House of Commons photoLost his last election, in 2015, with 28% of the vote.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the eighth petition is signed by 163 of my constituents requesting Parliament to review the Young Offenders Act in an open and accountable process which addresses the following
principles: deterrents to the offender; accountability of the offender; and rights of the victim.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I also have five separate petitions, one signed by 130 constituents, another by 61, the third by 54, the fourth by 91 and the last by 283 requesting that government not enact any further firearms control for responsible gun owners, shooting clubs and firearms collectors and that legislation be changed to penalize those who use firearms in any crime.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the second petition is signed by 200 of my constituents who pray and request that Parliament reduce government spending instead of increasing taxes.
Petitions May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present petitions on a number of issues.
My first petition is signed by over 10,200 people from the west coast. They call upon Parliament to revoke the directive issued by the government to destaff lightstations. The petitioners call for a full public inquiry into the need for staffed lightstations and an acknowledgement of the safety they provide.
Privilege May 12th, 1995
Yes, Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that.
To further clarify the situation for the member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, I did not accuse the minister of conflict of interest. If he reads the question he will see that I did not do that. I did not say that anyone was co-opted by a constituent. I did not say that anyone had obtained a reward.
Privilege May 12th, 1995
Yes, Mr. Speaker. I have no problem withdrawing that word and using the word stubborn if that would resolve the issue.
Privilege May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, I did not hear all of the minister's comments, but what I am saying is that there is a conflict of interest or the appearance of a conflict of interest. I said that it was done knowingly or unknowingly. I am asking for the minister's clarification. I would like to pursue this matter. If the minister would like to clarify it for me that would be a good follow up. I will follow up through the regular mechanism of question period.
Indian Affairs May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, the member for Prince Albert was adopted by binding aboriginal ceremony into the Bird family of the Montreal Lake Band in a powwow about two years ago. Roy Bird, the chief of the band, is an important player in this family. The member for Prince Albert has been co-opted by the minister and is defending these negotiations with his adopted family.
Will the minister not agree that he has placed this member, knowingly or unknowingly, in a conflict of interest situation?
Indian Affairs May 12th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, just to clarify, the Reform Party does recognize treaty rights as solemn and binding obligations on the part of government.
The minister of Indian affairs has negotiated a draft co-management agreement for three million acres with the Montreal Lake Band near Prince Albert, Saskatchewan, without the participation of the province and without consulting rural municipalities. These are vigorously opposing the draft because it tramples on their responsibilities.
The minister stated on Monday on the CBC that he would not back up "one G- inch" on this issue. Why is the minister being so pig-headed on this issue?
Members Of Parliament Retiring Allowances Act May 10th, 1995
Mr. Speaker, this will serve to keep the ratio of government to member contribution very high.
The member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell talked yesterday of openness, honesty and sincerity. There is not a scintilla of veracity in what the government is telling Canadians about the pension plan. When we add this insult to the $550 billion debt, we are truly a country in trouble.
The government is touting Bill C-85 as pension reform but it is not telling the complete story. Does the member for Hamilton East call a new pension of $2.7 million from the old $3.3 million windfall a reform? It is obscene and warrants the scrutiny of fair minded Canadians. It is truly unresponsive and says to every Canadian: "You sacrifice, not me".
I will be opting out and joining the majority of Canadians who are not taking advantage of the system and who are looking for leadership on issues like this one that we are not receiving from the government.