House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was children.

Last in Parliament March 2011, as Conservative MP for Lethbridge (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 2008, with 67% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply February 2nd, 1999

Madam Speaker, I think the issue we are faced with is whether the law is in effect or not. The appeal process has been started. The appeal process could go on for who knows how long.

The result of that appeal process we do not know because we do not know if the rest of the judges will support what Canadians want.

The issue is that parliamentarians should act now and invoke this notwithstanding clause to protect our kids.

Supply February 2nd, 1999

Madam Speaker, I thank my colleague for the question.

Earlier today we pursued the Prime Minister on the question of whether he would allow his members to have free votes.

We have in our hands a petition signed by 70-plus members of the party who suggest that they do exactly the right thing. It is a letter to the Prime Minister.

When the Prime Minister was asked if he would allow his members to have a free vote, he stood and said “This is not about free votes. This is about process”.

I suggest that it is not about either. This is about our children being attacked by perverts. If members opposite do not have the guts to stand and protect our children, then they should not stand at all.

Supply February 2nd, 1999

Madam Speaker, after that rousing speech and retort I will try to carry on.

Along with most Canadians I was shocked and outraged when we heard that a B.C. supreme court judge had struck down the section in the Criminal Code that prohibited possession of child pornography. The judge in his decision stated that Robin Sharpe's freedom of expression was violated by the Criminal Code which prohibits possession of child pornography.

It is not at all surprising that such an offensive attack on the values of society comes from the benches of the unelected and the unaccountable. Judicial activism, a recently coined term, refers to rulings by judges which go well beyond the intent of the law. These decision substantively change the law to the point where judges have taken on the role of legislators or law makers as opposed to simply interpreting and applying the law.

The courts have turned free some of the worst criminals in society, from drunk drivers to child pornographers. These judges who are acting without an electoral mandate are singlehandedly changing the laws in this country.

We as elected members of parliament make the laws that govern this nation right here in the House of Commons. So why are we allowing these laws to be arbitrarily changed on the strength of a decision made by a few unelected, unaccountable officials? How many more shocking decisions are Canadians going to have to endure before this activism is stopped?

The first section of the charter guarantees the rights and freedoms set out in it are subject only to reasonable limits described by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society.

What was so democratic about striking down a portion of section 163? In interpreting this section, a judge is to apply a test of proportionality, balancing the interests of society with that of the individual. I must say I cannot imagine that any legislative assembly in this land would agree with this decision, a decision that puts the rights of the pedophile before the rights of his victims, the children of our society.

Much has been discussed today but I want to spend just a few moments discussing pornography and the effects it can have on the user in society.

Sex is everywhere. We read about it every morning in the papers. We hear about it all day long on the radio and watch it on the national news each night. No one in society can escape it. This fascination has fuelled a huge increase in the growth of pornography.

Here are a few stats. The adult industry is worth over $10 billion a year. In 1996 the amount of hardcore video rentals numbered 665 million. Each week 150 new pornography videos are produced in the United States. Hotel guests spent $175 million in 1996 to get pornography in their rooms. Between 9 p.m. and 1 a.m. each night over 250,000 people dial phone sex numbers. In the United States the number of stores distributing hardcore pornography have even outnumbered McDonald's restaurants. McDonald's was the former king of capitalism.

Although these figures are for the U.S., it does not lessen their impact. Nowhere has this growth been so prevalent as on the Internet. By some estimates, some 17 million web pages are dedicated to pornography. Detective Noreen Waters of the Vancouver police, an expert on child pornography, testified in the B.C. case that with the advent of the Internet there has been a veritable explosion of the availability of child pornography.

Dr. Michael Mehta, a professor from Queen's University, has studied the Internet extensively and estimates that up to 20% of the activity on the web has to do with child pornography. This number is even great when one considers all the other obscene material, material that is illegal under Canadian law but yet is available on the net.

However, there are some that would say that an individual has every right to view whatever he wants in the privacy of his home. This may be true but there have to be limits.

Before I clarify that, I want to explain the harmful effects that pornography can have on its users. First of all, it is important to understand that pornography is addictive and, as with all addictions, more and more exposure is needed to satisfy the cravings. These sexual addictions do not happen overnight. They take time to develop. There is a gradual progression from the soft porn pages of Playboy to the hardcore images on videos. However, just as not everyone who tries a cigarette becomes addicted, not everyone who uses pornography will become addicted.

However, once an individual develops an addiction, almost nothing can come between them and their cravings. In this case the judge heard from expert witnesses who testified that pedophiles often go to great lengths to get their hands on explicit pornography and use it in ways that put children at risk.

Can this government not see that each day a pornography addict is allowed to possess this disgusting and obscene material that it is aiding and abetting his addiction? Each day their addiction is strengthened, each day they need more to satisfy their perversions and each day they are closer, if they are not already, to abusing children.

When pornography users become pornography addicts everyone around them suffers. Their family suffers, their colleagues suffer, society suffers and everyone becomes a victim.

In spite of these effects, pornography is legal. In a decision of the supreme court R. v Butler, Mr. Justice Sopinka acknowledged that pornography was a legitimate freedom of expression but it did allow reasonable limits to be imposed. These reasonable limits do not try to legislate morality but rather they try to protect society from the harmful effects of pornography.

When parliament declared that child pornography was illegal it realized that the rights of innocent children, the most vulnerable members of society, were more important than the rights of child molesters.

If this ruling is allowed to stand we may as well declare open season on all our children; not even infants will be safe. The sexual deviants who prey on young children have no limits. According to investigators it is not uncommon to find images depicting children in sexual acts. Police have even investigated cases where babies were violated.

The Internet has spawned a huge underground network where pedophiles exchange pictures and information on hunting down children and making child pornography. This material is used by pedophiles to groom their victims, to lure their victims into thinking that abuse is normal and that they should enjoy it.

What happens to the children who are victimized in pornography? As an example, consider that 85% of teen prostitutes were abused as children. We cannot waste any more time in correcting this wrong. One child pornographer has already been set free. How many more perverts are sitting in their houses surrounded by their dirty pictures ready to abuse another child?

Appealing this decision could take months, if not years, and then we have no guarantee that the judge will respect the wishes of the Canadian people.

When the charter was drafted a section was included that will allow any legislative assembly, including parliament, to enact the notwithstanding clause. This clause was not meant to be used often. But if it cannot even be used to outlaw child pornography, what can it be used for?

The family is being attacked on all sides in our society. The government discriminates against it through its tax system. Special interest groups mock it and now it is being violated by the courts.

This is tragic because the family, without question, is our most valuable institution and the heart of our social order. It is the place where children are brought into the world and cared for. It is where they learn trust, love and security as well as the values and behaviour that will make them good citizens and in turn good parents themselves.

Many of us in this House are parents and grandparents. We know how precious our children are to us. We know that if our children are being abused by these pornographers we would demand action immediately. We would not waste any time in doing what we could to protect our children. We would act now.

The Reform Party recognizes the importance of children and families in our society which is why we have introduced this motion today. However, our good intentions are not enough. We need the support of the government benches to pass this motion.

I know there are many Liberals who have signed a petition asking for exactly the same thing we are asking for, a petition to the Prime Minister, a petition to take immediate action. I want these members, these parents and these grandparents to stand together with the members on this side and do the right thing.

This is not about partisan politics. This is about the well-being of our children. Why can we not band together today, put aside partisan politics and do the right thing? Let us do it for our kids.

Government Of Canada December 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, last week as community groups across the nation put the final touches on the Christmas hamper programs, they were shocked to hear that the Liberal government was considering tax breaks for millionaire athletes.

The government has been one disappointment after another. It fails to introduce tough young offender laws and has an immigration system that attracts criminals.

Government revenues have skyrocketed but it offers no real tax relief. It has destroyed the morale and competency of our armed forces. It lets hepatitis C victims die without compensation. It lets family farms and small businesses go bankrupt because of heavy taxes, yet ignores families that are asked to be politically correct.

We have a prime minister, a modern day Emperor Nero, who fiddles while he watches the country crumble as a direct result of his policies.

The government's lack of vision is destroying the country. History tells us what happened to Rome. What will history tell us of this government?

The Environment December 4th, 1998

Madam Speaker, it is my privilege to stand today to speak to Motion M-37, moved by my hon. colleague from Davenport.

The member for Davenport has been chairing the Standing Committee on Environment and Sustainable Development as we go through CEPA, a bill which has some 380 clauses and some 480 amendments. So his task in the last few weeks has been rather daunting. It is encouraging to see that he still has the strength to be up on Friday speaking to his private member's motion.

We do not agree on how to get to a clean environment, in most respects, but we do agree that a clean environment is important.

The motion reads:

That in the opinion of this House, the government should act decisively, in response to the evidence in the Canadian Arctic Contaminants Assessment Report, to eliminate persistent organic pollutants by working to advance the POPs protocol.

I think it is important in order to fully understand this motion to explain the origin of the POPs protocol. The roots of this protocol can be traced back to the creation of the United Nations Economic Commission for Europe, a forum at which the countries of North America, western, central and eastern Europe and central Asia came together to forge the tools of economic co-operation.

This large group of countries, with close historical ties, accounts for 64% of world production, but it also is responsible for 60% of the world's CO2 emissions. These facts illustrate the region's responsibilities toward its own people as well as toward those of the other regions of the world. They are the backdrop against which UN/ECE's activities are carried out. The ECE is intended to be a forum for dialogue aimed at bringing about better understanding and agreement on common guidelines and policies. Where agreements are negotiated and assistance activities prepared, its main purpose is to harmonize the policies and practices of its member countries.

The ECE has many different divisions, one of which deals with environment and human settlements. One of the many bodies of this division is the executive body for the convention on long range transboundary air pollution. This was drafted after scientists investigated the link between sulphur emissions in continental Europe and the acidification of Scandinavian lakes and later studied the possibility that air pollutants could travel several thousand kilometres before deposition and damage occurred. This implied that co-operation at the international level was necessary to solve problems such as acidification.

The convention was the first international legally binding instrument to deal with problems of air pollution on a broad regional basis. It was signed in 1979 and entered into force in 1983. Since its entry into force the convention has been extended by seven protocols, one of which is a protocol on persistent organic pollutants. The executive body adopted the protocol on persistent organic pollutants on June 24, 1998 in Denmark. It focuses on a list of 16 substances that have been singled out according to agreed risk criteria. The list contains eleven pesticides, two industrial chemicals and three byproduct contaminants. The ultimate objective is to eliminate any discharges, emissions and POPs.

The protocol bans the production and use of some products. Others are scheduled for elimination at a later stage. The protocol severely restricts the use of DDT, HCH and PCBs. The protocol includes provisions for dealing with the wastes of products that will be banned. It also obliges parties to reduce the emissions of dioxins, furans, PAHs and HCBs below their 1990 levels. It lays down specific limit values for the incineration of municipal hazardous and medical waste.

Canada has been host to the first of five negotiating sessions to be held over the next two years that will eventually see a legally binding treaty by 2000. What does this mean to Canada? The Canadian Arctic was once considered pristine because of its remoteness and sparse population. However, over the past 50 years the north has been exposed to contaminants originating from local sources such as heavy industry and from distant regions of the world through air and sea currents.

Since this is the case we are faced with quite a dilemma. Many of the contaminants of concern in the Arctic are pesticides and industrial chemicals that are no longer used in Canada and that in many cases have been banned or restricted for use in most of the developed world. However, they continue to be used by developing countries and can be found in Canadian lakes, rivers and snow. It is important for developing countries to be part of any protocol to reduce pollution in the world. Canada has been a world leader in assessing the problem of long range airborne pollutants but it will require co-operation on a global scale before the pollution problem is properly assessed.

Arctic ecosystems are very fragile. The nature of these chemicals is such that they tend to accumulate in the tissues of living things. Animals at the top of the food chain have been found with unexpectedly high levels of these contaminants which is cause for some concern for Inuit people. The Inuit people rely heavily on naturally harvested foods such as fish, seals, caribou not only for their diet but also to maintain their culture.

If this were to be taken away the socioeconomic impact alone could be vast. Because of this heavy reliance on traditionally harvested foods northern aboriginal people are susceptible to exposure to the potential adverse effects of these contaminants. Although the Canadian arctic contaminants assessment report concludes there is not an immediate threat to the health of adults, there are concerns over possible health effects on unborn children and infants.

This motion is not the right way to fix the problem. The environmental damage to Canada's north is from more than just POPs. The motion is only a piecemeal solution to a much bigger problem. The government has not yet told Canadians how it is planning to deal with contaminated sites on federal lands.

Last week the auditor general recognized that the government has no idea how to deal with the estimated 5,000 contaminated sites located on crown land in Canada. It has no comprehensive view of the potential risk to health, safety and the environment associated with these sites. It does not yet have a complete and accurate view of the related contingent or actual liabilities.

The government has not developed and implemented a central timetable and has not finalized and implemented a high level environmental policy for common standards for due diligence in a consistent manner. There is still confusion over who would take a leadership role with respect to this mess, so as a result there is no leadership.

The Reform Party recognizes the right of all Canadians to dwell in a clean and healthy environment. It has been our policy from the beginning to support immediate long term restoration programs for areas of the environment damaged due to inadequate or improperly enforced regulations.

But this motion is not a long term restoration program for an area of the environment that has been damaged due to inadequate or improperly enforced regulations. It is a solution to only a small part of a greater problem.

The motion lets the government off too easy. When will we see a motion that would commit the government to a clear plan of action, a plan where it will take responsibility and show some leadership? It would be seriously remiss for this House to approve this motion, although I know it is not votable, while ignoring the bigger problems Canada's northern people face.

Canadian Farmers December 4th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the crisis in agriculture has reached new heights. North Dakota Senator Byron Dorgan has called on the Clinton administration to begin formal trade actions against Canada because of the deceptive trade practices of the Canadian Wheat Board.

Our farmers are reeling under the effects of this avoidable agricultural crisis. They are facing bankruptcy because of low commodity prices. They can hardly afford to feed their families, let alone their livestock. Worst of all, they have been blindsided by this government which stands idly by while they are being bullied by foreign politicians.

The day after tomorrow borders from Minnesota to Washington State will be blockaded. American producers are rallying public opinion, demanding an end to the predatory tactics of the Canadian Wheat Board.

The Minister for International Trade and the Minister of Agriculture and Agri-Food have done nothing to guarantee Canadian producers that their products will continue to flow freely across the border.

How much more abuse are our farmers going to have to take before this government steps in and demands an equal playing field?

Salaries For Stay At Home Mothers And Fathers December 3rd, 1998

Madam Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to speak to Motion No. M-486.

Family issues are very important to me as a husband, a father and a grandfather and they are important to my constituents.

I find it very encouraging that the quality of family life is finally receiving attention by this House. For too many years the family has been ignored in the mad rush to be politically correct. It is time the inequalities faced by stay at home parents by our current tax laws were being addressed. As I have said before in the House, as the family goes, so goes society.

I acknowledge this motion may be a step in the right direction, however I am concerned with this motion which I will read for the benefit of those who may not have heard it:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should legislate to grant a salary to mothers and fathers who stay at home to care for their children.

I am concerned this motion does not fully address the unfairness inherent in our tax code. The current Income Tax Act is discriminatory, plain and simple. It discriminates against loving parents who forgo the riches of a second income in order to provide parental care for their children.

I will illustrate with the example of two families living side by side. Family A has a single income of $60,000 and mom cares for the children at home. Family B has a combined income of $60,000 and daycare provides for the children. In spite of living side by side, family A has an after tax income of $3,365 less than that of family B. Why is there a difference? Because this government discriminates against families.

The Reform Party has a long history of representing the family. We are committed to fair family taxation. We have consistently called for revision of federal income tax regulations to end discrimination against parents who provide child care at home. We support equitable tax treatment for one income families with dependent children. Family taxation should be simple, flexible and efficient.

Reform would replace the child care expense deduction with a fully refundable child care expense credit. This is a much better method to address inequities in the tax structure. Paying parents a small stipend to stay at home with their children only encourages further government dependency in addition to creating another layer of inefficient bureaucracy. A child care expense credit would give parents the freedom to choose how to care for their children.

We recognize the most important caregiver for a child is its parent. Study after study show how important parental care is to the long term emotional stability of children. It is no coincidence that as we see the number of dual income families rise, we see youth crime skyrocket. Strong families are the foundation of our society and preventing crime starts with a commitment by the government to support our families.

The Canadian public is squarely behind me and my party on this issue. In a recent Southam News Compas poll, 82% stated that the government should make changing tax laws to allow one parent to stay home a priority. Eighty-one per cent of respondents indicated they want the government to make families the cornerstone of a wide range of policies. When working mothers were asked if they would rather stay home with their children or go to work, a majority said that they would rather stay home but felt they could not afford it. Why? Because of the oppressive taxes levied by this government.

There are elements in the Liberal caucus that do not agree with what I have to say next. Seventy per cent of Canadians feel that the needs of children receive too little attention in divorce courts. Sixty-two per cent feel that the needs of fathers are being ignored.

I have spoken with many fathers who have never seen their children after they got divorced. There are groups in this country supported by grants from this government that feel divorced fathers should have input into raising their children. I cannot imagine anything more heartbreaking than not being able to raise your own children.

The Reform Party supports the right of fathers to play an equal part in the upbringing of their children. There are members in the Liberal caucus who also support these efforts and I wish them all the best in their endeavours.

The people have spoken. Canadians want their government to ease pressure on working parents and to focus more policy on helping families. This government needs to realize the people of Canada elected it and it is time for the government to sit up and listen.

Indian Act November 27th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to speak to Private Member's Bill C-402.

This bill will amend the Indian Act to provide protection for individuals renting residential premises on Indian land by making provincial landlord and tenant legislation apply to those leases.

The impetus for this bill came from an incident in the Okanagan—Coquihalla riding in British Columbia. Although I am not a resident of this riding or of the province, I feel the implications of this incident are important to Canadians nationwide and certainly to constituents in my area.

Last November the 51 families of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park were evicted from their homes after Health Canada declared the sewage treatment facilities were inadequate and posed a serious health hazard. Under B.C. law it is normally the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the building and property are kept in a condition that makes the building reasonably comfortable to live in. Part of this responsibility is to maintain the building and property to health and safety standards. In the case of mobile home parks, it is the responsibility of the landlord to ensure the property is safe and habitable.

The unfortunate residents of the Driftwood Mobile Home Park enjoyed no such protections. Why? Because their homes were located on the property of the Penticton Indian band. Nobody had been inspecting this land because it fell under a grey area of the law.

I would like to give a bit of the history to put this incident into perspective. On March 30, 1988 under section 58(3) of the Indian Act, the minister granted authorization to lease Indian reserve land to Ethel and Margaret Kruger for their benefit. The term of this lease was from March 30, 1988 to March 30, 1998. The property of the lease was to be used for the purpose of the mobile home park operated by Sanmar Mobile Home Services.

When that firm created the park the septic fields were not engineered to handle the high volumes that are being experienced. As a result these fields have been saturated beyond a safe level and the overflow is creating a serious health hazard.

Health Canada's Indian health services branch, which is responsible for approving septic field installations on Indian land, claimed that it was never informed of the Driftwood septic installation. This breakdown in communication led to 51 families being torn from their community, many forced to abandon their homes without any compensation. If this situation were not tragic enough, the same fate may await other residents of mobile home parks located on the Penticton reserve land.

Health Canada has declared that both the Driftwood and Delta mobile home parks face serious health risks. Although the Sun Leisure and Riva Ridge parks have inadequate septic systems, Health Canada has not yet declared them to be a serious health risk.

The residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park were given 30-day eviction notices. In an effort to resolve this problem, my colleague organized a meeting between the minister of Indian affairs, the mayor of Penticton, Ms. Beth Campbell, and the local MLA, Rick Thorpe, and Chief Phillip of the Penticton Band.

Despite the efforts of those involved, a comprehensive solution was not reached and the hon. member's constituents lost their homes only one month before Christmas. This is at a time when people should be enjoying the fellowship of their friends and families in the comfort of their own homes, not worrying about where they will be living.

This incident should not be repeated but it is a very real possibility. Thousands of Canadians who rent federal Indian reserve land are in danger, citizens of Canada who have no idea that they have been left in limbo because the law does not recognize their rights.

The Indian Act is a complex one. For years different levels of government have been struggling with what the bill covers and what it does not cover. According to the Supreme Court of Canada there are only two ways for a non-Indian to be in lawful possession in a reserve, through the operation of sections 28(2) or 58(3).

Section 28(2) states:

The minister may, by permit, in writing authorize any person for a period not exceeding one year, or with the consent of the council of the band for any longer period, to occupy or use a reserve or to reside or otherwise exercise rights on a reserve.

Section 58(3) states:

The minister may lease for the benefit of any Indian, on application of that Indian for that purpose, the land of which the Indian is lawfully in possession without the land being designated.

It is under these sections that a 10-year lease was granted. Although it was not outlined in the lease, it was implicit in the agreements with the sublessees that they would be protected under the provincial landlord and tenant legislation. Indeed it was the responsibility of the lessee to provide at its expense all services and facilities required for use of the premise. This would include septic services.

However, because of the failure of Health Canada to inspect these services, the residents fell through the cracks. Although they appealed to the provincial landlord and tenant board they were not successful.

The Supreme Court of Canada stated that provincial legislation does not apply to residential tenancies on Indian reserves. Parliament has the exclusive power to legislate with respect to such tenancies. This was stated in Millbrook Indian Band v Northern Counties Residential Tenancies Board et al, 1978. Again, in Anderson v Triple Creek Estates, the supreme court stated that provincial legislation does not apply to an eviction dispute between a mobile home park tenant and the park proprietor. It continues to say that “although it may be unfair to deprive a person of an appeal against a termination at will of a tenancy, this matter can only be resolved on reserve land by federal authority”.

A letter from the British Columbia minister for municipal affairs and housing, Mr. Michael Farnworth, confirms this is a federal responsibility. He writes:

It is with profound regret that I see tenants facing eviction under these conditions, however the entire tenancy responsibility on federally owned lands lies with the federal government. It is apparent that there is a serious federal legislative and policy vacuum in this area, resulting in crippling impact on individuals and families who are tenants of federal lands in this province.

It is apparent that there is a responsibility on the part of the government to fill in this void. That is where Bill C-402 comes in. The bill is designed to prevent future Driftwoods from happening again by making existing provincial tenancy legislation apply to leases granted by the crown. The crown, the lessors, and the sublessors will be subject to provincial authorities that enforce the obligations of landlord and tenants.

Although I have already mentioned this, I will do so again for the benefit of members opposite. The landlord and tenant legislation in B.C. ensures that a landlord must maintain land or residential premises in compliance with health, safety and housing standards set out by the law. The crown and lessor will be responsible for meeting provincial standards set out under the various provincial residential tenancy acts.

Bill C-402 is a simple non-partisan amendment to the Indian Act that would prevent other Canadians from facing the tragedy of the unfortunate residents of Driftwood Mobile Home Park.

I realize that Bill C-402 is a non-votable item and that is very unfortunate. As has been explained in this House, it is a very unfortunate thing that we as members of parliament cannot help create laws.

The bill would ensure that Canadians are all treated equitably before the law. If any of the members opposite would care to see what Reform stands for, all they need to do is flip through the Reform Party blue book and peruse the statement of principles. The first statement says:

We affirm our commitment to Canada as one nation, indivisible, and to our vision of Canada as a balanced federation of equal provinces and citizens.

The last statement of principle states:

We believe in the true equality of all Canadian citizens, with equal rights and responsibilities for all.

I think it is absolutely plain to see this is a party dedicated to the equality of all citizens and I congratulate my colleague for bringing this forward. I know Liberal Party members think quite highly of the Reform Party blue book because they have, albeit it with mixed success, adopted many of our policies as their own.

However, they would do well to consider these two principles that are so core to the heart of our party. It is apparent through the actions of this government on many issues that it does not consider equality of all Canadians a thing to be grasped.

However, perhaps we should leave this debate for another day. It is because of my dedication to the equality of all citizens that I support this bill.

Canadian Farmers November 27th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, in September American farmers and politicians shut down the borders. They accused the Canadian Wheat Board of illegally dumping Canadian grain. They accused Canadian farmers of being subsidized by the Canadian Wheat Board. What did the responsible minister say? Don't worry, be happy; it is nothing but an election stunt.

It is time to worry. The Americans were dead serious then and they are dead serious now. On December 6 American farmers and ranchers from Minnesota to Washington state are planning another blockade. They are demanding an audit of the Canadian Wheat Board to prove that it is illegally dumping Canadian grain. They are demanding country of origin labelling on our agriculture products. They are demanding a moratorium on all grain and livestock imports.

These are not election stunts. These border closings are making a bad, critical situation worse for our Canadian farmers. How many more border closures will we see before this government gets serious about helping our farmers in Canada and at the international trading tables?

Environment November 18th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, nothing was achieved in Kyoto or in Argentina.

The U.S. Senate has stated that it will not sign the deal regardless of what Canada does. Developing countries will not buy into it.

Once again I ask the question. Where are Canadian families that are already overtaxed and with dwindling take home pay going to find another $7,000?