House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was cbc.

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

Won his last election, in 1997, with 65% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Canadian Broadcasting Corporation September 29th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, remember when you were a kid and your mother forced you to eat broccoli even though you despised it? It looks like good old mother corp is trying to force Canadians to swallow yet another concocted dish. This one tastes more like stale fish.

First, the government floated the idea of taxing theatre tickets and movie rentals to raise revenues for the floundering CBC. I guess giving it over one billion bucks per year just is not enough. Now CBC television wants cable companies across the country to carry a new French language all-news station. It seems the companies do not want to carry it so mother corp wants the CRTC to force them to run it, even if no one wants the service, and this with our national debt exploding at over $530 billion.

At least when mom forced us to eat our broccoli she had our best interests in mind and she did not charge us for it.

Petitions September 29th, 1994

Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 36 I am pleased to rise to present seven petitions on behalf of my constituents from Yellowhead. Three of these petitions come from the communities of Neerlandia and Barrhead, two from the town of Hinton and one petition each from Onoway and Drayton Valley.

These petitioners ask that Parliament do the following: that Parliament not indicate societal approval of same sex relationships; that Parliament amend the Criminal Code to extend protection to unborn human beings; and that Parliament not sanction the aiding or abetting of suicide or active or passive euthanasia.

Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, in so far as the human resources review is concerned it has been so on and off that no one really knows where it is right now.

Our policy is to cease funding to regional economic development. The reason why Alberta and to some extent B.C. have diversified their economies so well has not so much to do with federal funding, it has to do with the provinces providing the right kind of atmosphere and climate for these diversifications to occur.

Department Of Industry Act September 26th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak on this bill.

Bill C-46 provided the federal government a chance to do more to change the status quo. This bill will give the Minister of Industry powers relating to regional economic development programs in Ontario and Quebec. This is outlined in part I, subclause 4(2) of the bill.

Will these powers actually extend to the Minister of Industry and will he retain these powers or will the Governor General continue to vest to the Minister of Finance control over the federal office of regional development Quebec? We will be watching these developments very closely.

It is clear that present ways of administering government lack effectiveness and efficiency. I need only point to the federal debt which is well over the $500 billion mark and rising to illustrate that point.

By the end of the next three years this government will have added approximately $97 billion to the federal debt. That is the highest increase in the history of Canada for any three year period. The so-called fiscal plan of the government shortchanges all Canadians. The plain fact is that fixing the deficit targeted at 3 per cent of GDP is not good enough when our federal debt is at 71 per cent and the total public debt is nearly 100 per cent of GDP respectively.

The government must change the way it operates now if it is going to bring the country's financial house in order. Bill C-46 does little to achieve this goal which is the main reason we cannot support it.

Bill C-46 is a statement of what the Department of Industry does. This bill gives the minister sweeping powers to create an environment where government is the central tool of economic development and deeply involved in the private sector. My colleague from Okanagan Centre went into great detail in that area.

There were 52 Reform MPs elected for some very fundamental reasons. The Canadian electorate wants change to the system. Last year's election was the first wave to bring about that change. One of the reasons Reformers were elected has to do with our policy regarding private enterprise. Reformers believe that private enterprise must be the engine which drives the economy. A dollar left in the pocket of the businessman is more efficiently spent than a dollar spent by the government. This is common sense. Businesses are in the business of creating jobs, making and investing money and unfortunately governments are in the habit of spending it, very often frivolously.

Reformers value enterprise and initiative. We see the government's role as fostering and protecting an environment in which initiative and enterprise can be exercised by individuals and groups. Regional development programs have the potential to create waste and abuse. It is no surprise that a senior cabinet minister from Quebec is currently in charge of FORD-Q. Nor is it a surprise that a senior cabinet minister from the west is in charge of Western Economic Diversification. And the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is administered by the Minister of Public Works and Government Services.

These regional development programs, which account for well over $1 billion per year, do little for the long term benefit of the country. They are supposed to enhance employment opportunities, strengthen the national economy, stimulate investment and promote the interests and protection of Canadian consumers.

These are not my musings, they come straight from Bill C-46. However I submit that these programs do very little to achieve their self-proclaimed goals. FORD-Q is an example of how a regional development program just does not stack up. The objective of FORD-Q, as outlined in the 1994-95 main estimates, part III, is to promote the economic development of the regions of Quebec with low incomes, slow economic growth or

inadequate possibilities for productive employment, by emphasizing long term economic development and sustainable employment and income creation.

In an address to the Standing Committee on Industry in May the finance minister waxed eloquent, as he usually does when he speaks, about the so-called merits of FORD-Q. He told the committee:

Over the last six years FORD-Q's activities in all the regions of Quebec have created remarkable spin-offs: $1.1 billion invested in more than 3,600 projects, a total investment of nearly $5.8 billion and 56,000 jobs. We have enjoyed outstanding success.

I find it very interesting that the finance minister considers spending over $103,000 for one job to be an efficient use of taxpayers' money. What is even more interesting is what the finance minister said to the committee in his next breath:

Quebec is nonetheless saddled with an unemployment rate that approaches 13 per cent.

The evidence is there. In the last six years FORD-Q has done little to promote long term economic development and sustainable employment. Quebec has an unemployment rate higher than the national average, yet part of FORD-Q's mandate is to promote sustainable employment.

Additionally, FORD-Q was to help convince Quebec to stay in Canada. It is a miserable failure in that area as well.

It is important to point out that FORD-Q is not the only regional development program which falls short of its mandate. The Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency also merits comment. Since ACOA launched its co-operative program in 1989, a program of federal-provincial economic development initiatives, two things have happened: first, the average unemployment rate in the Atlantic region has increased by nearly 2 per cent; second, the number of people on welfare has grown by nearly 3 per cent.

I ask the question: Has ACOA really made the Atlantic economy more viable? The numbers would seem to indicate otherwise, as would the deplorable state of the fishing industry, especially in Newfoundland.

Western Economic Diversification is another example of a regional development program engaging in huge expenditures of taxpayers' dollars. This year's budget for WED is over $452 million. Its mandate is to promote the development and diversification of western Canada's economy. Since its inception in 1987 to the end of fiscal 1993 WED has doled out more than $1 billion to over 3,000 projects. That is over $330,000 per project, never mind the fact that only 40,000 jobs, many of them short term, have resulted from this huge expenditure.

The average welfare rate in some of the western provinces has gone up by almost 2 per cent in the last three years, and the unemployment rate has followed a similar path. Again the numbers indicate that regional development programs are not very effective.

As a critic for regional economic development, I would like to relate some information we obtained which shows why these programs are questionable expenditures of taxpayers' dollars.

FORD-Q recently finished up its support program for fashion design. This program committed $2.9 million to raise the profile of fashion design from the Montreal region. Of that $2.9 million, $2.6 million was in the form of grants, money which is not repaid. On researching this particular program we found that three companies went out of business shortly after receiving their grants. There were three additional companies for which FORD-Q officials could not account. Why would FORD-Q give money to these companies without keeping tabs on their progress?

We looked into the whereabouts of these companies and found that only two of the companies were still in operation. Combined, the grants for these companies totalled over $234,000. That money has gone up in smoke. FORD-Q officials cannot even keep track of where the money is going. FORD-Q under the Montreal development fund program is now handing out another $1.5 million to the fashion design sector. How much of that money will go unaccounted?

Taxpayers would rather manage their own money than have one branch of the government take it and pump it back into programs that just do not seem to work. There are examples this kind right across the country. Taxpayers deserve a better fate than having their money squandered on so-called regional development programs. It is no wonder division exists in the country when questionable programs for every region of Canada waste taxpayers' dollars.

As a new government the Liberals have a chance to truly change the way things are done. These regional development programs were used by the Tories as pork-barrelling tools. I would encourage the Minister of Industry to do a thorough review of all the regional economic development programs, including western economic diversification.

In fact I ask the minister to go even a step further and turn all economic development over to the provinces.

Rod Hay September 21st, 1994

Mr. Speaker, my very first member's statement in the House was about a young cowboy from the heart of Yellowhead country, Mayerthorpe, Alberta. I spoke about Rod Hay, a tough cowboy who has seen it all.

I am not talking about the beautiful countryside. I am talking about mud, dust and pain. In fact Rod walks around with plates, screws and wire holding his hip together because of a rodeo mishap three years ago.

He is almost in as bad shape as I am. All of the pain and hard work has paid off for this 25-year old cowboy. Today Rod is $50,000 richer thanks to the biggest rodeo win in his life, the saddle-bronc championship at the greatest outdoor show on earth, The Calgary Stampede.

The win puts an exclamation point on Rod's illustrious career as the best bronco buster in Canada. Rod is also the reigning Canadian saddle-bronc champion and he will represent Canada at the world championships this fall.

I ask all members to join me in cheering for Rod Hay.

Criminal Code September 20th, 1994

It must be a good community because it sure did not happen because of the system of justice that he promotes.

Criminal Code September 20th, 1994

I do not know, Mr. Speaker, did he want me to reply to that? If I would I could be standing here for quite awhile and, Mr. Speaker, you would rise as well.

In so far as hate motivated crime is concerned I did not mention that in my speech. I will say that it would promote a two-tiered system. Is vicious assault less serious than assault just done for kicks? What about equality before the law? Assault is assault regardless of motivation.

The member talks about the high crime rate in his riding. I suspect that if-

Criminal Code September 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I would suggest that they just do not go far enough. They will not act as a deterrent and the punishment is still not there for the crimes that I described and that we hear about every day.

There is too much going on and that is just not specific to the riding I represent. In fact my constituency has a lower crime rate than a lot of other ridings. Multiply that by all the ridings across the country. I mentioned only a few of the incidents in Yellowhead. The bill does not go far enough. It does nothing to deter. We have to get stronger, tougher laws so that people will think twice before they engage in a criminal activity.

Criminal Code September 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and agree wholeheartedly with what the hon. member from Nova Scotia said in the House some time ago. I agree with her.

As to the increase in sentence if it can be determined that a crime is motivated by hate, I cannot agree with that personally because I do not know how you can go about determining that. It seems to me it would be a nightmare for people but of course a haven for lawyers.

Criminal Code September 20th, 1994

Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. member for his question.

We cannot support the bill. Even though we support some aspects of the bill we will not be supporting it. It contains too many things we do not support and that we see will really do nothing to solve the stories that have been talked about and to the stories that I have just related.

We need deterrents that will work. We could move amendments but we would be whistling in the dark. We could move an amendment to introduce capital punishment or corporal punishment as my colleague suggested. Maybe we will just do that.