House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was fact.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Kootenay—Columbia (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2008, with 60% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Broadcasting Act April 20th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I have a quick comment about the Liberal member's speech.

My colleague from Wild Rose, who is a member of the justice committee, reminded me that it is the Liberal members on the justice committee who are shredding and gutting our government justice bills in committee. The member's complaints would be more genuine if he were to bring those complaints to his Liberal colleagues. I really do not think the Conservatives are very interested in taking lessons on justice issues, particularly when they are delivered by Liberals.

Today we are dealing with a very important subject that is a major cause for concern. Bill C-327, An act to amend the Broadcasting Act, that is before us today for debate has the worthy objective of reducing violence in Canadian society. The reduction of violence in society is a priority of Canada's new government and I want to thank the hon. member for Rosemont—La Petite-Patrie for his efforts in bringing this enactment before Parliament.

The tabling of Bill C-327 gives us an opportunity to consider our accomplishments in Canada in addressing the exposure of Canadians, and particularly children, to the violent and offensive content in television and other media.

Bill C-327 proposes that the Broadcasting Act be amended to alter the broadcasting policy for Canada. Furthermore, it proposes that the machinery of the broadcasting system be adjusted by mandating the Canadian Radio-television and Telecommunications Commission, the CRTC, to make specific regulations respecting the broadcast of violent scenes as a means to reduce violence in society.

Bill C-327, however, seems to ignore or discard any reference to or awareness of regulations, authorities or tools in current existence in Canada's broadcasting system. One such tool is the Canada Broadcast Standards Council.

The council's mandate is to oversee the administration of the Canadian private broadcaster codes. These currently include the Canadian Association of Broadcasters', CAB, sex role portrayal code, and the CAB violence code, both of which are imposed by the CRTC as conditions of licence for Canadian broadcasters, the CAB code of ethics and the Radio and Television News Directors Association of Canada code of journalistic ethics.

I should add that the CRTC last week issued a public notice calling for comment on a new CBSC code, the journalistic independence code. It would be administered by the CBSC and would be a CRTC condition of licence on Canadian broadcasters with ownership interests in both the print and broadcast areas.

There is another code in the offing, the equitable portrayal code. It will in due course extend to all communities the benefits hitherto available on the basis of gender alone, under the terms of the sex role portrayal code. It should be the subject of another CRTC public notice this year.

It is essential to note that the codified standards reflect Canadian values.

In the exercise of the CBSC mandate, they have since 1991 received complaints from tens of thousands of Canadians about all forms of programming, whether in the news and public affairs area, drama, comedy, talk radio or television, entertainment news magazine shows, feature films, reality programming, children's programming and so on.

Moreover the CBSC receives the expression of those concerns directly and indirectly. Even those which are initially sent to the CRTC are, with rare exception, forwarded to the CBSC for resolution. They deal with approximately 2,000 complaints every year from Canadians who are unhappy about something they have seen or heard on the airwaves.

What relates to this debate is that as a percentage of complaints to the CBSC, those relating to violence on television have been steadily declining by a huge margin, namely 37%, between 2001 and 2006.

Moreover, Bill C-327 would add nothing to the panoply of tools the CBSC has to deal with the subject, since issues relating to violence on television are already thoroughly covered by the combination of the CAB violence code and the CAB code of ethics, and rigorously enforced by the self-regulatory system solidly entrenched in the Canadian broadcasting system.

There is already a watershed hour that is not limited to violence intended for adults. It restricts all forms of adult content to the post-9 p.m. period.

We already have provisions for ratings and viewer advisories, which apply well beyond violence on television. To protect children from inappropriate television programming, we already have the most detailed provisions that can be found anywhere in the world. Bill C-327, if passed, would deliver less to the Canadian public than we already have.

For my friends in Parliament who will be voting on this bill, permit me to repeat that last sentence. Bill C-327, if passed, would deliver less to the Canadian public than we already have.

It is a mark of the success of the Canadian private broadcasters' self-regulatory system that it does not require the huge financial penalties of the American regulatory process to work. The system works because the private broadcasters have committed themselves to the process. They created it. They support it financially. Ninety-five per cent of the broadcasters in Canada pay into the CBSC.

Most importantly, though, they support it morally. After all, they live in the communities in which they broadcast. They want the CBSC to deal with all substantive public concerns about content, not just some of them. They want to tell Canadians, in their languages of comfort, how to access the self-regulatory process. Thoughtful Canadian viewers will recall the number of times there have been public service announcements, at the broadcaster's expense, that have directed them to the CBSC.

I would ask hon. members to consider the overall government approach to media violence. Media literacy and empowerment is a central tenet of the Government of Canada's approach to media violence.

Strategies to combat violence in various media and to protect children in particular from injurious information and material transmitted through the media, Internet, videos and electronic games include the Canadian strategy to promote safe, wise and responsible Internet use, called the CyberWise strategy, and the work of federal-provincial-territorial officials to mitigate against the exposure of children in particular to violence in video games.

It is important for us to acknowledge that we have a limited jurisdiction over foreign television signals as well as the material that may be accessed through other media outlets such as the Internet. Foreign television and radio signals can be received over the air by any Canadian residing near the U.S. border. The CRTC has no tools to deal with these broadcasts. The CRTC authorizes some foreign services for distribution in Canada. As they are authorized but not licensed by the CRTC, the conditions of licence imposed on Canadian broadcasters do not apply and they are not subject to the Canadian broadcasting industry's code of conduct and ethics.

I was informed yesterday that for a $60 one time fee I can access foreign satellite programming from anywhere in the world, delivered to me on my computer by any high speed ISP. This is not the future. This is now, today. The service bypasses the CRTC or any regulatory authority by direct, uncensored, uncontrolled technology.

In the current media environment, we find ourselves living in a global village. It is more important than ever that Canadians be well informed about the content they may be exposed to and the possibility of new technologies, but also about the potential harmful effects and limitations.

Just as we cannot be with our children at all times to keep them safe from harm, with the digital revolution we cannot protect our children and other Canadian audiences from controversial and objectionable content that originates from all over the world, and which, as we know, can be accessed by those who are determined.

Hon. members may take note of the recent launch of National Media Education Week. This initiative is precisely the sort of action through partnership that this government supports.

In conclusion, yes, we support measures that will combat violence and crime in society, but this government should not support the regulatory measures and legal sanctions advocated in Bill C-327 because the Canadian public will end up net losers.

AHEPA Canada April 19th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, it is with great pride that I rise today to recognize AHEPA Canada.

Founded in the United States in 1922, the American Hellenic Educational Progressive Association is one of the largest Hellenic heritage groups in the world and branched out to Canada in 1928. AHEPA is also in Greece, Cyprus, New Zealand and Australia.

AHEPA promotes the ideals of Hellenism, education, philanthropy, civic responsibility, family and individual excellence. In Canada, the organization donates more than $300,000 a year toward education and charities at the local, national and international levels.

I would like to thank the president of AHEPA Canada, Mr. Frank Antoniou and the members of his executive for honouring us with their presence in Ottawa today.

Government Funding March 30th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, at this time the government is giving serious consideration to that request.

March 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, there was no agreement to tear up. There was an agreement in principle only. There was no agreement between the government and the Ukrainian Canadian community. How can one tear up something that never existed? This is outrageous.

March 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, there was a signing agreement after which there was a three month period in which nothing further happened. What was the signing agreement all about?

March 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I find the bleating of my Liberal friend really quite fascinating. His party while in government had 12 years. What happened in that 12 years? Nothing, nada.

March 29th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, it might useful to take a look at some facts.

Canada's new government has recognized the historic injustices of the Ukrainian Canadian community. I must remind the member opposite that in 12 years his Liberal Party did nothing to acknowledge historic injustices of wartime periods. It was this current Conservative Prime Minister who in just one year provided redress for the grave injustice of the Chinese head tax and it is this Conservative government that is working diligently to recognize the dark period in our history where Ukrainian Canadians lost their property and in many cases were interned.

The Conservative Party is committed to increasing awareness about the history of wartime measures that resulted in thousands of Canadians of Ukrainian origin being used as slave labour during and after the first world war. For 12 years the Liberal Party did nothing to recognize the Ukrainian internment. Now the Liberals are pretending to care.

Recent times have brought steps toward reconciliation. In November 2005 it was a Conservative member of Parliament, the member for Dauphin—Swan River—Marquette, who tabled the Internment of Persons of Ukrainian Origin Recognition Act. The Liberals did not implement the acknowledgement, commemoration and education program, nor was a final agreement ever concluded. The member talks about tearing up something that did not exist.

On the contrary, in a hasty round of last minute vote buying, the Liberals in the hot summer of 2005 promised up to $60 million, but in fact did not allocate any more than $25 million for all groups combined. The agreement in principle signed with the representatives of the Shevchenko Foundation, the Ukrainian Canadian Congress and the Ukrainian Canadian Civil Liberties Association on August 24 and 25 that the member refers to committed $2.5 million for community based education and commemorative projects, but no more was ever budgeted by the previous government.

After the AIP, and this is important, the previous Liberal government had three months to implement its empty promises but did not. I wonder if there was ever an intention of fulfilling the commitment or was it just an example of empty electioneering?

Now the member for Etobicoke Centre complains that the $12.5 million the previous government supposedly budgeted in 2005 was not in last week's budget, but why would it be in the 2007 budget if, as the member claims, it was already in the small print in the last Liberal budget? Clearly, this is a tale that grows with the telling.

This government is taking a comprehensive forward looking approach. On June 22, 2006 the Minister of Canadian Heritage announced the establishment of the community historic recognition program and the national historic recognition program. The $24 million community historic recognition program will provide funding through grants and contributions for community based commemorative and education projects. The NHRP is a $10 million program that will fund federal initiatives focused on increasing awareness and educating all Canadians, particularly youth, about Canada's history linked to wartime measures and/or immigration restrictions and prohibitions.

The government is currently finalizing the details of both programs. We have held discussions with representatives of the Ukrainian Canadian community and are in the process of coming to a resolution to provide redress to the Ukrainian community.

The Liberals come, they talk, they go away. Conservatives act.

Canada Council for the Arts March 28th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, today we celebrate the 50th anniversary of the Canada Council for the Arts, Canada's national arts funding agency.

The Canada Council has given Canadians access to their own stories through the imagination and creativity of artisan creators across the country.

Canada's new government recognizes the vital role that arts play in enriching the lives of Canadians and their communities. That is why in our very first budget the government was proud to include $50 million in additional funding over two years for the Canada Council for the Arts. We believe in the contribution that our artists and creators make to our country and want to ensure that adequate support for the arts is realized through both private and public collaboration.

The Canada Council has been a real success story, one that Canada's new government will continue to champion and support.

I ask all members to please join me in congratulating the Canada Council for the Arts on reaching this important milestone.

Committees of the House February 27th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, I had a very interesting representation from the curator of the Canadian Museum of Rail Travel. The Canadian Museum of Rail Travel in Cranbrook is unique in that it is not really a railway museum. It has railway cars. There are no locomotives as part of the collection. It has over a mile of railway cars, as a matter of fact, many of them in complete sets.

The point the curator was making and I have also heard it from my other constituents in Revelstoke was that whatever is going to be happening should be done on a national basis, and should not just focus on Exporail.

If the motion were more precise, which is what we discussed in committee, and we knew precisely where we were going as a result of the acceptance of the motion, the government might possibly have a different attitude. However, the motion as written is piecemeal. It is premature. It is inadequate and it is imprecise. For all of those reasons, we will not be voting in favour of the motion.

Committees of the House February 27th, 2007

Mr. Speaker, the member who just spoke would know that in this place we vote on the words that are in front of us. We are voting on the motion, not on the speech of the member.

I have already given full credit to the member as being an honourable gentleman who, without a doubt, is doing this in good faith, but the fact of the matter is that the motion nonetheless is deficient. It represents a piecemeal approach to the very important issue of national museums.

The new government is very concerned that we come forward with a comprehensive national museums policy. We are working very diligently to arrive at that policy.