House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was money.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for Southern Interior (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 37% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Privilege March 14th, 1996

I see Jeff is back already. I do not know where Mutt is but Jeff is back carrying on with his routine without his partner.

A short time ago I asked for unanimous consent to delete Standing Orders 78 and 57. There was a great scurrying of little furry feet and other types too, I suppose. They came scurrying out from points beyond shouting: "No, no, no. We cannot have that".

For those Canadians watching the debate what I was asking for in the request for unanimous consent to delete Standing Orders 78 and 57 should have pleased the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands. I was asking for them to cancel the motion to invoke closure. The Liberals say the Reform Party is getting wound up about nothing, that we are not even prepared to raise enough speakers to carry this on anyway. Then why did they object to our asking for them to withdraw closure? Because they know that part of what we were talking about was the democracy of this House.

It seems kind of silly for us to stand up and be railed on by these people about the fact that we are concerned about the democratic process in this House. The democratic process in this House suggested the hon. member can take time along with everyone else.

Of course now the Liberals have put their feet in it. The hon. member for Kingston and the Islands has stated that the debate will collapse, that we will not keep it going. Of course now he has backed himself into a corner. He cannot stand up and talk because he himself would be carrying the debate beyond the point which the Liberals predicted it would fall.

There is no point in carrying on debate when the Liberals do not listen, when they try to turn our words. We feel we are making our point and our point is very clear. The Liberals turn each piece of information that comes to this House. They twist it and try to present it to the public in a very questionable manner. That was done when they started suggesting it is a worse offence to ask Canadians for their opinion than it is to ask our soldiers to swear allegiance to someone other than the government they serve.

Why did we table this motion? We tabled this motion because Canadians all across the country asked for this type of action. Long before this issue came up I found myself in the unenviable position of responding to constituents who asked: "Why has the Bloc not been charged with treason? How can we possibly have a Parliament where we use our tax dollars to bring people into this Canadian house of democracy to preach and rail against the country that is paying their way? Their former leader has taken his Canadian pension and gone back to promote separation from within". How can I explain to these people that because we are democratic we allow people-

Privilege March 14th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I wish there were questions and comments. Instead of making a speech I would love to respond to some of the comments made by the various people who have spoken today.

The previous speaker mentioned that we are trying to prevent Quebec's future; that the people of Quebec have reached a level of maturity where they almost did the right thing. In other words, he is saying that the separatists keep asking the people of Quebec if they are ready for separation and they keep giving the wrong answer. But the separatists are going to keep asking the question until they finally get it right.

He talks about the people of Quebec almost reaching a level of maturity where they can make the right decision. That is the first time I have heard somebody who claims to represent Quebec stand up to call the people of Quebec-the voters of Quebec who, whatever their wisdom, sent the Bloc Quebecois here-immature. Basically the hon. member is putting them on notice to get it right the next time. That is really interesting.

What is at question here is not whether the Bloc Quebecois dealt with some vague question about the future of public servants in an independent Quebec, should such a thing ever come into existence. Bloc members were not saying: "If after a yes vote in the referendum and if after we negotiate with Canada, as we said we would do for a period of a year, we cannot come to terms and if ultimately we go through the necessary steps toward independence and achieve it, at that time this is what we anticipate doing in terms of the military. These are the opportunities that we expect to offer to the people of Quebec who have a military background and who wish to be part of the military in the new Quebec. This is the way we will deal with it".

That is not what the letter stated. That was stated very clearly by my hon. colleague from Macleod earlier today. This is not about after separation. This is not about after negotiation. This is about the next day, the day after the vote.

The separatists have gone to the people of Quebec and have said: "We want your permission to negotiate with Canada for a year on new terms for Quebec. If we cannot resolve anything with Canada, then we will ultimately look at sovereignty". That is not what that letter indicated.

We have not heard from the author of that letter. He has not said: "You have mistaken my intention" or "I have not properly written this letter. This is what I really meant". The letter was clear and unequivocal. It said: "The next day we want you to renounce your relationship with Canada and swear allegiance to Quebec". The implication was scary.

Many times Bloc Quebecois members have said: "We are going to unilaterally make certain decisions. If you do not do what we want you to do, we are not going to pick up our share of the debt".

That was one of the many real threats which was issued by the members of that party.

I hope the people of Quebec will reconsider who they have sent to Ottawa to represent them. Bloc Quebecois members say they are here to represent the people who sent them here; the majority of people in Quebec. They state that their sole purpose is to represent Quebec's dreams of separation and sovereignty. If that is the case and its members have two-thirds of the seats in Quebec, when only 49 per cent of the people in Quebec support them, maybe we have to question that we have too many people from the Bloc here. I hope the people of Quebec will take notice of this debate and I hope those in the ridings where there is a byelection will take notice and maybe reconsider who should be representing their real interests in Quebec; the people who want to take them from Canada with a lot of false promises and how they will still have all the benefits of being Canadian while being an independent country, versus the people who come here and refer to those who did not get it right in the referendum yet as being immature. I guess they are referring to those immature people who sent them here to Ottawa.

Members talk about how this is an overblown motion, how it has been taken way out of proportion and that there has been nothing done that would call for the censure of a member. Has this happened before or even recently? Has there been any question of contempt of Parliament brought before the House?

It happened in February of this new session. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, the chief government whip, thought there were things in this Parliament that called for contempt of Parliament charges. The hon. member from the Bloc Quebecois wrote to members of the military and stated that the day after the referendum they wanted them to swear allegiance to Quebec, to support Quebec, to protect Quebec.

Let us compare that to what the government claims it thinks are reasonable grounds for contempt of the House. The Liberals said the Reform member for Lethbridge had the audacity to ask the voters of Canada to express their opinion with regard to a decision being made in the House and to convey those opinions to the Speaker of the House. How dare they ask anybody to be democratically open in voicing their opinions in the House. What a contemptible thing. That is the Liberal's point of view. They say it is absolutely disgusting that the Reform party would ask Canadians for their opinions. How bad did they think this was? They thought it was pretty bad.

In our motion we have asked that this be presented to committee for study. We have asked specifically that it be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and House Affairs for examination to see if the committee would agree there is a problem and some action should be taken. Someone is suggesting members of the Canadian military should swear allegiance to a new group even before they have separated from Canada.

The hon. member from the Liberal Party suggested what the Reform Party did was so reprehensible it should not even go to committee, that the member should be called before the bar of the House. With no hearings whatsoever call him before the bar and admonish him from the Chair. I can see the Liberals have very strange priorities.

A colleague mentioned at length today some things the Liberals have done to show how they have sided with the Bloc Quebecois. Why should we be surprised they feel it is worse that we ask Canadians for their opinion than the Bloc Quebecois asking some members of the Canadian military to swear allegiance to someone other than the Canadian government?

We heard an interesting little Mutt and Jeff routine a little earlier today when the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands did his little routine with one of his colleagues. He spoke about closure and about why we railed so much because they had brought in closure.

I remind the hon. member that his party did the exact same thing when the Conservatives did it while on that side of the House. They have already done it three times more than the Conservatives and we are only half way through this questionable Liberal mandate. I will not even get into why I say questionable. They know what promises they made and they know what the realities are.

Privilege March 14th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to ask unanimous consent of the House to delete Standing Orders 78 and 57.

Privilege March 14th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I seek the unanimous consent of the House, if it would be agreeable to the previous speaker, to have questions or comments of that particular member.

Committee Of The Whole February 27th, 1996

Mr. Speaker, I have a short comment for the record to clarify or counter what was said by the other side of the House.

I want to make it absolutely clear that when we vote against the person proposed it is not because she is female, it is not because of where she is from, it is not because of her French connection. There is a certain level of partisanship in this House. I get along with some people on the other side of the House very well. They are very fair-minded. I may disagree with them. I may agree with them. But it does not alter the fact that they are presenting their views very clearly and very fairly.

There are some on the other side of the House that come from the west that are male, that are anglophone, that I would not want to see in that position either. We are voting because of the characteristics of the partisanship of this individual, not because of gender, language or any other factor.

There is a history in this Parliament in the first session of very credible people sitting in the chair that you now occupy, Mr. Speaker. At the very least the Liberal government should keep up that tradition.

Transportation December 14th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, it is the Christmas season and a time of goodwill. Therefore I would like to start by wishing the minister a good holiday season. I trust he is still able to hoist some holiday cheer after the strain he put on his arm by patting himself so vigorously on the back.

It has been an interesting time for me as Reform's national transport critic. Each major policy the minister has introduced has had my support in concept. As I explained recently to a New Brunswick reporter, the minister has very Reform like concepts; now if we could only convince him to adopt more Reform like implementation.

The minister spoke of many policies, including the national airport policy. Although I support its concept, this policy has a tendency to skim profits and leave several of the airport authorities struggling for future financial viability.

On the commercialization of air navigation services, I support this move but there are still many unanswered questions about the Hughes contract and how it will impact, with its deleted features and increased costs, on the final agreement and on the financial viability of NavCanada in the future.

On the international air transportation policy, given the initial backroom dealing of the government, I am glad to see it has come up with a clear and reasonable policy at last.

The government went ahead with the much requested open skies policy while stifling Pearson airport with its unwarranted political decision to cancel a contract that would have enabled Toronto to compete with the best for the new hub concepts. As it is, over $5 billion has been spent at airports within one hour's flight of Toronto to enable them to compete with new hub business while Pearson languishes with decrepit, outdated terminals I and II. The contract would have seen $350 million already spent at Pearson with much more in progress. The government has spent nothing, has announced no alternative construction plans and has no money. The final cost to the Canadian taxpayer will likely run well over a billion dollars.

On the privatization of CN, again the concept was good but the implementation was terrible. The new private company is legislated to remain headquartered forever in one location whether that is best for the company or not. I asked for an amendment that would have seen the shares of that company first offered to Canadians before opening sales to the rest of the world. The Liberals refused. The results were that although there was an unsatisfied demand for the shares here in Canada, 40 per cent were sold exclusively to foreign purchasers.

On the Canada Transportation Act, committee handling of this has been better than it was with Bill C-89. A more open approach to Reform amendments has seen the bill made more reasonable. There is hope for a good bill if Parliament accepts the voice of the majority of witnesses who asked for the removal of clause 27(2). Surely the government will consider this. The alternative is to tell all the witnesses their testimony was meaningless and there is no point in appearing before committees again in the future.

Now the minister is ready to proceed with the Canada marine act. Once again I am in favour of the concept but I worry about the detail and the implementation. I put the minister on notice of the following points which differ from those recommended by the Liberal majority in the Standing Committee on Transport.

New port authorities must be better protected from government cash grabs than they have been in the past, and some of the airport authorities are being faced with that now. The minister said representatives will be nominated by port users and government. The committee recommendation refers to the government appointing at least the majority. That is unacceptable. Government representation, yes; control, no.

The committee is also recommending a ports capital assistance program. The main emphasis it placed on this was to bring non-commercial ports to upgrade them to become self-sufficient. The idea has some merit as long as it is not used to subsidize a port to compete directly with an unsubsidized Canadian port.

The minister's suggested policy regarding cost recovery of ice breaking services is unacceptable. User pay is a great Reform concept, once again accepted by the minister but potentially implemented incorrectly. Users should pay only for what they use, use only what they need and pay for it at a commercially fair and reasonable rate.

The minister talks about revising the marine pilot act, as did the committee. As he does this he should keep in mind that all regions have a problem with the pilotage and he should not create national policy to deal with regional problems. I support the concept of the privatization of Marine Atlantic. I would like the minister to consider the concept of the in-depth study of cross-departmental financial impacts.

The province of Nova Scotia has recently completed an impact study on the Bluenose ferry. It would save something over $4 million by closing down but the impact in other departments and other jurisdictions would cost as much as $15 million. These things must be harmonized together.

Marine Atlantic proposes to close the ferry in the winter but that study suggests this would create a net financial loss to the taxpayers. These new concepts must be considered.

I find I have got on fairly well with the minister. Amid all the talks of cabinet shuffles, I hope the Prime Minister sees fit to leave him where he is. I would hate to have to break in a new one now.

Pearson International Airport December 13th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the minister keeps saying that the Pearson deal was not in the public interest and it was not good value for the Canadian public. One cannot help but wonder if the minister has financial studies to prove this or if he is just talking through an empty hair follicle.

Will the minister agree to prove his claims by tabling a cost benefit analysis of cancelling the contract, if one exists? Failing that, will he admit that the latter alternative was true?

Pearson International Airport December 13th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the Senate has completed its inquiry into the Pearson airport contract and there were no surprises.

The truth be damned. It was siege mentality all the way. The Tories defended writing the contract and the Liberals defended cancelling it. A glossy bound report bigger than my riding's telephone book settles nothing. It just wastes millions more taxpayer dollars.

My question is for the Minister of Transport. Will he admit that this process did nothing to bring out the truth and in fairness to all parties, will he agree to the full judicial inquiry I asked for over a year ago?

Constitutional Amendments Act December 12th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, the more I hear from the government, and from the Bloc Quebecois and its leader, it begs the question: Why are we wasting time trying to fix the problems of Confederation in Quebec when the leader of the Bloc, the heir apparent of the separatist Parti Quebecois in the province of Quebec, has stated that he will not accept anything that is done? Why not get on with fixing the problems that affect all of Canada, including Quebec? When the Government of Quebec is ready to sit down at the table and discuss its concerns, that is the time to do fine tuning on Quebec's specific problems.

Let us look at our humble beginnings in this country. What is now Quebec and Ontario was thought of as the main part of Canada. The rest was looked on as the colonies. The Atlantic region was mainly considered an east coast access, the prairies as farm country and British Columbia as west coast access. Each outlying region was expected to harvest its raw materials or produce and send it to the centre for processing and consumption. It was not until the 1930s that the prairies gained control over its oil and gas reserves.

The government of the day primarily represented central Canada and concerned itself mainly with the issues of central Canada. The rest of the country was simple, under developed and relatively unconcerned with the concentration of power at the centre core. That notwithstanding the fact that there was a certain reluctance on the part of many people in British Columbia to join Confederation. It was not until late this century that Newfoundland on the opposite coast finally agreed to join Confederation.

Overall this worked acceptably but times change. Consider how the average family operates. Within that family there are certain rules by the head of the family, by a parent laying down rules that are appropriate for the time and place of that family. As the younger members of the family become teenagers, if the parent group continues to treat them like pre-schoolers, there will be a lot of resentment and problems within that family.

As those teenagers grow into adults, as times change and as evolution takes place in their personal development, it will be time for them to move on and become adults in their own right, to stand on their own. If the rules of the family have grown with them and been proper and reasonable, then there will always be close family ties and there will be an interdependence and relationship between family members. However, if the head of the family is unyielding and unreasonable, then the younger family members will flee the family, never to be a part of it again. This is a very fitting analogy to view the way Canada is going at this moment.

Quebec is distinct. No one could or wishes to dispute that. However, the Atlantic provinces are distinct in their heritage and culture. The prairies had a much harder struggle for survival and development than central Canada. That makes them unique, or as the popular buzzword goes today, distinct. British Columbia is geographically and culturally distinct from the rest of this country. Perhaps the most distinct of all is the territories. Their unique geography and climate sets them apart form the rest of the country. It takes a special kind of person to develop the territories and those people and their area are unquestionably distinct.

The only way the concept of a distinct society can be dealt with fairly is to recognize that all of Canada is made up of a collection of distinct societies, each with its merits. Saying this does not diminish the uniqueness of Quebec's language or culture but no province, territory, region or group should have any special powers not bestowed on the others.

Each of the provinces should have more autonomy to deal with its needs. Most of what Quebec apparently wants should be granted to all provinces. When the federal government finally realizes that not only the 19th century is gone but most of the 20th century as well, perhaps it will start to deal with the needs of the 21st century. It is time to realize that Canada is no longer a central core with supporting colonies on either end.

The whole concept of a constitutional veto is wrong. What is needed is constitutional ratification which is now in place with the seven and fifty formula. The current veto legislation is a knee jerk reaction from a government that felt it needed to do something and frankly did not know what to do.

First it was a veto for Quebec. When that did not sell, it added in the provinces and regional concept. Still no sale, so the government tinkered a bit more. As it now stands there are senior provinces and junior provinces. Reform's position has always been that if there is a veto it is the people of the various provinces or regions that should have it.

When the government first came forward with its ill-conceived veto idea, it could not have gotten it more wrong if it tried. Sometimes I think it probably did try. First and most important, it provided this veto to the regional governments instead of the people. Second, it did not even know the proper concept for the regions. Belatedly it tried to correct its error on the real number of regions but in so doing it continued to provide vetoes to governments instead of the people.

Imagine the horror of people right across this country: a veto on the Constitution in the hands of a separatist government. Bill C-110 is not a unity bill. It is a disunity bill.

The Prime Minister thought he could get away with his standard strategy during the Quebec referendum. That strategy is doing absolutely nothing. What the heck, it has kept the government artificially high in the polls ever since the election so why not continue? The swing to the yes side leading up to the referendum provided the answer to that. The Prime Minister's lack of leadership, which had worked so well for him in the past, proved to be a problem which almost cost us the country.

His continued lack of a real plan and his unwillingness to deal with the real problems may yet destroy the country. For too long divisiveness has been a great problem in Canada: English versus the French, aboriginal versus non-aboriginal as well as cultural issues.

Instead of working to resolve the differences and making all Canadians equal, the government has worked on the basis of divide and conquer. It seems to believe that only where there is confrontation is there a real need for government. It is time for the government to realize that it is not the solution and in fact is the problem.

This latest bill by the government, often referred to as something drafted on the back of a napkin, follows the old divide and conquer philosophy. However the government is losing its ability to conquer. When that happens, all that is left of the old formula is divide.

The Bloc Quebecois and Parti Quebecois are really one and the same. They must be taking a secret delight in the government's latest faulty strategy. Both of them want to break up the country at any cost and the Prime Minister is playing right into their hands. The country's problems cannot be solved by playing one problem against another, and that is exactly what Bill C-110 does.

The Prime Minister knew that offering a deal to Quebec alone would not be accepted so he included another province, Ontario. When that did not appear to be working he added one more, British Columbia. When Alberta protested he suggested that it effectively had a veto over the rest of the prairies by virtue of its population mass.

Indian versus white, immigrant versus citizen, English versus French, east versus west, and now province versus province. When will the government wake up and realize that it is not saving or protecting the country but is destroying it?

Bill C-110 is not the answer to the country's problems. It is a symptom of the problems. Not only should the bill not be passed. It should not even be voted on. If the government had any integrity at all it would withdraw the bill and proceed instead to a process of decentralization.

Not only will I not be supporting the bill, but as a member of Parliament from B.C. and one who has certain unquestioned loyalties to my home province I will also vote against the amendment to give B.C. a veto. To do otherwise would be providing an indication of endorsing a nationally unacceptable concept.

Instead of the continuing policy of divide and conquer, it is long past time that the government started practising a new policy of equality of all people and provinces in Canada. It may be a bit much for me to expect it. However it is Christmastime. Maybe miracles still happen. What a Christmas present it would be for Canada if it happened now.

Via Rail December 7th, 1995

Mr. Speaker, on December 6 the "Stop the Great Train Robbery" bus came to Parliament Hill. This bus was covered with thousands of signatures protesting gross over subsidization of VIA Rail at a time when Canadian are facing crippling government debt.

The bus carried supporters of the protest and a petition containing almost 10,000 signatures. The Minister of Transport had been requested to accept the petition from these concerned citizens but did not even bother to respond to the request.

I accepted the petition, but because it is not in a form deemed presentable in the House for the government I cannot present it here. As an alternative I invite the Minister of Transport to accept it from me outside the doors of the House immediately after question period.

I also ask the minister again to take action to stop VIA Rail from reducing already heavily subsidized fares so it can take Canadian taxpayers' money and use it to compete against customers unsubsidized in the private sector.

The minister can choose to send out a message of goodwill to Canadian taxpayers or he can continue to squander their money. Thousands of people who signed this petition are waiting for his response.