Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was rural.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Liberal MP for Parry Sound—Muskoka (Ontario)

Lost his last election, in 2006, with 40% of the vote.

Statements in the House

National Parks April 22nd, 1999

Mr. Speaker, maintaining the ecological integrity of our national parks is a priority for the government and I believe for all Canadians.

Just last year we put a new set of environmentally sensitive principles in place to govern commercial activity within our national parks. It has as its fundamental premise that any activity cannot have any negative net environmental impact.

We placed in front of this House legislation to create marine conservation areas. We have placed in front of the House legislation to create a new agency with better economic, financial and organizational tools. In the last budget we committed an additional $35 million to create new sites within our national parks system.

Supply April 13th, 1999

Madam Speaker, I listened with interest to the hon. member's comments, particularly with respect to the alienation in British Columbia and its concern about the abuse of parliament. I thought I would point out a couple of things and then ask him a question.

Canadians have had three opportunities since the general election to speak in a byelection. We seen how much they have supported the Reform Party in that respect. Not only has it lost all three, but as recently as last night the Reform Party went down in its vote in Windsor—St. Clair. In fact, I think it got a little more than 6% of the vote. That shows how its message is resonating to Canadians.

What I found more important was the comment about the abuse of parliament. I sit here every day and look across at the hon. member who used to be the Reform Party defence critic. He had the audacity to make his own decision about an issue that his leader and the Reform Party did not like. What happened? The Reform Party leader said that he had to be sentenced to sit out of caucus and go into purgatory. That is Reform's new way of discipline.

Several members on the other side are not particularly enamoured with the united alternative initiative of their leader. My goodness, they had the audacity to say it publicly and to have a discussion on how concerned they were about it. What happened? The whip of their party came out with the big hammer and sent out a letter stating they must cease and desist.

I wish the hon. member would explain to me how those examples are examples of the great new Reform way of not disciplining members, of not ensuring that it has to be the leader's way? Maybe the hon. member would like to explain that to me.

Supply April 13th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, members opposite are chuckling because they think they are the only ones who know how to do it.

Let us make it clear that what the Reform Party is criticizing is an effort by parliamentarians to understand what Canadians are thinking.

My question to the opposition House leader is, why does the Reform Party not support efforts to talk to Canadians to ask them what their perspective is?

I realize that since it is not the Reform Party doing it Reformers are somewhat embarrassed that they are left flat-footed because they have not gone out and asked their folks what they think, but the Liberals have indeed done that. I want to know why they have not gone out to consult with their constituents. Why they have left it to the Liberals?

Supply April 13th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, so as not to make your job more difficult, I will refrain from making such comments.

It is interesting that this particular debate would take place the day after at least some Canadians spoke directly to the role of how the various parties are doing here in parliament.

It was interesting to note in the byelection results in Windsor—St. Clair that a Liberal was returned to the House. It was interesting to note that the Reform Party got a little over 6% of the vote, certainly under 10% of the vote, and actually saw its percentage decline, which is interesting to put in the context of the debate that is taking place today.

My question has to do with the comments of the two initial speakers and their criticism of members of parliament seeking the views of Canadians.

Supply April 13th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, considering how few members are on the other side to debate the motion, I am not surprised they could not find a seconder.

National Parks Act March 16th, 1999

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-70, an act respecting national parks.

Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table today on behalf of the Minister of Canadian Heritage a bill entitled an act respecting national parks. It will strengthen the protection of nationally significant heritage resources, facilitate the completion of the national parks system and control commercial development in park communities.

(Motions deemed adopted, bill read the first time and printed)

Parks March 10th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, in line with the legislation before the House now where we have made a commitment to consult with local communities, the advisory committee that was appointed has come forward and indicated that there is not widespread support in that area at this time.

In view of that advice we will not be proceeding in that area at this time.

Finance February 2nd, 1999

Madam Speaker, in terms of government and as an individual member, there is great pride taken in the efforts, energy and the accomplishments of the men and women who serve in our forces.

The member addresses that one of our responsibilities as parliamentarians is to ensure that the men and women of our forces have the necessary equipment and resources to carry out their missions. That is absolutely essential. We have seen the minister of defence act in that respect in terms of trying to ensure we have the necessary search and rescue helicopters to allow the forces to carry out those missions.

We have seen him move in terms of attempting to obtain the submarines that will provide some of the equipment they need to do their mission. There is also the quality of life issues that the member talked about. There has been a parliamentary committee that dealt with that issue and made some strong recommendations in that respect. Obviously in the mix of establishing what our financial priorities are, dealing with those issues in our armed forces has to be given active consideration.

That is a large part of what the prebudget debate is about. It is an opportunity for parliamentarians and for Canadians across the country to discuss those types of things they see as priorities. It supplements some of the other work that has been done in looking at the quality of life issues through the parliamentary process. I say how proud I am as a citizen and as a member of the House and as a member of the government of the work of the men and women who serve in the forces. There is an absolute need to provide them with the resources they need to carry out their mission.

Finance February 2nd, 1999

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the prebudget debate. This is the fourth consecutive opportunity I have had since 1993 to participate in this debate and to have an opportunity to talk a bit about what my constituents have been saying through the prebudget consultation as well as about what I believe Canadians in general have been saying.

I begin my comments by congratulating the Standing Committee on Finance—and I see the parliamentary secretary is in the Chamber—for the job it did in travelling from coast to coast to obtain from Canadians their opinions about the upcoming budget.

As I am sure the people in the Chamber know and Canadians in general know, in 1993 the Liberal government under the directions of the finance minister took what was essentially a very closed process, a very non-transparent process in terms of budget consultation, and turned it into a very open process, one that begins with the finance minister's financial statement going through the process of finance committee examination across the country and then the debate we are having this evening. This is a very new process, a very sound process, and one that serves Canadians very well.

Like many of my colleagues in the Chamber, I have taken the process one step further and have had a prebudget consultation within my riding. In fact I held two particular sessions on November 27, 1998. The first took place at the council chamber in Bracebridge and the second took place later that day at the West Parry Sound Museum. I had the opportunity at the beginning of the prebudget consultation to send a survey out to every household in my riding. I wanted to give constituents who were unable to attend the forum the opportunity to provide input. Hundreds of my constituents took the opportunity to provide that input to me. I thank all those individuals and those who were able to come in person to the forums to provide their input and to be part of the prebudget consultations.

Constituents in my riding of Parry Sound—Muskoka established three specific priorities. They indicated a desire to see tax relief and reductions in the upcoming budget. They made note of the fact that there had been some $7 billion worth of tax relief in the previous budgets over the past three years but they indicated the need to move further in that area. They specifically targeted the need to see those reductions as a priority in the area of income tax reductions. They talked about that reduction happening for lower and middle income taxpayers.

My constituents talked about the second priority of the need to reinvest in health care. When they talked about health care they talked about the need to ensure that when that was done through the process of transfers to the provinces there could be an assurance that those dollars would be used for health care and not for other purposes. They expressed a strong belief in the Canadian health care system, in a system that is publicly funded and universally accessible. They believe this has proven to be a very positive thing for Canadians over the last 30 some years. They want to see this continue and they clearly want reinvestment in health care.

My constituents talked loud and clear in both the consultations and the surveys about the third priority that we must never allow ourselves as a nation to go back to that situation we found ourselves in over the past 30 years. We must never go back to a situation of constantly spending more than we were taking in and constantly running deficits and building up the debt. They said that whatever policy we undertake in this and future budgets we should not return to that type of scenario. They saw that in the long run as we provided prudent fiscal management that we would be able to pay down the accumulated debt both in real terms and in terms of a percentage of our gross domestic product.

Besides the specific recommendations we also discussed the fact that budget decisions are not made in isolation. They must be based on principles that guide how we govern this nation. I believe we have identified three primary principles which should govern the budget decisions the government is about to make.

As the first principle the federal government has as its responsibility the necessity to exercise sound and prudent fiscal management. It is a responsibility and a principle of government that we establish an economic environment that allows individual Canadians to pursue their own objectives and their own dreams. If we look back at the government over the past five years we will see that prudent management has allowed for Canadians to do that.

We have seen the lowest inflation rate that has existed in this country for generations and low interest rates. These types of economic indicators and achievements allow Canadians through lower mortgages and through protection of fixed incomes the ability to pursue their dreams and their financial objectives. It is government's role as a first principle to establish the economic environment that will allow Canadians to do that.

The second principle under which we must govern and make our budget decisions is we need to protect the Canadian social safety net. Canadians both in my riding and across the country have clearly established as one of our governing principles the need for a strong social safety net in Canada.

We believe in helping those who need help the most and we believe this responsibility should be shared by all Canadians. As Canadians we have collectively agreed that below a certain level we will not allow individual Canadians to fall. That is why we have a medicare system that helps Canadians who are sick. That is why we provide an income security system for those Canadians who have come to retirement age. It is why we provide assistance to ensure that Canadians can find food and shelter when they are in trouble.

When we look at the record of the government, whether it be the establishment of $1.7 billion into a new child tax credit or our reform of the CPP to ensure it is there for future generations, these are the types of programs helping to ensure a strong social safety net.

The third principle on which our budget decisions need to be made is one of ensuring there is equality of opportunity. Regardless of where we live in Canada, whether we come from urban or rural Canada, whether we are wealthy, whether we are able bodied or disabled, all Canadians should have an equal opportunity to their citizenship rights that come as being a citizen of this great country.

The people of my riding have established three specific priorities that they would like to see in this budget which are income tax reduction at the lower and middle income level, a reinvestment in health care, and an assurance that we will continue with the strong and prudent fiscal management and that we will not return to an era of deficit financing.

Motions For Papers December 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I propose that Motion No. P-45 be transferred for debate.