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.

foreign affairshuman rightsaround the worldafghanistanbreak and enterletfree tradeunited nationscountriesmatter of factinternational communitysayingaidsidendpoppositionirancidapeacedemocracycalgarystateddevelopmentcomingagreementassistancestrongafricaaddresstellmissionafricancamesudanthereforewrongconventionhumanitarianbroughtchinasecretaryconcernserioustaxespleasureregionconcernedeaststand

Statements in the House

Kosovo April 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my hon. colleague.

I rise today with a heavy heart to see once again human tragedy happening in the Balkans. When I became a member of parliament I never thought I would debate a situation where Canadian troops were engaged in combat.

With the end of the cold war and the collapse of the Soviet Union, the desire of those who were oppressed either politically or economically rose to ask for freedom and autonomy so that they could control their own destiny. However, dictators and those leaders living in the past have been using old repressive methods to control these aspirations.

We have had many hot spots in the world. Somalia, Rwanda, Iraq and Afghanistan are a few that come to mind. However the way the world has responded to these tragedies has raised eyebrows and created an uneasiness.

Today the skies over Yugoslavia are light with trails of missiles and rows of fighter aircraft. The ground in Kosovo is on fire and soaking with the blood of the innocent. It is a scenario that no one wanted to see.

I question whether it was necessary to go to war. Just because the dictator Milosevic did not sign the peace accord, was it necessary to use force to bring him to the table? I have heard arguments on both side but I am still skeptical.

Today a large number of lives have been lost. Over half a million refugees are living in horrifying conditions. The country of Yugoslavia is losing its infrastructure. That will hurt the innocent population in years to come. Is this not a very heavy price to pay?

That is why we are asking whether the bombing of Yugoslavia was the right strategy. I have heard lots of arguments on both sides. Let me say both sides have been quite convincing, but somehow I remain convinced that there could have been a better course of action.

In my view NATO has been responding to the situation as it is arising and not with a well thought plan. I am afraid that NATO has played into the hands of this ruthless leader.

My party is supporting the current strategy of NATO. As facts stand now, it seems that we have put ourselves into a corner. I agree that under no circumstances can we let Milosevic win, or there will be no peaceful future for mankind. Hence our support for the current NATO strategy.

Nevertheless we must ask some hard questions. Today polls are indicating that Canadians are favouring ground force intervention because they cannot stand the plight of the refugees. Actually who can stand the plight of the refugees and what we see on our television screens? It is horrifying. The plight of the Kosovars have touched the hearts of all. We want to see this tragedy end soon.

Military analysts are suggesting ground troops for a quick end to this misery. However I would like to caution that bombing was supposed to help bring Milosevic to the table, and 20 days later they are still bombing. They were supposed to be no refugees, and today we have over half a million refugees. We know Milosevic is a ruthless leader with no heart, but the tragedy is that the Kosovars are paying the price.

I understand we cannot stand idly by. The Rwanda crisis indicated that we cannot stand idly by. Hence the support my party has reluctantly given to the bombing of Yugoslavia. Perhaps it is time to take a pulse and open up a new front which I would like to call a diplomatic front or a diplomatic war.

Canada is in a position to take a leadership role. Canada can start by sending our diplomats to world capitals. Canada can campaign to get world leaders to descend on Belgrade.

Let us kick diplomatic sense into Milosevic. If he is not willing to listen, then we can seek out other Serb leaders. We must point out to them that the world will not stand for the atrocities that have been committed by the current leadership in Serbia. I am sure we will find Serb leaders who are willing to listen.

We can kick-start the UN into action. The UN is proving to be ineffective. It was ineffective in Rwanda. It has become ineffective in Yugoslavia. How long is the UN going to remain an ineffective organization? Let us kick-start the UN into action. The way the security council is designed it can use its veto. Nevertheless, we owe it to future generations to put all our effort into kick-starting the UN, otherwise it will become irrelevant in future world events.

We have heard from numerous speakers here, but let us get Russia involved. Why Russia? Because of Russia's special ties with Yugoslavia. Perhaps we can entice Russia with the carrot of economic aid.

Let us explore the options. There are a lot of options. We owe it to the international community to restart the diplomatic offensive.

Having said that, I salute the troops who are helping the refugees, those who are doing peacekeeping duties and those who are risking their lives over Yugoslavia to bring peace. We are proud of our soldiers.

We have heard of the special place Kosovo is for Serbia. I also heard from a U.S. general that Serbs can withstand pain to achieve an objective. I beg to differ on both points. While Kosovo may hold a special place for Serbia, Kosovo also holds a special place for the ethnic Albanians who call Kosovo their home. This is what the Serbians must understand. The Kosovars are citizens of Yugoslavia as well.

NATO has come up with the new proposal to call it a protectorate. Some of these proposals, the bombing of Yugoslavia, the creation of this protectorate infringe on international law.

I conclude by saying I hope and pray there will not be another debate in this House on the issue of Canada's involvement in a war.

Supply March 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I agree that some of the interest groups to which she has been giving money are fine, but she has also been wasting money on other interest groups like EGALE.

My question is quite simple. We agree with her that there has to be rehabilitation. The justice committee said that under the new act the age should be reduced to 10. Why did her government ignore that?

Supply March 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to my colleague across the floor. Before I ask her a question I would say that we agree with the concept there has to be rehabilitation, and that is where the government cut money.

We also understand that a message has to be sent. The government has had tons of opportunity to bring forward good legislation. Even the Minister of Justice has said that the Young Offenders Act was legislation in need of an overhaul, and it took a long time.

You talk about special interest groups and you talk about giving—

Supply March 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to my colleague from Prince George.

I would like to ask the member about the problem of break and enter which is becoming quite prevalent in Canada. In light of the fact that the revised Young Offenders Act was presented, I would like to have his opinion on why he thinks this was left out.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I have no comment to make. My colleague has very eloquently said exactly what our major concerns have been. I commend him for putting them on the record.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act March 9th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I will be sharing my time with my colleague from Nanaimo—Cowichan.

I rise again to speak on Bill C-65, the renewal of equalization payments. I have been sitting here all day listening to government speakers on this debate. What I have found is that they have refused to answer the questions that my colleagues and I have put to them throughout this debate.

We have listed our concerns point by point on this bill in reference to equalization payments. What we are hearing from the government side is the usual status quo or do nothing approach this government is becoming famous for.

The concept of equalization is not under challenge. We all understand and agree with the concept that Canadians are willing to share with their fellow citizens their good fortunes.

We have concerns and we have been saying them throughout this debate. Let us start with what the auditor general has been saying. In the auditor general's 1997 review he said that parliament is presented with the legislative proposals any time from a few months to a few weeks before an approval is required.

What is a problem is that parliament is not given adequate time to review this legislation. What is even more of a concern is that equalization makes up 8% of of all federal spending. We as custodians of taxpayer dollars need to debate the effectiveness of all legislation where taxpayer dollars are involved.

Here we have a program in front of us that uses 8% of all federal program spending and what do we get? We get probably three business days' notice or maybe a month's notice to look at this program. That is not transparency or accountability.

Bill C-65 from our point of view is an extremely flawed process. All my colleagues have been talking about their concerns. I was quite surprised to see the Conservatives showing the same concerns that we have despite the fact that at one point they formed the government and did not do much about this program. They have pointed out, as we have, the flaws in the legislation, the problems with this bill.

Let us talk a little about what concerns us, the formula. They have not told us what the formula is. We do not understand this formula. Who understands this formula, by the way? It is a formula that is supposed to create equality in Canada. That is funny, a formula that is supposed to create equality and members of parliament cannot even understand how it is calculated.

My colleague from the NDP this morning said he tried to look at the formula and gave up. We have a formula that nobody understands and it is now becoming even more complicated.

This is a question I am asking the government. Government MPs have been standing up and defending this equalization program with all its greatness, as they say, but they themselves do not understand it. How can they stand up and defend an expenditure when they do not know how it is calculated? This is a weird concept.

Government MPs have given the power to the bureaucrats again. It is the bureaucrats who are running the expenditure, not the House of Commons, not the elected members here. That is what is coming from that side and it makes me concerned and a little sad.

The auditor general has also talked about the formula and has said that he would like this thing to be addressed. The department said it would address the formula issue. It is quite interesting that even the bureaucrats have been struggling with this for 30 years and have had no success. It is becoming a guessing game. This is a cause of concern for everybody because what has the formula created? It has created inequality.

We now have seven provinces that we consider have nots. We have three have provinces. As my colleague this morning pointed out, some of the have not provinces have far more extensive social programs for their citizens than the have provinces, and I applaud them for that, yet they are called the have not provinces. In the have not provinces some of the programs are far superior. Where is this equality?

The whole formula issue was in a study done by Queen's University.

It took only two years to use the formula. After that it was a band-aid solution. The rest of the time the system is driven by various bells and whistles, which means that it is not addressing the real issue. It is at the whim of bureaucrats or at the whim of politicians.

As an example, Newfoundland Premier Tobin's expected deficit budget indicated that it was subject to manipulation. By whom? By bureaucrats and by politicians. Members of parliament who are supposedly the custodians of taxpayers money are unable and cannot find out how 8% of federal spending was spent.

This concept is justified by a very noble statement that services should be equal throughout Canada. It is driven by that statement and that is all it is driven by. After that it is lost in the middle of bureaucracy, in the maze of manipulation and inequality. There is something seriously wrong with the whole concept. That is what my party is challenging, not the noble concept of equalization.

Where are transparency and accountability? As I mentioned, members of parliament see in the budget document that so much money has gone to the have not provinces from the have provinces. It is a very strange concept, as my colleague pointed out, that seven provinces are have not provinces and three provinces are have provinces in a country that has the best standard of living in the world.

There is no accountability. What concerns me is that it is for the next five years. Perhaps government members have a problem. I think that is why they have been ramming through the bill to meet some deadline. They could not come up with a proper review of the formula, but they could have extended it for six months while a parliamentary committee looked into the whole process. All members who have given speeches in the House are in agreement with the concept, so I would not see any problem with all parties studying the issue for the next six months.

Criminal Code February 11th, 1999

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-475, an act to amend the Criminal Code (breaking and entering).

Madam Speaker, it is my pleasure to introduce my private member's bill in the House today. This bill would establish a minimum two year sentence for second or subsequent convictions of break and enters on dwelling houses. I am proud to state that I have the support of the justice ministers of Alberta and Manitoba. It is my hope that this private member's bill will receive support from my colleagues so we can effectively address this national problem. Canadians view break and enter crimes as more than just property crimes. They view them as crimes against the person.

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

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 8th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, Canadians who will decide who will be sitting on that side. I rest assured that Canadians will ensure that if the Liberals carry on with heavy taxation and continue the health care crisis they will on this side pretty soon. Let us not worry about that. We will leave it to the decision of Canadians.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 8th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, that is a very good point. I am sorry to see that it was introduced. The member is right that my province is struggling with it. I personally believe that VLTs, as has been done in my province, should only be in casinos where those who want to go there can go. They should not be accessible to the general public. The member is right. I do not agree.

Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act February 8th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I am extremely happy that my colleague asked a couple of questions and made some comments. We will introduce the new Canada act when we are over there and they are over here.

The second factor is that under no circumstances will we give up the cornerstone of the policy that all Canadians and all provinces are equal. How did we suddenly come to recognize the factor that 70% of the provinces are have nots? It was from the formula those members came up with that is so complex nobody can understand it. People in my province cannot understand this formula. It is they who have created have not provinces versus have provinces. The Reform Party has stated that.

We agree with equalization. We agree with the policy that all Canadians are equal, but we are asking for a better allocation of resources like we have proposed. Those members must have been listening to what we have said about how the equalization program should work.