House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was afghanistan.

Last in Parliament August 2019, as Conservative MP for Calgary Forest Lawn (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 48% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, our country is vast and has remote areas and many of these areas are accessible by airlines. At the end of the day, when we look at the whole issue, if there is no demand in many of those airports, the airports are underutilized. If there is nobody to use those airports, keeping them open does not become a feasible proposition.

Airports are part of the infrastructure and if one airline does not use them, others will. It all comes down to the fact that the airlines have been granted two years to provide these new services in order to create a network and methods for the efficient use of aircraft or the use of smaller aircraft so that the cost factor can be taken into account. There is no point in using big aircraft when there are no passengers. Smaller aircraft can be used. A fleet change can take place. These are the issues which need to be addressed.

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, after listening to the hon. member's comments, my apprehension keeps increasing. His government's lack of vision while it has been in power and the question he asked me is what Canadians are afraid of. It is the lack of competition. The government has had two years. It knew this situation was arising. The government sat and did nothing. Even now it talks about the committees listening to these things but we do not see much coming from them.

Yes, the government gave Air Canada two years. We are saying to Air Canada right now that there is apprehension out there and that apprehension should be addressed. That applies to the government too.

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise today to speak to a very important subject which my colleague introduced, dealing with a seamless, integrated transportation system.

Our country is the second largest in the world. A huge country like ours with a small population requires a transportation system that will bring remote communities, small communities and larger centres together.

Forty per cent of our GDP is comprised of exports. We have a huge export market. Therefore our prosperity relies on an excellent transportation system.

Over the years we have had a very good transportation system, but due to the lack of funding and the lack of vision by the government we have seen cuts rapidly developing in our transportation system. With our growing exports and the NAFTA, the need for a faster, reliable transportation system has become very apparent.

I know that in a city such as Calgary the transportation system cannot match the growth that has taken place. There is a crying need for money to be put into the transportation system.

If we look back at the history of Canada, we see that Canada was opened up by the railways. We had a premier transportation system which ran from one end of Canada to the other. Railways played a critical role in bringing Canada together.

The airline industry also played a critical role. Our remote communities in the north were serviced by bush pilots and smaller planes, out of which grew a very viable airline industry. We all remember PWA, Wardair and other airlines which played a vital role in bringing Canada together.

When I say bringing this country together, we must remember that to the south of us is located the largest economy in the world. It is important for Canada to have a transportation system that runs from the east to the west. It is vital to holding the country together and to bringing unity as well.

No one can deny the importance of a seamless, good transportation system. I am speaking of the railways, the airline industry and the shipping industry. All of these have played a major role in Canadian history.

We reached a juncture last year when our airline industry faced a major crisis. One can lay the blame on a lack of vision of the companies involved and the government, as the government tried to control and regulate the industry. Those were the days of regulation. We all remember that Air Canada was a government monopoly and the restrictions which the government placed on Air Canada in its attempts to control the airline industry.

There is still some fallout today if we consider the restrictive ownership of Air Canada. On the other hand, Canadian Airlines was left to the market forces.

As we all know, this culminated in the major air wars that took place last year. The air wars may have taken place in the boardroom, but Canadians became apprehensive because they had come to rely on air transportation as one of the most significant ways of travelling our country. Canadians became apprehensive of what was happening.

There was a serious threat to the competitive environment in the industry and a serious threat of one dominant carrier having a dominant market in the country.

We all know that Air Canada grew from the government, became privatized and had quite a massive infusion of government funds which allowed it to have a better advantage than airlines in the private sector. Nevertheless, Air Canada's past has not been very favourable among its competitors. It has been accused of pirating practices, of trying to run Canadian Airlines out of business and of trying to muscle its way to becoming a dominant force in Canadian air space.

This has caused concern for many who come from western Canada.

Now that Air Canada has taken over Canadian Airlines, the apprehension still exists. We have not seen a plan. We do not know what is Air Canada's vision. Air Canada just walked in, probably smiled and said it had taken over Canadian Airlines. If we ask air travelling consumers, they are already feeling the effects of the merger and the loss of competition. They can already feel it when rescheduling and trying to make accommodations. It is having an impact on western Canada, and that is a cause of concern.

As far as I am concerned, Air Canada has not bothered to ask the travellers what they want. Its officials just went into the boardroom, looked at the bottom line and tried to create a merger within the airlines to remove the overcapacity which we all know existed. It should not have existed in the first place. The situation is creating tension and apprehension.

If this is the way it is going to go, we will have a serious problem. Canadians will demand more competition. We know the government has given Air Canada a two year period in which to integrate and address the needs of Canadians.

The fact remains that there will not be competition. Without competition the Canadian travelling public is going to pay a heavy price. We can already see that. Thousands of consumers have spent millions of dollars on air miles and already that is under a cloud of doubt. Air Canada talks about negotiating this.

We hope that Air Canada will not take advantage of this monopoly situation and use that against the Canadian travelling public. It knows it has a monopoly and it knows that people have no other choice but to use its services. I hope it does not do that. I hope it will be a better corporate citizen and address the needs of Canadians and look at other issues which come with competition.

I stated what I felt about the state of the Canadian airline industry. In the transportation committee the Reform Party proposed solutions in its minority report. I hope the government will look at them and seriously look at the issue of the monopoly situation in our skies today.

Export Development Corporation March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, let me give the minister an example of information found in an 1983 statistic review of the EDC: Country: Egypt; Borrower: Emac International; Products financed: aluminum form work and shoring equipment; Principal exporter: Aluma Systems Incorporated; Amount: $458,000.

If this information was available in 1983, why the secrecy now?

Export Development Corporation March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, from 1977 to 1984 the EDC provided specific information on its transactions listing the borrowing bank, the product, the Canadian exporter and the amount. In those years Canadians could track EDC loans for individual projects. Today none of this information is available to parliament or to Canadians. Why the secrecy?

Export Development Corporation March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the EDC is a government crown corporation that relies on taxpayers' money to fund its operations. Unfortunately for the Canadian taxpayer, the EDC remains unaccountable to parliament and the auditor general for its controversial lending practices.

What is the government hiding, another get rich scheme for Liberal cronies?

Export Development Corporation March 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, prior to 1984 the Export Development Corporation published a list of Canada account loans that included the amount and the recipients of the loans. Today the Minister for International Trade and the EDC rely on secrecy and confidentiality rules to hide these controversial and high risk loans from Canadians.

Past Liberal governments chose to lay their cards on the table regarding the EDC. Why is this Liberal government hiding the details?

Supply March 20th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to what the member said. I can tell her that half of what she was saying is not right.

It is quite interesting. She said that she is not going to support the motion on the increase that is coming from one side to the other side which requires urgent attention, which is health care. In the same breath she wanted the Reform Party to ask that more money be put into CHST.

Where does the hon. member think the money is going to come from? Will it be by raising more taxes, taxing the poor, taxing the mothers who are staying home? Where does she expect all this money to come from? She knows very well that it is the mismanaged HRDC program where she sees all this money going down the tube. Why will this money not be more effectively used to address the health care issue? Why would she advocate raising taxes and putting more burden on Canadians when we could use other funds? Perhaps she could clarify that situation.

Supply March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, what my colleague has raised is exactly what is wrong in the way the whole program is handled by a government that has no vision. The point is clearly highlighted that the money has gone to the lawyers because the government would not make a decision. This is another waste of taxpayer dollars that is not directly helping Canadians but helping someone else, as the boondoggle has shown.

Supply March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to my colleague, I think he has everything wrong.

Let me repeat this so that he can understand it quite clearly. We are saying that the government should increase the transfer for health care and social services by the $1.5 billion that it is going to give to the transitional jobs fund. We are not talking about the $2.5 billion.

As we have heard, quite clearly, the premiers are saying that there is not enough money. Why is the government giving $1.5 billion extra to the transitional jobs fund that everyone, including members of the House, say is a disaster and a fiasco for this country?