House of Commons photo


Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament November 2005, as Conservative MP for West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast (B.C.)

Won his last election, in 2004, with 35% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Immigration October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, innocent Canadians are being killed, raped, robbed by a growing number of illegal immigrants. The minister has done nothing for these grieving families but give a cruel bureaucratic excuse.

Again, when will we see a plan of action that will start to solve this very serious problem?

Immigration October 21st, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Last week an infant died in his mother's arms, having been strangled and then run over by a criminal who had been ordered deported in 1994.

Since the minister has abandoned her $250 million enforcement system to track illegal and criminal refugees, when are we going to see a plan of action to solve this very serious problem?

Supply October 9th, 1997

They yell out from the NDP side that the truth hurts.

Let us look at the list of donators. I do not mind. People phoned me yesterday from my riding. I had calls from newspaper reporters. Obviously the lists of contributions to members are out.

One question they asked me was about donations to the New Democratic Party member. They said he got $8,000 from the union. I said that was too bad. They should have thought better of him and given him a lot more because he is a good New Democratic Party member. He works for MacMillan Bloedel and he was a very credible candidate.

Why is it that a union can give $8,000 but MacMillan Bloedel cannot give that to a free enterprise candidate? The public has a right to know and it is there. Anybody can look at the statements of any member of the House that were filed by October 2. If anybody has any shame it is just too bad for them. That is the way our system works.

We live in a democratic system where people have a right to make donations to the candidate and the party of their choice. I hope that never changes. NDP members might like to see that change. Because of the way they talk about how they would run the country, not too many corporations would give them money. Corporations large or small would not want to give them any money because they would not do the country any good.

Let us look at the province of British Columbia which has a New Democratic Party government. I am sure its members will not get too many contributions from business because they are ruining business in that province.

That is the way the system works. I think it is a good system. We take donations. We declare who they are and the public has a right to know.

If the odd time we have a problem like we have across there right now, the police will solve the problem sooner or later. If anybody in the government is involved in it, they will pay the price.

The system is a good system. It is a democratic system. I find it very strange New Democrats do not like the system. They sat on the committee that set out the rules. Now they want to change the rules again. They are a lot different.

When I ran in 1972 and 1974 we did not have to declare any names at all. We just took in the money and spent it. There were no limits on spending. That was not fair. It kept many people who wanted to run for the House of Commons from getting here.

There were good committees of the House that sat and worked very hard. The members of the New Democratic Party sat on the committee and recommended the changes we are living under now. It is unfortunate they had to get up in the House and try to turn this motion around to make it look bad. It hurts everyone in Parliament. It is fine for them to question the government, but they should not knock the parliamentary system. Their party was involved in setting down the rules. They are good rules and we should stick with them.

Supply October 9th, 1997

Madam Speaker, some things never change in life. I have been here a long time and a politician in British Columbia a long time.

Members of the NDP get up in the House to talk about other parties. They talk about how nice and clean they are and how pure they are. Obviously the member has never read a paper from British Columbia or looked at what happened to his government in British Columbia, the New Democratic Party government.

Members who sat in this House who were members of that government were under investigation on charges of abusing public funds, the Commonwealth Nanaimo federation.

They used to fund all their constituency moneys through one account and run their bingo games, all for charity. It was fraudulent and they will pay the price.

It is unfortunate that we are debating this issue in the House today. The motion reads:

That this House condemns the attitude of the government, which refuses to introduce in-depth reform of the legislation on the financing of federal political parties even though the existing legislation allows for a wide range of abuses.

All parties in the House set down the regulations. We all go through the same list. When anyone donates more than $100 to any of us it is recorded and listed. Anybody can get the list.

If the people who made the abuses by offering to peddle influence are guilty and are charged, they will go to jail. If any member gets involved, it is unfortunate.

To try to label everybody in parliament with going out at election time to raise money and maybe buy political favours with it is very unfortunate in the Parliament of Canada. It is a disgrace to the Parliament of Canada that people make these kinds of speeches.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act October 7th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, in the past few days we have heard a lot of talk in the House about passports. I asked one of the questions last week. I want to outline one case tonight that has happened in the last couple of days. It will let the Canadian public know that we have a serious problem in this country with passports, how they are inspected and how they are used.

A gentleman by the name of Alan Winter was convicted in 1987 of sexual assault in Abbotsford, British Columbia. He was declared a dangerous sexual offender and was sentenced to 16 years on 10 counts. After having served five years he was paroled in 1992. We might wonder why he was paroled. It was a condition of his parole that he return to his native England and not return to Canada until at least the expiration of his sentence in 2003. He was granted a valid British passport and returned to England.

He has returned to Canada. A Canada-wide warrant for his apprehension was issued yesterday for breaking parole. John Denham, a British member of Parliament, said “I can't believe that Mr. Winter was not fit to be released into Canadian society but he was fit to be released into my country. How could they have not told us?” Canada did not advise the British people that this man was convicted as a dangerous sexual offender.

We hear that Mr. Winter used a Canadian passport to get back into Canada. Where is our criminal check and record of parole conditions? This man is back on the streets of Canada, a danger to young people. He is a dangerous sexual offender.

What kinds of checks are we doing at our border with our own passports and foreign passports? I know that the RCMP in Vancouver have modern digital hand checks that they can do right away. Do we not have these checks for people? We check their passports, but again in this case something has slipped through the cracks. I hope some serious offence is not happening in Canada.

There are no conditions on these. It is a joke but a sad joke. I implore the government to sit down and look at the whole issue. The passport affair in Jordan was unfortunate, but this is an even worse situation. In our own country somebody has been let back in either with his British passport or a Canadian passport. He is a criminal. Maybe the police will arrest him. Perhaps by talking about it tonight people will realize who he is and he will be arrested and will be off the streets and back in jail where he belongs.

Canada Pension Plan Investment Board Act October 7th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, this is the first opportunity I have had to speak since the election. I want to thank Herb Grubel who represented Howe Sound before me. I know Herb served this House very well in the one term he was here. He is now back at Simon Fraser University and working with the Fraser Institute. I know all members would like me to wish him well. I would like to, on behalf of all the constituents, thank him for the job he did while he was here.

I would also like to congratulate you, Mr. Speaker, on your re-election and the election of all the deputy Speakers. I was here 25 years ago making a speech in this House in 1972 as a Conservative member of Parliament. It is quite interesting to listen to the speeches in this debate. In 25 years some things do not change.

I thank the constituents of West Vancouver—Sunshine Coast for sending me back. As my youngest son said to me, that was a quarter of a century ago. It was before he was even born, but I have six other children who were already born. I am not sure they enjoyed my time when I was here before because it is a lot different when you are 30 years of age with five children and be a member of Parliament than it is when you are 55 years of age and you have all your family grown up.

I can thank my constituents for sending me here. I know I am going to enjoy this session. I am certainly enjoying being a Reform member of Parliament. When I look back and read the first speech I ever made in this House, I could say most of the same things today. A lot of things do not change.

Let us look at the Canada pension plan. I heard my good friend, the member of the Tory party, speaking a couple of times before me talking about what the Tories would do and I listened to what the Liberals would do, yet this plan is $560 billion in debt. Some things just do not change. We have a major debt in this country and we have a pension plan that is not working very well in this country.

I think the people in this country, as this debate goes along, are going to start really wanting to know what is happening with the Canada pension plan. Where are they going to be when they want to retire? I think it is pretty scary. It is scary when I hear Liberal members on the other side. I heard a member from the Conservative Party talking about how Reform wanted to cancel the RRSP. The election is over. They should get that nonsense out of their heads. This party never said it was going to cancel RRSPs. Our plan for the Canada pension plan is one that should be listened to by the Canadian people and should be listened to by all sides of this House because it makes a lot of common sense.

I heard a member on the other side the other day talking about Bre-X because our plan would involve using the private sector. What would happen to all these poor pensioners if they had been involved in Bre-X? Even the member does not know how pension plans invest their money or it is just a straight scare tactic. There are bad companies every year in the stock market.

Companies that invest in the stock market do not just invest in one company. The Ontario teacher's pension plan in 1995 was worth $25 billion, in 1996 $35 billion and in April 1996 was up to $41 billion. It probably had shares in Bre-X. Most Canadian pension plans did. It was on the Toronto stock exchange. Thank God it was not a BSE stock or we on the west coast would have taken all the heat for that one.

Bre-X was a disaster as far as a stock is concerned. But all the pension plans went up last year even with the Bre-X situation. If we look at the average return, the Ontario teacher's pension plan has earned 16.7% in 1997 so far and over four years it averaged 12.1%. That is not a bad return. The overall performance in the private sector is 8% to 10% but the teacher's plan is 16.7% and the CPP, 2%. By the year 2000 it will be 1.8%. How can we expect any Canadian to think they can retire on a pension plan that is going to give them 1.8% to 2%?

The private sector in this country does a good job. Why are we here not more concerned about a government that wants us to do a CPP that will only give a small amount of money? The CPP is going to have $10 billion annually by the year 2003. It is a tax grab. It is like the EI. There will be a few billion in the bank. Where is going to come from? It will come from the people who work, the people who want a fair pension when they retire. Every member in the House knows what they think about our pension plan. This plan does not come anywhere close. Most guys who retired after the last election get as much in a month as these people will get in a year with this plan.

Even the Quebec pension plan is better managed than the CPP. It is a province that has its own pension plan and it has done a better job than the federal government. Maybe my province of British Columbia should look at opting out the CPP and getting its own pension plan. Maybe it could do a better job.

Individual premiums are going to increase from $945 to $1,645 per year, and this is what the average Canadian has to think about. To the average taxpayer that is a lot of money. We are talking about $700.

A lot of people are probably a bit jaded about the money, but to the average constituent $700 is a lot of money. If there are two people working that is $1,400, over $100 a month. We in the House have to start thinking about the average Canadian and not relating to our pension plan which is what we are doing overall.

What are average Canadians going to do when they have to put out this extra money? How are they going to look after their families? We in the House do not seem to think much about that.

We are asking the young people to assume a national debt of $600 billion and now we are asking them to pay the CPP debt at the same time. Young people in this country are getting very frustrated because they cannot get ahead. They want a better pension plan and a better tax system. We all know that. The debate in this House in this session is the lead off to why we are going to see a revolution in this country to change the tax system. The CPP is just going to be the start. People are fed up paying more and more money to the government for fewer services.

The Liberal minister said they are going to get a better return on investment by setting up a new CPP investment board appointed by cabinet. Even the Liberals laugh at that because they know. At least they could bring it to the House or to committee so we could all look at where it was going.

We have some of the best companies in the world here in Canada. Some American companies have been bought out because they have been very successful in the mutual fund business. Why are we not using those companies just we are suggesting? Use the companies in Canada to help us invest the CPP. Put it right into the private sector which has done well. A politically driven board is not going to solve the CPP problems in the country.

The CPP needs an overall review. It was a nice thought when it was started because we all wanted a pension plan. But it has not worked and people cannot live on $8,844 per year. Anybody who thinks they can is not looking at reality.

Modern day pension plans are defined contribution plans. These take many forms, but in these plans the contributor personally owns the contribution and the accrued growth. That is what is extremely important and the public should remember that, defined contribution plans.

My party is looking at this type of plan to help Canadians get a plan which will give them something they can retire on.

The government is asking employees and employers to increase their CPP contributions. That will hurt small business. If we took a portion of that money and put it into a private sector plan, instead of retiring on $8,000 a year the numbers could get up to $24,000, $30,000 or $40,000 based on what people have been investing in mutual funds over the last 100 years since they have been available.

Any member of the House who has RRSPs in a mutual fund company will know that they have grown a lot more than the CPP in the last few years. Why do we not give Canadians the chance to have their individual account where they can see the money going in every month and receive a statement every month showing the growth in the plan, which would be protected by both the government and the private sector?

If the government does not believe in that it does not believe in this country. It does not believe in the private sector which runs this country. That is a shame.

Canadians have to take some responsibility for their own plans and the way to do that is by allowing them to participate.

I want to talk about the Ontario teachers pension plan and other major pension plans in the country. Those plans are doing better than the government pension plan. They are being run by the private sector. Even the most socialistic of groups that have a pension plan run by the private sector is doing better than it would with the CPP.

I implore the government to listen to what is being said in the House. Let us look at the pension plan which the Reform Party is recommending to Canada. Let us ensure that this debate goes on long enough so that Canadian people will know that this plan is the second biggest tax grab in our country's history.

Privilege October 7th, 1997

Mr. Speaker, I would like to second what the member for Sarnia—Lambton and the member for Hochelaga—Maisonneuve said.

I had a couple of private member's bills in the system long before the House sat, and since then a couple of more, but they were not ready when the draw was taken.

I am sure many other members in the House have had the same situation where bills they were hoping to be drafted and ready for the draw were not.

Our privileges are affected, especially when we made commitments in the last election to constituents that we would do things when we got here and present legislation as private members. However, because they were not done, our privilege of having our name in the draw was not there. That is key to this whole argument. That is why most private members in the House are upset with this whole situation.

I would ask, Mr. Speaker, that you take that as the major consideration. If we cannot have a bill in the draw or it is in there but it has not been drafted because there is not enough bodies to draft it, there is a problem with the system. It is a good issue to be referred to a committee so we can solve the problem of private members and ensure that all private members' bills and amendments are drafted as quickly as possible so they can do their job.

We know the government with all its machinery can get bills drafted in a day if it wants to present them in the House. Yet a private member comes nowhere near that ability. It is taking months, at least three and a half months in my case for one bill which is still not finished. I think we should have better service than that.

I am hoping, in your considerations, Mr. Speaker, that you will see fit to allow it to go to a committee so we can solve this serious problem.

Immigration October 3rd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, in 1994 there were 50 to 100 war criminals in Canada and 17,000 illegal refugees. Now there are 300 war criminals in this country and 38,000 refugees who came to our borders and entered this country illegally. In the government's own report it has predicted it is going to double very shortly.

Can the minister advise the House what the government is going to do to stop this flow into Canada and to protect Canadians?

Immigration October 3rd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Citizenship and Immigration.

Three hundred modern-day war criminals are reported to have gained entry and are living in Canada. The government has already proven that we cannot get rid of Nazi war criminals in this country.

How will the minister rid Canada of the 300 modern-day war criminals and the 38,000 illegal refugees harboured in this country?

Foreign Affairs October 2nd, 1997

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the minister again.

Canadian passports belong to the Canadian government. Do we have those passports in our control now and when are you going to have them back in this country?