House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was aboriginal.

Last in Parliament October 2015, as Conservative MP for Kenora (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2015, with 29% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Liberal Party of Canada May 11th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals, hot off their do-nothing convention, have a new slogan: “We can” That is really original. I wonder where they came up with that.

Here is what we know so far about what Liberals mean when they say, “We can”.

“We can” means they can raise taxes on the backsides of Canadian families.

“We can” means they can abandon a majority of Canadians, including first nations, who support scrapping the long-gun registry.

“We can” means they can all sign onto a coalition government that they now say would have deeply and enduringly divided Canadians.

Conservatives have a saying too: “We are”.

We are keeping taxes low for Canadians during these economic times.

We are providing stimulus for industries to emerge stronger and greener than ever, and we are moving forward on our promise to dismantle the long-gun registry.

What is the irony of all of this? In the last election, we asked Canadians for permission to rebuild and modernize Canada's infrastructure and lead them through this global recession, and their answer was, “Yes, we can”.

Cree-Naskapi (of Quebec) Act May 7th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I want to revisit a few points that the minister raised in his presentation. Bill C-28 is the first step toward self-government and it is a great piece of legislation for the Cree. Could the minister expand a bit more on how this legislation would advance self-government for the Cree? We heard a myriad of things that it would benefit, but if he could just focus on self-government that would be great.

Energy Efficiency Act May 6th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I congratulate the member for his hard work on this legislation and share his view that the home renovation tax credit is very popular among constituents in my riding.

I am curious and somewhat concerned about the sometimes inefficient standby power of household electronics. I was wondering if he could tell us a little more about how the amendments to the Energy Efficiency Act would address this issue.

Battle of the Atlantic May 4th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, of all the important campaigns Canada was part of during the second world war, the Battle of the Atlantic was unlike any other.

For six years, day after day, courageous Canadians met the challenge of making the relentless crossings of the treacherous north Atlantic, sailing from Canada's east coast to a beleaguered British nation and bringing with them vital troops and much needed war supplies. These were ordinary Canadians who did extraordinary things.

Sixty-six years ago, in May 1943, the tide finally turned in favour of the allies but a terrible price would be paid for this victory as more than 4,600 courageous men and women lost their lives at sea.

They are our heroes and today we honour those who endured Canada's longest battle of World War II. We remember their supreme sacrifice to defend our values of freedom, democracy and the rule of law, those whose final resting places cannot be marked by graves.

Canada's military men and women are fighting to protect those same values today.

Canada remembers the Battle of the Atlantic.

Greenhouse Gas Emissions Trading System for North America April 30th, 2009

Madam Speaker, the Government of Canada stands by its plan to reduce greenhouse gas emissions in order to fight climate change. We have made a commitment to reduce Canada's total greenhouse gas emissions by 20% by 2020 and by 60% to 70% by 2050, compared to 2006 levels.

Allow me to explain the important principles underlying the government's approach on the national, North American and international levels.

First, we speak to balance, environmental progress and economic prosperity.

Second, we recognize that this is a long-term challenge. The science tells us that this is what we have to do and we have to start immediately.

Third, building on the second principle, we will recognize the importance of technology. Canada will continue to be focused on supporting and providing incentives for technological development that needs to be undertaken to renovate our capital stock in an orderly, efficient way, moving us toward carbon capture and storage and newer and cleaner electricity generation.

The Government of Canada is moving forward on a clean energy dialogue with the United States. As hon. members know, Canada and the United States agreed to establish a clean energy dialogue to collaborate on the development of clean energy science and technologies that will reduce greenhouse gases and combat climate change. Therefore, the foundations of the clean energy dialogue have been established and concrete steps toward its implementation are being taken. Working groups are scheduled to meet over the next few months and will be ready to report back on their progress to our leaders by August 2009.

Canada will continue to work with the U.S. to develop a coordinated approach that will advance our respective environmental energy objectives and renew the North American economy at the same time.

We will continue to work on these tracks domestically, North America wide and internationally.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act April 29th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this legislation is designed to deal with issues that arise. If there are safety issues with respect to the product, this legislation is designed to do that, include labelling.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act April 29th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, as I said in my speech, the goal of this legislation is to bring Canada into the modern marketplace that is consistent with the legislation that is currently in place in the European Union and in the United States.

With respect to the second part of the hon. member's question, some of the legislation is currently found in the Environmental Protection Act.

Canada Consumer Product Safety Act April 29th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for Oshawa for sharing his time with me today.

I rise in support of Bill C-6, the government's proposed new legislation to better protect consumers from products that might be dangerous to their health or safety. These are improvements that Canadians want and need. They will make a safe marketplace even safer.

We need to adapt our legislation to reflect the changes in the world's changing economy. Products are now being manufactured in places where product safety may not be the high priority that it is to Canadians. We cannot necessarily rely upon those manufacturers and their host countries to adopt a standard acceptable to Canadians.

Whether they come from outside or within Canada, our government needs modern tools to help shield Canadians from flawed or dangerous goods. We have a mandate to work to protect our citizens from harm, no matter where a consumer product comes from.

Changing our consumer product legislation will help maintain Canada's position as one of the best countries in the world in which to live. The world's economy is going through a challenging time. As the world's manufacturers compete for shrinking markets, the temptation for unscrupulous manufacturers will be to cut costs at the expense of the safety of the goods that they produce.

Whether the stream of faulty products is a trickle or a flood, we need to be ready, and this proposed legislation will give us the base we need to stem the flow. While we invest in stimulating the economy, we need to continue to invest in ways to keep us safe from dangerous consumer products. Bill C-6 would help us do that.

Our government has invested $113 million over two years to support the action plan to modernize and strengthen Canada's system for food, consumer products and health products. The plan is built on three elements: first, active prevention, to avoid as many problems as possible before they arise; second, targeted oversight, to closely monitor consumer products that pose a higher risk to health and safety; and third, a rapid response so we can take action more quickly and effectively on problems that do occur.

I would now like to elaborate on these three elements.

The first aim of the proposed legislation before this House is to improve prevention. Bill C-6 would establish a general prohibition against manufacturing, importing, advertising or selling consumer products that pose unreasonable dangers to human health and safety.

Importantly, I should mention that the natural health products are exempt from the proposed consumer product safety act, as they have their own regulatory framework under the Food and Drugs Act. Some stakeholders have expressed confusion about this. As a result, the Minister of Health has written to the chair of the health committee to inform her that our government will be moving forward with an amendment to this bill making it clear that it will not affect our natural health products.

Second, Bill C-6 targets products that pose the highest risk for oversight. It proposes to allow the minister to require commercial manufacturers and importers to provide safety test and study results for their products. Suppliers would be required to provide reports regarding any serious incidents and defects involving their products, including near misses, and the manufacturer or importer would need to provide a detailed report, including its plan of action to respond.

Industry is already subject to mandatory reporting in the European Union and the United States. Therefore, Bill C-6 would bring us up to the same standard as two of our most significant trading partners. Suppliers would also be required to keep detailed information about the sources and destinations of their products to help track products that need to be recalled.

Third, the proposed legislation will give us new tools to help us respond to problems as rapidly as possible. Governments could require companies to pull unsafe consumer products from the shelves as soon as the problem is discovered, and we would also have the power to act swiftly if the supplier fails to do so.

Will Bill C-6, we are also seeking to raise fines to levels that are similar to those in other industrialized countries. The financial penalties must be serious and a deterrent to those who might risk human health and safety. For example, the maximum fine under the Hazardous Products Act is now set at $1 million. With this proposed bill now before the House, the maximum fine would be raised to $5 million for some offences and possibly higher fines at the discretion of the courts for other offences.

However, we will not rely on this proposed legislation alone. Laws and fines are an important part of the solution but not the only solution. We will be working with other countries to promote safe manufacturing processes. We will work with our own industry to improve awareness of health and safety issues in the manufacturing process.

It bears mentioning that our current safety system has served us well and the vast majority of Canadian manufacturers, importers and other providers and suppliers provide safe products, but our current consumer product legislation was drafted in 1969. We are now part of a global economy and a global marketplace. We need to modernize our system to meet the new reality and to safeguard against the very few who do act irresponsibly.

Our Hazardous Products Act has not been thoroughly reviewed in 40 years and it needs to be modernized. Without new legislation Canada risks becoming a dumping ground for the world's unsafe products. This is not the future we want for Canada's marketplace.

The proposed legislation will give our inspectors the power they need to get unsafe products out of the marketplace before they get to the homes of Canadians. Improving health and safety is in everyone's interest and so I urge my fellow members to vote in favour of Bill C-6.

Points of Order April 29th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding Monday, April 20. The member for Nipissing—Timiskaming stated in his question for the Minister of Human Resources and Skills Development that I had agreed to a meeting with Domtar union members and then did not show up.

This is hardly the truth. In fact, I had arranged to meet with the union members. I had met with them previously. We are going through some very difficult times at Domtar. I meet with company officials as well as other community members on this important matter.

This is a patently untrue and false statement and I ask that the member retract it from the record.

Liberal Party of Canada April 29th, 2009

Mr. Speaker, we have been hearing about the kitchen cabinet the Liberals have formed and here is what we have had a taste of:

Last fall they cooked up a carbon tax and gave Canadians a serious case of election indigestion. It turns out the coalition sandwich was not a hot item on the menu either.

Come budget day, the Liberals got themselves into a real stew when they allowed a distinctly regional flavour to prevail over other important ingredients. One would have thought an opposition could cobble together a recipe to help Canadians.

I guess that is why for dessert the next day the Liberals whipped themselves into a voting frenzy and rightly supported this government's bold economic action plan. Now we know what the main entree is: tax hike à la carte.

GST, carbon tax and personal income tax are available at the Liberals' tax and spend buffet. Frankly, it sounds to me like the only thing being prepared in the Liberal kitchen cabinet is a bunch of baloney sandwiches.

Canadians have placed their order with this government and have asked for a fair slice of the economic action plan. That is what we are delivering.