House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was farmers.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Selkirk—Interlake (Manitoba)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 44% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions October 19th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the last petition is with regard to the convention on the rights of the child, a United National convention. The petition is with regard to abortion.

The petitioners request that parliament support a binding national referendum at the time of the next election and that the decision as to whether this should be state funded be put to voters.

Petitions October 19th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition with regard to Bill C-225, an act to amend the Marriage and Prohibited Degrees Act and the Interpretation Act.

The petitioners want to maintain that a marriage is a voluntary union between a man and a woman.

Petitions October 19th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I rise today to present a petition with thousands of names with regard to the release of violent criminal offenders.

Petitioners are asking for changes to the Bail Reform Act to make this a safer country. They basically request parliament to amend legislation to impose harsher penalties for crimes of violence and that release not be quite so quick.

Agriculture October 9th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I would like you to convey to the solicitor general that after the Thanksgiving break we will be back on this question.

My question today is for the agriculture minister. There is a growing farm crisis in western Canada. In 1997 farm incomes have dropped by over an average of 50%. The net income stabilization account would help some farmers but it will not help most of the farmers.

Is the minister prepared today to admit that NISA does not meet the needs of real Canadian farmers?

Tobacco Act October 8th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I wonder why the government is so reluctant to take a strong stand on tobacco use. Why does it not bring forward legislation that is really progressive in the idea of not only preventing smoking, but to absolutely outlaw advertising totally.

I suppose industry giants, corporations are influencing the government. I think this is one issue where the average Canadian would stand behind the government and say that this time the corporations do not get their way.

The tobacco farmers of southern Ontario can grow tremendous crops, healthy crops such as vegetables and grains that do some good for Canadians. In the hon. member's opinion, should the government choose the health of Canadians over the corporations in this case?

Apec Summit October 8th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, the solicitor general, the guardian of this nation's most sensitive information, has loose lips. His loose lips violated the elementary rule of policing, that you only release information on a need to know basis. As a former RCMP officer, the nation's top cop is a major security risk because he cannot follow this rule. When will the Prime Minister ask the minister for his resignation?

Criminal Code October 7th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, in regard to the native issues that have been going on around the countryside on the reserves, I have seen examples from being on many reserves in my day and currently visiting many during the time I spend in my constituency. After an election, people who had jobs on the reserves are arbitrarily fired the day after the election, obviously for having voted wrong or supported the wrong person. Hydro has been pulled out from a given residence. These are documented cases.

The problem seems to be a lack of democratic accountability. That democratic accountability does not seem to be as much as what we have in our municipal, provincial and federal governments. Those governments are not perfect in accountability in regard to access to information and labour laws and those kinds of things, but I would ask the member to comment in regard to that type of democratic accountability. Is there room for improvement in all provinces in that regard?

An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms October 5th, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the bill. I may be found in contempt if the parliamentary secretary to the justice minister has her way in the idea that I intend to raise some bills that have been passed previously. Bill C-4, the wheat board bill, comes to mind and whatnot.

The legislative rules on property rights do not necessarily protect the individual, which should surely be the intent of a bill of rights. The intent should be to protect individuals from legislative abuse by governments of the day. That is what property rights and a bill of rights are all about. Governments change from time to time and the protection of the individual is paramount.

We can see this with regard to Canadian farmers who are still being thrown in jail for selling their own grain. That is probably a breach of their property rights. It is certainly agreed upon out west where this is being done. The current rules in the legislation certainly did not protect the province's constitutional authority over property two weeks ago in Edmonton when four provinces and two territories argued that the Firearms Act infringed on their property rights and the rights of individuals. The bill of rights and the charter certainly do not protect the provinces. Here again it seems to be the government of the day.

I will point out specifically so that everyone is very clear what Bill C-304 is about. The member for Yorkton—Melville said it clearly before but I will reiterate. Property rights are natural, fundamental, and based on hundreds of years of common law.

The government intentionally left property rights out of the charter in 1982. This was to the detriment of each person's democratic rights and economic freedoms. The bill would put forward amendments that would specifically guarantee all people have the right to the enjoyment of their property; the right not to be deprived of their property unless they are given a fair hearing; the right to be paid fair, timely and impartial compensation; and the right to appeal to the courts if their property rights have been infringed upon or denied. Every person's property rights would be guaranteed in law in Canada unless it is expressly declared that the act shall operate notwithstanding the Canadian bill of rights. That should clarify precisely what Bill C-304 is about. Those are the words of the member who proposed the bill.

I am concerned about the inconsistency between the government's position on human rights outside Canada and its position at home. We recently saw an active demonstration of this at the APEC summit in Vancouver.

Also in Canada we continue to have a lack of accountability concerning basic human rights in our First Nations. This is related in part to the lack of a fully democratic institution that provides checks and balances between constituents and elected chiefs and councils. For example, there is no effective access to information legislation and labour legislation to protect a reserve employee from arbitrary dismissal from a position. These are basic democratic rights. They involve property rights. These are things that all Canadians should be entitled to in this country.

I speak in support of Bill C-304. This bill would begin to correct the inconsistencies between international human rights and practices at home.

Before we can ask for protection of property rights we must define property ownership rights. Quite simply, I would define property ownership as the right to transfer property, the right to control how a property is used, the responsibility for the benefits and the costs associated with the property, and the right to compensation when property is taken by governments.

This is not a long definition. The vast majority of people likely assume that when they own something they have these three simple rights. Sadly, this is not the case. I only have to look at grain farmers in western Canada, which is probably the biggest example at the current time, to see that all Canadians do not have these rights. Farmers produce wheat and barley, but they do not have the right to transfer their property. They are obligated by law to sell their produce to the Canadian Wheat Board. It gets down to the very basics of human existence when someone produces food and wants to trade with another person or another country and they are not allowed to do so.

Similarly, producers of wheat and barley in western Canada do not have control over their property. They must deliver their produce to the Canadian Wheat Board when the Canadian Wheat Board tells them to deliver. Most Canadians believe that they have the right to accept higher risk in exchange for the possibility of higher returns. This basic principle of a free democratic economy is practised every day on the nation's stock exchanges in commodities.

This bill is a move in the right direction toward protecting the property rights of individuals in this country, as well as supporting the very Constitution that protects the rights of provinces to the property which is under their control.

Trade October 2nd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, Canadian farmers continue to suffer because of belated responses by this government to the non-tariff trade actions taken by mid-western states.

They will continue to suffer because this is obviously part of an overall policy of U.S. trade action against Canadians. This is not just an election issue as some members have stated.

The Americans are currently proceeding with anti-dumping complaints against Canadian beef farmers and the Canadian dairy industry in addition to the ongoing harassment of the Canadian Wheat Board. All of these trade actions will take money out of the pockets of Canadians.

The government has started the WTO and NAFTA complaint process. I support this action, but it is not enough. The government must give this trade issue a higher priority than it has in the past month. I call on the three ministers involved to use every possible remedy, including court action, to immediately put an end to this problem.

Petitions September 23rd, 1998

Mr. Speaker, I have a petition with over 500 names on it from my riding, people all interested in the Firearms Act. They indicate that of the offences committed, very few involve firearms and that the millions of dollars in taxes that are spent on the Firearms Act could be better spent in other areas. I present this petition on behalf of those constituents.