Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was believe.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Nanaimo—Cowichan (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2008, with 38% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Genetically Modified Foods October 29th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, we have seen the incredible lack of past government action on issues such as the tainted blood supply. Many Canadians with hepatitis C are now paying the high cost of government inaction with their very lives. Canadians are sceptical when the Liberal government sits back and takes a “Don't Worry, Be Happy” attitude.

Now Canadians want assurances that their food supply is safe. Why will the Minister of Health not bring the important issue of genetically modified foods before the Standing Committee on Health now?

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 27th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, in carrying over my closing remarks from yesterday's debate I wish to say that it is with the deepest regret that I must oppose the current Nisga'a agreement. I oppose it for three main reasons.

First, if this treaty is truly a template for all other treaty negotiations, it does nothing to address the climate of mistrust and fear that exists at the band level between ordinary aboriginals and their band leaders. Until the serious problem of band accountability is addressed, there is no guarantee that the proceeds of any treaty will actually get to the people who need it most.

Second, I do not believe that this bill is good for British Columbia. Much has been said that the economy of B.C. will take on a new vibrancy after the passing of this bill. Who can say this with any certainty? Instead, I believe that this bill will increase confrontation over other outstanding aboriginal disputes in British Columbia. If a businessman was looking for a place to invest his money, would he want to invest it in a B.C. like that?

Third, this bill is not in the best interests of Canada. Look at what is really happening today. The paternalistic environment created by the Indian Act and recent decisions by the courts all point to trouble ahead. Look at what is happening with the Musqueam land in Vancouver, the east coast fishing dispute, and the controversy around the west coast fishing and logging rights. This agreement is a recipe for further disaster.

I have three native children who are part of my family. I love them very much, just as I love my other five children who are non-native. We have made this work in our family because we love and trust each other. I want them to grow up in a country where they will not encounter prejudice because of the colour of their skin. However, I am afraid for them and for all of us. I am afraid that this agreement paves the way for more confrontation rather than less, afraid that it does nothing to address the climate of fear and mistrust and corruption at the band level. I must therefore take my stand against this bill.

In closing, I move the following amendment:

That the amendment be amended by adding the following words:

and that the committee make a report to this House no later than June 5, 2000.

Nisga'A Final Agreement Act October 26th, 1999

Madam Speaker, the Reform Party has always believed that treaties with our native people should be concluded as quickly as possible, so I really wish that I could stand before the House and offer my support for the bill. Unfortunately the bill is full of concerns that have deep ramifications for not only my home province of British Columbia but for the whole country.

The conditions under which many aboriginal people in my riding and many other regions of Canada live are absolutely appalling. I have seen homes without water and proper heating. I have spoken with people who are desperately poor having been unemployed virtually forever and who are hanging on through subsistence welfare cheques. I have seen the emotions of people as they begged for someone to help them. I have witnessed their sense of hopelessness and helplessness. I have been an eyewitness to the less than enthusiastic police investigations into filed complaints of wrongdoing that occurred on reserves.

It takes real courage for our native people to step forward in these circumstances. After the witness reports, the pictures and the paperwork it is truly wrong and upsetting to have the whole thing swept under the carpet.

I have observed firsthand the lack of personal initiative that many aboriginal people have for individual advancement, that personal drive which gives all of us a reason to roll out of bed in the morning and strive to do our best during the upcoming day.

Why do many aboriginals feel this way? The answer is simple. Either their own peers, the Indian act or a combination of both strive to hold them back.

Over the past 10 years approximately $60 billion have been poured into the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. If money alone could solve these problems, I would have thought they would have been solved years ago.

The problem is not money. There has been plenty of money poured into DIAND. Simply put, the resources have never reached those at the grassroots level that need it most. The reality is there has been a litany of broken promises from both the government and many of the native leaders. Bureaucratic red tape and corruption have made it nearly impossible for the individual grassroots aboriginal person to get ahead.

During the summer of 1998 I attended a meeting of grassroots aboriginal people in Airdrie, Alberta, initiated by the Reform Party. Following the meeting and after hearing from many aboriginal people I hosted a meeting on aboriginal accountability in my own riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan. I expected 25 people. That was the number of invitations that went out. Over 50 people crowded into a room representing 15 different bands from all across Vancouver Island.

Time and time again grassroots aboriginals in attendance expressed serious concerns over their respective band councils and leadership. Of all the people in attendance the only ones who did not see that there was an accountability problem were those few who worked for the band councils or the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.

Person after person stood up to talk indicating that they had the same concerns within their band that other speakers had expressed. They also added they thought that they had been the only ones with this problem until they came to the meeting. They were grateful that others were willing to step forward and publicly discuss the issues. The primary concern was accountability among their own leadership. That is not new. I will refer to some quotes from that meeting:

It's sad to see your own people doing this to you.

If white people had done this to us we'd be up in arms.

This has really opened my eyes. I thought it was just us.

Reformers are the only people who'll listen.

I am leery of the agreement and the lack of firm details of accountability within the band. I am also very concerned about the welfare of women and children under the agreement. Contrary to words spoken on the other side, the rights of Nisga'a women have not been included in the document.

Women's rights deserve to be fully addressed. I have had the opportunity to talk with many grassroots aboriginal people at friendship centres and native women's associations. We have discussed a great many matters ranging from land settlements and equality to health care and family matters.

I speak from the heart on this issue. I have witnessed firsthand the terrible price women and children have paid through the native patriarchal system. Women and children typically have had very few rights bestowed upon them by the elite of the band councils. If the Liberal government is so concerned with the family, why does it not put its words into action for it is time to walk the talk?

One of my next concerns is the matter of personal property rights. Under the current agreement the Nisga'a council, village or corporation will be the owners of the land and therefore the resources.

I believe strongly that to take full responsibility for one's actions has both rewards and consequences. Consequences tend to mean very little if there is no personal risk and no cost to the individual personally. The reward is based on the same principal that to risk something to succeed there will be personal gain. Simply put, what one owns one cares for.

I believe this is not only a problem within our aboriginal community as a whole but a symptom of our society at large. To be truly effective I strongly urge the government to implement individual property rights for all Nisga'a people.

There are several positive aspects of the agreement. One of them is to move the Nisga'a people out from under the oppressive Indian Act. I hope and pray that the Nisga'a people will not be moving from one oppressive regime to another. I have to ask myself a question. If this agreement was to apply directly to me, would I be satisfied to live under it? My simple answer is no. I would not want to be placed under the terms of the agreement. Nor do I believe that all Nisga'a people truly want to be placed under it.

Although a majority of the Nisga'a people did pass the agreement the final result was certainly not overwhelming. A total of 61% approved the agreement, 39% were against it, and 15% of the eligible voters declined to vote.

Perhaps the greatest concern to me is that the agreement sets the framework for all treaty settlements in Canada. There are many agreements yet to be negotiated. However to use the agreement as the cornerstone, I am afraid, sets the country on a long road to the courts and confrontation. I hope that is not what my colleagues on the other side are looking for. They only need to look at the west coast and review the Musqueam land battles. They only need to look to the east coast and try to make sense of the fisheries fiasco the government has created.

All Canadians are deserving of a far better agreement. It is my belief that the agreement will not bring the Nisga'a people into Canada but will create a mini-state within the nation, a nation within a nation, a nation that in 14 different areas has the right to supersede the laws of the Canadian constitution and the province of British Columbia.

I have three native children who are part of my family. I love each one of them very much, just as I love my other five children who are non-native. We have made it work in our family. We love and comfort each other. I want them to grow up in a country where—

Petitions October 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure, pursuant to Standing Order 36, to present petitions on behalf of 163 voters in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan concerning the high level of taxation in this country. They feel that it is time for, and that they deserve, a tax break and they so indicate by these petitions.

Aboriginal Affairs October 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I would like read a quote by one of Canada's most infamous 80 year olds:

There is a long term intention on the part of the government—to arrive eventually at a situation where Indians will be treated like other Canadian citizens of the particular province in which they happen to be.

Pierre Trudeau made that comment in the House at the tender age of 49. What exactly happened to the Liberals' long term intentions when they signed the Nisga'a treaty?

Genetically Engineered Foods October 15th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on behalf of many Canadians in my riding of Nanaimo—Cowichan and across the country who are concerned about the introduction of genetically engineered foods to the marketplace.

While everyone is interested in ensuring that the world's food supply grows and that the hunger pangs of children and indeed all people disappear, there are many who share concern about the safety of genetically engineered foods. There are too many outstanding issues and too many questions of what if. These questions require full answers.

The safety of our food supply cannot and must not fall into question. We must learn from past failures, such as the testing of our blood supply, and ensure the public that the same mistakes will not be made again. We must take time now to ensure that the safety of these foods is without question.

I have currently submitted a private member's bill to be drafted that calls for further investigation into the regulations concerning genetically engineered foods and their mandatory labelling. Until this process is complete, I believe that the questions will remain unanswered. In the near future I will be asking for support of this bill by the members of the House.

Speech From The Throne October 14th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, this minister and his B.C. Liberal sidekicks have shown very little regard for the problems and rights of the vast majority of B.C. citizens.

First, there is the expropriation of the provincial land at Nanoose Bay in the face of incredible opposition, something never done before in Canadian history. Second, there is the lack of protection of B.C.'s children by their appalling inaction on the court's decision on child pornography. Third, and I address this to the former minister of fisheries, over a period of time they have failed to effectively solve the problem of the preservation of the salmon stocks on the west coast and have downsized the fleet so that hundreds of fishermen and their families are bankrupt. Fourth, there has been inaction on closing the loopholes on Canada's immigration laws that saw hundreds of illegal immigrants come to the shores of Vancouver Island this summer. Fifth, there is a total lack of compassion for non-native residents on Musqueam lands who will soon be kicked out of there homes. I can go on and on, but I think that is enough.

Why should the people of B.C. have any confidence in the Liberal promises made in the throne speech when they have that appalling record before them?

Health May 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I have a brother who would love to have the Minister of Health in his math class. This is math from the Liberal perspective.

The numbers are real. The government took $21.4 billion out of health care. It is going to put back $11.5 billion and it is telling Canadians to be thankful.

The U.S. government spends more per person on public health than the Canadian government. That is a fact. Canadian taxpayers pay over 30% more in taxes than their American counterparts. What do Canadians have to show for it? Waiting lists, delayed surgery, staffing shortages and the declining health of thousands of people. Thank you very little, Mr. Health Minister.

When will the government begin to act responsibly—

Health May 12th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the Liberals like to say that health care is part of the basic fabric of Canada. We now see how the Liberals treat the basic fabric. They ripped $21.4 billion out of the cloth and it is full of moth holes now. In spite of the $800 more per person that the U.S. spends on public health care, American taxes are 30% lower than in Canada.

When is the government going to get off its big fat budget surplus and put the Canadian health care system back on the road to recovery?

Taxation May 11th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, if the minister really believes that, why did he slash so much out of the health care budget of this country?

In 1997 the Canadian government spent $1,775 per person for public health care expenses. Here is the difference. The United States government spent $2,600 per person to fund its public health care system. Its taxes are lower and it spends more per person on public health care.

When will the government get off its budget surplus and put the Canadian taxpayer back on the road to health?