Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was aboriginal.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as Reform MP for Skeena (B.C.)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 33% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Aboriginal Affairs September 29th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, on August 24 Leona Freed wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Health complaining about the sewage system on her reserve. Her letter was illegally leaked to the chief and council and she is facing a potential lawsuit as a result.

Yesterday the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development accused the Minister of Health of leaking that letter. We would like to know from the Minister of Health: Is that true? Did your office leak that letter?

Aboriginal Affairs September 29th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, on August 24 Leona Freed wrote to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Health complaining about the sewage system on her reserve. That letter was illegally leaked back to her chief and council and she is facing a lawsuit as a result.

Yesterday—

Indian Affairs September 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the minister is badly misinformed. This is the second time that Leona Freed's privacy has been violated.

The first time she got a letter from the minister of Indian affairs apologizing and saying it would never happen again. Now it has happened again. She wrote the letter on August 24 of this year. Three weeks later she was threatened with a lawsuit. This is six months after the minister said that this kind of stuff was going to end, that she was going to make sure to take steps.

How could this possibly have happened after she promised it would never happen?

Indian Affairs September 28th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, six months ago after the department of Indian affairs breached Bruce Starlight's confidentiality and privacy, the minister apologized and promised it would never happen again.

On August 24 Leona Freed of the Dakota Plains Band wrote a confidential letter to the Indian affairs minister and the health minister complaining about the sewage system on her reserve. Three weeks later Mrs. Freed received a letter from the chief's lawyer threatening a lawsuit. This is exactly the same thing that happened to Bruce Starlight.

Can the minister tell us, since she promised this would never happen again, how Mrs. Freed's privacy and confidentiality was violated?

Competition Act September 21st, 1998

Madam Speaker, when I was preparing to come to the House today to speak to the bill and to speak to the amendments, it caused me to reflect on the proper role of government in a free market economy. Reformers for the most part see this role as very limited in terms of the economy itself. We see it limited to the rule of law, freedom of contract, the enforcement of contract, the ability of Canadian companies to rely on the law to ensure that the contracts they enter into are going to be observed and that the rule of law will see that happen, and of course for the protection of consumers to ensure that no criminal or untoward actions of businesses and enterprises in the free market would be countenanced.

What we have here is a series or a successive number of governments, both federally and provincially, that have practised intervention more and more over a long period of time. In Canada we have as a result of this a distorted market at times, very much distorted when we take into account the grants and subsidies and other false inducements that government provides to the free market to try to influence it to do one thing or the other, the government's desire of the day, whatever that may be.

The other thing we see in this country is punitive taxation rates. I recently did a comparison. Take a person working in the United States and earning a salary of $60,000 a year. If that same person were in Canada and had a comparable take home pay, they would have to earn $134,000 a year when the difference in the dollar and the difference in taxation rates are factored in.

It is easy to see that Canadians and Canadian businesses are very much disadvantaged by that. The government's response typically is not to go to the heart of the matter, which is taxation and regulation. The government's response is regulate it. If it moves, regulate it, then regulate the regulations and then regulate the regulators. This seems to be the Canadian way, regulate everything in sight.

I suggest what we need is less regulation. If hon. members do not think government is intent on regulating, just consider what we are doing here today. What are we talking about? We are talking about regulating competition. While we are at it, why do we not start regulating the laws of gravity? Why not repeal Newton's laws? Why not repeal the laws of supply and demand? Government can do it. Obviously it has the power to do it. That is what the government is intent on doing.

Imagine if we tried to regulate Donovan Bailey or Wayne Gretzky and said we want you to run fast but not too fast, we do not want it to be unfair, we do not want your competition to be unduly disadvantaged. We cannot do that. Competition is competition. By the way, competition is good for the consumer. It is healthy. It sparks innovation. It causes people to look for the best way to accomplish something, whether it is building a house or a ballpoint pen. It causes anybody who is in that market scenario or that situation to look at the best way for them to participate and to draw customers to them.

What we talked about here in the House is regulating competition. I submit that the best thing this or any government can do in terms of competition is reduce regulations, stop interfering in the marketplace and abandon this punitive taxation system we have in Canada so that Canadians and Canadian businesses have more money to take home and more incentive to do what we all know needs to be done, which is create a viable, healthy economy.

Petitions June 12th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased on behalf of constituents in Smithers and Takla in my constituency of Skeena to table a petition.

The effect of the petition is that a marriage can only be legally defined as the union of a single male and a single female.

Aboriginal Affairs June 12th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, it is the business community in British Columbia that said not one more nickel of investment in that province until this issue is resolved.

The track record of the government is zero in seven; seven years of negotiating, not one agreement, over one hundred bands that qualify to be in negotiations.

The people of British Columbia deserve to know. How long will they have to wait to see this uncertainty cleared up and the question of land ownership in British Columbia resolved once and for all?

Aboriginal Affairs June 12th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the minister of Indian Affairs knows that the Delgamuukw decision has created a great deal of uncertainty in British Columbia. She knows that the native summit is claiming 100% of the province and she knows that some bands are now taking action to stop logging and mining.

The minister says the way out of this is to negotiate, but that process to date has not produced any results.

How long does she think British Columbians will have to wait to see a resolution to this problem?

Aboriginal Affairs June 11th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, just because people say it is so does not make it so. The native summit claims all of British Columbia. The minister knows this position cannot possibly prevail. She knows this is impossible.

When will this minister and this government admit their irresponsible actions and words over the last few years have raised expectations to impossible levels? When will they admit publicly that these demands cannot be met?

Aboriginal Affairs June 11th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, we thought softball was played only in baseball diamonds.

Yesterday we made the tiniest bit of progress with the minister of Indian affairs when she finally admitted that British Columbia belongs to all the people of British Columbia. The native summit in British Columbia representing 3.5% of the population is claiming the entire province.

How does the minister reconcile these two completely opposite points of view so fundamental to B.C.'s future?