal money on promoting French broadcasting of the test pattern in Alberta makes no sense, absolutely none.

I would like to see those funds, if continued to be expended, to be used in an area where at least the people hearing the programming can understand it and benefit from it.

It is atrocious that when we have television and radio stations that make a profit-I am told by some of my contacts that radio these days is very competitive-we need to subsidize the CBC at the rate of over $1 billion per year. Surely we can get management in there that will produce a profit for the Canadian taxpayers and not be a continual drain.