House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was respect.

Last in Parliament October 2019, as Conservative MP for Niagara Falls (Ontario)

Won his last election, in 2015, with 42% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Committees of the House May 9th, 2005

That is right.

There will not be any suggestion of a tax cut. We could check that when we assemble all the details. Canadians do not have to worry about getting any money back because it is all going to be spent. Why would it not have been fair to consider the fact that Canadians are overtaxed? This is why the government keeps stumbling over billions of dollars somewhere in the lobby. Every couple of days the Liberals find a new bucket full of money that they find a way to spend, when they could be spending on some of the things that I think would be very helpful. Obviously, there is Canada's armed forces. They are all back-end loaded. We always have to wait for that.

On some of the tax cuts that would give us a break, why would they not look at the federal excise tax in the wine and beer industries? I could appreciate that the wine industry is not everywhere in Canada, but it is important nonetheless. I bet a lot of hon. members have breweries in their ridings. Why would they not look at that excise tax, bring it into line with what the Americans have? Why they did not do it I have no idea. It would have been a great idea. How would it be so bad for the NDP? I am not suggesting that they reduce all taxes because I realize that is against their philosophy, but to reduce this one tax, do they not think it would make such a difference to both those industries? I am surprised that did not make the cut.

They talked about reducing airport rents. What about Pearson International Airport? How could they have talk about airport rents and then have forgotten one of the largest airports in the world? What a difference that would make to the travelling public in this country.

We are treated to the spectacle of a government that has been caught. They can deny all the want but the proof, among other things, that the Liberals have made up their minds about this evidence is that they have launched a lawsuit against a number of the companies and groups to try and get the money back. I think it is a fair assumption to make that they must be pretty convinced by the evidence because they have started a lawsuit to try and recover money from them.

It is too bad the Liberal Party could not be added as a co-defendant to get some of the money back from them. Why is it that the evidence that all these other groups have got the money is all right, but all the evidence that the Liberal Party got the money we cannot touch that one because it has not been proven yet? This is sworn testimony and guess what. All those people appearing before the Gomery commission are members of the Liberal Party. They are all officials of the Liberal Party. They are the people who ran the operation. They are the ones with whom other members of the Liberal Party are not agreeing.

This motion is a necessary one. I indicated to the House that the government through the House leader's office has reorganized the schedule and is not giving us the opposition days that are our due, that we have a right to expect. The opposition parties have been entitled to them for decades, for centuries. It is our right to bring this motion forward.

This motion is being brought forward calling on the Government of Canada to resign. The government should resign before it promises this country into bankruptcy. It should resign so we can get to the bottom of the corruption that has become a hallmark of the Liberal government.

I do not think that Canadians will buy the suggestion that only Liberals can get to the bottom of a Liberal scandal, that only Liberals can recognize other Liberals who are crooks. I do not buy that.

Committees of the House May 9th, 2005

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to add a few comments to the debate.

The member said that we on the opposition side are trying to frame the debate. This is a debate on confidence. How much clearer can we get? It calls on the government to resign. What part of that do they not understand? That is as clear as anything.

We had to bring this forward as part of a concurrence motion because the government has denied the opposition days to us that are our right. We are not getting them. That is very wrong. These rights are not some sort of a gift from the Liberal Party. They are built into our system which is hundreds of years old. We have a right to bring in these motions. That is exactly what we have done and it is going to be up to Parliament to decide. We are calling on the government to resign and we will have a vote on this, hopefully in the next 24 hours. Parliament can decide and Canadians can accept that.

I apologize to the member from P.E.I. I did not catch all of his comments. He said something about alliances and because he raised the matter I feel compelled to make some comments.

I am assuming that he is talking about the alliance that was struck between the Prime Minister and the Minister of Transport as one of the founders of the Bloc Québécois. I did not catch it all but I am assuming that is the one he talked about. The Prime Minister of Canada and one of the founding leaders of the Bloc Québécois made an arrangement. It seemed to me that he was throwing the question back to us on this side of the House.

All I can say is, ask the Prime Minister. I do not know what the deal is; I do not know the terms of the alliance, but it looks pretty cozy. They sit beside each other in the House of Commons and get the opportunity to chat, but what the details are of that alliance I am not in a position to say.

I suppose we could comment on the alliance between the New Democrats and the Liberals. I called it a marriage the last time I spoke on this. I guess the NDP budget details will be tabled tomorrow. We will all be very interested. When I heard this courtship was taking place and that a deal had been made, all I could think is that Canadian taxpayers had better hang on to their wallets. When the NDP and the Liberals agree on anything, we know there is going to be lots and lots of spending.

Committees of the House May 6th, 2005

My colleague says “very short” and that is probably the case, but regardless of how little time there is, the government should have a look at this, get the resources and get it done.

If it takes a new government with the member for Calgary--Nose Hill involved, I know that she will pursue this and she will see that those resources are there in the next government. Let me tell members that I think it is a big problem. I wonder if the member could comment on that.

Committees of the House May 6th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, I want to compliment the member for Calgary--Nose Hill. I think that was about as good a summation of the whole area and some of the problems and some of the challenges in that area as I have heard in quite some time. I could not help but think that in those 20 minutes she covered a lot of territory and certainly articulated for the House some of the challenges we have in this area .

One of the areas on which I am going to ask her to comment is the whole question of spousal reunification. One of the things that has been a big disappointment to me as a member of Parliament is the number of people who come in and indicate that they are trying to get their spouse, usually from the United States, into this country and they just cannot get the file processed.

I do not know whether it is a question of not enough resources. I suspect that it is. It is not enough just to have a policy; we must have the resources to back it up. I think that is what is not happening.

In my area of Hamilton and Niagara when we call on these cases, officials indicate that they are just starting to look at the applications from June of 2003. I hope this is not duplicated across the country, but I suspect that it is, and good heavens, we are not on this earth for hundreds of years. People want to get on with their lives. It is very frustrating for me as an MP when we make these inquiries and find that they have not started on those cases from almost two years ago. It is very difficult to try to explain to people.

One of the things I would hope for, however short the life of this government--

Sponsorship Program May 6th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, this is not selected testimony. All the testimony of the last year has shown Canadians beyond a doubt that this whole mess was an attempt for the members of the Liberal Party to line their pockets and fix the democratic process.

Why does the Prime Minister not apologize to all those honest Canadians who participated in the democratic process and abided by all the rules and admit once and for all that this whole mess had nothing to do with Canada but everything to do with Liberals helping themselves?

Sponsorship Program May 6th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, that is ridiculous.

A year ago the Prime Minister said, “One thing I can promise you is that I'm going to change the way the citizens feel about their government”. He will get no argument from me on that one, that is for sure.

Yesterday we heard the sworn testimony of former party director Michel Béliveau, who sent tens of thousands of dollars of cash into non-Liberal ridings in an attempt to fix the results of the 1997 election.

The Prime Minister said he does not want any dirty money. Why does he not start by sitting down with the members who benefited from that dirty money and get that money back to the taxpayers of this country?

Finance May 6th, 2005

Mr. Speaker, yesterday you ruled on my party's motion that this government should resign. You said that it was in order if it was brought before the House. Incredibly, the government House leader has indicated that even if it is passed, his government is prepared to ignore the will of the House.

I should not have to remind this House that the democratic traditions of this country are not some sort of gift from the Liberal Party. Will the Prime Minister use this opportunity to indicate his respect for the decisions of the House of Commons and repudiate the comments of the government House leader?

Quarantine Act May 5th, 2005

Madam Speaker, there are a couple of things that distinguish this amendment from the one that was dealt with this morning by the Speaker. The ruling this morning by the Speaker dealt with an amendment to a committee report. The Speaker was very specific as to the relevance of the amendment to that particular report.

This is a piece of legislation. Surely the House of Commons has the right to decide whether to reject it, accept it or call into confidence the government that ultimately sponsors that bill. That is our right. It has been our right I think for several hundred years. In our system, we have the right to reject that, reject the government that is sponsoring that, and indicate that we no longer have confidence in the group within this Parliament that is moving it. It is very different from what we dealt with this morning.

Committees of the House May 3rd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, it is no surprise to anyone who has followed the history of the Liberal Party to see Liberals on both sides of an issue. We have been treated to the spectacle in the last couple of months of supporters of the former prime minister in the Liberal Party who have made accusations against supporters of the present Prime Minister. There are members of the federal Liberal Party who have picked a fight and have made accusations against the provincial Liberals.

I am absolutely fascinated by the parliamentary secretary's speech. He is now attacking members of his own party. For Heaven's sake, the member for Brome—Missisquoi is a member of the Liberal Party. He had his own cheering section about an hour ago on this.

This is a Liberal motion brought in by a Liberal member and seconded by a Liberal member. Now the parliamentary secretary is saying that the Liberals down at that part of the chamber are against it and the Liberals at the other end are for it. It is one thing to pick a fight with the McGuinty Liberals or to say what one wants about the Chrétien Liberals, but this is within the House of Commons itself. Which half of the Liberal Party are we supposed to be listening to and accepting?

Committees of the House May 3rd, 2005

Mr. Speaker, that is a fascinating and interesting comment from the member. He said that these are “scattered little operations” with “no impact”. I reject that categorically. I hope he is not referring to the detachment in the region of Niagara. I am surprised that he would be referring to those detachments as “scattered little operations” with “no impact”. That is an insult to all the hard-working RCMP members. This is exactly what we are talking about: this lack of concern and a lack of appreciation for what they are doing. As for the idea that they could have had even more money for security but for the Conservatives and the opposition, as he said, it is absolutely ridiculous.

When is this government going to get out of the habit of blaming everyone else for its problems? The other day the Minister of National Revenue blamed the premier of Ontario for contributing to separatism; not Liberal corruption in Quebec but the premier of Ontario is to blame. For heaven's sake, he is in the member's political party. Okay, I appreciate that all the mess and the Gomery commission were made by members of the Liberal Party, but now they are going to tie in the premier of Ontario? They should get it straight, take responsibility for these things and quit insulting members of the RCMP.