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

Supply March 20th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I certainly can. As we heard in question period today, this kind of gross financial mismanagement is not confined to just this one part of HRDC. We have now discovered that there has been gross mismanagement in the area of TAGS.

I also point out to the member that the reason there is a balance is because of the long suffering taxpayer. The average family of four, since this government took over, has had an increase of $4,000 a year in taxes.

Furthermore, the U.S. interest rates, which are reflected in Canada, are unfortunately not also reflected in the unemployment figures. Take a look at the difference between the unemployment rate in Canada versus the unemployment rate in the United States.

This member does not make a case for proper management by the Liberal government.

Supply March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is important to bring this debate once again back to the motion that is before the House which says:

That this House calls on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions in this year's federal budget.

I know the member preceding me would not want to have said something that was not factual so I will correct him. He said that the motion was to take money out of. It is not a motion to take money out of. This is a motion to deny the increase. Why should we deny the increase? Why should the increase be forgone?

The issue of the scandal is not the programs. The issue of the scandal is the management of the programs or indeed the lack of management of the programs by the Liberal government. The Liberal members keep on saying that the Conservatives made them do it or whatever the case maybe. They seem to conveniently forget that the boondoggle in HRDC actually occurred under their watch.

I also draw to the member's attention, indeed to the attention of all the Liberals, the fact that it is the Liberals who are not honouring the Canada Health Act. The Reform party supports the Canada Health Act. The Liberals do not honour the Canada Health Act.

Because the federal government has cut back on the resources to health care, the provinces are forced to deliver health care however they can. For example, what province in Canada is not currently having its Workers' Compensation Board, a provincial creation and provincial agency, queue jump? That is two tier health care. When an MRI is needed by somebody who is off work, is that person put in the same long lineup that is being created by the Liberal government? No. The WCB recognizes that there is a requirement for these MRIs. It wants to diagnose the problem created in the workforce. Those provinces and their Workers' Compensation Boards are queue jumping because of this Liberal government.

Furthermore those members, particularly the member from Ontario, love to dump however they can on Premier Harris. The health situation in Ontario has been caused directly by the Liberal federal government. People are being forced to go Rochester. It was a laugh when the Prime Minister said that he did not want to get into the Americanization of Canada. It is the Liberal government that has created the situation that the Ontario government is in. The only way it can deliver services to cancer patients is to send them to the United States.

I do not understand how those people can talk out of both sides of their mouths. It is amazing. There is a major difference between those people and the people on this side of the House, particularly the Reform Party.

The member from Mississauga said that the purpose of the government was to collect taxes to redistribute wealth. Excuse me, I believe it is the purpose of the Government of Canada to collect taxes to deliver services and to collect no more money than it needs to collect in order to deliver those services. It has nothing to do with redistributing wealth unless one happens to be of that particular party. Whose money is it? It is the taxpayers' money and the government is in the process right at this moment of collecting far more money than it needs to collect in the area of taxation.

Finally, in rebuttal to what that member had to say, what a patronizing elitist attitude it is that only the federal government can serve the people of Canada. Come on, let us get real.

The people of Canada elect the provincial legislatures in the same way that they elect the federal government. The Liberal federal government talks about the fact that it will make sure that the provinces will spend their money correctly. It will not let any of that money out that it extracted from the taxpayer. It will not let the provinces get away with actually managing their own money. I have heard it all day. Virtually every Liberal member who has stood up in this House of parliament today has said that only the federal government knows how to manage Canadians' money. Give it up. Give me a break.

What we are talking about here is not giving $1.5 billion to a federal government that has shown that it is incapable of properly managing the finances of the people of Canada. If the HRDC scandal were anything other than what it is, it would be seen as an absolute picture of the fact that the Liberals do not know how to manage money.

Does the government not have a place in helping Canadians and companies create jobs? The answer is yes. The problem is the seriously flawed method the Liberals use because it is so wide open to abuse. Consider the facts.

Quebec received $139 million while Ontario got $38 million. The Prime Minister's constituency alone took in more than Alberta, Saskatchewan or Manitoba. In 1997 HRDC spent $529 million in Quebec but only $218 million this year. This of course leads to the suspicion that the funds were used to try to influence voting patterns in Quebec, in other words chequebook federalism.

There are three perhaps four probes into job creation grant irregularities in the Prime Minister's riding alone. There are seven more police investigations which are known to be going on elsewhere. I wonder why we should not trust the Liberals to be able to manage these funds. I just gave a perfectly good detail, and it is not just Ontario and Quebec.

Let us look at the justice minister's riding. The province of Alberta received $3.8 million allocated under the TJF and CJF programs. Where did the vast majority, two-thirds of the money go in Alberta? It just happened to go to the justice minister's riding. She got $2.6 million of the $3.8 million. This is absolute political slush. It is exactly why we are saying do not transfer the $1.5 billion over to the HRDC but use the funds where they should be used.

I agree that the answer to the problems with medicare are not necessarily chequebook related. It may be hard for the member for Mississauga West to accept but I do agree with his proposal that there has to be an open and balanced discussion about the act proposed by Alberta and an unveiling of what the facts are in a non-politically charged environment, as long as there is not the kind of rhetoric we had from the member for Waterloo—Wellington. It was a piece of work. The implication was that we are bad and they are good. Come on. That is not the way to conduct any kind of discussion on this issue.

In conclusion, the motion that the House call on the Minister of Finance to increase the Canada health and social transfer by $1.5 billion and forgo the $1.5 billion increase to federal grants and contributions is a very sound one. The people of Canada will at least know that the resources the government has decided to spend will go into an area that will have the oversight and the intelligence of the provincial health ministers and the provincial governments who also represent the people of Canada.

It has been a privilege and a pleasure to address the House but I have to say in all candour that it was an exceptionally exasperating day, as the members on the Liberal side of the House have continued to state what they consider to be facts and, quite frankly, distort things so that they appear to be the way they want them to appear other than the way that they actually are.

Petitions March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I take particular pride in presenting the third petition with 240 signatures.

This petition was put together by students at Elkford Senior Secondary School. They draw to the attention of the House that during World War I in 1914 to 1918 certain members of the Canadian expeditionary force were executed for cowardice and desertion.

They call on parliament to pardon the soldiers of the 2076 Company Quartermaster.

I take particular pleasure in presenting this petition on their behalf as they are young people who are starting to take part in our great democratic process.

Petitions March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the second petition that I am pleased to present is on behalf of students from the College of the Rockies. The petitioners call on the government to restore $3.7 billion in transfer payments to the provinces for post-secondary education and other issues relating to that.

Petitions March 20th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions to present today.

The first petition contains 100 signatures of people in Golden, which is part of my constituency. The petition calls on parliament to take all measures necessary to ensure that possession of child pornography remains a serious criminal offence. This petition joins about 300,000 other signatures.

Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act March 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, this should be a non-partisan debate. Clearly this is an exceptionally serious issue that crosses all gender lines. It crosses all geographic and demographic lines within the country. It is unfortunate that the member for Waterloo—Wellington has decided to kibitz from the other side of the House. We treated him with respect. I would expect that he would treat our side of the debate with respect as well.

The member for Dewdney—Alouette and my colleague from Skeena were trying to make the point, which I will underscore, that the government not only has an opportunity but indeed it has a responsibility to the people of Canada to begin to act, to be acting now.

In doing some research prior to coming to this debate, I was interested to read the comments of the parliamentary secretary to the solicitor general. His comments were particularly revealing. After he used the same kind of words that the member for Waterloo—Wellington has used tonight, he came up with exactly the same point, that the government for whatever reason seems to be petrified to take any action that would actually go toward the saving of lives of the women of Canada who are embroiled in and sucked into this kind of situation. Not only women but children are involved in this.

After the parliamentary secretary had completed his comments that yes this would be a good idea, he said “We can and must do more. Education, counselling, prevention and other social service measures are essential if we are to do away with family violence. When all else fails, we must take steps against the violent partners. The federal, provincial and territorial partners have already worked on the development of a new identity program. There is always room for improvement but we do not need to reinvent the wheel. We need to build on what is already established. There are a number of unsettled questions”. Because of the time tonight I will not complete his quote except to say that all he could talk about is the fact that there are problems, there are opportunities, and they are working on it.

The mantra from the Liberals is that because Bill C-223 was not their idea it is the wrong vehicle. If this is the wrong vehicle, why does the government not come up with the right vehicle? It has 2,000 lawyers in the justice department. What are those lawyers doing?

Why is the government not giving direction to the justice department to come up with the solution to the problem? Why is the government just saying that the proposal of the member for Prince George—Peace River is not the right vehicle? If it is not the right vehicle, then what is the right vehicle and when is the government going to come forward with it?

We also have to recognize that within the confines of what can be done legislatively, there are problems even with existing law.

I am now out of time in this segment, but I look forward to the continuation of this debate. At that time I will talk about some of the problems with the existing witness protection legislation and then try to marry the two things together, what the member for Prince George—Peace River is trying to accomplish and what improvements are needed even within the existing legislation, the Witness Protection Program Act.

Religion March 13th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, last Thursday protesters vandalized the Mary Queen of the World Cathedral in Montreal. They were yelling against religion, spray painting and defacing the cathedral, and overturning the tabernacle and ripping up hymn books.

Seven people have been charged with unlawful assembly, assault against police officers and obstruction. Hate crime charges were not considered because “the elements were not there for charges of that kind”.

Anti-religious vandalism such as this cowardly act is a hate crime regardless of the religion, denomination or location, yet our justice system discriminates between religions. A National Post editorial notes:

What is missing is media and political outrage. Anti-Christian hostility is one of the last acceptable bigotries in Canada. It is observable not only in the bigots and thugs who attacked the cathedral, but in federal bureaucrats, for example, who instructed Swissair crash site mourners to make no mention of Jesus Christ.

We would never accept an attack on other religious groups. We should not remain silent when Catholics are the targets of intolerance. Where is the outrage?

Apec Inquiry February 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has almost achieved his objective of burying his involvement in the suppression of Canadian freedom of expression at APEC. The Prime Minister has said that he does not have to go and testify at the commission because he can reply to questions in the House.

There are two important differences between the House and the APEC Inquiry. First, the inquiry witnesses are under oath. Second, witnesses may be cross-examined with direct challenges to their testimony.

Obviously the commissioner feels that testifying under oath, providing detailed answers and being cross-examined are what the Prime Minister needs to do in order to avoid a cloud of public suspicion over the APEC inquiry.

Understandably, complainants are withdrawing from the process in Vancouver today. The use of the Public Complaints Commission has been a smokescreen for the Prime Minister and his office all the way along. The Prime Minister will not testify with the excuse that he will set a precedent for future prime ministers. Well the Prime Minister has already set the precedent, one of arrogance.

Apec Inquiry February 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, when it is convenient for the Prime Minister when he talks about the APEC public complaints commission, he says that he has great confidence in the commissioner. Well, the commissioner has told the Prime Minister unequivocally in his judgment on Friday that there will be a cloud of public suspicion if the Prime Minister does not testify.

Why does he answer the question as to whether he is going to testify by running behind a smokescreen and saying he does not want to set a precedent? What does the Prime Minister have to hide?

Human Resources Development February 28th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, she could resign, I suppose, because when she follows the Prime Minister's lead the HRDC minister is on a very slippery slope.

There was the Somalia shutdown, the stonewalling at APEC and now the handouts in Shawinigan. How can Canadians have any confidence in this minister, this government or this Prime Minister when all they see is a slithery shroud of suspicion over all of these issues?