House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was colleague.

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

Won his last election, in 2000, with 58% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Supply March 22nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the member from Regina mentioned we had looked at some of the NDP policies in the past, and we certainly did, and then put them right back down again and proceeded on a very different course.

I would like to go back to an earlier question that was asked and not answered by the member from the NDP. I think we could throw a t in there for tax party as well. The provincial government of British Columbia idea of solving transportation problems was to blow half a billion dollars on some ferries that it is now trying to sell for about $10 million or $20 million each.

Going back to the solution he was offering, he mentioned that the provincial government in Saskatchewan was putting 85% of taxes back into transportation, but he did not answer the question from my colleague from South Surrey as to whether or not he agreed that the level of taxation the provincial government was wringing out of people in Saskatchewan through taxation on fuel was a good or bad policy. I would like him to answer that question.

Human Resources Development March 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the information comes from the minister's own employees. She says she is going to look at the information closely, but she is not lifting a finger to do anything about it. She takes it as an opinion instead of doing something about it.

We do not ask these questions just to watch the minister blush. We want an answer to these questions because she has not answered why there has been a policy of violating an act of parliament that has gone untouched by her department.

Why did she not inform the police? Was it because she was afraid of being caught, or was it that she was trying to protect the Prime Minister?

Human Resources Development March 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, there are very few places where incompetence will get applause but there will be a lot of it this weekend, I am sure, for the minister at the Liberal convention.

Her own employees have taken out radio ads to distance themselves from the minister's incompetence. They warned against illegal trust funds in the Prime Minister's riding because, as they said, it would appear the Financial Administration Act was not respected.

If the minister were really concerned about rule breaking in her department, why did she not call the police when she found out about these trust funds?

Human Resources Development March 17th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, what is amazing and surprising is that the minister defends good faith errors instead of lifting a finger to do something about that kind of incompetence. There are very few places where that kind of incompetence is applauded. I am sure she will get—

House Of Commons March 16th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, this is a very serious topic we are discussing today. It brings emotions to the surface and we recount different applications of rulings that you have made.

Actually all three of us share the same former profession as teachers. Over time there is application of the rules and there is a person who is in the place of determining the ruling or application of rules to one team or another team, to one side or another side. What would my colleague's perception be on the application of the rules fairly to all groups, whether that be members of different parties in this place or two different teams in a sporting event? How might that factor into this debate as well in the perceived application of the rules fairly to all members from all sides?

Witness And Spousal Protection Program Act March 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to enter into this debate. I will begin by congratulating my colleague from Prince George—Peace River on this initiative. It is one that he has worked on for a long time and one that is wrapped around a personal story as well, which is what makes it so very important. This is not just an abstract piece of legislation that talks about facts or statistics. It is a piece of legislation that has been developed to address a very serious need of individuals in need of protection.

My colleague from Prince George—Peace River had an individual in his riding who was affected by this type of situation. He explained that in his speech in the previous hour of debate. It caught his attention. It was a need crying out. Something had to happen because there was a vacuum, a void, within our current justice and legal system that put mainly women, who are involved in domestic violence and being abused by their spouses, at risk. The reason my colleague was compelled to bring this bill forward was to address this serious need.

I will comment on a few of the statements made by the Liberal member for Waterloo—Wellington who spoke earlier and rebut some of the statements he made. He gave some encouragement for the notion and the idea of this bill. He then went on to say that this was the wrong solution and that this bill would not solve the problem. He went on to say that we needed to wait and that we needed to consult or work with stakeholders. These are unacceptable solutions that he offers to a very serious need.

This is a bill that puts together a concrete plan to address a very serious situation. It is well thought out. It has some flexibility designed into it. My colleague has looked at the new identities program, which was an ad hoc program developed to address this need. It is a good start but it certainly is not a viable solution to continue on with.

My colleague also looked at the witness protection program and saw it as a vehicle by which spouses being affected in this type of terrible abusive situation could be incorporated into the program. It would obviously need to have some legislative changes happen and that is what this bill is about. The motivation for it is to fill a void and to help those individuals who are facing this really serious situation.

I do not think the 100 individuals who will die in our country this year—statistics hold out on this terrible tragedy that is occurring across the country—will take any solace in the fact that the government is looking at this and waiting. This is simply unacceptable. Individuals are being abused and murdered by their spouses in our country. It is a sad situation.

If we as legislators see a situation that is crying out for a solution and do nothing about it and say, “oh well, we will just get the stakeholders together”, well the stakeholders in this situation may not be around in a year if we do nothing. My colleague has brought this bill to the floor of the House because it puts together a plan to address a need and will save people's lives.

This is a plan that could be passed in the House within a matter of weeks or months before we leave this place at the end of this session. It could be passed into legislation and individuals could work on administering this program and making it work.

My colleague from the Liberal side mentioned that the current witness protection program was put together to protect individuals who provide information to the RCMP, and that this is the wrong solution. I think he lacks foresight or creative flexibility if he does not see that this is a program that could be adapted to include individuals who are being abused. Who is better to make this type of decision than the RCMP officers themselves who are the ones who respond when there is domestic violence. These situations are often very difficult for them to deal with. Sometimes they are the first officers on the scene after someone has been beaten to within an inch of his or her life or even killed.

Who better to bring forward recommendations than the RCMP officers who deal with these cases? They are in the inner circle and on the front line of what is happening. Who better to make some recommendations to the commissioner who would then decide whether or not a person should enter this protection program.

As legislators, this bill gives us a perfect opportunity to make a change that will affect people's lives. It will also save people's lives. We would be remiss if we let this opportunity slip through our fingers simply because we trust the government to meet with stakeholders, to wait and to develop some other kind of program. It is not working now.

The new identities program moves in the right direction but it does not address a bigger need and concern that this bill specifically addresses.

I urge my Liberal colleague to discuss with his colleagues the practicality of this bill and that it will work. I was encouraged when colleagues from the Progressive Conservative Party and the Bloc mentioned that they will support this bill. That is positive. If we do not move ahead now on this issue we will in many regards be held accountable for those individuals whose lives will be lost this year.

We come to this Chamber day after day, talk about different issues and policies and have votes. Sometimes there may even be abstract notions. People who are out in the general public have a hard time identifying with some of the things we do here. This is a very specific idea, a very specific answer to a very big problem. That is why we need to understand as members of parliament who have been sent here by our constituents that this is something we could do. It would be a very simple thing to do. It would be a shame if we let partisan direction from our party leadership or from any other source influence our decision, or that we would even have such a small vision that this is a particular program that cannot be expanded to solve the problem, reject it out of hand and not bring anything else forward.

My Liberal colleague did not bring forward any constructive alternatives, apart from saying that they are going to meet with stakeholders and we should wait. Why in the world should we wait when we have something here which would work, which could do the job and save lives? Why in the world would we wait any longer? For each year that goes by another 100 individuals will be murdered. We would be remiss if we were implicated by our inactivity.

That is why I strongly support the proposed legislation. I congratulate my colleague from Prince George—Peace River for bringing it forward. He has been sensitive to seeing a need and to looking for a compassionate solution which would saves lives.

I encourage my colleagues from all parties to support this legislation so that it could move forward and the program could be developed, implemented and put in place. Let us do it. Let us do it together. Let us make a positive solution to a very serious problem.

Human Resources Development March 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, what is very clear is that the minister is refusing to answer these very serious questions.

The minister's department did not follow the law. They had to be instructed to start doing so. They said things like this “Do we really have to start these measures before this year end?”

If following the rules was not a new practice for the minister, why did her department have to ask about when to start following the rules?

Human Resources Development March 15th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, the minister has not denied that the grant rules were broken in the House today.

Documents from her own department state, and I quote “The minister and the deputy minister have instructed us to follow the rules starting immediately”.

If the minister had to tell her department to start following the rules immediately, what was she telling them before this point?

Export Development Corporation March 3rd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, we see that the minister's approach today is to huff and puff and try to blow this scandal away, but it will not work.

The minister must know and remember René Fugère, because when he was HRD minister he cut cheques for $1.5 million for projects involving him. Champagne comes to Ottawa and secures approval for and access to a $10 million line of credit.

The minister ran away from this question yesterday, so I will ask him to confirm for the House today whether he has ever met with Mr. Fugère or Mr. Champagne.

Export Development Corporation March 2nd, 2000

Mr. Speaker, likely the file is sitting right on top of his desk with his fingerprints all over it.

René Fugère is under RCMP investigation. He is an unpaid aide to the Prime Minister. He is a close personal friend of the Prime Minister. Gilles Champagne is a two-time political appointee. He set up an illegal trust fund. He is a Liberal Party fundraiser and he is a close friend to the Prime Minister.

These two show up at the international trade minister's doorstep and they get instant access to millions of dollars. How can he possibly explain this scandal?