House of Commons photo

Crucial Fact

  • His favourite word was saskatchewan.

Last in Parliament May 2004, as Canadian Alliance MP for Souris—Moose Mountain (Saskatchewan)

Won his last election, in 2000, with 63% of the vote.

Statements in the House

Human Resources Development February 14th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, I would like to inform the hon. member that my huge riding, which does not happen to be a Liberal riding, received the staggering sum of $720.

The Minister of Human Resources Development has invented a new kind of extreme sport. She can blow a billion bucks, get caught and slip another one out of her chequebook.

I ask the Prime Minister, why will he not take away the chequebook from the Minister of Human Resources Development and give it to the agriculture minister? We really need some money.

Human Resources Development February 14th, 2000

Mr. Speaker, you do not need to win at Lotto 649 if you live in a minister's riding. If you own a business, even if it is from another country and is worth billions of dollars, you will qualify for grants.

It does not matter if the money is needed. The human resources minister will find a way to cut a cheque. It is not about jobs. It is about pure slush. There is no other explanation. Why should Canadian taxpayers tolerate this flagrant abuse of their hard earned money?

Petitions December 16th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I have thousands of signatures here from across Canada all related to the disgust that parents have with the current state of pornography in Canada. I am pleased to present these from all provinces of Canada. There are thousands of signatures.

Saskatchewan Telephone Rates December 14th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the CRTC has ruled that there can be no averaging of the monthly telephone service charges between rural and urban. In other words, those areas in Canada which are considered rural are now facing unbelievably high monthly service rates.

Saskatchewan is the most rural province in Canada. Almost one-third of its population lives on farms, in small towns, in villages and in aboriginal communities. These telephone subscribers are facing a $130 a month service fee.

If rural areas across Canada are going to have affordable telephone, fax and Internet rates, as is the government's policy, then the government must act to protect these areas of Canada. I urge the government to immediately move so all areas in Canada can have telephone and related electronic services without an unbearably high service rate.

Airline Industry December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, last night, also on television, the transport minister was proposing a watchdog group or watchdog agency to oversee this new monopoly airline.

The minister should know that consumers make the best watchdogs. Why does the minister not create an environment for competition in the airlines instead and we would have better service and lower prices?

Airline Industry December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport or his parliamentary secretary.

Last night on national TV the minister stated that he would be proposing more regulations to govern the monopoly airline. Rather than more regulations, why will the transport minister not protect consumers by opening up the industry to more competition?

Division No. 61 December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has just spoken said that this is not a template of settlements to come. If he would travel across Canada, as I did this past week, travelling across my constituency, he would not adhere to that particular hope or wish because it is already being stated across Canada by leaders of other Indian peoples that it will be a template. It was stated in my province about four days ago that it will be a template. To say that this will not be followed across Canada is sheer nonsense.

During this past week I had the privilege of travelling across my constituency where there are six native reserves. They are all fine people and we get along well, but the point I want to make is that they are waiting. They are waiting because there are some land claims to be settled. By that time, with the government's help, the Nisga'a treaty will become a reality, and they will follow it all the way through. It is what they will use in all future negotiations concerning land settlements.

A tract of land in northern Saskatchewan last week, as big as the entire Prince Albert National Park, was allotted to the Lac La Ronge band. They themselves say “Wait until the Nisga'a treaty comes down and we will see what happens”.

One of the myths that came out of this whole thing was that it was just another type of municipal government. Nothing could be further from the truth. I served in local governments for a total of 21 years. I served in the provincial legislature for a term and now I am here. A municipal government anywhere in Canada is nothing but a creation of the provincial government in the province in which it is located.

This is what happens under a provincial government. The province states that municipalities must have regular elections. The provincial government spells out the electoral process. I do not see that. After the electoral process is spelled out, then what? The municipality must have a bonded administrator. That is a requirement of the provincial government. On top of that it must prepare a budget statement that must be forwarded to the province. At the end of the fiscal year it must then have a bonded chartered accountant to make sure the books are in order. When that takes place, it is printed and distributed among the citizens of the municipality.

The government has created the myth that it is just another municipal government. It is a brand new level of sovereignty created in the province.

Last week in Prince Albert the native workers at the casino decided they would unionize. With the help of the Canadian automobile workers, a union was created. There was going to be an argument but the three or four chiefs stepped back until the next day. They said that the building will soon be sitting on reserve land and when they get sovereignty like there is under the Nisga'a treaty the chiefs said they will not have to adhere to the labour regulation board in Saskatchewan and will not have to listen to the labour regulations of the Government of Canada because they will be a sovereign state. I wonder why they are talking that way already before using Nisga'a as a template. Why are they saying it is nothing but a municipal type of government?

Each province has a right to establish certain laws. The province in which I live has a highway traffic act. The municipalities within the province of Saskatchewan cannot create their own highway traffic act. The province of Saskatchewan also has the right to contain within legislation hunting rules and regulations. A municipality cannot do that. The province of Saskatchewan has the right to have a labour relations board. The municipalities cannot do that.

Why is the federal government trying to tell Canadians that this treaty is just another form of a municipality? That is simply false.

I worked with the Nisga'a people for one full year. I taught there for a year. I have many friends who live there. Let me say, they are afraid of the bill because of the various things I have just mentioned. They want to enjoy the clear-cut accountability the rest of us have. They do not want to be subject to a rollover to the same type of government which gives them more power but less accountability.

The provinces do not have a right to control trade. That is not within their jurisdiction. That is the federal government's. Yet enshrined in this new type of municipality is a right to trade. That is fine but do not come out and tell the people that it is just another municipality.

The danger is that we are creating, and could create very quickly in 10 years, 100 Nisga'a type treaties all across Canada, all a separate legal entity unto themselves. Can we see the map of Canada being drawn up with 100 different principalities, each creating their own labour laws, each creating all of those things that we give to the province and the federal government? What are we doing? We are dividing Canada into principalities and we are not doing anything to improve the overall governance level among our native people. That is wrong.

The Indian Act was wrong. The accountability today is wrong. It needs to be improved but this bill simply does not do it.

I attended five town hall meetings last week dealing with a very serious issue in agriculture. At each meeting the participants voluntarily got into this topic. They are concerned. They are very intelligent people. We cannot tell the people that this is just another form of municipal government because it is not. We are granting sovereign power. In many cases it is sovereign power that the province does not have. In many cases it is equal to and can challenge the federal legislation.

Why not just admit it? Why does the government continue to propagate this myth that it is just another type of government?

I want my grandchildren to have the same right that I have today and that is to go down to my school division—and I sign 21 of those—and ask for an audited financial statement. It must be due at a certain time every year. Why is the government saying that this is another municipal government?

I want the right to vote at a specific, regular time for the people who serve in my town or in my school division. I want to know that all of the moneys are being handled in accordance with the law of the province in which we live.

This is a very serious thing. We are not doing our native people any service or any value unless we instil within the bill the municipal type of accountability on a regular basis. Ask the young people, ask the women and ask in many cases the chiefs. That is what they want and it is not in the bill.

The government is going to proceed with this legislation. It will be to the detriment not just of the natives of the country but it very definitely is going to be to the detriment of all Canadians.

I beg hon. members to stop spreading the myth that it is just another municipal type of government. That indeed is a myth. That myth is not selling in my province one iota.

An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms December 6th, 1999

No, it is not nonsense. It is absolutely true.

In my own area, I could drive on a back road and see four or five signs pointing out endangered species. Nobody protects endangered species like the people in rural Saskatchewan. Do members know what they genuinely fear? They fear that all of these signs could be taken down. If the government sees these endangered species signs, and the species the farmer is attempting to protect, it could, under new legislation coming and because there is no right to own property, confiscate any portion of that land. This is not just dreaming, this is actual fact.

Pierre Trudeau's name came over the radio last night because it seems that he will be named the parliamentarian or the politician of the century. Who was it who argued vigorously and repeatedly for the inclusion of property rights in the charter of rights and freedoms? He went to great lengths to guarantee Canadians the right to own property.

Resolutions were passed in the legislatures of British Columbia, Ontario and New Brunswick supporting inclusions of property rights in the charter but we do not have them.

Legal support is needed for the protection of property rights. The government knows this is a good bill. My colleague has taken it to the committee and has argued three times to have the bill become votable, but for no clear, enunciated reason, can anyone on that side of the House offer a reason why that cannot be done.

The way things are going in Canada, as we are moving from a democracy to a jurocracy, Canadians need to be worried. We in the Reform Party are worried about what is happening to the democratic principles in Canada. We are worried that more and more legal decisions and more and more legislations are being passed outside of these chambers.

I tell the hon. members opposite that the fear they have about giving Canadians the right to own property will come back to haunt them. By denying my colleague's bill, not once but three times, it will indeed come back to haunt them in the near future.

An Act For The Recognition And Protection Of Human Rights And Fundamental Freedoms December 6th, 1999

Mr. Speaker, I was home recently and the issue of property rights became a very important issue as I moved about my constituency and held five town hall meetings.

When I visited one of the farms, I was quite taken with a rifle that was hanging above the fireplace. The gentleman explained to me that this particular French rifle was now in his hands after five generations. He does not know if it works but it is a very precious commodity. Of all the things he could trace from his ancestors, who came from France to Quebec, later emigrating to Michigan and then to Saskatchewan, this was the family's pride. This was also the pride of my 10 year old grandson. However, because we do not have the right in this country to own property, potentially that family heirloom could be seized without any recourse in law at all.

Supply November 22nd, 1999

Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is the hon. member accusing a member of the Reform Party of making these phone calls? That member should be named.