Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was liberal.

Last in Parliament October 2000, as NDP MP for Regina—Lumsden—Lake Centre (Saskatchewan)

Lost his last election, in 2000, with 42% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Petitions June 9th, 2000

Madam Speaker, I am pleased to present a petition pursuant to Standing Order 36 on behalf of many Canadians who are very concerned about the Criminal Code of Canada. In particular section 608(3) makes it too easy for a person who has been convicted of a serious crime such as murder, attempted murder, sexual assault, manslaughter and firearms offences involving a term of imprisonment greater than five years to obtain release from custody pending the hearing of their appeal.

The petitioners would like the Government of Canada to amend the criminal code to prevent persons convicted of serious crimes from being released from custody pending the hearing of their appeal, except in very exceptional circumstances.

Energy Price Commission Act June 9th, 2000

moved for leave to introduce Bill C-488, an act to establish the Energy Price Commission.

Madam Speaker, Canadians from all over the country are very concerned about price gouging, in particular with respect to gasoline and diesel fuel. The Canadian population does not believe the big oil companies. They are sick and tired of the Liberal's buck-passing on this issue.

We regulate stamps, cable television and many other things. The bill I am introducing today will indeed establish an energy price commission which will regulate the wholesale and the retail price of motor fuels, including diesel, propane, heating oil, natural gas and electric power.

The purpose of price regulation is to avoid unreasonable increases that affect the cost of living and depress business activity. The bill will facilitate reasonable consistency in prices from province to province allowing for production and distribution costs. The regulation further minimizes the risk of collusion in pricing, which many Canadians believe is happening, and prevents dominant suppliers from setting unreasonable prices.

The major objective of the bill is to provide some transparency in the pricing of fuel and energy. The refiners are not transparent and there are vertically integrated companies. I believe there has to be a time when the government stands up and takes some action to protect consumers, as this bill will.

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

Gasoline Prices June 9th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, Canadians do not buy excuses from the oil companies and they are sick and tired of Liberals passing the buck.

There has to be a time when government stands up and protects consumers from price gouging. The government has been given numerous suggestions. Today I give it another one. How about a federal energy price commission to regulate gas prices at the wholesale level?

Will the government support the establishment of an energy price commission at the federal level and if not, just what action will it take to protect consumers from gouging at the pumps?

Gasoline Prices June 9th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, rising energy costs are responsible for half the hike in inflation. Consumers are being gouged twice, once for their gasoline and once for everything else, thanks to inflation.

The average price of gas in Canada is at a new record of 75.3 cents a litre. According to StatsCan, people now spend more on energy costs and their cars and transportation than they do on food, clothing and shoes combined.

In view of this threat to inflation, will the government consider giving consumers in Canada a gas tax holiday this summer? If not, what exactly is its action plan to help consumers cope with high gas prices?

Income Tax Act Amendments, 1999 June 7th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the course of his remarks, the member for Okanagan—Coquihalla made reference to particular support for all these great tax breaks. As the member would recall, Bill S-9 which was passed—

Income Tax Act Amendments, 1999 June 7th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order and seek unanimous consent to ask a question of the member who just spoke.

Petitions June 7th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, it is indeed an honour on behalf of many constituents to present to the House of Commons, pursuant to Standing Order 36, a petition addressing the very unfortunate situation we are facing with health care in the country.

Saskatchewan has lost $1.4 billion in health care since 1993 when the Liberals were elected. To say the least, the people of Saskatchewan are a little ticked off at the Liberal government for its lack of priority in health care.

The petitioners believe very strongly that, even though we have lost $1.4 billion from the Liberal government transfer payments for health care, the NDP government in Saskatchewan has backfilled every one of those dollars plus, even though it has lost the federal share. These people are really ticked off at the Liberal government because it is not only continuing the cuts, but the petitioners say that the government is also embracing two tier American style health care.

The petitioners call for the House of Commons and the government to stop for profit hospitals. They call for federal funding to be restored for health care, keeping in mind that if $1.4 billion has been lost in seven years to Saskatchewan what that means to Ontario, where the loss would be multiplied.

The petitioners also ask that the federal government share of health care funding be increased to a more suitable level to meet the very urgent needs of Canadians who require health care services.

Natural Gas May 12th, 2000

What does lobster cost?

Natural Gas May 12th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, first, the motion says that the government should provide initiatives, not incentives—so I think he is not clear on that—to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

I maintain that the speech I gave was more than relevant. It is really important to have a regulatory agency so that the most important element in our economy, the underpinning of our economy which is energy, should deserve some kind of regulation, as does communications through the CRTC and as does transportation through the Canadian Transportation Agency. Why not?

Maybe my response should end with a question to the member. Why does he believe that the CTA and the CRTC should exist but not an energy price review commission?

Natural Gas May 12th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the consideration from those members. I am disappointed that the Liberal member from Ottawa, the upper valley, did not provide unanimous consent because I wanted to ask the member for Vancouver Island North a very important question about the Liberals, which I will get to momentarily.

I am very pleased to stand in the House and support the motion by my colleague, the member for Churchill River, who is also an NDP member, which reads:

That, in the opinion of this House, the government should provide initiatives to deliver natural gas to unserviced regions and address environmental concerns and high energy costs.

I appreciate the Conservative members' views. They support this motion because they too are concerned about the kind of high energy costs that Canadians are being subjected to without any kind of justification or regulation.

On the point of having some kind of regulatory agency for energy, we have a regulatory agency for communications. We have over 150 television stations. We have hundreds of radio stations. We have all kinds of opportunities to choose whatever kind of communications that we like in terms of getting information.

Lo and behold, we have the CRTC which regulates communications in the country. We also have a regulatory board for transportation. There are many different ways to travel in this country and we have a regulatory board for transportation, the Canadian Transportation Agency. I support those regulatory boards because we need some sense of order.

However, the underpinning of our economy is energy. Everything we do, everything we consume and everything we move, whether we are going to work or it is the goods and services we buy, they all depend on the price of energy, be it natural gas, home heating fuel, diesel fuel or gasoline. There is no backbone in the Canadian Alliance Party or the Liberal Party to support a regulatory agency for what is controlled basically by four or five companies.

We have communications controls by the CRTC for hundreds of companies. We have transportation controls for many companies, 50 or 100 companies at least. I do not know the number. We have four or five companies that establish the price of energy and there is no regulation. They set up the market forces to determine what the prices are.

I ask the member for Vancouver Island North and the member for Winnipeg North—St. Paul, if we have regulatory agencies for all of these other things where there is pure competition, why not for the underpinning of our economy, which is the price of energy? Explain that one to me.

Maybe the reason they do not support that is that they get substantial political contributions from the oil companies. Lo and behold, surprise, surprise, surprise. Bite my tongue. I do not understand what the reason could be. They receive hundreds of thousands of dollars a year from the energy companies to do what? To let the market forces determine the price of energy. This is the underpinning of our economy. This is not a chocolate bar. If we do not like the price of a chocolate bar for dessert we can buy some other candy, a piece of cake, a piece of pie, or we can choose not to have dessert. With energy, we cannot choose. We have to buy energy to get to work, whether it is a bus pass, or driving a car or a taxi. We need energy to pay for transporting of goods on rail, air or by ground. Everything we do depends on that.

The price of energy in this country has gone up so high, at record levels right now, because the government has no backbone to regulate the gas industry, be it natural gas, diesel fuel or home heating fuel.

I think Canadians see through these two parties. The former leader of the Reform Party, who was a former oil company executive, would not let this band of MPs from western Canada, the Alliance members, talk about any kind of regulation for energy because he was a former energy executive. Guess who primarily funds the Reform Party and the Canadian Alliance Party? Primarily it is the energy companies, followed by the banks and then Conrad Black. Conrad Black gives these guys more money. He is actually becoming a bigger backer of the Reform Party than the energy companies, which is really incredible because the energy companies have lots of money.

I want to return specifically to this motion because it is really important. I have been dealing specifically with the motion in a very embracing way. We have heard the Liberal member from Winnipeg North—St. Paul talk about market forces. Given that kind of approach, members should know that government is obligated to provide a balance in the country. Everyone knows that the big corporations and the wealthy families run our economy. However, the government's obligation is to provide a balance to defend people and to provide a balance to the economic powers that run our country. This is not the approach of Liberals or the Alliance members. All they want to do is move the weights and the power more to the wealthy who run our economy now. That is wrong.

If we asked anybody whether or not the government should be the balance to the powers that run our economy, or to give them move power, I would venture to say that 90% would say that government should be the balance. That is why we are asking in this particular motion that government provide some balance.

Not all members live in the northern parts of Canada. I have worked in northern Saskatchewan for many years. The price to install a natural gas outlet in rural Saskatchewan, in the southern part of the province, can go as high as $30,000 for one installation. That is just the cost of the pipeline to the home of the rancher or the farmer.

They think the market forces should determine this. If they are so committed to Kyoto and the environmental concerns of millions of Canadians, they would say that natural gas would reduce the greenhouse effect and reduce greenhouse emissions, and that we should move to natural gas so that people living on farms in northern Canada could to use natural gas, which is our resource, to reduce emissions and provide a more cost efficient way to heat their homes, farms and businesses rather than burning home heating fuel which has higher emissions in terms of pollution. We could eliminate the use of wood or coal. Many people in northern Canada use wood or coal. These have a very high degree of pollutants compared to natural gas which is a very clean burning element.

I want to outline as well that we, as a country, have a very large reserve of natural gas and other forms of energy such oil, coal, and so on. We are viewed as a net exporter of these resources; that is, we produce more oil and natural gas than we consume so we export the difference.

When the Minister of Industry stood in the House this morning in question period and said that we are the second lowest gas priced country in the industrialized world, I think he needs a little correction here, because he is dead wrong. Of all of the exporting nations in the world, Canada has the highest priced gasoline.

I am not talking about the U.S.A. which is a net importer. It has to import more oil because it consumes more than it produces. Therefore, its prices are reasonably lower than ours when you compare them. Its prices should be higher than ours because we export our surplus to the Unites States.

If we look at countries like Mexico, Venezuela, Argentina, the Middle Eastern countries, all the countries that are exporters of oil and natural gas, we see that their gasoline prices are way below ours.

I think the Minister of Industry stands corrected. If he was here I think he would feel quite ashamed that he said that Canada had the second lowest price of gasoline. I wanted to correct the record on that.

We have a motion that is a very important motion. My colleague, the member for Churchill River, has told his constituents and northern Canadians that they are important, that they are part of Canada.

All we are asking in this motion is for the Liberal government and the Alliance Party to recognize that we do have people living in northern Canada who are Canadians too. We should provide a balance in terms of programs to these people who live there, settled in this country and defend our north in terms of environmental and other situations.

I thank the Liberal member for commending my colleague from Churchill River on his natural gas motion. I also think it is a very important motion. However, the member stated that the federal government does not subsidize natural gas pipelines. He may not be aware but the federal government does indeed participate in the industrial natural gas initiatives through the tax regime. I wanted to correct the record on that.

I ask all members to reconsider our duty and obligation as members of parliament to defend and support people living in northern Canada. I ask them to revisit this motion and consider supporting it so that we can bring northern Canadians into our country as equal citizens.