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

Agriculture October 29th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, WTO negotiations begin next month and the government has no final position on the table. In the meantime our farmers are left to wonder if the government will have their best interests at heart when at the negotiating table.

A recent study by the George Morris Centre indicated that Canadian farmers will benefit greatly if this WTO round eliminates all tariff and non-tariff barriers to international trade.

Will the government make the elimination of trade distorting agricultural policy the number one priority in Seattle?

Supply October 28th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I listened to my colleague's address. He raised all the problems that exist in the airline industry and put all the issues on the table. However, he did not say what should be done. He is leaving that to the airlines to sort out. He touched on some very good points, the biggest being competition. He talked about a regional airline that priced the other one out of business.

My question to my colleague is about increasing the foreign level as the Competition Bureau has indicated. Most people point out that it would go to the so-called new airline. I am looking at it another way. I am looking at airlines like WestJet that has done a tremendous job for services in the west. These companies are growing bigger and are taking over and providing that competition for Canadians—

Supply October 28th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I listened with great interest to the debate today. I heard the minister's speech and my colleague's speech.

She talked about having an open debate, which is right. She talked about certain issues like regional communities being serviced, employees and the excellent airlines that we have. I agree with her. There is no question that we have great airlines. She made a good point. We do not oppose that; we agree with it.

However, we do have differences. We know there is a definite need to restructure the airline industry in Canada and that we are facing the prospect of one airline. If the ownership rule was raised, as the Competition Bureau chief said, we do not see any danger in that. We see that as meaning that jobs will be protected, the excellent service will continue and the skills in the aviation industry will remain in this country. We do not see a danger. As a matter of fact, we see our two airlines growing, providing Canadians with more opportunity for jobs.

Why are we becoming restrictive? The Minister of Transport would like to raise it to 25%. What is the problem in restricting this to 49% to improve competition? We would have a healthy aviation industry in this country.

Festival Of Lights October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to extend again my personal invitation to all members of the House to attend the second annual Diwali celebration on Parliament Hill on Thursday, October 28.

Last year's celebration marked the first ever Diwali celebration on Parliament Hill and was a tremendous success due to the overwhelming support of the Indo-Canadian community. Again this year the community is joining together from coast to coast to celebrate the Festival of Lights.

This event is wholly sponsored by the Indo-Canadian community. Over 400 people are expected from across the nation. Regretfully the Liberals have brought politics into this important celebration by trying to undermine the event, but then they are famous for creating division among communities.

The event is being celebrated in room 200, West Block, on Thursday, October 28. The community would appreciate the presence of members.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, there is no question that farming prices today have been rising. That is because of the government's high taxation policy. As well, it has not addressed the issues. It is a do nothing approach again. It takes a slow approach. Nothing happens. If something does happen, then the government wakes up to the fact that something has happened. It is the usual do nothing approach which has resulted in the farm crisis we have in our country.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, that is the usual Liberal rhetoric. The government can have as many meetings as it wants, but it has produced zero. Nothing has happened.

The official opposition is asking the Prime Minister to lead a high level delegation to Europe to explain the damage which the subsidies are causing to their industries as well as ours, as well to free trade. That is what the opposition is calling for. Maybe the hon. member could advise his government to do that.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member that it was the federal government which cut transfer payments for health care and education to the provinces, forcing them into a financial crisis in which they could not address this issue. Nevertheless, Alberta has just given $100 million to its farmers.

The bottom line is, what is the federal government doing about it? The issue is that the higher subsidies of the European Union and the U.S.A. are killing farmers in this country. That is what we are asking the government to address at the forthcoming WTO negotiations in Seattle.

What we have heard is the weak statement that, yes, we will talk about it. We would like to know exactly what is the position.

Supply October 25th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the hon. member opposite that the official opposition asked dozens of questions but the government answered none.

It is a pleasure to rise to speak to the motion which is before the House. I would like to thank my colleagues who have spoken today for their dedication to and hard work on the farm crisis which exists in this country. It is because of their commitment that the farm crisis issue is before the House today. If it was left up to the government this issue would not see the light of day in this place.

We are constantly reminded of the government's supposed commitment to our farmers. Yet, we continue to wait for the government to act in any meaningful way. I listened, as did all members of the House, to the government's Speech from the Throne, advertising to all its agenda going into the new millennium. There was a very brief mention of the upcoming WTO negotiations and the importance of those negotiations to the future of the agricultural sector in this country.

I listened with great interest to the Minister for International Trade in his reply to the throne speech for any new initiatives from the government that would deal effectively and immediately with the farm crisis that exists in our country. The minister talked a great deal about the need for Canada to open up to the world and that Canada is more open to trade than any other leading industrialized country. The minister talked of a rules based system and how Canada is one of the most active advocates and promoters of a rule based international trading system.

The minister spoke of a system that would guarantee a level playing field which would give Canadian businesses in all sectors easier access to the world market. He said that the humanization of globalization was the government's objective.

The issue of culture, the role of artists in our society and the importance of cultural diversity were all mentioned as priorities of the government by the Minister for International Trade. I waited and waited for the minister to mention where our farmers fit into the future equation of the government. I heard no mention of the crisis on our farms in either the throne speech or the trade minister's reply. I am truly saddened that the minister has chosen to ignore the needs of our farm communities.

It has not taken long for the new Minister for International Trade to tell Canadians what his true priorities are. Just last week the minister proudly announced the government's commitment to a global agreement which would protect Canada's cultural industries. Where is the government's commitment to protect Canada's farmers?

In the official opposition's dissenting report on Canada's position in the upcoming WTO negotiations it urged the government to make agriculture the number one priority and noted that tariff and subsidy reductions are crucial to the future success of our farms. Why is the government not working toward a global agreement to eliminate agricultural subsidies?

We have asked the Prime Minister to use his influence with the U.S.A. to eliminate its destructive agricultural subsidies. The Prime Minister came to the aid of our defence and aerospace industries in a recent trade dispute threatening our favoured nation status in bidding for defence contracts.

I called for prime ministerial intervention on this issue months ago when it looked like the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister for International Trade could not get the job done. To his credit the Prime Minister did intervene and he did prevent what could have been a disastrous situation for our defence and aerospace industries.

The plight of our farmers demands that the Prime Minister intervene in the same manner for the elimination of the export enhancement program and similar export subsidization programs that directly impact Canada's ability to compete in global agricultural markets.

We know that the European Union heavily subsidizes its agricultural sector and has been opposed to any talks on liberalizing its aggressive export subsidization policies.

In the long term, if there is ever to be a fair rule in place for agriculture, it can only come from ensuring that agriculture is a priority in the upcoming WTO negotiations.

The government talks about the importance of the Seattle round. However, the government must adopt a clear position on this issue and demand maximum market access for all countries, including major tariff reductions for everyone and significant subsidy reductions by all major players.

Up until now we have not seen the political will necessary from the government to act aggressively in these negotiations. The Minister for International Trade is off to Geneva this week for talks with the European Union on the WTO position. Agriculture must be his first priority in these talks.

The official opposition has called on the government to immediately launch a team Canada mission to Europe; a delegation that would include the Prime Minister, the Minister for International Trade, the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food; a team Canada mission dedicated to making a powerful argument to the Europeans that it is in the best interests of Europe that subsidies be removed. We must appeal to them that subsidies go against the very principle of free trade that the European Union seems to espouse.

In the last two weeks alone there have been three decisions that have forced Canada to expand and open its markets. We all know of the auto pact decision. The WTO in effect said that the auto pact discriminated against foreign automakers because only the big three were able to import cars into Canada duty free.

The WTO also ruled that Canada has been unfairly subsidizing its milk products.

In a mixed decision, the U.S.A. department of commerce cleared our beef producers of being unfairly subsidized, yet refused to eliminate tariffs on Canadian cattle.

Other countries are using mechanisms available to them to open our markets to their producers and to protect their industries. Why then is our government not acting in a similar fashion to protect our agricultural industry?

Our government continues to react in a passive manner and refuses to act aggressively in protecting and promoting the interests of Canada in the global marketplace. If the government is committed to free trade, as suggested in both the throne speech and the reply by the Minister for International Trade, that means more than simply knocking down our subsidies and trade barriers here at home. It means aggressively knocking down trade barriers that exist in countries around the world.

Our farmers are calling for the government to develop lasting solutions to the agricultural crisis. The usual do nothing approach advocated by the government is simply not good enough any more. The government cannot continue to be broadsided by decisions like the auto pact. Until this government acts our farmers will continue to operate at a disadvantage

I would like to wrap up my comments today by saying that the government's inability to deal with foreign subsidies is killing our farmers. Why is the government refusing to deal with this issue? It is more concerned with protecting our culture and appeasing the Maude Barlows of this world than it is in fighting for the future of our Canadian farmers.

It is clear that the new international trade minister's priorities lie elsewhere. I question whether the government's position on agriculture going into the WTO negotiations has any real teeth at all.

It is truly disgraceful that the farmers of this country are paying the ultimate price for a government that does not have the stomach or the political will to participate forcefully in today's global market.

Cultural Grants Acknowledgement Act October 15th, 1999

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-220, an act to require that in the advertising and at the opening of a cultural project supported by public money a public acknowledgement be made of the grant and the percentage of the total cost that the grant represents.

Mr. Speaker, again it is my pleasure to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private member's bill in the House today.

This bill calls for more accountability and transparency in how government spends taxpayer money. This bill will require the recipients of the grants of public funds for cultural projects to acknowledge that a grant has been made. It would also require recipients to specify the percentage of the total cost that the grant represents at the time the program is announced or advertised and opened to the public.

I believe it is only fair that Canadians be informed of their investments in these projects.

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

Criminal Code October 15th, 1999

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-219, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure for me to rise on behalf of the constituents of Calgary East to introduce my private member's bill in the House today.

The bill would establish a minimum two year sentence for second or subsequent convictions for the break and enter of dwelling houses. Canadians view the crime of break and enter as more than just a property crime. They view it as a crime against the person.

It is my hope that this private member's bill will receive support from my colleagues so we can effectively address this national problem.

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