House of Commons photo

Elsewhere

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was federal.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Calgary Southwest (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 65% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply September 21st, 2000

Mr. Speaker, while the member's presentation had some interesting points, and I am sure he is sincere, from this side of the House the member ruined the whole effect of his speech by making a completely outlandish statement at both the beginning and the end. The statement was that the problem of high fuel prices had nothing to do with high taxes. In other words, the government assumes no responsibility for its role in high gas prices when up to 40% of the price consists of tax.

The member went on to blame the oil companies and the distributors, which is an old line from both the Liberals and the NDP. Suppose we accept the proposition that back in the old days the big oil companies dictated the price of oil, what is the highest they ever got crude oil prices up to? It was $3 a barrel. When the governments got involved through the OPEC cartel and through the response of the western nations the price went up to $30 a barrel. At least 40% of the problem is government intervention in that sector and government involvement through taxes.

Why does the hon. member not accept that 40% of the responsibility for the problem of high energy prices is the tax component and support the motion that is before the House?

Canada Development Corporation April 5th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the memo from the office of the ethics counsellor dated July 6 noted that finance had undertaken to provide relevant documents should they come into its possession.

It then said “Finance cannot omit that we did fax a copy of the CDC minutes, and should work on the basis that it is probably known we faxed the minutes to them”.

It is known that finance had these documents which shed light on this conflict of interest situation. Why then on July 8, in response to our access to information request, did finance deny having any—

Canada Development Corporation April 5th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the ethics investigators went to Calgary to investigate a conflict of interest situation involving the finance minister, Connaught Laboratories and the Canada Development Corporation.

They must have found something interesting because we know from a memo concerning that investigation that they faxed copies of certain CDC minutes to the finance department, but when we asked for this information under an access to information request the finance department denied that it had such minutes.

What is it that the finance minister does not want us to know about this conflict of interest?

Human Resources Development March 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, they did not do anything until after they had been caught. The employees at HRDC were even intimidated from reporting breaches of ethics. Listen to this quote on ethics from the same audit:

Only three in ten employees agree that people...can voice concerns about ethical breaches without repercussion.

The government was warned about this in 1998. If the minister were concerned about these problems, why did she do nothing about them until after the $1 billion boondoggle was exposed?

Human Resources Development March 29th, 2000

Move a little further to the right, Mr. Speaker, and that seems to bother some of them.

Listen to these quotes from the internal audit: “Greater emphasis should be placed—on ethics and integrity”; “accountability mechanisms not functioning”; “weaknesses in financial controls continue to surface”; “lack of monitoring of contribution projects”; and “weaknesses found in prudence, probity, economy, efficiency and effectiveness”.

Why did the minister fail to address any of these concerns until after the $1 billion boondoggle had been exposed?

Human Resources Development March 29th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, listen again to these quotes from the 1998 internal HRDC audit: “Greater emphasis should be placed—on ethics and integrity”. “Accountability mechanisms”—

Export Development Corporation March 23rd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, no one is objecting to legitimate export financing or humanitarian activity. What taxpayers find offensive is EDC lending money to huge corporations which are perfectly capable of financing their own purchases, in order for those companies to buy goods and services from Liberal connected companies in Canada.

For example, Brazilian oil giant Petrobras got a $10 million line of credit from EDC to buy products from Earth Canada. That liberally connected corporation's board was graced with the Prime Minister's pals, Gilles Champagne and René Fugère. Why should taxpayers be assisting huge foreign firms to—

Export Development Corporation March 23rd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing what these Liberal ministers choose to ignore, and it is always at the taxpayers' interest.

The human resources minister boasts about her department's projects but ignores a billion dollar boondoggle. The trade minister boasts about EDC but completely ignores $2.8 billion in bad debts for which taxpayers are liable. How is the minister holding EDC accountable for bad loans for which the taxpayers are on the hook?

Export Development Corporation March 23rd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is amazing to watch the trade minister boast about the work of the Export Development Corporation and completely ignore its greatest defect.

Yesterday the trade minister said “in the last 50 years—the Canadian government has only granted about $1 billion to the EDC”, only a billion. What he failed to mention is that taxpayers are on the hook for all of EDC's bad loans and that total is now $2.8 billion. By ignoring this loss of taxpayer dollars, why is the minister making exactly the same mistake he made as minister of human resources?

Human Resources Development March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, there is a more likely explanation but the minister will not give it. That is that there are no fixed criteria for allocating these grants because the government likes it that way.

Under the guise of flexibility, the government can dole out grants not only to legitimate recipients but also to its friends and donors regardless of whether or not they qualify.

When the minister says that flexibility is her guideline, is she not really saying that the door is open to a political and patronage directed granting system?