House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was business.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Reform MP for Edmonton Southwest (Alberta)

Won his last election, in 1997, with 51% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Pre-Budget Consultations February 1st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my intervention is more to my hon. colleague by way of an observation than a question. As I listened to my colleague's presentation I was struck by the common sense embedded in virtually everything that I heard. I want him to know that there are some very strong parallels on both sides of this House.

If the hon. member could in a couple of minutes expand on the notion of income splitting for families.

This is a question that has come up time and time again, the inequities in our tax system between working parents where two parents are working and where the sacrifice is made with a stay at home family.

Pre-Budget Consultations February 1st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the view from this side of the House has improved considerably as well. Although I am new here, I think that is probably the case.

I spent some of the best years of my life, from 17 to 20 years of age, in the maritimes. I wonder if the member could think back to what caused the diminution of the prospects of the maritimes in the first place. After all, the first settlements in Canada took place in Nova Scotia in Annapolis Royal and the Bay of Fundy. What happened in the maritimes to cause the diminution of the prospects in the first place?

Cruise Missile Testing January 26th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I do not think that I can. I do not have the confidence to answer that question as I am sure the hon. member would want me to.

Cruise Missile Testing January 26th, 1994

Madam Speaker, I will be very succinct.

If the agreement that we were honour bound to live up to were an agreement of disarmament, I am sure the hon. member would have no problem in admonishing this House to live up to that agreement. It is the question that you lie to the devil that you do not like.

Cruise Missile Testing January 26th, 1994

Madam Speaker, it is an honour for me to rise today and speak as the representative for Edmonton Southwest and to represent the citizens of that fine part of the world.

Let me begin as others have before me in congratulating you and all members of the House on winning the election and thereby being entrusted with this high honour, this great responsibility and opportunity.

As this is my maiden address in the House, I wonder if hon. members would bear with me for a moment as I go through the traditional greetings and tell them a little about the constituency of Edmonton Southwest.

I would like to start, if I may, by thanking the electors of Edmonton Southwest for sending me here, and particularly all those who worked on my campaign so hard and so selflessly. I would also like very much to thank my family, without whose help I certainly would not be here today. They are probably the most interested people watching the debate at this very moment.

Just as an indication of things that may or may not go wrong, even if you think that everything is absolutely perfect, they are watching me today at a friend's. We get our television from the Anik II satellite, which is not working. So the world is not a predictable place. We have to be prepared for contingencies. This is what this cruise debate is all about. I will get back to that in a moment.

I wish to thank the voters of Edmonton Southwest for sending me here and I pledge to them and I pledge to you, my colleagues, that I will represent them with fidelity, with honour and with dignity in this House so as not to betray the trust they vested in me. I also pledge to represent this House with the same honour and dignity and fidelity so as not to betray the trust that we share as honourable colleagues here together.

It is also appropriate and traditional at this time to recognize members who represented the seat in other Parliaments. It is not always done but I think it is very appropriate for me to do so because this seat in the last Parliament and for the previous couple of Parliaments was represented by Mr. Jim Edwards. Jim, while we evolved to different political persuasions, always treated me and his political foes with dignity and kindness. I am sure that other members of this House would join with me in wishing Jim, his wife Sheila and family good fortune in the years ahead of them.

The constituency of Edmonton Southwest is just about 100 per cent urban. It has a bit of farmland on the extreme south and the extreme west ends but it is 90 per cent urban. It has very little industry, but a good deal of retail, and it is the home of the world's greatest shopping centre, regardless of whatever you may have heard about what exists in the United States. The Mall of the Americas will fit into a corner of the great West Edmonton Mall, which is a tourist destination that everyone should take in as they go through the wonderful, beautiful province of Alberta.

Edmonton Southwest has a good mix of people. It is much like this Parliament. It is wonderful to sit here and see the mix that is in this Parliament, which is truly representative of our great country. Edmonton Southwest has aboriginal Canadians. It has recent immigrants. It has children of immigrants who were not so recent. It is a very pluralistic constituency, and as an example the Toronto-Dominion Bank I deal with is bilingual. The signs outside are in English and Chinese. Our constituency and our country is changing, it is evolving. We should recognize that and we should embrace it. We should not be afraid of it. The electors and the residents of Edmonton Southwest, I think, do embrace the pluralistic nature of our society.

The voters of Edmonton Southwest sent me to Ottawa with a very clear mandate, and that mandate was to represent them in Ottawa and not the other way around. They sent me with a mandate to inculcate a sense of parsimony and of personal responsibility in government. They sent me here to be part of a Parliament that would get a handle on the outrageous systemic overspending that has been a hallmark of governments at all levels in Canadian society for the last 20 years. They sent me here to try and inculcate with all of our hon. colleagues a sense that we cannot go on this way forever. Sooner or later we have to start living within our means. We need to recognize the situation in the world and in our country as it is, not as we would wish it to be.

My constituents also sent me here with another mandate. That was to be forthright, direct, and honest in dealing with the Bloc. We want our Canada to stay united but we want it to be united on a solid foundation. That means all of the protagonists in this great debate that is going to rise of its own in a year or so need to get everything out on the table and deal with it honestly so that one way or another we can put the matter behind us and get on with the future.

That is precisely the kind of commitment I make and that I make to my hon. colleagues of the Bloc. I promise them it will be a constructive and honest debate. I wish to be a part of it representing my constituents who, make no mistake, want us to remain a united Canada.

Let me get to the reason for this debate. I will not speak a lot about it because virtually everything I have to say on the cruise missile has already been said by others over the course of the day, many very eloquently and many direct from the heart.

I do not pretend to be an expert on defence and I certainly do not pretend to be an expert on the cruise missile. I asked if I could participate in this debate because I wanted to put forward the feelings of the residents I represent in Edmonton Southwest about this kind of issue, an issue where the word of Canada is really at stake. Make no mistake, that is what we are talking about. We are talking about the veracity of our word when we make a deal in the community of nations.

That is the underlying theme of the position I would like to bring to this debate. When our national government makes an undertaking with another government it is in essence making an

agreement or a commitment on behalf of each of us as individual citizens.

There is a truism therefore that comes into play in a situation like that. The truism is that your word is your bond. We are only as good as our word individually, and collectively as a nation.

Our government at the time committed us to an agreement and we are therefore honour bound to live up to it today. The bottom line is that we should allow these tests to proceed for the following reasons.

We made an agreement with the United States in good faith and we should stick to it. Cruise missiles may be used to deliver conventional ordinances. Many countries now have the ability to manufacture and use cruise missiles and therefore it is in our best interests to learn how to track and intercept them.

There is a defensive nature to the testing of cruise missiles which needs to be recognized. Unless cruise missiles are flown in a test mode how would our pilots and how would our radar interceptors ever get the ability or the knowledge to learn how to intercept them?

The test corridor is in a sparsely settled area thereby posing little or no inconvenience or damage to Canadians or to wildlife. I do recognize the points made by the hon. member who addressed this House prior to me that it is an inhabited territory. There are people who do live there and we should not go through this without at least getting their permission or their leave to do it just as a matter of courtesy.

An extremely important consideration is that we have an obligation to co-operate with our NORAD partner under whose protective umbrella the western world has lived for 40 years. Not to mention the fact as others have made the point before me that we are going into bilateral negotiations with the Americans from time to time. How would you feel if you had been giving comfort to and looking after your neighbour for 40 years and when you wanted to borrow his lawnmower he said no.

There is a quid pro quo here. We have to work together.

Cruise Missile Testing January 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I too wish to thank the hon. member, my colleague and I hope, my friend, for his very fine maiden speech. Although he indicates that he did not have much time to be made ready, he certainly did a good job, especially on some of the technical details.

I have a hypothetical question to put to the member, Mr. Speaker, and if I could be forgiven for a hypothetical question I would be happy to accept a hypothetical answer. That is, if this test were to be taking place in northern Quebec rather than in the northwestern part of Canada, would the hon. member's comments, concerns and questions be the same?

Cruise Missile Testing January 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I wish to commend the hon. member opposite for a very well crafted and informative presentation. I do not have a question. I merely wanted to rise and tell him it was a very illuminating and very well crafted presentation.

Speech From The Throne January 24th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I wish to applaud the transparent nature of the minister in assigning or trying to determine which Canadian city is going to get this much coveted NAFTA environmental secretariat.

After the decision has been made will the selection criteria and the respective bids by the respective cities be made public? Who makes the final decision?

Speech From The Throne January 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I wish to congratulate the member for Parry Sound-Muskoka. It is indeed one of the most beautiful and picturesque areas of the country. I appreciate his comments, as do other members of the House I am sure, concerning the sacrifice that all of our families endure with our being here. It was very kind of him to mention that and make that consideration.

As a small businessman it was interesting to hear the extent of his concern with small business. From his background as a banker he would certainly have an interesting perspective, one that would be quite different to many people who were actual doers. It is similar to the person who knows how to drive but cannot get a driver's licence.

My question to the hon. member from Parry Sound is the following. In the Liberal red book there is a statement to the effect that the Liberal government would adjust personal guarantees to 25 per cent. I believe it reads that it would guarantee the first 25 per cent.

Has the member considered, particularly with his experience as a banker, if the government were to assume the guarantee on the first 25 per cent, what impact would that have on the operation of that business? Would it not be advisable, if the government were going to guarantee anything, which of course is debatable, to guarantee the last 25 per cent and not the first 25 per cent? If it is my money and my constituents' money that is being used as a guarantee I would like to have the small businessman laying awake at nights trying to figure out how to pay back that money.

Investment Canada January 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question.

I appreciate the comments of the minister. I wonder if the minister would advise the House whether or not the president of Investment Canada has been called to account for this spending. How can a person in a position of authority and responsibility waste money in this regard and still have a parsimonious impact or effect in his daily job?